What is it lately with London critics trying to knock down The Godfather? Just a few weeks ago, David Thomson was blurbed as saying that The Red Riding Trilogy was "better than The Godfather." This week we have Kevin Maher of The London Times saying that France's Oscar contender for Best Foreign Film, A Prophet, is "as epic as The Godfather." Now that I've seen the former, let me simply say that comparing The Godfather Trilogy (yes, even with Part III) to the Red Riding films is like, well, comparing The Godfather films to the Red Riding Trilogy.

This is the trap that so many modern film critics fall into. Trying to make their point so hard that they use the loudest possible comparison to guarantee they will be heard. Thomson deserves credit for trying to back up his assertion, which seems to be based on the Red Riding films each concluding with greater doom and less comfort than the loose ends tied up by Coppola's films. I don't know if that necessarily makes them better. Red Riding's best chapters (1974 & 1980) still pale in comparison to Godfather's unfairly reviled final chapter. Again though, big words to back up but at least there is a review - or actually an essay - that tries. What if there is no review or essay and it is just something that oozes off the tongue of some overly enthusiastic blurbist? What then?
categories Movies, Cinematical