― dleone (dleone), Thursday, 22 January 2004 05:56 (9 years ago) Permalink
― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Thursday, 22 January 2004 06:00 (9 years ago) Permalink
― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Thursday, 22 January 2004 06:05 (9 years ago) Permalink
Really the best way to watch the first two movies is that 7 hour long thing (The Godfather Epic) they did for NBC where they put them all in chronological order and added an hour or so of outtakes, but I don't think that's available anywhere anymore.
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 22 January 2004 06:32 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Broheems (diamond), Thursday, 22 January 2004 06:39 (9 years ago) Permalink
― donna (donna), Thursday, 22 January 2004 07:54 (9 years ago) Permalink
OTM
― ArfArf, Thursday, 22 January 2004 12:18 (9 years ago) Permalink
― @lex K (Alex K), Thursday, 22 January 2004 13:07 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Vicky (Vicky), Thursday, 22 January 2004 13:10 (9 years ago) Permalink
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 22 January 2004 15:24 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Thursday, 22 January 2004 21:23 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Thursday, 22 January 2004 21:24 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Thursday, 22 January 2004 21:26 (9 years ago) Permalink
it's a testament to something that despite the mess it's still so highly regarded.
― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 16 March 2004 18:47 (9 years ago) Permalink
― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 16 March 2004 18:48 (9 years ago) Permalink
The second is more powerful though; the shooting of Fredo is very good and I thought a nice contrast with killing Don Ciccio; it starts with killing a bad guy who nobody misses. It ends with killing your brother. I hated Michael after that.
― Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 16 March 2004 18:58 (9 years ago) Permalink
― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 16 March 2004 19:00 (9 years ago) Permalink
― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 16 March 2004 19:01 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Broheems (diamond), Tuesday, 16 March 2004 20:51 (9 years ago) Permalink
― kephm, Tuesday, 16 March 2004 20:53 (9 years ago) Permalink
― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 16 March 2004 20:53 (9 years ago) Permalink
― dyson (dyson), Tuesday, 16 March 2004 20:57 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 16 March 2004 21:15 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 16 March 2004 21:20 (9 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, right?
― ModJ (ModJ), Tuesday, 16 March 2004 21:23 (9 years ago) Permalink
― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 16 March 2004 21:27 (9 years ago) Permalink
― jim wentworth (wench), Wednesday, 17 March 2004 03:56 (9 years ago) Permalink
Even though I know the first is supposed to be the greatest film of all time and everything, I just have no desire to see it, but I can't figure out why.
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 17 March 2004 03:59 (9 years ago) Permalink
― m.e.a. (m.e.a.), Wednesday, 17 March 2004 04:05 (9 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 17 March 2004 04:18 (9 years ago) Permalink
― kephm (kephm), Friday, 27 August 2004 17:47 (8 years ago) Permalink
― kephm (kephm), Friday, 27 August 2004 17:50 (8 years ago) Permalink
― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 27 August 2004 17:51 (8 years ago) Permalink
― kephm (kephm), Friday, 27 August 2004 17:54 (8 years ago) Permalink
― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Friday, 27 August 2004 18:00 (8 years ago) Permalink
― kephm (kephm), Friday, 27 August 2004 18:04 (8 years ago) Permalink
― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 27 August 2004 18:05 (8 years ago) Permalink
― 57 7th (calstars), Friday, 27 August 2004 18:10 (8 years ago) Permalink
In Part II: I always liked the end of Frankie Five Angels with Tom in the prison yard.
― Jimmy Mod, Man About Towne (ModJ), Friday, 27 August 2004 19:03 (8 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 27 August 2004 21:48 (8 years ago) Permalink
― Monetizing Eyeballs (diamond), Friday, 27 August 2004 21:49 (8 years ago) Permalink
― eddie hurt (ddduncan), Saturday, 28 August 2004 17:30 (8 years ago) Permalink
the deniro bits are straightforward enough. childlike, really.
but can anyone come out here and explain the rest of it?
there are two brothers michael is trying to shake down in vegas? and hyman roth is in cahoots with them, possibly? but hyman claims to be on michael's side?
they try to kill michael, and try to pin it on the old guy back from new york.
and then they try to kill that old guy, and tell him it's on michael's orders (this is confusing, because maybe it is michael!).
er, and at some undisclosed point the feds investigate the corleone family and they have to go to court.
i think i would have liked a godfather 1.5, in which vito and mo green (=bugsy siegel?) and hyman roth build up their empire of crime. i guess roth is coming out of chicago?
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 09:49 (7 years ago) Permalink
― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 11:59 (7 years ago) Permalink
Brando's performance is mostly hammy crap. And if you ever see I in a theater, Diane Keaton's assorted hairstyles draw gales of laughter.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 14:51 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 14:52 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:04 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:08 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:10 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:25 (7 years ago) Permalink
Not compared to III!
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:27 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:30 (7 years ago) Permalink
does "ham" mean "jew"?
kidding.
I loved Strasberg in 2, the scene where he's talking about Moe Green (Siegel), not getting a plaque and all that...
― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:43 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:43 (7 years ago) Permalink
right, but don corleone isn't a funny, warm, or human kinda guy.
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:47 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:49 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:49 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:51 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:53 (7 years ago) Permalink
Coppola himself says he could've done a smarter, more polished job on the first one (much of which he shot under rumor of being imminently fired).
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 15:57 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 16:02 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 16:08 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 16:38 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 16:41 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 16:54 (7 years ago) Permalink
Also, his performance in the film is overrated anyway! Oh noes, DeNiro learnt Eyetalian!!! Oh noes! FILM OF TEH YEAR! etc. If he learnt Eyetalian, got fat, and shaved a mohawk into his head, now you'd be talking.
― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 16:56 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 16:57 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:06 (7 years ago) Permalink
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:11 (7 years ago) Permalink
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:15 (7 years ago) Permalink
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:16 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:17 (7 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:18 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Pete W (peterw), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:19 (7 years ago) Permalink
"completely and utterly," eh?
No, it wasn't "necessary," but Coppola's triumph (and Mario Puzo's too, i guess) is that they deepen this pulp with a flashback that's no hazy romanticization of the Corleone family, but a clearheaded explanation of how this family sunk their meathooks into the New World.
No scene moves me more in GFII than the one in which young Vito, alone in a dank Ellis Island room, sings a half-remembered tune in this angelic voice, his back to the camera. Unnecessary, yes, but haunting.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:25 (7 years ago) Permalink
Alfred, if you want to respond to the entirety of what I wrote, which is that one or the other part of the movie was unnecessary and that having BOTH is what constitutes train wreck status, that would be nice. I'd prefer it if they left out almost all of the "modern day" crap!
― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:27 (7 years ago) Permalink
gabb, you mean Gordon Willis not Parks yes? II is one of the great 'underlit' American films. Gimme gimme gimme my dark, well-upholstered interiors.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:36 (7 years ago) Permalink
The second one I kept waiting for the cops to show up and violently bust everyone. Kung-fu cops. I couldn't figure out what the fuckin' point of that shit was at all.
― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:43 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:48 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 17:53 (7 years ago) Permalink
― JTS (JTS), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 13:26 (7 years ago) Permalink
It's not a BAD film -- Pacino is just about as good (and Joe Mantegna offed too soon), but almost everything else is two to ten notches below the standard.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 14:20 (7 years ago) Permalink
i am amused that dom kind of repped for 'you've got mail', upthread.
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 14:22 (7 years ago) Permalink
The bum lines are worse in II, and the pattern repetition thing is overdone, and I still can't figure out exactly what Fredo did (give the location of Michael's bedroom? Kill the shooters himself?). I do think the De Niro stuff romanticizes the Don, and that his turn to crime is a little too elegant. But it's still a great family drama.
III sucked mainly because he stopped being Michael and started doing "Al."
― Pete Scholtes (Pete Scholtes), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 17:59 (7 years ago) Permalink
er, yes. I'm not a fan of dark, "well-upholstered" interiors per se. I love Willis' dark moody semi-exteriors in ATPM, but perhaps only because they're balanced by the warm light of the newsroom (never has fluorescence looked so good) and the, er, harsh light of day when Woodward walks through that Justice Department (?) courtyard.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 18:15 (7 years ago) Permalink
A rather perverse claim, since at the time of On the Waterfront I don't believe Brando was getting his lines through an earpiece or from cue cards scattered around the set and taped to his fellow actors' foreheads.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 January 2006 20:22 (7 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 11 August 2006 22:25 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Matt Olken (Moodles), Saturday, 12 August 2006 06:16 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Dave B (daveb), Saturday, 12 August 2006 08:41 (6 years ago) Permalink
god cazale makes me want to cry in II. damn.
― s1ocki, Sunday, 13 January 2008 18:05 (5 years ago) Permalink
I think I like the first one better. They are both true masterpieces.
― wanko ergo sum, Sunday, 13 January 2008 18:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
i used to be a big fan of these and have had this conversation a bunch of times with friends. i've flipped back and forth over the years, but at this time in my life i think my answer is: Goodfellas.
― rockapads, Sunday, 13 January 2008 18:46 (5 years ago) Permalink
Godfather. Godfather II was very good too, no doubt, but it was mostly Coppola whereas the first one came directly from Puzo's book (and did a wonderful job of editing, as there was a lot of editing to be done).
I've always been iffy on the Hymen Roth story, but other story arcs like Fredo's betrayal, and the Robert Deniro scenes (which sort of come from the book, but are modified a bit) make up for it.
I've always been curious what would have happened if they had left in popular characters from the book Nino Valenti and Lucy and her doctor boyfriend, and ended the first movie after Michael shoots the cop and Sollozzo, and then picked up the second movie after that, ending it where the first movie did.
I kinda think though they did the right thing in getting rid of those excess characters as on the screen it can get tedious.
The Godfather remains the only movie I've seen more than 10 times.
― Bo Jackson Overdrive, Sunday, 13 January 2008 19:00 (5 years ago) Permalink
it's too bad they couldn't get clemenza back for 2, and brando.
― s1ocki, Sunday, 13 January 2008 19:16 (5 years ago) Permalink
also anyone who complains about brando in one i am not on the level with
I'm going with the first one, though I like them both.
― Eric H., Sunday, 13 January 2008 20:24 (5 years ago) Permalink
i mean for all the great sadness and double-layered story of the second, with the first you've got brando... james caan... clemenza dude (forgot his name)... abe fuckin' vigoda!!
― s1ocki, Sunday, 13 January 2008 20:25 (5 years ago) Permalink
My father loved the book, and when he originally heard in the 70's Marlon Brando was going to play Vito Corleone, almost blew a gasket, and said he thought he was going to be horrible. He loved his performance!
And so do I.
"Never let anyone outside the family know what you're thinking again!"
― Bo Jackson Overdrive, Sunday, 13 January 2008 20:25 (5 years ago) Permalink
yea, it really was a tour de force of acting.
If they were making a movie like that for the first time today they'd get a bunch of pencil dicks to play half of the parts.
Ben Affleck as Fredo Corleone....
― Bo Jackson Overdrive, Sunday, 13 January 2008 20:26 (5 years ago) Permalink
The ending of the first one is also just plain one of the greatest endings ever.
― Eric H., Sunday, 13 January 2008 20:47 (5 years ago) Permalink
the murder of the heads of the five families while Michael becomes Godfather to Connie's son...gives me CHILLS
― Bo Jackson Overdrive, Sunday, 13 January 2008 20:48 (5 years ago) Permalink
-- Eric H., Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:47 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
ya. it's so familiar and i've seen it a billion times and yet seeing it again the other day that last shot still hit me in the gut.
― s1ocki, Sunday, 13 January 2008 21:28 (5 years ago) Permalink
II. Because Leopoldo Trieste is in it and the whole Don Fanucci Assassination sequence is awesome. I love the entire DeNiro part of the film w/o reservation.
I like that Sterling Hayden is the bad cop in "I".
― Capitaine Jay Vee, Sunday, 13 January 2008 21:33 (5 years ago) Permalink
don fanucci so great. love the way he slurps back his coffee.
― s1ocki, Sunday, 13 January 2008 21:40 (5 years ago) Permalink
Don Fanucci : what a peacock. I kind of love that Vito messes with him for a bit before the meeting in the stairwell.
― Capitaine Jay Vee, Sunday, 13 January 2008 22:04 (5 years ago) Permalink
pretty great flicks, i'll go with II. the first one is awes but also just slightly more ridiculous and i've never been able to buy michael going from xmas-shopping civilian to ice-cold soldier that quickly, at least in the manner that it played in the film.
though i think as both versions of michael he's totally hoos for the role.
― omar little, Monday, 14 January 2008 02:41 (5 years ago) Permalink
im surprised you dont buy the transition, i think that's done sooooo well.
― s1ocki, Monday, 14 January 2008 04:58 (5 years ago) Permalink
i mean, if you think that doesn't work, doesn't that pretty much wreck the entire movie?
i don't understand the confusion about II's plot- it's a couple of years since i've seen it but i could follow it pretty well at the time.
anyway- II for me, but they're both great films. i've never seen three but might pull the boxset out of the xmas wrapping tonight if it's quiet.
― darraghmac, Monday, 14 January 2008 12:46 (5 years ago) Permalink
ModigGrabb12 (6 days ago) Show Hide Who is the Godfather in the movie The Godfather? and do he die? please answer and dont say like watch the movie : )
Thegodfather847 (4 days ago) Show Hide watch the movie
― s1ocki, Monday, 19 May 2008 17:41 (5 years ago) Permalink
lol
re-watched both of these recently. both great, but i think i'd go with one.
― latebloomer, Monday, 19 May 2008 17:55 (5 years ago) Permalink
on the current "Coppola restoration" of I & II:
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2008/09/the-coppola-res.html
"G,I hear the new Godfather restorations are an improvement, and look as good as they ever did, but they do not live up to the expectations set by the home theater crowd. Apparently Gordon Willis, who supervised the operation, went back and duplicated the look the films had when they originally premiered...."
Not to be disrespectful or vulgar, but the "home theater crowd" can go eat a bag of dicks.
I've looked at about an hour of the Blu-ray of One, and I admit they did a very bold thing. They reproduced the film with all the grain, with all the blown-out whites of the wedding scene...all the same "imperfections" that made the studio people want to fire Willis. And help make Godfather the glorious film it is. I'll be looking at a lot more in detail soon.
There's no fucking hope for these people, I swear.
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 21:58 (4 years ago) Permalink
more on the new discs... I've seen these enough for awhile, but would visit if someone has BluRay.
http://daily.greencine.com/archives/006733.html
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 19:46 (4 years ago) Permalink
I really wish the Godfather Epic thing they did for NBC back in the day was on DVD. Still the best version I've seen.
― Alex in SF, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 19:47 (4 years ago) Permalink
all that footage is available in one of the older sets, yeah?
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 19:48 (4 years ago) Permalink
or just not cut together 'chronologically'?
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 19:49 (4 years ago) Permalink
^^^
Kehr's review today made these new prints sound mouthwatering.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 19:49 (4 years ago) Permalink
As bonus scenes maybe, but yeah the NBC version (which they released on VHS in the 90s) is the only one which sets it up chronologically.
― Alex in SF, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 19:50 (4 years ago) Permalink
I remember that version, and you can see why they cut scenes like Vito and the boys visiting the dying consigliere, but they do add texture.
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 19:58 (4 years ago) Permalink
plus young hyman roth!
― s1ocki, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 20:09 (4 years ago) Permalink
I watched the two of them eight years ago, and haven't seen them since. At the time, I thought the first one was superb and was left lukewarm by the second one, but I'm not sure if there was necessarily anything rational about either reaction.
― Freedom, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 04:10 (4 years ago) Permalink
the NBC recut is the only version I've seen, when it was rerun on AMC or something a few years ago. but I didn't see the whole thing, so as a result, I've only seen part of 2 and part of 1! I should finally watch these
― akm, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 05:57 (4 years ago) Permalink
Rosenbaum on I & II, Kael, and Bush's America:
For the Pauline Kael who viewed Kane as “kitsch redeemed”, the notion that The Godfather could be viewed as a different kind of kitsch rather than as a noble Shakespearean tragedy is never considered, because there are certain ideological givens about American violence and power, even at their most infantile and unreasoning, that are too serious to be scoffed at, especially when they’re bathed in “Rembrandt” lighting....
This development can perhaps be traced in part back to Kael’s use of the adjective “Shakespearean” near the end of the first paragraph of her review of The Godfather, Part II. Her second paragraph—– which casually identified its predecessor as “the greatest gangster picture ever made,” immediately after announcing that Part II “enlarges the scope and deepens the meaning” of its predecessor—–marked the lamentable suspension of her Orwellian scoffing at pretension that was perhaps the strongest virtue of her early criticism. In terms of her own unapologetic trash aesthetic, a far better candidate for “greatest gangster picture” would surely be the Hawks-Hecht-Hughes Scarface, no less arty than Coppola’s blockbuster but far more exuberant and irresponsible (and far more honest about its own amorality), and in most respects closer to the starkness of Greek tragedy, incest and all, than to any Shakespearean tragedy or historical melodrama.
It’s a moot point whether Coppola intended this, but the ethical contrast between Vito Corleone (Brando) as an earthy, charismatic gentleman Mafiosi and his cold-blooded son and successor Michael (Pacino), a Machiavellian who winds up engineering the deaths of family members—–a brother-in-law in the first film, a brother in the second–—tends to mystify or at least detract from the degree to which both men are killers. If we’re being asked to brood about the moral and stylistic decline of the Corleones, we’re less likely to be attentive to the continuity of violence between the nostalgically depicted past and the more coarsely perceived near-present.
http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=14913
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 26 January 2009 18:10 (4 years ago) Permalink
Mocking pretension does not mean you accept trash at all times.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 26 January 2009 18:14 (4 years ago) Permalink
good article but this:
Mythologies about macho power and the pride of wanton blood-spilling are arguably at the roots of what put George W. Bush twice into office
is total bullshit.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 26 January 2009 20:25 (4 years ago) Permalink
I would agree -- no more than they raised the new Michael Corleone to power.
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 26 January 2009 20:27 (4 years ago) Permalink
^^ not sure if that is or is not a ref to obama
― Doom Passantino (special guest stars mark bronson), Monday, 26 January 2009 20:41 (4 years ago) Permalink
By contrast, consider all the depictions of violence in such otherwise very different films as Renoir’s The Rules of the Game and Jarmusch’s Dead Man, which refuse the very possibility of violence having any kind of dignity whenever or however it occurs.
really have no idea what he's getting at. TRotG really is too dissimilar and i don't know why he's brought it up. but i don't think the violence in 'the godfather' is more dignity-y than in the (incredibly boring and lame) 'dead man'. even then, is this a generalizable principle? he appears to be applying it as one.
it's illegitimate to bring in bush to back up this point anyway.
i think he's in dodgy territory talking about that tudor propagandist shakespeare, too.
The outsized success of both Godfathers helped to mark the eclipse of foreign film distribution in the U.S. for the sake of glossy American art movies, a little bit before Woody Allen’s (and Martin Scorsese’s and Paul Schrader’s) mining of similar fields started to take hold.
interesting point (although it can't be a criticism of 'the godfather', or indeed of any other film), though, y'know, bertolucci released 'last tango' and '1900' after it, and in fact 'the conformist' had been a paramount film; and iirc 'the leopard' had hollywood money in it (and it was rubbish). something tells me there may be bigger reasons why art-house distrib declined after the early '70s.
the relevance of 'psycho' eludes me.
― Doom Passantino (special guest stars mark bronson), Monday, 26 January 2009 20:53 (4 years ago) Permalink
'the leopard' had hollywood money in it (and it was rubbish)
rong but it was also '63 so I'm not sure how that fits in unless you think it was by Bertolucci (wdn't surprise me)
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 26 January 2009 21:03 (4 years ago) Permalink
imo he's drawing a false dichotomy between european and american cinema, the date is irrelevant.
i have no idea why you would think i would think bertolucci directed that film.
― Doom Passantino (special guest stars mark bronson), Monday, 26 January 2009 21:05 (4 years ago) Permalink
would have to look into it, but as remains the case, european cinema tends to depend on upfront distribution $$$ from the evil americans. why coooouuuuld explain why the (incredibly awful) film stars an american.
― Doom Passantino (special guest stars mark bronson), Monday, 26 January 2009 21:07 (4 years ago) Permalink
"Really the best way to watch the first two movies is that 7 hour long thing (The Godfather Epic) they did for NBC where they put them all in chronological order and added an hour or so of outtakes".OTM― ArfArf, Thursday, January 22, 2004 7:18 AM (5 years ago)
― ArfArf, Thursday, January 22, 2004 7:18 AM (5 years ago)
ok no this is very offtm.
― BIGrack HOOSein Obama (k3vin k.), Monday, 26 January 2009 21:17 (4 years ago) Permalink
like any Visconti, bronson?
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 26 January 2009 21:18 (4 years ago) Permalink
cuz there's no Coppola Godfather w/out his influence
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 26 January 2009 21:19 (4 years ago) Permalink
no i don't like any visconti. (or fellini.)
such is the mysterious way influence works.
― Doom Passantino (special guest stars mark bronson), Monday, 26 January 2009 21:27 (4 years ago) Permalink
Unless there's stats to support this, bullshit.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 26 January 2009 22:20 (4 years ago) Permalink
rosenbaum firmly believes that all any popular american filmmaker has ever done is rip off europe (note deliberate use of "movies," as opposed to foreign "films"). it's a running theme throughout pretty much all of his work, tho i hadn't previously seen him take it so far as to dismiss "citizen kane" as "white elephant art" or "a studio sucker-punch."
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 26 January 2009 23:50 (4 years ago) Permalink
maybe i've just read too much movie criticism but i'm really getting weary of the whole "white elephant vs termite art" thing.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 26 January 2009 23:53 (4 years ago) Permalink
I like Rosenbaum, but every critic eventually gets impaled by his own rickety schematics, but Kael rode her contradictions to greater aesthetic success; you can't reduce her to a position on the Farber scale.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 26 January 2009 23:58 (4 years ago) Permalink
"ok no this is very offtm."
Have you even seen the version I'm talking about?
― Alex in SF, Tuesday, 27 January 2009 00:00 (4 years ago) Permalink
yes! if we're thinking of the same thing, this is what they often show on cable. i've only seen it once, and i don't remember all of the differences to go into detail unfortunately; but from what i remember, the extra scenes didnt really do anything for me, and the linearization of the story kinda disrupted the emotional arc and watered it down, at least they way i had remembered it (and wanted to remember it). some things just aren't meant to be fucked with.that said, i'm sure someone who's never seen either of the first two could watch the long, combined version and think it's great. I just think it's inferior to the two individual movies
― BIGrack HOOSein Obama (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 January 2009 00:27 (4 years ago) Permalink
They are still showing it on cable? Why won't they release it on DVD then? Such jerks.
It's been over 15 years since I saw that version, but I found the Michael half of Part II much improved by not having to compare it to the far superior DeNiro half. But to each their own.
― Alex in SF, Tuesday, 27 January 2009 00:31 (4 years ago) Permalink
Well from that perspective, i can certainly see why you'd like that version better. i've never gotten why people disliked the michael part of pt II so much though (mostly comparatively, but still). i can see the point that it drags a little, but michael is such a dynamic character! as someone said upthread, the way he goes from such a sympathetic character to someone worthy of hate is remarkable (though i never really hated him; i've found the cognitive dissonance he effects to be most interesting).
― BIGrack HOOSein Obama (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 January 2009 00:45 (4 years ago) Permalink
The problem is that by the point that II starts he's already an unsympathetic character so basically you are just watching half a movie on a guy who starts out being a monster and ends being a monster.
― Alex in SF, Tuesday, 27 January 2009 00:52 (4 years ago) Permalink
i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but for me, his actions at the end of I/start of II arent condonable yeah but it seems like he's getting into it for the right reasons, and he's completely reluctant to even get into the biz at all. it's by the end of II with the whole wife thing and fredo thing that he really passes the point of no return for me
― BIGrack HOOSein Obama (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 January 2009 01:33 (4 years ago) Permalink
Uh I don't even know how to respond to that. . . since it's so completely wrong on so many levels.
― Alex in SF, Tuesday, 27 January 2009 01:36 (4 years ago) Permalink
I think the door's thud at the end of I is sposed to indicate Point of No Return.
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 27 January 2009 14:24 (4 years ago) Permalink
getting back to thread topic, I >> II
― A Good Story (special guest stars mark bronson), Tuesday, 27 January 2009 14:26 (4 years ago) Permalink
bronson is def enrique, right
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 27 January 2009 18:40 (4 years ago) Permalink
Is preferring I to II some sort of quintessentially enriquean opinion?
― Eric H., Tuesday, 27 January 2009 18:58 (4 years ago) Permalink
no, that wasn't really a piece of evidence.
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 27 January 2009 19:02 (4 years ago) Permalink
what do peeps think of the book? i just started it, it's a pretty enjoyable trashy page-turner! and i like how it fills in a lot of blanks.― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, August 11, 2006 5:25 PM (2 years ago) Bookmark
― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, August 11, 2006 5:25 PM (2 years ago) Bookmark
the book's great!! i just started reading it last week, am about 300 pages in. (actually is the 2nd time i've read it - first time when i was 15 or so, so i didn't remember much)
but yea, really enjoyable trashy page-turner. i love it, so entertaining. all the secondary characters are great, too - johnny fontane, lucy mancini, nino, the hollywood stuff, etc. those chapters are awesome.
it helps too to have the movie's cast in mind when reading, and prob makes the book that much stronger.
btw i've seen the movies a ton of times, would probably pick pt. I. but after i finish the book i'm gonna watch em over again (I & II, at least. i don't really need to see III ever again).
― mark cl, Thursday, 28 May 2009 15:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
I like part 2 better because Cazale is spellbinding in it.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 28 May 2009 21:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
can i see 2 without having seen 1? it's playing at the theater
― I love rainbow cookies (surm), Sunday, 2 August 2009 17:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
how confused would i be? i'm one of those people who has trouble following murder she wrote, remember
― I love rainbow cookies (surm), Sunday, 2 August 2009 17:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
Hell no man. I mean...it's not extremely connected to the first one since it takes place years later, but for you to appreciate Michael Corleone's character arc, you have to see the first, otherwise you won't get it.
Gotta have the context. if you have time to spare, rent Godfather, watch it, the ngo to Godfather 2
― Elvin Wayburn Phillips, Sunday, 2 August 2009 17:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
ok, thank u
― I love rainbow cookies (surm), Sunday, 2 August 2009 17:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
very confused imo
― SBed à part (s1ocki), Sunday, 2 August 2009 17:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
yea you'd probably be like "why do they keep flashing back to this dude growing up in Italy for?"
― Elvin Wayburn Phillips, Sunday, 2 August 2009 17:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
not too much. There are several characters from the first one that appear as younger versions of themselves in the "origin story" plot, that, not having seen the first one, their appearances wouldn't be as significant.
Robert de Niro plays the Marlon Brando character as a young man. Marlon Brando died in the first one. Al Pacino plays his son as an adult. There was another brother, Sonny, that was going to take over from Marlon, but he was killed. Al originally didn't want to work in the family business, but he ended up doing so after Sonny was killed.
― free jazz and mumia (sarahel), Sunday, 2 August 2009 17:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
yyyyeah i guess, the flashback scenes might not mean all that much to you, though they'll still be cool. might be nice to read a quick non-spoiler synopsis of pt 1 before going to 2?
xpost ok i basically agree w/ EWP, but if you've put seeing this off for this long, you might never get around to it so i say go for it. i'm gonna guess you'll like it enough to watch both multiple times so it won't matter much
― 8080's and internet break (k3vin k.), Sunday, 2 August 2009 17:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
just can't imagine someone not having seen Godfather. that has to be the only movie I've seen more than 10 times....
― Elvin Wayburn Phillips, Sunday, 2 August 2009 17:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah which is why he should jump into this while he can and love it and want to see the first and then watch both again!
― 8080's and internet break (k3vin k.), Sunday, 2 August 2009 17:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
buy a fedora too
― Elvin Wayburn Phillips, Sunday, 2 August 2009 17:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
I've seen the first one and it still took ~3 viewings of Part II before I actually understood the whole thing. To be fair though it wasn't the flashbacks that confused me, it was everything in Cuba.
― franny glass, Sunday, 2 August 2009 17:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
yea but to be fair that whole cuba thing was extremely confusing.
I found reading the book clarified the first film a lot
― Elvin Wayburn Phillips, Sunday, 2 August 2009 18:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
Totally.
You really do need to see the first one first. I saw the third one first, and was all WTF the entire time.
― the monte cristo is like the greatest collective cry for help (B.L.A.M.), Sunday, 2 August 2009 19:13 (3 years ago) Permalink
The Lucy Mancini's Giant Vagina subplot in the book is totally bizarre.
― tokyo rosemary, Sunday, 2 August 2009 23:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
it really, really is.
― SBed à part (s1ocki), Monday, 3 August 2009 00:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
skip 2 go straight to 3
― generic xanax order cialis buy viagra cheap tramadol (Dr. Phil), Monday, 3 August 2009 00:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
what bizarro world are YOU living in?
― Cyberdune Butt (Elvin Wayburn Phillips), Monday, 3 August 2009 00:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
Watch Tetro instead.
― sir-mounter (Eric H.), Monday, 3 August 2009 00:29 (3 years ago) Permalink
There's a hot 18-year-old boy in it.
I slightly prefer 1, but 2 really is fantastic and one of the few movies to do the prequel/origin story concept right, IMO.
― thank u for bringin us captain planet, dogg (latebloomer), Monday, 3 August 2009 00:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
watch Tron first and then see Godfather II. It'll make more sense...
― Cyberdune Butt (Elvin Wayburn Phillips), Monday, 3 August 2009 00:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Love Theme from Godfather II" (Bangalter/Homem-Christo)
― sir-mounter (Eric H.), Monday, 3 August 2009 00:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
Both of them are kind of only ok though, the first is good for how hot Al Pacino was back then though.
I disagree with the first half of this sentence, but the second half is very true.
Also:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ioUIF-hSXD8&hl=en&fs=1&";></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ioUIF-hSXD8&hl=en&fs=1&"; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
― franny glass, Monday, 3 August 2009 03:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
Oh god dammit. Here:
― franny glass, Monday, 3 August 2009 03:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
the first one I can sit down and enjoy in much the same way as I can enjoy any of the Man With No Name westerns. Like you got all this incredibly overcooked art-directed-to-death scenery and half the cast is gnawing on it like crazy and the other half is staring at them like "I don't understand the language of these ridiculous people from the Unstoic Lands. It must be because I have the largest and steeliest balls ever filmed." Then the musical score comes and kicks you in the head three or four times. You know, good hangover movies.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
watched II on TV last night, there were definitely some scenes missing (Fredo lets himself get pushed around in front of Michael by some of the Vegas mobsters right at the beginning of II, right?) and it didn;t seem to make as much sense as the only other time I've seen it. Still great.
― all i gotta do is akh nachivly (darraghmac), Monday, 3 January 2011 04:16 (2 years ago) Permalink
Maybe that's one of the extra scenes that turned up in the sequential 6-hour version that was shown on television once? There's no scene like that at the beginning of II, which (after the stuff with young Vito back in Sicily) begins with the big party at the Corleone compound in Nevada where Michael donates a huge sum of money to the university...which you know because you just watched it. The scene you think might be missing isn't missing, though.
― clemenza, Monday, 3 January 2011 04:42 (2 years ago) Permalink
well, it wasn't right at the beginning, but i can definitely recall a scene near the start where fredo gets slapped around and it ends with michael telling him never to takes sides with anyone against the family again- it strengthened the b/g for fredo's discontent for certain. never seen the 6hr sequential version, i've caught II on DVD previously.
― all i gotta do is akh nachivly (darraghmac), Monday, 3 January 2011 04:50 (2 years ago) Permalink
Now I realize what you mean--the Moe Greene scene. That's in the first film, about 2/3 of the way in. I didn't realize the sequential version was still available.
― clemenza, Monday, 3 January 2011 05:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
"I don't understand the language of these ridiculous people from the Unstoic Lands. It must be because I have the largest and steeliest balls ever filmed."
this sentence is making me lose my shit right now and of course its written by TOMBOT
<3
― dayo, Monday, 3 January 2011 05:27 (2 years ago) Permalink
ah, that explains it. been too long since i saw first one.
― all i gotta do is akh nachivly (darraghmac), Monday, 3 January 2011 05:50 (2 years ago) Permalink
http://vimeo.com/24595172
sam fuller doing a screentest as hymen roth
― Princess TamTam, Saturday, 4 June 2011 15:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
That's really something. I was expecting the worst, but as an actor, Fuller's suprisingly okay--better here than in Pierrot le fou. The problem is that he looks criminal. One of the things that makes Lee Strasberg so indelible is that he's just a kindly-looking old man watching college football on a Saturday afternoon.
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 June 2011 16:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
As a drama assignment, I always have my grade 6 students perform famous movie scenes (picked by me, of course--we run a top-down operation around here). A couple of my boys did the big Michael-Fredo scene from GFII this year:
One of them was a kid who's generally very quiet, but much to my surprise, he really pulled out all the stops. You just haven't lived until you've seen an 11-year-old cry out, "I was your older brother, Mike, and I was stepped over!"
― clemenza, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
the Max Clemenza Fischer Players
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 15:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
serious question: do you folks think that the godfather part ii is enjoyable/comprehensable even if you haven't seen part i? i'm tempted to show the 2nd part in a college course but i don't want the folks (i imagine at least 50%) who haven't seen the first one to feel alienated.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 01:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think most of your students who hadn't seen I (hard for me to believe, it's on TV so incessantly) would still experience II as a great stand-alone film. What they'd miss are resonances and echoes that they wouldn't know they're missing. And I'm sure I'm not alone in having found parts of II confusing even after seeing I. (Think I finally figured out everything eventually.)
― clemenza, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 02:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
my second guess is that less than 25–30% of them will have seen the first. of course, i can always suggest that in the weeks leading up to the 2nd one, that they find 3 hours and watch the first one. i don't think anyone would mind that.
it's not important that they grasp every last plot point, just that they not be so distracted by what they're missing that they'll feel resentful or alienated, or tune out.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 02:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
I always have my grade 6 students perform famous movie scenes
Very curious to see what scenes you force 12 year olds to perform.
― jungleous butterflies strange birds (Eric H.), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 02:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think GFII has a tighter script and a somewhat more compelling story arc. The cast seems stronger, too. Brando was not at his top form in GF. Last Tango was in the rear view miror and Superman was just over the next horizon. otoh, Pacino reined in his histrionics much more than he usually did and it helps GFII a lot.
Sure, go ahead and show II. It can stand alone.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 02:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
amateurist: is there any reason you're not just showing the first one?
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 02:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Blue Velvet, Straw Dogs, like that--and yes, forcibly, often to the point where they're in tears.
Other answer: Duck Soup, The Wizard of Oz, Breakfast at Tiffany's, The Graduate (the "Oh no, it's completely baked" scene), Lost in America (interview for crossing-guard job), It's a Wonderful Life, The Hustler ("You owe me money..."), Ninotchka, etc. The GF II scene above and Marge's interrogation at the dealership in Fargo are about as far as I push it. (xpost)
I had the same question--wouldn't it just be easier to spend an extra three hours and show both?
― clemenza, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 02:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Last Tango was in the rear view mirror
So to speak...
― clemenza, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 02:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
Just a bit of chronological fudging on my part. Both released in 1972. Not sure when they were each shot. Tango is easily the more estimable Brando performance. Far less gimmicky.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 02:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'd kill to see a college prof/TA have his students act out scenes from zardoz ... though it's obv not appropriate for sixth graders (not even in this time and era).
― Nu Metal is the best music there is, the rest is pussy shit. (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 02:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
I was referring to an infamous scene, Aimless.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 03:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, April 30, 2012 9:14 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
a few reasons: i've got the early '70s covered, a lot of folks have seen #1 already, and most important, #2 helps me make some points i want to make better than #1. although part of me wants to show "mandingo" or "foxy brown" for the mid-70s.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 03:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp to clemenza
(a fly wends in and out of Aimless's mouth, unmolested, as he gapes, glassy-eyed)
Wuh? Oh. Yup a yup! Gotcha! Sumpin' doin' wit' butter, or sumpin'.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 03:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
what other films are you showing?
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 06:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't even want to go through it since it's really in flux right now. can someone think of a good film to use to teach about fairly early (mid-90s?) digital postproduction (in particular, CGI but not exclusively CGI) that's not Jurassic Park??
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
not that i have anything against j.p.
T2 was 92 wasn't it?
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
maybe you can show a few key scenes from the first one?
― ryan, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
on topic: maybe the first one is an objectively greater movie, but the melancholy drift (that slow and steady way we become someone we hate) of part two is always very moving to me.
― ryan, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah i think part II is even more of a hybrid between a traditional american genre and a European-style art film than the 1st. it's the ambitious narrative structure, languid pacing, etc.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
part ii seems snappier and more action oriented than part i, though. just in terms of pacing it feels a lot more like superman ii than superman i, even though superman i is the one that has the idyllic old country scenes and the backstory and whatnot.
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
there are definitely more and bigger action setpieces, but it's also like 4 hours long
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think i might have watched the chopped up tv version.
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
hell maybe i'll watch the two godfathers tonight, make a night of of it.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
or at least pt. 2.
i've been meaning to revisit them myself -- tbh i've always found them a little hard to love, as great as they certainly are.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
see, i think the tv version (which arranges everything chronologically) basic saps out all the lyricism from part 2. also this is a bit of an idiosyncratic reading, but i always imagined that the flashbacks in part 2 were Michael's romantic imaginings of his father's rise, hence the final flashback which does seem to be Michael's memory.
― ryan, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's not very romantic, though! papa corleone is pretty much a thug.is the video game worth playing? it was supposed to incorporate some weird brando resurrection technology.
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ryan's interpretation is interesting--I've never heard that proposed before.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, May 1, 2012 5:25 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
i completely agree, but it's hard to avoid them if you're teaching a class.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
I thought the second one was "objectively" the better one, in the sense that it's got qualities most critics prefer: less pulpy, slower, emphasis on chiaroscuro, foreign languages.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
i guess the game is not so good:'They never asked me if I thought it was a good idea. I went and I took a look at what it was ... What they do is they use the characters everyone knows and they hire those actors to be there and only to introduce very minor characters. And then for the next hour they shoot and kill each other. I had absolutely nothing to do with the game and I disapprove. I think it's a misuse of the film.'
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
hard to agree that de niro's corleone is presented as a thug, tbh.
― Newsy of the Worldy (darraghmac), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
Youth lends a certain glamor to thuggery. Also, golden, suffusing light.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
in the context of the story more effort is arguably put into making his descent into violence understandable or sympathetic than in justifying much or all of the other violence we see?
― Newsy of the Worldy (darraghmac), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 23:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
imyo
― Newsy of the Worldy (darraghmac), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 23:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
vito's or michael's descent?
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 23:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
Lots of shots of Vito and his family enjoying their company (to emphasize their father's love) and bitter at their poverty so that the audience accepts why he chose crime. Also: the local obese white-suited Italian boss is made a sleaze compared to hollow-cheeked taciturn Vito.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 23:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
yep, and the backstory from the old country etc also.
― Newsy of the Worldy (darraghmac), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 23:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
Vito's whole shtick since Part I is that family absolves all sins, but i dunno if the audience is meant to buy it, except to the extent that Michael destroys his family.
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 23:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
and to the extent that Michael even loves his family.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 23:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
Watched I and II over the weekend.
I - I adore Brando, not so much his delivery but all the small things he does to add color to Vito. The way he casually brushes off Solazzo's pants at the sit-down, that opening scene with the cat...he feels like a real person, somehow? I read Kael's review and I like the thing she said about how Brando internalizes all of the power of the Don. It's like his violent past is buried deep in his old man soul so you can feel his power just by him being in the room. And the quietness of Pacino just gets me. He's so measured and good in the beginning, and then measured and ready, and tough; and then measured and calculating.
II - I've only seen it once before. I def found the details of the story a lot more confusing, especially the Roth connections and the double-play Michael was making about his suspicions on who shot him up at Tahoe...but the DeNiro scenes were fantastic. And the way it was like the thread you were watching going forwards with DeNiro, by contrast wtih Pacino it's like even though he's building that empire you're seeing him lose everything that Vito gained. All through I, Vito is surrounded by associates and family and friends adn everyone is so close to him, the parties seem like huge extended families...but Michael has everyone on a pending kill list, even his own family. I have been thinking a lot about what exactly it was that bred that impulse in Michael, as though he misinterpreted the shooting of his father as a call to arms to shoot everyone who crossed his path from then on.
The last couple of scenes of II really slayed me though. That table scene with Sonny, Fredo, Michael and Connie and I'm kind of teary just on the weight of seeing them all alive again, lol. And then Michael staring out at the lake alone at that big mansion.
Oh, and I adore the score. Adore it. Maybe moreso in I than II though. I it was much more noticeable, felt much more like a radio melodrama with its musical cues.
sorry for the blather I've just had it in my head all day and had to get it out!
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Monday, 20 August 2012 21:13 (9 months ago) Permalink
It was only over many viewings that that most of the details in II started to fall in place--there are probably still a couple that I couldn't fully explain. (E.g.: Why does Michael go off on Pentangeli the way he does during his "In my home" tirade? He seems to have made up his mind by that point that it was Roth who set him up, not Pentangeli.) My favourite line from the flashback dinner scene: "Talked to my father about my future? My future."
― clemenza, Monday, 20 August 2012 21:29 (9 months ago) Permalink
YES. That killed me.
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Monday, 20 August 2012 21:39 (9 months ago) Permalink
I loved Fredo's speech in the chair to Michael too, the one you said some of the kids in your class performed upthread; the way he's flailing around helplessly in that stupid chair while simultaneously pleading for respect was hilarious and sad.
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Monday, 20 August 2012 21:41 (9 months ago) Permalink
Coppola notepad
http://cinephilearchive.tumblr.com/post/39323234557
― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 9 January 2013 13:35 (4 months ago) Permalink
I really think evidence that Coppola even fleetingly considered the Indian chief from "F Troop" for Don Corleone to be p significant.
― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 9 January 2013 16:49 (4 months ago) Permalink
TS: Anthony Zerbe as Sonny Corleone vs. Anthony Zerbe as Tom Hagen
― Gollum: "Hot, Ready and Smeagol!" (Phil D.), Wednesday, 9 January 2013 16:53 (4 months ago) Permalink
I didn't realize Zerbe was in his mid 30s at the time, always seemed older.
― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 9 January 2013 16:54 (4 months ago) Permalink
The theatre where I saw II last night was giving these out at the door:
I'm sure this has been raised many times, but I'd never thought about how puzzling the timeline is jumping from II to III. II ends sometime after 1958--within a year, say. III is set in 1979. Mary is around, what, 6 or 7 in II? That'd make her late 20s in III. But isn't Sofia Coppola supposed to be 18 or 19 in III? Or am I mixing up the actress's age with the character's?
― clemenza, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 00:27 (3 months ago) Permalink
yeah that whole thing did my head in, I had to stop thinking about it
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Wednesday, 13 February 2013 00:31 (3 months ago) Permalink
Literally the first time I'd ever thought about it, primarily because I try never to think about III.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 00:37 (3 months ago) Permalink
did you know today was the day don michael corleone traveled forward in time to die on at the end of godfather 3?
― christmas candy bar (al leong), Wednesday, 13 February 2013 00:46 (3 months ago) Permalink
I watched them back to back a while ago (or at least, within a day or two of each other)...such a bad idea.
You need a xanax to deal wtih the transition
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Wednesday, 13 February 2013 00:47 (3 months ago) Permalink
I did II and III within a couple of days of each other too. It's interesting to see up close just what happens to the functioning of it all when you tear out the European art film element and replace it wholesale with a US soap element.
― hot young stalin (Merdeyeux), Wednesday, 13 February 2013 02:56 (3 months ago) Permalink
It took me a good hour to stop saying GAH! MY EYES
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Wednesday, 13 February 2013 02:58 (3 months ago) Permalink
i really loved III when i saw it at the movies. but i was 15 and i was so damned in love with sofia coppola. can't face seeing it again.
― SOYLENT GREEN IS SHEEPLE (stevie), Wednesday, 13 February 2013 08:33 (3 months ago) Permalink