The Godfather

yellowdoyle · #1 11-27-2006, 10:13 PM

Hello all. I just watched this movie last night for the first time in my post-teenage years. I thought the movie was very good, but maybe a bit slow and drawn out. I really enjoyed Brando, and thought the Pacino was wonderful.

I had this DVD at home from netflix when I saw IMDB had it at number 1. Not that I am saying IMDB is the authority when it comes to movies, but this is what made me decide to watch it right then.

After watching it, I wonder if it really is worthy of the number 1 ranking. Is it really that good of a movie? I definitely enjoyed it, thought it was good, but THAT THAT good? Myself just being the casual movie fan, what may I have missed that would push it to the top of the heap? I know repeated viewings are in order, but perhaps you guys can help.

Also, put in a word or two on parts II and III. Are they netflix worthy?

pryor15 · #2 11-27-2006, 10:18 PM

according to critical consensus, Part I is the 7th best film of all-time and Part II is #15

IMDB rankings are worthless

The Godfather is often called the grand Shakespearian epic of our times, and for good reason. it comes from an era where pacing wasn't so often dictated by the MTV mentality, so the story takes its time unfolding the way most of literature's great stories do.

also, Gordon Willis' cinematography is top-notch

Scotch78 · #3 11-27-2006, 11:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
what may I have missed that would push it to the top of the heap? I know repeated viewings are in order, but perhaps you guys can help.

[/ QUOTE ]

For me, it's the details that make this such a great movie, one worth multiple viewings. For example, when Michael and Enzo are standing outside the hospital and Enzo's hands are shaking too badly to light a cigarette. After helping Enzo out, Michael stares at his own hands for a second, then puts the lighter back in Enzo's pocket.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but it took me several viewings to realize that scene was showing Micheal realizing that his hands weren't shaking like Enzo's--that he had acted like a soldier rather than a civilian.

Scott

yellowdoyle · #4 11-28-2006, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
according to critical consensus, Part I is the 7th best film of all-time and Part II is #15

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this consensus? I would be interested in looking at it.

I will probably watch it again before I send it back to Netflix. I noticed that same thing you did, Scotch, I agree those little details really show care in film making.

wet work · #5 11-28-2006, 12:38 AM

Godfather II is another must see. As for pt. III, I like Artie Lang's analysis, buy the trilogy and watch I and II while you do coke off of the third disc case, that's about all it's good for.

pryor15 · #6 11-28-2006, 12:41 AM

http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top100films.htm

MafiaPrince · #7 11-28-2006, 10:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
according to critical consensus, Part I is the 7th best film of all-time and Part II is #15

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually like Part II a lot better than Part I..Am i in the minority?

Autocratic · #8 11-28-2006, 10:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
according to critical consensus, Part I is the 7th best film of all-time and Part II is #15

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually like Part II a lot better than Part I..Am i in the minority?

[/ QUOTE ]

I always thought Part II was considered superior by most.

SL__72 · #9 11-28-2006, 02:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]

IMDB rankings are worthless

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about that. I think there is some value in knowing what the general film viewing population thinks are the best films.

pryor15 · #10 11-28-2006, 02:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

IMDB rankings are worthless

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about that. I think there is some value in knowing what the general film viewing population thinks are the best films.

[/ QUOTE ]

i always think of the IMDB rankings as the equivalent of walking around a random mall and asking every single person who their favorite baseball player is all-time. Compared to putting, say, Bob Costas, Peter Gammons, and Nate Silver in a room to come up with the 10 best players of all-time.

is there value in the former? i guess, if you're interested in such things. does it have any real, "academic" value? no, of course not.

does any rational, intelligent film person anywhere think Memento (8.6) is a better film than The Searchers (7.8) or Manhattan (7.9)? No. Is it a more popular film among people who tend to be on the internet a lot? Probably, but the ranking are far too unscientific to be a reliable gague of anything.

edit: take, for example, the ratings for Why We Had to Kill Bitch (2003), quite possibly one of the worst films I've ever seen in my life. (and i've seen it a couple times. i know virtually all the people involved, so don't tell them i hate it.)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395811/ratings

it has a 5.9, from 124 votes. 86 of them were a 10. IMDB uses a weighted average to curtail this a bit, but still 5.9 is far too high of a score.

meanwhile, Sally Potter's Yes, a film that is better than many of the films in the IMDB top 250, has a 6.5