The Godfather

J

jobie g

New member
I can't believe I just saw The Godfather for the 1st time! :eek: :D

It was worth seeing, but a long movie.

The Godfather (1972): 4/5

A long movie, and a bit slow in places but a good movie. Al Pacino was outstanding but Marlon Brando seemed to be mumbling. He looked old even in 1972, and obviously felt talking was best done with the mouth barely open, and in a voice on which all Brando impersonations appear to be based. Can't believe he won an Oscar! :D Though he didn't accept it.
I had heard about the famous "horse's head" scene but hadnt seen it before. :eek:
The scene where Sonny's wife (I think) screams at him and destroys crockery when she's spoken to another woman on the phone was disturbing :(
It was interesting how Pacino's character changed, I thought he became a complete asshole :mad: At the start of the movie, he doesn't want to follow his father into the family.
Not sure why this was an 18 back in the day, the BBFC downgraded it to a 15.
The remastered transfer on the DVD is amazing.
Interestingly, the Johnny Fontaine character is played by Al Martino, in 1952 he had the 1st ever UK Number One hit, with Here In My Heart.
I liked some of the music in the film, and the characters sometimes speaking Italian really added to the atmosphere.
 
Glad you enjoyed it grimtales1. But the real classic is Godfather II. It's an astounding film and Pacino is jaw-dropping in it. You won't believe what he gets up to :D
 
I didn't really like it the first time i saw it either, but i gave it another shot about 2 or 3 years later and it grew on me considerably. I've now got the Blu Ray boxset, and it looks stunning in High Def.
 
Indeed. If you're only used to the post-Scarface scenery chewing Pacino acting then The Godfather must be a bit of a revelation. I'd recommend also seeing 'Dog Day Afternoon'.
 
I don't think it is slow. It is essentially a character study, so those looking for action and sex and quick scenes should look elsewhere!



Brando's performance is exceptional, difficult to appreciate now that it has been parodied so much, but it really conveys the burden and pride of the character. He was wearing age make-up to look older, and the voice was something he came up with for the character (by shoving cotton wool in his mouth for the auditions.)



That is what the trilogy is about! The rise and fall - and corruption of - Michael Corleone. You see his gradual descent and how the taste of power corrupts his soul.
 
I saw it for the first time maybe 2 years ago. It was okay, but I was left somewhat puzzled as to why people talk about it as one of the greatest films of all time.

Kind of hard to see Brando's performance as anything other than hilariously bad, but is that just because of all the parodies over the years? Maybe.

I thought James Caan was the standout; I've never thought much of Al Pacino and I didn't here either.

I'm always suspiscious that these films are so highly rated more because some people get excited by anything with gangsters in it (much like Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction) rather than on merit.
 
Could not agree more. How he did not win the Oscar that year. I am not Pacino's biggest fan, personally I think he has a tendency to over act but not hear. In fact I would go as far as to say that is the greatest performance I have seen.
 
This history of the making of the film was riddled in scandal and acquiring the cast had a lot of stories and gossip surrounding it.

It wasn't a film that was heading towarRAB being disliked but a film that was going to be admired no matter what because it struggled to be made and people went on and on about a film about the mafia and their taking over of Vegas and supposedly talking about family problems - because everybody knew the Mafia was family and Sicillian oriented.

It's an ok film but it's not that good.
 
I saw it for the first time a few weeks ago (followed by Part II) a few days ago. I couldn't say which is better as I think the films work best when viewed as a whole.

I absolutely adore Al Pacino (although admittedly was more familiar with his later roles eg. Donnie Brasco, Carlito's Way) so to see him as a young man was quite something! His acting is simply superb, as was everyone else involved (especially, to agree with an above post, James Caan as Sonny - outstanding, and so lovely to see him in the closing scene of Part II).

However, I don't think the films are quite as good as they are made out to be, but perhaps I need to see them more than once to appreciate them to their full extent, as suggested above.

Overall, though, from the perspective of a 21-year-old female who has only recently discovered the 'gangster film' as a genre, they were very very good films. I have the third also but haven't watched it yet as some people say not to bother as it is nowhere near the standard of the first two - should I watch it or is this true?
 
I enjoyed the third. It brings home a lot of things and creates things full circle. It doesn't rely upon the extreme subtlety of the earlier films so everything is more cohesive and balanced. You know what is going to happen, you can see more depth of character - it's a fairly decent film.

I think the Godfather first two films are an oddity. Obviously great in terms of a reconstruction of Italian Mafia evolution it stays dark and cold a lot - probably why it appeals to males more than females because of the brooding testosterone and chauvinism in the films.

Anyway, if you have seen the first two, there is no denying you must see the third because some things occur to the characters you have discovered in the first two that you can't really miss. I think the "Don't see the third" agenda is just film goer snobbery.
 
I have seen "The Godfather" many times. I am totally into the gangster genre, "Scarface" the original and the Al Pacino remake.... "Goodfellas" which I love...."Casino" which is very good and "A Bronx Tale" is great too.

It's interesting to know.....Marlon Brando had to audition to get this part in "The Godfather" and they were interested in others for that role...which seems custom made for Marlon.

Look at Al Pacino in the first two "Godfather" films and you will be able to pick-up the plastic surgery he had not too many years later...it's noticable in his later films.

If you read the book....honestly....it's a really good read and really interesting.
 
The Godfather trilogy suffers with what I call "Sgt. Pepper Syndrome". :p

It's built-up beyond belief so that when you finally get round to it, you're only ever going to be disappointed.

I've always thought the films were much better in hinRABight, a few days after I actually watched them I was like, "Wow! That was amazing!", but was rather underwhelmed while actually watching it.
 
I agree. Part 3 is a very good film and well made. In comparison with the majority of films it is excellent. Perhaps it doesn't scale the heights of the first two - but as the first two are considered among the greatest films of all time, that can be expected.

The criticism of Part 3 has become the 'thing to do'. But there really isn't any weakness (apart from Sifia Coppola) and it does deal with a very different time and story.
 
I think people watching them for the first time are perhaps waiting for that monumental moment to occur. But really, it is the immaculate quality of the films and the way they can immerse you if you are free of pre-concieved expectations. When you think back, you realise how well made and complex they are.
 
I agree. Godfather parts 1 and 2 remain two of the finest films ever made..in my opinion. Some of the elaborate set pieces are extraordinary by any standarRAB.
Both 10/10 for me..part 3 is not in the same league as the other two but still better than most movies of the genre.
 
Back
Top