The Godfather, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone - "Don't Underestimate the Power of Forgiveness."

This is probably one of the most cobbled together articles I’ve ever written, which is fitting for this re-edit of a thirty-year-old film. That’s not why it’s so cobbled together, though. Part of the reason why is that I’m a bit burnt out with The Godfather at this point. I’ve written lengthy articles about all three films, and now I’ve written a second article about the third film. Another reason is that I’ve taken my time with this one and wrote a lot of notes, but they aren’t all that focused. So if Francis Ford Coppola wants to consider this film as more of a coda than a third film, then consider this article my coda instead of a fourth article. 

As for the film itself, I’ve never hated Part III as much as others, and it seems like with time a lot of people have warmed to it. This new version will help the film’s reputation even more, but if people would simply revisit the theatrical cut, they’d probably realize they like the film more than they remember. It’s still interesting to watch this new version and compare it to the original cut.

Is It Better...or Necessary?

First off, this is not going to be a scene-by-scene comparison between this film and the original cut. I’m too lazy for that, and you can just Google the differences and find a dozen articles that do that. That written, I do have a comment or two in the random thoughts about a few differences I noted. Instead, I wanted to focus more generally on the idea of this cut and answer the basic question: is this a better movie than the original, and is it necessary?

Coda is a better version, in my opinion. Mainly because it makes Michael’s life even more tragic by altering the ending. Instead of him slumping over and dying as he does in the original, Michael is still alive at the end of this film, and it ends with a text pretty much saying he’s cursed to have a long life to suffer as long as possible for his choices. That’s a much more powerful ending, and it focuses on the point of the third film: Michael’s attempt at redemption.

Coda makes it clear that Michael never had a chance at redemption. Vito knew this, and it is why he is so heartbroken in the first film when he talks to Michael about being in charge of the family. Vito had no regrets about how he provided for his family, but he hoped Michael could legitimize the Corleones.

This led to Michael’s obsession with becoming legitimate in the subsequent films. But his blind pursuit of redeeming the family only took him deeper into the mob life while alienating the very family he claimed to be doing everything for. 

This new cut smartly begins with Michael talking to the archbishop about “washing away” his family’s past by getting involved with the Catholic church’s finances. All that part of the plot is still pretty confusing, but it doesn’t matter. The point is that Michael thinks this deal he’s making will save his family and erase the past. Placing this scene at the beginning (it’s originally around forty minutes in) makes it more clear what this film is truly about. 

Any kind of cutting like that makes the movie a bit sloppier, though. There are some jarring cuts throughout the film, especially when it comes to Michael going to Italy. He seems to bounce back and forth from New York to Italy from scene to scene at one point. This makes the movie move more quickly, but it’s also a little disorienting. It doesn’t ruin the film, but it does take me out of it at times.

Overall, I think this new cut is warranted, but it shouldn’t be a solo release. The blu-ray I bought contains only this cut. Yes, I already own Part Three, but this release should have both versions. It should also simply be added to any collection released in the future, even if it’s just a digital code or something. The ideal way to release this would have been as an exclusive for the new Paramount streaming app. I bought it because I’m a completionist, but others should have the option to simply check this out once on one of the streaming options out there.

Michael Corleone Is Dominic Toretto, or “Grumble, Grumble, Family.”

The Fast and the Furious franchise probably doesn’t come to mind very often when people watch The Godfather films, but during this rewatch, I kept thinking of Dominic Toeretto (Vin Diesel’s character) every time Michael claimed he was protecting his family.

Dominic Toeretto mumbles about family so much in the Fast films that it’s become a joke, and for good reason. In a series that began as a Point Break rip-off about street racers stealing VCRs and is now seriously considering sending the action to space, any claim that the batshit crazy action is actually about family is laughable. 

The Godfather is never going to space, but that doesn’t make Michael’s claims about family any less ridiculous than Dom’s. Dom just uses family as an excuse to do crazy shit; Michael uses family as an excuse to keep power. 

Just saying you’re doing things for your family doesn’t make it true. I do believe that Michael truly thought that everything he did was for his family, but he became blinded by this belief. When you kill your own brother and alienate your wife to the point that she would rather have an abortion than another child with you, then at some point your actions stopped being for your family and were just about you. 

Both Michael and Dom could leave their dangerous lives and simply live off the grid with their families. It might not be ideal, and people would still want them dead. but it would still be safer than what they ended up doing. When you claim your actions are meant to protect your family, but those actions continuously put your family in extreme danger, then you are either lying to yourself or you’re stupid. But I’ll say this for Dom: at least he seems to be having fun.

Meaningful Quotes

I always include a section of favorite quotes in my articles, but for this film I came across so many important quotes that I wanted to pull a few and explain why I find them so meaningful.

“Your whole past history, and the history of your family and your children would be washed away.”

It makes sense that this line is spoken by the bishop who is revealed to be an enemy of Michael because it’s bullshit. Michael too easily buys into this idea that being connected with the church will save him and his family. Yeah, because the Catholic church has always been known to be free from corruption. I know this takes place in the 1970s, but I’m sure people still had an idea that the church was not exactly perfect.

“I spent my life protecting my family!”

This is just Michael being Dom again. Just keep saying it until it comes true, buddy.

“You became my horror.”

One of the best parts of this film is the segment in which he finally talks with Kay and listens to her. She says this to him early on in the film, but it’s probably her most important line to Michael. Hearing this might finally make him realize how awful he was back then. But it still can’t help him see what Kay sees: even when dealing with “legitimate” organizations, Michael can’t stay away from plots that end up involving murder.

“You will not change.”

The future Pope is talking about whether or not Michael believes his soul can be saved, but this line is more accurate when applied to Michael’s actions. Michael does believe he can be saved; that’s precisely why he’s so involved with the church in this film. He just doesn’t realize that just being connected to the church financially doesn’t make everything you do okay.

“What could I do?”

I understand that Michael felt the need to kill in the first film to protect his father and the family in general. There was no changing his mind about that. But everything he does in the second film was not so necessary, especially killing Fredo. 

“I swear on the lives of my children. Give me a chance to redeem myself, and I will sin no more.”

What does this even mean at this point? What would Michael consider worthy of redemption? He’s so incapable of staying out of shit that leads to multiple murders, that the only real way for him to save his family is to die. This is why his survival at the very end is that much more miserable. 

“I tried…”

How? By getting involved with crooked bishops and corporations and shit? He was too hung up on becoming officially legitimate and buying his redemption from the church. He could just as easily have sold off all his nefarious investments and left the mob shit to Zasa and the rest of the commission. They would be pissed, and they might even try to kill him, but his kids would be free of danger and the mob life in general.

I think Michael starts to believe he can be redeemed right before his daughter is killed, but why? Just because he met a “true priest” to hear his confession? He’s still doing all kinds of shady shit, especially taking on Vincent and allowing Connie to have people murdered. In this way, he’s still just like Dom. He can claim everything he does is for family, but he just does whatever the fuck he wants because he’s addicted to power.

The only change Michael has made is that he is now one more step removed from crime while still being the final authority on it. In the first film, he was willing to personally kill for his family. In the second film, he only commands others to do his bidding (although he does hit his wife himself). And now, he just leaves others, like Vincent, Connie, or Joey Zasa to commit crimes and murders. He may not make the orders, but he accepts the consequences after the fact. What he doesn’t seem to understand is that just because he removes himself enough to be considered “legal” in his actions, that doesn’t make them “good.” And while a priest may be able to grant him absolution, the world does not care.

Why Do I Own This?

I love The Godfather films, even the third one, so it was a no-brainer to cave in to this cash grab of a new cut. I don’t regret it, though. I buy very few films these days, so I’m okay with getting this as a way of completing my collection.

Random Thoughts / Favorite Quotes 

In his commentary for Part III, Coppola said the original title was simply The Death of Michael Corleone. I like that much better than this current ridiculously lengthy title: Mario Puzo's The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone.

The letter at the beginning is to both kids? If both of the kids get a copy, is he handwriting two letters or just making a copy? And if he makes a copy, which kid gets the original?

You can't edit out that weird shit Sofia Coppola does with her mouth throughout the film in an attempt to appear flirtatious. She just ends up looking like Rocky Balboa.

“I’ve lost [...] the juice of youth.” Ew.

I wish Coppola would have filmed a new scene in which Michael slapped the fuck out of Johnny Fontaine just like his old man did.

The reporter lady insists on Vincent telling her he loves her. They just met that fucking day! 

One of these days I’m going to watch this just to count how many times they say the name Joey Zasa. My guess is fifty, which is a fucking lot for a character with maybe ten minutes of screen time who dies halfway through.

“Now they’ll fear you.” Now, Connie? Do you have no memories from the days when you were banging your way around the world? Michael had his own brother killed. Every time his power is threatened, he kills everyone. What else does he have to prove at this point? I get it, “what have you done lately?” and all that, but come on; this is Michael fucking Corleone.

Coppola cut one of the don’s yelling, “Zasa, you son of a bitch!” from the helicopter scene. Why? If it was to cut down on how many times we hear “Zasa,” then fine. But otherwise, how does this line get cut, but the dildo trying to get his lucky coat stays?

The priest that has to light all of the bishop’s cigarettes is one busy motherfucker.

This finally occurred to me after all these years: how would Vincent had known how to ride a horse for the Zasa hit? Riding a horse is not a simple thing, and riding a horse and keeping it calm during a gunfight is a straight up complicated thing. I can buy Vincent as a cousin fucker, but not a horse rider.

"Zasa!"

Man, they really make Connie look like some kind of ancient Italian witch in this movie.

When Michael has another attack at the Vatican and requests something sweet, that priest has a tray of orange juice and candy within seconds. Are there just trays of sweets stationed throughout Vatican City? This isn’t Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

It's hilarious to me that Michael kept the picture from his son for all these years, but never checked yes or no on it. He’s still on the fence about it, I guess.

Kay brushes off a lot of shit during Michael’s little tour of Italy. “Hey, Michael, you know our daughter’s fucking her cousin, right?” 

“Yeah, I won’t allow it.”

“Cool. Hey, Michael, remember when you got married here and never mentioned it to me when you came back to America? That kind of sucked, but whatever.”

..

The Godfather: Part III - "It Was Not What I WANTED!"

The Godfather: Part III is really the only movie in the saga that I needed to revisit to prepare for the new cut (my next article will cover that version of the film), but as I mentioned in my article about Part II, I don’t view these as three individual films as much as I view them as one long story detailing Michael Corleone’s rise and fall. Plenty of fans like to pretend that this film doesn’t exist (hence the title of this article), but I am not one of them. I don’t consider the best or most important part of the series, but I do find it vital and entertaining. Despite my enjoyment of the film, it is the one I can most easily nitpick.

Victim of the Studio...and Casting

Following up Part I and II years later was always going to be tough, but Francis Ford Coppola was very unlucky in dealing with the studio with this sequel. The studio would only give him and the actors so much time and money, and it held him back. 

The first major problem was that a release date of Christmas was a requirement despite Coppola asking for more time to work on the script and edit the film. This movie was going to come out on that date no matter what. It seems crazy to think that such an accomplished filmmaker had such little power, but this is a good example that studios only care about right now. And at the time, Paramount knew The Godfather: Part III would make a lot more money (and get an awards bump) by being released on Christmas rather than in March. 

On top of the scheduling issues, two disasters struck the cast. First, Robert Duvall wanted a comparable salary to Al Pacino’s. The studio said no, and that was that. This is why George Hamilton is in this movie. I don’t mind Hamilton, but he’s nothing compared to Duvall. It makes for one of the most infuriating “What could’ve been?” situations when you imagine this film with Duvall. Who the fuck was running Paramount back then?

The second disaster was Sofia Coppola. I’m not going to pile on Sofia Coppola here (I saved that for the Random Thoughts section), but she’s simply not a good actress. And this is coming from someone who rarely criticizes performances (for example, I think Colin Farrell is great in Alexander). It’s painfully obvious that she is not meant for the role of Michael’s daughter. And that’s a fact, not an opinion. Winona Ryder was meant to play the part, but dropped out due to exhaustion (there are some other theories, but this is the official story). I think this movie would be much better with Duvall and Ryder in it, but it wasn’t meant to be.

In the End, These Problems Don’t Matter

Yes, Part III would probably have been a better film if the casting had gone the way Coppola originally wanted it, but Duvall and Ryder were still just going to be supporting characters. This is the story of the end of Michael Corleone. 

I find his regret and softened character to be very interesting. Michael is still cunning and methodical, but now it’s about winning his family back and soul back. This is why we get the admittedly boring plot about International Immobiliare. Michael is trying to buy his family’s legitimacy, and the connections to the Vatican will hopefully allow him to buy his way into redemption for his sins. 

While Michael’s striving for legitimacy, though, he’s still a part of the crime world. Even though he abdicates his role as Don to Sonny’s illegitimate son, Vincent, Michael is still responsible for everything that happens. The most famous line of the film (“Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!”) sums it up. Michael can’t leave the world behind. Vito told him this in the first film. They didn’t have enough time to allow Michael to become a truly legitimate Corleone. Once you go down the crime path, there’s no going back. 

This is made abundantly clear when Michael’s daughter is killed during an assassination attempt intended for Michael. All the money and confessions can’t change the past. Michael was always doomed once he took over the family. The path Vito started the Corleone family on years ago cannot be left. Part III works for me because, despite its flaws, it still delivers the gut punch ending of a sad, old Michael dying alone with all his regrets. This story was always about the misery brought on to a person who enters the criminal world. And Michael Corleone’s life and death is the perfect example of that.

Why Do I Own This?

I’ve always liked this film. More importantly, I love the trilogy. I believe each film is a necessary chapter in Michael’s story. Some may feel that this was a cash grab, and it certainly was, but that doesn’t mean it’s unnecessary. Also, it’s part of the collection. What am I going to do, throw it out on principle or something?

Random Thoughts / Favorite Quotes 

Yes, Coppola talks about gnocchi for what seems like ten minutes, but his audio commentary is one of the most honest I've ever heard. Most of the info I get into above about the studio and whatnot if from the commentary.

Coppola makes a very interesting point while defending his daughter during the commentary. Of course, he claims the performance is better than critics claim, but what’s interesting is how he finds similarities between the critical reaction and the story of the film. In many ways, he thinks Sofia took the bullet intended for him from the critics. And he’s right. If someone is to blame for The Godfather: Part III being a disappointing movie, it should be Francis Ford Coppola, not his daughter.

Pacino screaming, “It was not what I WANTED” is one of my favorite line readings of his.

Finally, a Corleone party with a valet or at least a parking garage nearby!

"I had a lot of girlfriends when I was 15."

"Eight-year-olds?"

"Especially eight-year-olds."

...what the fuck?

I think Sofia Coppola catches so much shit because she's so terrible at flirt-acting...and acting-acting.

Coppola does this weird thing with her mouth throughout the film; it looks like when Billy Idol sings.

"Every family has bad memories."

Yeah, but…

I do like how they're much more open about talking about mob shit now.

"Zasa, you son of a bitch!" is a much better last line than "It's my lucky coat!"

Despite the cousin stuff, I dig Andy Garcia’s James Caan impression throughout the film.

Cousin-fucking is a tough sell in any movie, but Coppola's awful, wooden performance makes it even worse. 

Way to remind the audience that you're cousins by calling her "cous" before you bang her in the kitchen, Vince.

"He's your first cousin."

"Then I love him first."

First, what? Second, the fuck?

On the bright side, Mary getting killed solves that pesky cousin fucking situation. 

..

The Godfather - "It Insists Upon Itself."

If you pay attention to movie news at all, then you know that Francis Ford Coppola, the guy who can’t stop revisiting his movies but doesn’t take shit for it like George Lucas does, is releasing a new cut of The Godfather: Part III now titled The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone. I plan on watching it and writing an article, but I wanted to revisit the entire series first. I love these movies (I even like the theatrical cut of Part III), and I honestly don’t have some unique take on the first one. So I’ll keep this simple and just focus on what I love about it and have a little fun with a Family Guy joke about the film.

Dark and Gritty Before Dark and Gritty Was a Thing

The Godfather came out before I was born, so by the time I got around to it, it was already considered a classic. The whole series always loomed large in the video store when I was a kid: all three movies were double VHSes! Once I started getting into mob movies, I knew I had to check it out. 

At first, I liked it, but I think I liked it because I knew I was supposed to, it being almost unanimously considered one of the greatest films of all time. I sincerely enjoyed it, but a lot of it went over my head. I’ve watched it at least a dozen times over the years, and I find new reasons to love it each time. I’ll skip all the classic reasons (the cast, the music, the famous moments, etc.) and focus on what hit me this time: the pacing and atmosphere.

The Godfather is a dark film, both literally and figuratively. It’s legitimately hard to see what’s going on in a lot of scenes, but that plays into the dark mood of the film. These are men who work in the shadows of society, why should they be well-lit? The opening scene seems to take place in a dungeon, not in the middle of the day in a home office in which business is regularly conducted. When Michael finds his father alone at the hospital, everything is dark, signifying the danger of the situation. And it gets even darker when Michael and the florist have to pretend to be tough guys to protect Vito; who knows who is out in that darkness?

All of this sets up Michael’s descent into the dark underworld of his family, but it also feels realistic. Too often city streets are lit up beyond belief. Sure, Times Square will always be a bright spot, but even the biggest cities have their dark streets where dangerous things can happen. 

The darkness is realistic, but the pacing is even more so. Movies in the ‘70s were slow and subtle, and Coppola was a big part of making that the norm. The Godfather is still a very straightforward movie, and it has plenty of traditional gangster movie moments, especially in the violence department. But rather than showing someone get killed every other scene, there are lengthy discussions and arguments about every move. This is mainly to accentuate the difference in the leadership styles of Michael (slow and methodical) and Sonny (quick and loud), but it also sets the standard for a great gangster movie with something to say.

“It Insists Upon Itself.”

When I think about The Godfather critically, I always remember the Family Guy clip in which Peter admits to not liking the film, and says “It insists upon itself,” as his main argument. Over the years, I’ve tried more and more to understand differing opinions on everything, especially movies, and that applies to Peter Griffin, too. I know it’s just a joke from a silly show, but is he right?

Well, no, in my opinion, of course. But I can see where he’s coming from. The Godfather may have a few moments of levity here and there, but overall it treats its subject matter with intense seriousness. As well it should, but because of this, people like Peter Griffin, who can’t get into the movie, can easily cast judgment on the film for its serious tone. 

I can’t argue with Peter not being able to “get into it,” but I can defend the seriousness of the film. All gangster movies deal with life and death, The Godfather more than most. But it’s the life the film deals with that earns the seriousness. Death is expected in this world, but The Godfather insists upon itself because it is dealing with the soul of Michael Corleone. Over the course of the film, he goes from war hero who wants to stay out of the family business to running the criminal empire and having multiple killed. His descent intensely solidified by cross-cutting the death scenes with the baptism scene with him renouncing Satan, even as he plans to have the father of his Godson killed soon after the baptism. 

If such a descent from good to evil doesn’t deserve to insist upon itself a bit, then what does? So fine, Peter, you couldn’t get into it and would rather watch The Money Pit (a movie that definitely does not insist upon itself), but that doesn’t mean The Godfather isn’t allowed to take itself too seriously at times.

Why Do I Own This?

The entire saga is a must-own for any fan of mob movies. I’ve owned this movie in every format it’s been released in since the double VHS, and I’m sure I’ll end up buying it again once hi-def reaches its limits.

Random Thoughts / Favorite Quotes*

*Just assume all the famous quotes (“Leave the gun. Take the cannoli,” for example) are also my favorites. It just feels silly to type up all the quotes that have become part of the culture at this point. Instead, I’ll focus on more random quotes that amuse me. 

The parking situation at the wedding gives me anxiety. Imagine being the car at the very front but needing to leave first. You'd have to ask a dozen people to back out first.

Easily one of my favorite moments is Don Corleone making fun of Johnny crying and Tom laughing about it. 

"Let me tell you something, my kraut-mick friend…"

The lack of squibs when Vito gets shot always bothered me. Sure, there are squibs and blood in the close up, but in the overhead shot there's nothing. Maybe they were saving all the good squibs for Sonny's death.

Did Sonny really need to write "8:30" on the cabinet? Is that time too complex to just remember?

Michael has the slowest healing black eye in the history of black eyes. Either that, or all the shit in Italy takes place the first week he's there.

Upon some research, it's because McCluskey really fucked up Michael's face with that punch, breaking his jaw and eye socket. Apparently, McCluskey's full name is One Devastating Sucker Punch Iron Fist McCluskey.

That missed punch Sonny throws at Carlo is only slightly better than the horrific punch at the end of Rocky V.

Fredo does make a comment about the doctor doing great work on Michael's face when they see each other in Vegas.

No one says "Scram!" better than Fredo.

..

"Insomnia" - The Forgotten Film in Nolan's "In" Trilogy

Insomnia

*The main purpose of Why Do I Own This? is to take a movie from my personal collection and answer that question. I then decide whether or not to keep the film.

This one of those movies I forgot I owned and nearly forgot existed at all. This is surprising since Insomnia is directed by Christopher Nolan, and it's a pretty good movie starring Al Pacino, Hilary Swank, and Robin Williams. Compared to Nolan's other films, however, Insomnia is quite plain. There is no superhero (The Dark Knight trilogy), no space travel (Insterstellar), no magic (The Prestige), no narrative trickery (Memento), and no dream manipulation with zero-G fight sequences (Insterstellar).  (To be fair, there's also Following, but to my shame, I have yet to watch Nolan's first film.) Insomnia is easily the most traditional film Nolan has made, for better or worse. I do like Insomnia, and rewatching it was interesting since it had been so long, but it is definitely my least favorite Nolan film, and definitely the lesser of his "In" trilogy of Insomnia, Inception, and Interstellar. (Pretty sure that's not an actual trilogy, but it's weird that he's made three movies that start with "In.")

So why did I buy this? Well, looking at the case, which is one of those half-cardboard/half-plastic jobs from the early days of DVD when you had to look closely to see if you were buying the full screen or widescreen edition (I always tried to go with widescreen), I noticed some sticker residue over the barcode. Then I remembered where I got this movie: the local videostore. The sticker residue was from the low quality stickers the store used to cover the original bar code, which bothered me enough to remove it. (I'm weird like that. I also make a point to remove the security device from every movie I buy.) My local video store, a Video Vault that eventually became a Movie Gallery before closing, used to sell their old DVDs. They were usually overpriced, but if you bought four, you got the fifth for free, which made it a slight deal. Insomnia was definitely that fifth, free DVD. 

It's not that the film is unwatchable after a first viewing, it's just that, for me, it's only worth watching again once you've forgotten most of the plot. That's not enough rewatchability to warrant a purchase. But since I did rewatch it, I guess I should weigh in on it. 

The two main performances are the main takeaway from watching Insomnia in 2016. Pacino has long since lost legitimacy, but back in 2002 (when this film was released) he still appeared to be trying. Interestingly enough, Insomnia would be the perfect film for him to make today, since the role calls for him to basically sleepwalk. Pacino's detective is suffering from the titular insomnia, since he's covering a murder case in Alaska during the season when the sun stays up around the clock. He looks rough, and plays the part perfectly. He also employs his talk quietly then EXPLODE technique to good effect before it became a joke. And while I haven't seen all of his movies since Insomnia, I still think it's safe to say this is his most recent great performance. 

The true star and reason to watch this movie, though, is Robin Williams. After his unfortunate death two years ago (it does not seem like it's been two year already), most people pointed to his Oscar-winning performance or to a performance they loved from their childhood. Insomnia went mostly unmentioned, which is a shame. Williams turns in a creepily calm performance that is vastly more interesting than a typical murderer role. Williams will be remembered for his more antic performances, but it's his work in films like Insomnia that is truly impressive. 

Mentioning that Williams's character is a murderer might seem like a spoiler, but that's what makes this film stand out slightly from the pack. The film is not concerned with who the murderer is; the focus is on the individual morality of the three leads. This applies to Swank, too, who I don't have much to write about because her character, the starstruck local cop, is the least interesting of the three. Watching these three characters wrestle with their consciences and actions is much more rewarding than simply pointing to a character and saying, "They're the killer!" 

Finally, while this is Nolan's least interesting film, visually speaking, it is still above average in the style department. The locations make for beautiful and interesting backdrops, but the editing and camerawork have the lasting effect, as Nolan attempted to put the viewer inside Pacino's troubled, tired mind, and he succeeded. 

I covered why I bought this film, but why do still I own it? Before I rewatched it, I would have said this movie had no place in my collection. But now, I've decided to keep it. Partly, it's because I'm a Nolan completist (I consider him one of my favorite current directors. I rewatched Insterstellar [my favorite of his "In" trilogy] recently and was surprised at how interesting and effective I found it after my fourth viewing.) I'm mainly keeping it because of what I realized when I rewatched it: this film is very interesting once you've largely forgotten it. So I'll hang onto it and watch it again sometime around 2026.

New(ish) Movie Thoughts

Deepwater Horizon - The second film in Peter Berg and Mark Wahlberg's trilogy of true American stories (the first being Lone Survivor and the next one being Patriots Day) is just as well-made and effective as you'd expect. It's refreshing that Berg and Wahlberg (no relation) tend to focus on the event itself rather than the aftermath, especially since this event in the news was almost solely about the environmental impact. The disaster on the rig itself is worthy of its own film, and it hits on every note a film should. There's nothing flashy or very remarkable from a filmmaking standpoint; it's simply a good, effective film about a tragic event.

The Girl on the Train - This one disappointed me a bit. I liked Emily Blunt's performance, but the film overall felt like a slightly bigger budget Lifetime movie. I give it a few bonus points for a surprisingly gory scene near the end, but this film simply did not work for me. I didn't hate it. I'm just indifferent to it. Full disclosure: I did not read the book beforehand, and do not plan to after seeing this adaptation.