Let's talk Godfather

[thecuriousorange]

Goodfellas is better.

[chveik]

slightly edgier take: The Funeral is better.

[phantom_power]

What are people's opinions of the chronological edit? Is it better to see the film split up as originally released or is the family saga or whatever it is called the way to go?

[Dex Sawash]

Goodburger is better.

agreed

[thecuriousorange]

Father of the Bride (1991) is a spiritual sequel.

[Konki]

Goodfellas is better.

This is correct mainly because Goodfellas doesn't have an equivalent to that interminable Michael in Sicily passage.

[Lord Mandrake]

The camera angles were good.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Edgiest of a takes: The Freshman is better

[greenman]

Goodfellas is better.

The Godfather is more "cool gangster shit" than a lot of its hype makes it but it does have a bit more substance, Goodfellas is basically a load of cunts acting like cunts and suffering the consequences.

[Blumf]

Donnie Brasco, because the cunts aren't glamorous, they're just cunts.

[Gulftastic]

Donnie Brasco, because the cunts aren't glamorous, they're just cunts.

I mentioned Pacino and his shitty later career performances. I reckon Donnie Brasco might be his last truly great turn.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

just had a gander at his filmography and yeah that checks out

[oy vey]

just had a gander at his filmography and yeah that checks out

No love for Jack and Jill then.

Shit jokes aside, You Don't Know Jack is worth a look. True story that turns out to be true crime in the end.

[Johan Cruyff]

Extremely edgy take: Little Criminals is better

[kalowski]

I think it's a lovely bit of filmmaking how Coppola only really shows Luca Brasi failing. We hear about how frightening he is, and if I remember rightly, in the book he's responsible for cutting off the horse's head ("Khartoum"). But in the film we see him stumble over his words ("Your daughter...'s wedding... On the day of your daughter's wedding"), and see his death.
We see him fail, but we know how dangerous he was...

[mothman]

The story of how Clamenza came to replaced by Frank Five Angels in part two makes interesting reading. Talk about pissing on your chips.

Not something you ever hear said about Duvall's refusal to participate in Part 3.

[kalowski]

Just been reading about the actor who played Luca Brasi:

Montana became involved with the Colombo crime family in the late 1960s. Tall and very heavily built, his talents were mostly as an enforcer and an arsonist. He would tie a tampon to the tail of a mouse, dip it in kerosene, light it, and let the mouse run through a building, or he would put a candle in front of a cuckoo clock so that when the clock's bird would pop out the candle would be knocked over and start a fire. Eventually, Montana was jailed at Riker's Island. Upon being released, as a friend of the family, Montana acted as a bodyguard for many of the senior members of the Colombo Family.

Montana was very nervous about appearing opposite Brando; Francis Ford Coppola incorporated this real-life tension into several scenes, showing Brasi repeatedly practising (and later fumbling) his congratulations to Corleone.

[Sin Agog]

One of my main problems with Godfather 2 is I can't square how the cold, rat-like, emotionless De Niro became the avuncular, grandfatherly Brando.  They're just different characters.

[Epic Bisto]

Parts I & II are brilliant.  Everything was perfect: Gordon Willis' cinematography, Al Pacino genuinely acting and conveying a variety of emotions rather than impersonating Lionel Blair in panto, immaculate period detail, a music score that send shivers down your spine.

I think the richness comes from how well defined all the minor characters are. I don't mean Clemenza and Tessio, I mean people like Don Barzini, Willy Cicci, Al Neri, Frank Pentangeli

Agreed.  Frankie and Willy are two of my favourite characters in Part II.  As I mentioned before in the 'Uneccesary Sequels" thread, it's a real shame that Joe Spinell died before Part III went into production.  It would've been great to have had a massive Willy Cicci subplot in place of the ZASA!! crap.  However it was nice to see Al Neri and the non-murderous Sicilian bodyguard return for Part III.  It goes to show that Coppola didn't consider these characters as mere throwaways and gave them plenty of substantial stuff to do.

I think it's a lovely bit of filmmaking how Coppola only really shows Luca Brasi failing. We hear about how frightening he is, and if I remember rightly, in the book he's responsible for cutting off the horse's head ("Khartoum"). But in the film we see him stumble over his words ("Your daughter...'s wedding... On the day of your daughter's wedding"), and see his death.
We see him fail, but we know how dangerous he was...

Agreed again.  Coppola was always good at the minor details, and if anything it was probably part of his aim (and one that the Paramount bods were worried about) to not deify the mafia.  It's a wonderful touch, much like Barbet Schroeder's General Idi Amin Dada documentary where you spend most of your time thinking "this man is a blundering fool" before remembering how dangerous this bloke is.

[bgmnts]

One of my main problems with Godfather 2 is I can't square how the cold, rat-like, emotionless De Niro became the avuncular, grandfatherly Brando.  They're just different characters.

Just grandads innit.

Some of the stuff my mum has told me about what my bamps did in his hayday stunned me.

[Chollis]

Watching these bad boys (again) on the back of this thread. The first two are as magnificent as I remembered them.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through Part 3 right now and it is absolute dogshit isn't it? Reading around before I got into it, it seemed like maybe P3 got a bad rap and maybe I'd been too harsh and maybe it suffered due to it's comparison to the first two. I was so open to it just being a decent film in it's own right.

No. It really is fucking terrible. It's a cartoon. It's not Michael Corleone it's Al Pacino being Al Pacino. All the subtlety from the first films is discarded and rammed down your throat. Al Neri shouting "Mikey!" as the helicopter gunship descends on the Commission. Fucking hell. Just fuck off.

Why did they make this? I read a little bit briefly that FFC wanted this to be a Michael Corleone epilogue, separate from the Godfather p1/p2, but Paramount insisted on it being "Godfather P3". Either way it is fucking AIDS AND I HATE IT cheers

[Shit Good Nose]

maybe it suffered due to it's comparison to the first two.

That's how I've always approached its drubbing. 

I still think it's a good film (and yes - I have seen it fairly recently), and on its own I still think it's one of the great American crime epics.  I can get past the heightened melodrama and later Pacino, and even George Hamilton (who I think is pretty good in it, actually).  The only real problem I have with it is Sofia Coppola.  She really is REALLY bad in it, bad enough to leave a sour taste for the rest of the film.  Golden Raspberry awards x2 deserved, and then some.

I think its general reception has improved greatly over the years and I think more and more people have come around to it, at least to the point of acknowledging its good points (though it's important to note that loads of critics gave it very positive reviews when it came out originally).

It's interesting watching it as part of the chronological version that was released on laserdisc in the 90s, where the whole saga is presented as a single (VERY long) film (including quite a lot of stuff that never made it into any other released version of any part).  If anything it makes the change in look, style and tone of the third one stick out even more (whilst 1 and 2 merge together almost imperceptibly), but you do appreciate it more as the closing chapter rather than a sixteen year afterthought.

It's a shame 4 was never made, as the synopsis of the script always sounded pretty good I thought, plus no chance of Sofia being in it of course.

[Kelvin]

3 isn't a particularly good film, but it does have some excellent scenes, like Michael's confession, the stuff between him and whatshisname who takes over as godfather, and the final few minutes.

[Sin Agog]

Don't mind Sofia Coppola's presence.  She gives the movie a sorta Wesley Willis, Daniel Johnston-esque home made quality that I kinda like.  I actually think I find G3 more enjoyable than the second one.  I don't usually like the criticism '...but there's no one in this movie that I like,' but it kinda reflects my reaction to Godfather 2.  They killed off everyone with a beating heart or dialled down their screentime to insignificance.  We only spend time with this brooding vacuum of a man, Michael, and I'd rather not.  But somefuckinghow, come the third film, it's Michael who becomes the big emotional beating heart of the movie.  Godfather 3 is all basically a grand, unsubtle opera (which, lest we forget, began as a working class artform): big themes of redemption, religion and incest and the passing of the baton, played big, and I tend to finish the movie thinking, 'I quite liked that.'

[Shit Good Nose]

Don't mind Sofia Coppola's presence.  She gives the movie a sorta Wesley Wills, Daniel Johnston-esque home made quality that I kinda like.  I actually think I find G3 more enjoyable than the second one.  I don't usually like the criticism '...but there's no one in this movie that I like,' but it kinda reflects my reaction to Godfather 2.  They killed off everyone with a beating heart or dialled down their screentime to insignificance.  We only spend time with this brooding vacuum of a man, Michael, and I'd rather not.  But somefuckinghow, come the third film, it's Michael who becomes the big emotional beating heart of the movie.  Godfather 3 is all basically a grand, unsubtle opera (which, lest we forget, began as a working class artform): big themes of redemption, religion and incest and the passing of the baton, played big, and I tend to finish the movie thinking, 'I quite liked that.'

I've always said the first two Godfather films are operas in comparison to the book being a soap opera.  I guess in some ways you can say that 3 is a soap opera in comparison to 1 and 2.  Except that, unlike the book, 3 isn't shit.

[Sin Agog]

Probably the most unfortunate thing about it was them not being able to get Duvall.  Just smushing a son we'd never heard about into the role felt cheap.  Probably another aspect that would have been mitigated if it's been called The Death of Michael Corleone.

[Shit Good Nose]

Just smushing a son we'd never heard about into the role felt cheap.

?

It's an unrelated character played by George Hamilton.  Hagen has died prior to the film's beginning, and BJ Harrison (Hamilton) has taken on that role.

[Sin Agog]

Point.  Don't we get a couple of scenes with Hagen's son in there, too?  Michael saying I'm sorry for your loss etc.?

[Shit Good Nose]

Point.  Don't we get a couple of scenes with Hagen's son in there, too?  Michael saying I'm sorry for your loss etc.?

Yes, Andrew, played by John Savage.  Admittedly his role does little more than serve the off-screen premise that Tom has died, but he's also there as an innocent bystander caught in the middle of the Catholic church he loves and his own godfather (Michael). 

He also appears in the first film as a child.

So it's not a completely lame shoehorn - some thought did go into it. 

Further, it's not Coppola's fault that Duvall refused to return because he wanted the same money as Pacino.

[kalowski]

I'm watching a great B movie film noir called The Big Combo, which has Richard "Don Barzini" Conte as the bad guy.
He's great, head and shoulders above the rest, and it makes so much sense that Coppola used him in The Godfather.