what's so great about the godfather?

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing that I think is interesting about Godfather (and many gangster films, for that matter, but more so for this one) is that the protagonists are BAD guys. They are, for the most part, despicable human beings (Michael is an exception), but we end up heavily rooting for them and becoming emotionally attached to their characters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this was unusual for the time, and was one of the wonders of the film. It was also a breathtaking look at capitalism and the social goals tied in with it. Vito Corleone was an entrepreneur, the truest kind of American that could ever be produced, in his way. He was simply one without morality, at least in a conventional sense. In the same way that capitalism, and really the world at large, is essentially without morality. His tribal sense of morality rings a bell with all of us easily, even if we decry it, which many of us don't. What is the family but the first tribe? That infantile morality can resonate and hold value well into adulthood, and join battle strongly with anything we would like to think more evolved. Vito Corleone was Horatio Alger with a pistol. How could we not cheer his repulsive rise?

[AceLuby]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I first saw it in the theater, I felt it was the best movie I had ever seen. Everything about it: the acting, the story, the music. It was the first movie where the violence was so palpable. There are so many memorable scenes: the wedding, the horsehead, Michael shooting Salazzo and the cop, Grandpa Vito playing with his grandson when he dies, and, of course, the Sicily scenes, the final shot of the look on Kay's face as the door closes on the new Godfather. I've never seen a more entertaining movie.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have the DVD (it goes for $10 or so) watch the film with Coppola's comments. He apparently came close to getting fired (I think the raw footage of the shooting scene in the restaurant saved him) and corners had to be cut everywhere. Very entertaining to sat the least.

Godfather 2 was very good but I agree with the other poster. The 1920's scenes with DeNiro were A+ but the follow on story to the original Godfather was a cut below. Still a great achievement.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Main reason for this: The 1920's stuff w/ Vito is in the book and the stuff after Vito died (the 'current' Michael plot) was not in the book and added to the movie. The big reason why GF3 was so terrible.

For the poster that didn't understand my post, what's not to understand? The movie glosses over many of the details that the book dives very heavily into. The book tells the story so much better, but the movie does a decent job of capturing the most important parts.

I was very fortunate to read the book first and watch the movies after (all 3 at once no less which is AWESOME!!!).

[DrewDevil]

The final shot of the film (the door closing over Diane Keaton's worried face) is the greatest shot in the history of the movies and I get chills every time I see it. I have chills now just thinking about it.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
The final shot of the film (the door closing over Diane Keaton's worried face) is the greatest shot in the history of the movies and I get chills every time I see it. I have chills now just thinking about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to show us your "O" face?

[DrewDevil]

O -- O -- O --

[TOVegasRound10]

Don't forget the cannolis!!

Now that sums it all up!

[Kimbell175113]

AceLuby,

I love the Godfather novel, but at heart it's really just a trashy pulpy beach read (and not all that well written, even just compared to Puzo's other novels). MP had written a few critically lauded books, but he wasn't making any money, so he decided to just crank out something meant solely for popularity and commercial success. It worked. THEN in the film version he and Coppola took the time and applied the artistry to make it great and layered with symbolism and overarching thematic elements. It worked.

Again, I love the novel, but what I'm saying is 1) just because the book seems to have more stuff doesn't mean it's better (most of the great symbolism in the film works on you unconsciously), and 2) Puzo was very involved in the writing of all the films, so saying the plot from the book is good and the newer stories original to the screenplays are bad is oversimplified and doesn't really make sense, imo.

[orange]

goodfellas is a more accurate depiction of the mob imo. i still really like godfather, though goodfellas is my fav movie.

[AceLuby]

[ QUOTE ]
AceLuby,

I love the Godfather novel, but at heart it's really just a trashy pulpy beach read (and not all that well written, even just compared to Puzo's other novels). MP had written a few critically lauded books, but he wasn't making any money, so he decided to just crank out something meant solely for popularity and commercial success. It worked. THEN in the film version he and Coppola took the time and applied the artistry to make it great and layered with symbolism and overarching thematic elements. It worked.

Again, I love the novel, but what I'm saying is 1) just because the book seems to have more stuff doesn't mean it's better (most of the great symbolism in the film works on you unconsciously), and 2) Puzo was very involved in the writing of all the films, so saying the plot from the book is good and the newer stories original to the screenplays are bad is oversimplified and doesn't really make sense, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

GF3 was a travesty, mostly because of the acting, but the writing wasn't nearly on par w/ the other 2. I was also only giving a possible reason why people like GF1 and the Vito part in GF2, but don't like the new Michael stuff in GF2 or 3. Seems like a common denominator to me.

I also have to respectfully disagree that the film does a better job at the symbolism. You miss a lot of it by not knowing the details the book provides. Obviously just my opinion here, and I'm not saying the movie is bad by any stretch, I'm just trying to convert some of the nay sayers to read the whole story and give the movie another try.

[LonesomeFugitive]

[ QUOTE ]

I was also only giving a possible reason why people like GF1 and the Vito part in GF2, but don't like the new Michael stuff in GF2 or 3. Seems like a common denominator to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Vito scenes in GF2 are so good that it took away from the Michael story in GF2. Michael is struggling to save the Corleone family, he almost got killed in his own home, his marriage is falling apart, his enemies are out to get him etc etc. All the Vito stuff takes away attention from the great personal + business struggle that Michael is going through. He is fighting to survive here.