Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I watched The Godfather the other day, and after doing some research on the net, it's the 2nd best movie ever made..
Now I'm not saying it was a bad movie, but nowhere even close to being 2nd best..I reckon it went on for ages without a really good plot..could someone tell me what in their opinion, makes The Godfather such a good movie..

Thanks in advance...

People getting whacked.

r3n3g8b0y wrote:So I watched The Godfather the other day, and after doing some research on the net, it's the 2nd best movie ever made..
Now I'm not saying it was a bad movie, but nowhere even close to being 2nd best..I reckon it went on for ages without a really good plot..could someone tell me what in their opinion, makes The Godfather such a good movie..

Thanks in advance...

The Godfather II is better

that's not very constructive is it

The Godfather and The Godfather II are regarded highly because they both are an incredible combination of casting, storytelling, direction, musical score, etc. It excelled in all of these categories and provided a different and fresh take on gangster movies; IIRC Stanley Kubrick (another renowned director: The Shining, 2001, etc) called Godfather the best movie ever made. Godfather redefined the gangster movie genre and raised the cinematic bar in general.

However like most classics you have to take into consideration the time it was released. Many films since The Godfather borrowed several elements that made that film a success and its influence is undeniable in almost every gangster-related piece of entertainment and pop-culture in general. Because of these qualities, classic films like the Godfather may not seem as great as its hype. This is also true with many past classics like Citizen Kane, Star Wars, King Kong, etc. Without nostalgia or an appreciation for what those classics did for the film industry they look weak in comparison to their hype especially since modern films are influenced heavily from them.

Cane wrote:The Godfather and The Godfather II are regarded highly because they both are an incredible combination of casting, storytelling, direction, musical score, etc. It excelled in all of these categories and provided a different and fresh take on gangster movies; IIRC Stanley Kubrick (another renowned director: The Shining, 2001, etc) called Godfather the best movie ever made. Godfather redefined the gangster movie genre and raised the cinematic bar in general.

However like most classics you have to take into consideration the time it was released. Many films since The Godfather borrowed several elements that made that film a success and its influence is undeniable in almost every gangster-related piece of entertainment and pop-culture in general. Because of these qualities, classic films like the Godfather may not seem as great as its hype. This is also true with many past classics like Citizen Kane, Star Wars, King Kong, etc. Without nostalgia or an appreciation for what those classics did for the film industry they look weak in comparison to their hype especially since modern films are influenced heavily from them. It can be hard to appreciate their greatness since the industry has evolved at an incredible rate especially if you don't have nostalgia for 'em.

thanks, thats true..

r3n3g8b0y wrote:So I watched The Godfather the other day, and after doing some research on the net, it's the 2nd best movie ever made..
Now I'm not saying it was a bad movie, but nowhere even close to being 2nd best..I reckon it went on for ages without a really good plot..could someone tell me what in their opinion, makes The Godfather such a good movie..

Thanks in advance...

Film in general has gotten a lot faster. A list of events that once took more than two hours to play out will now run in ninety minutes. This is why films these days are typically both more dense and shorter than they were in the 70s. This isn't to say films now are better or worse, but watching stuff from the 70s can take some getting used to. By modern standards Star Wars is slow.

Personally, I think the Godfather plays out perfectly. I don't think the change in Michael from war hero to head of a crime syndicate could be properly told in less time, nor do I think any further incidents could be added to the film. I'm not sure I'd put it in my personal top ten favourite movies, but it is very good.

You want to talk about a movie that critics rave about that's actually pretty damn boring, let's talk about Citizen Kane.

What makes The Godfather is what they said above plus it tells a great human story of survival, loyalty, betrayal and the fall from grace.

It's true that perceptions change based on what people are used to.

When I started reading Dickens I found it very hard going because he uses very long, multi-clause sentences compared to 20th century authors. I am by no means uneducated but I was not used to parsing his prose and building its meaning inside my head.

In the same way, modern audiences are conditioned by exposure to a lot of fast-paced, short form TV.

r3n3g8b0y wrote:So I watched The Godfather the other day, and after doing some research on the net, it's the 2nd best movie ever made..
Now I'm not saying it was a bad movie, but nowhere even close to being 2nd best..I reckon it went on for ages without a really good plot..could someone tell me what in their opinion, makes The Godfather such a good movie..

Thanks in advance...

Critics have tried to vote it down. Unfortunately, they forgot the number one rule: never go against the family.

What experts are looking at when putting a piece of cinema into context within the medium is in no way related to what you are looking for in a film. If you don't understand why a movie could be considered as well as it is consistently, take some upper level film courses at a University/College in Aesthetics and History. Like any historical artifacts within any given discipline you have to have a good grasp of those on more than just whether or not it is entertaining in the most base sense. Citizen Kane is indeed an awesome film, but you can't walk into it cold. You need to have a grasp of why it is important on multiple levels to be able to appreciate it. It has had a huge impact on the aestethics of film-making. Is it going to be entertaining in the sense as Kung-Fu Panda (2008, dir. Mark Osborne and John Wayne Stevenson) or Iron Man (2008, dir. John Favreau)? No, probably not for most modern audiences, but then, it is a historical artifact, not a current work aimed at entertaining modern audiences.

I think nostalgia plays more of a role in everyday moviegoing public than it does in the determination of what are great films. Very few people today were alive when The General (1927, dir. Buster Keaton) was released yet it consistently makes the lists. It is still funny and poignant 87 years later. Talk about slow pacing, how about that Seven Samurai (1954, dir. Akira Kurosawa)? At 3 and a half hours it would drive a 10 year old raised on Ben 10 and iCarly to madness, even though it has samurai fighting in it.

Ahtman wrote:At 3 and a half hours it would drive a 10 year old raised on Ben 10 and iCarly to madness, even with samurai in it.

I love having older films in the background when I am doing other things. Having the ability to experience the movie, without having to rely on shiny techniques, almost feels like reading a book when it is in the background. I can keep pace with the story line, and experience the characters due to the slower pace of most older flicks.

It is hard to keep clear, separate thoughts going when Fifth Element is going. Great flick still though, but in terms of ambiance, nothing beats Blade Runner.

I've wtached the Godfather, and part of the second one. i don't see what everyone is on about.
I think they're good movies, but they do take forever to get started.

For most teenagers like me, Godfather is pretty slow.

I didn't mind it all that much, really, but then again I also enjoyed Dune.

See this is where I go into my "grumpy old guy on the porch" routine (and since that's Frazzs turf I won't stay long) and say you youngsters have just been too numbed by all the "BOOM!BANG!POW!PEW!PEW!" in mordern films to apreciate good story telling and character development.
The Godfather is a cinematic masterpiece (and the characters smoke in the film,so double thumbs up.)...now get of my lawn...errr wait.

Yea, Ive watched all the godfather movies as well, and I cant personally see how those are regarded as the best movie ever. Kind of boring if ya ask me

> SACRILEGE!!<
...And I suppose JAWS was just a film about a fish..sheesh..kids these days.

The Godfather is one of the greatest cinematic masterpieces of all time.

Don't shoot me but I also am a fan of Soprano's. Someday I'll own the 8 season boxed set so I can watch them back to back and watch the last 2 seasons I missed.

FITZZ wrote: > SACRILEGE!!<
...And I suppose JAWS was just a film about a fish..sheesh..kids these days.

well, all the Jaws movies were exactly the same, only with some different actors in between

r3n3g8b0y wrote:

FITZZ wrote: > SACRILEGE!!<
...And I suppose JAWS was just a film about a fish..sheesh..kids these days.

well, all the Jaws movies were exactly the same, only with some different actors in between

No No No and NO,I'm not refering to those god awful sequels, JAWS 2 was mildly interesting and Jaws 3 and 4 don't even qaulify as movies to me.
I'm talking about the original JAWS,a fantastic suspenceful film,with great story telling and character development.
This is (for me) what makes movies great,like The Godfather,character development..let me get to know the characters,identify with them,love or hate them...I require more from a film than....." this is Freddy...he's kind of an awkward teen...he bought a car (first 15 minutes of the film)...Freddys' car is a robot..(followed by an hour and 45 minutes of BOOM!POW!BANG!>snappy one liner< BOOM!PEW!PEW!)...roll credits"
Just my opinion

FITZZ wrote:

r3n3g8b0y wrote:

FITZZ wrote: > SACRILEGE!!<
...And I suppose JAWS was just a film about a fish..sheesh..kids these days.

well, all the Jaws movies were exactly the same, only with some different actors in between

No No No and NO,I'm not refering to those god awful sequels, JAWS 2 was mildly interesting and Jaws 3 and 4 don't even qaulify as movies to me.
I'm talking about the original JAWS,a fantastic suspenceful film,with great story telling and character development.
This is (for me) what makes movies great,like The Godfather,character development..let me get to know the characters,identify with them,love or hate them...I require more from a film than....." this is Freddy...he's kind of an awkward teen...he bought a car (first 15 minutes of the film)...Freddys' car is a robot..(followed by an hour and 45 minutes of BOOM!POW!BANG!>snappy one liner< BOOM!PEW!PEW!)...roll credits"
Just my opinion

exactly righT!!

Let's not forget Jaws was the birth of the blockbuster.

Ahtman wrote:Let's not forget Jaws was the birth of the blockbuster.

It is also the reason why I didn't swim in the ocean for 11 years.

The sequence I call 'three men on a boat', when Quint, Brody and Hooper are talking whilst drunk, whicn then goes into Quint's speech about the sinking of the Indianapolis, is my favourite piece of film ever.



Pure brilliance:

[youtube]

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The sequence I call 'three men on a boat', when Quint, Brody and Hooper are talking whilst drunk, whicn then goes into Quint's speech about the sinking of the Indianapolis, is my favourite piece of film ever.



Pure brilliance:

[youtube]

Fantastic scene MGS,that's exactly the type of film making I'm talking about,Quint really takes on dimension and is allowed to be more then just some loud grumpy boat captian,he develops into a character the aduience feels for (as do the Brody and Hooper characters),they become much more then just "3 guys that some stuff happens to".
In many ways,JAWS is one of the best examples of a film utilizing special effects to enrich a movie instead of attempting to build a movie around special effects.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Let's not forget Jaws was the birth of the blockbuster.

It is also the reason why I didn't swim in the ocean for 11 years.

Word. Plus, Robert Shaw was just epic in that.

Ahtman wrote:What experts are looking at when putting a piece of cinema into context within the medium is in no way related to what you are looking for in a film. If you don't understand why a movie could be considered as well as it is consistently, take some upper level film courses at a University/College in Aesthetics and History. Like any historical artifacts within any given discipline you have to have a good grasp of those on more than just whether or not it is entertaining in the most base sense. Citizen Kane is indeed an awesome film, but you can't walk into it cold. You need to have a grasp of why it is important on multiple levels to be able to appreciate it. It has had a huge impact on the aestethics of film-making. Is it going to be entertaining in the sense as Kung-Fu Panda (2008, dir. Mark Osborne and John Wayne Stevenson) or Iron Man (2008, dir. John Favreau)? No, probably not for most modern audiences, but then, it is a historical artifact, not a current work aimed at entertaining modern audiences.

Which is why I have a problem with these lists of 'greatest' movies. Is a great movie an enjoyable one, a film with an important political comment, a film that advanced film technique or the industry... or all of the above? We end up sticking groundbreaking cinema like The Jazz Singer or Citizen Kane next to political tracts, next to fun movies. The result is lists that make no sense.

I'd rather we focus these lists on more specific things. The hundred most important movies in cinema technique. The hundred most enjoyable movies.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:What experts are looking at when putting a piece of cinema into context within the medium is in no way related to what you are looking for in a film. If you don't understand why a movie could be considered as well as it is consistently, take some upper level film courses at a University/College in Aesthetics and History. Like any historical artifacts within any given discipline you have to have a good grasp of those on more than just whether or not it is entertaining in the most base sense. Citizen Kane is indeed an awesome film, but you can't walk into it cold. You need to have a grasp of why it is important on multiple levels to be able to appreciate it. It has had a huge impact on the aestethics of film-making. Is it going to be entertaining in the sense as Kung-Fu Panda (2008, dir. Mark Osborne and John Wayne Stevenson) or Iron Man (2008, dir. John Favreau)? No, probably not for most modern audiences, but then, it is a historical artifact, not a current work aimed at entertaining modern audiences.

Which is why I have a problem with these lists of 'greatest' movies. Is a great movie an enjoyable one, a film with an important political comment, a film that advanced film technique or the industry... or all of the above? We end up sticking groundbreaking cinema like The Jazz Singer or Citizen Kane next to political tracts, next to fun movies. The result is lists that make no sense.

I'd rather we focus these lists on more specific things. The hundred most important movies in cinema technique. The hundred most enjoyable movies.

Those really weren't designed for mass consumption or to really mean that much but studios love their lists. The lists really shouldn't be ranked because, especially with the 'greatest' by filmmakers/critics it is really more of a list of important films than a strict taxonomy of best to worst. Like most creative endeavors though trying to dice it up into little pieces is not that simple. A film is more than just it's cinematography/sound editing/acting/ect. The are like a survey text in college. It gives a good starting point but won't tell you everything or even go into great amounts of detail.