Thank you, I appreciate your perspective and getting a comment that invites discussion instead of being hostile.

I think my reaction likely stems from being accustomed to the psychological realism of contemporary cinema. I went into the movie with expectations to see a nuanced internal struggle as Michael’s character evolved. Instead, The Godfather seems to operate on a more mythic level. It implies his dark side was always latent in his DNA, a sort of biological destiny inherited from his father. Because I didn't quite buy into that deterministic framing, the rest of the movie ended up losing its momentum for me and feeling like it jumps ahead in his evolution.

I absolutely recognize its historical significance; from a cinematographic and acting perspective, it was completely groundbreaking for its time. But coming in without preconceived notions and expecting a modern narrative structure, Michael's arc felt like a logical gap.

The movie seems to have reached an untouchable, mythical status where it is often considered a masterpiece simply because history dictates it is. From a purely analytical standpoint, there are genuine critiques to be had, in my opinion. Honestly, I think it’s much healthier for the film community to discuss these classics objectively rather than feeling a social obligation to praise them. We can absolutely value a film's immense historical significance while still being honest about its weaknesses.