I went to see the reprint of "The Godfather" in 1996, when it was just 24 years old. (It's now an almost 50-year-old movie.) I think I went to see it on the strength of Siskel and Ebert. Great memories. S
Not disputing you, but I sometimes wonder if it’s too good for its own good. Like, I love the film, but I do wonder if a film is too good, then it may disconnect you from it... Just a thought.
@@65g4 sort of. I am just giving the idea that a film can be ‘too good’ to the point when it just doesn’t feel right. There’s nothing wrong with it, but it’s hardly human for a film to be perfect. Nostalgia Critic did a pretty good editorial on the subject ‘can a film be so good it’s bad?’
Was yesterday in the theatre for the 4K re-release. Still such a marvelous and timeless masterpiece and watching it in the theatre is so much different then watching it at home on TV.
Two reputable critics talking about The Godfather is like two hungry kids in the world’s largest candy store. They don’t know where to start but they are totally beside themselves.
It’s been 50 years, and I still mourn for Apollonia. 😢 I could also talk about this film for hours. From the opening scene, it sucked me and my Italian heritage right in and didn’t let go.
This movie is great because mostly Italians play Italians! I think Sonny Corleone should have been played by an Italian as well, not the nebbish James Caan who looks more like a Hyman Challahwitz. Joe Spinell, Al Lettieri or another real paisan should have played Sonny. Richard Castellano as Clemenza was casting genius! imagine if Lorne Green got that part
@@zombiefulci3301 ....Castellano did himself wrong when he refused to be in Part 2. Why would he ever think that he should have total control over his lines? Big mistake.
The part where he says that they got money to shoot in Sicily which previous mob films have never done prior was ground breaking. I have to agree with this because it goes to the Corleone the Hill top town which a in the 1980s would be the centre of a mafia epidemic. It shows the origins of this structure.
I'd say appolonia was the victim. But I'm guessing all the women & children are not considered part of that world but she is the only wife that dies. I wish that they showed the deleted scene of al neri telling Micheal they finally found fabritzio the man paid to set the car bomb. Which they do back to him. It would have shown Micheal never got over her after all those years. As he said it took so long to find him. The turning points for Micheal are beautifully done but her death killed all the humanity & good in him. It's like he was never going to be truly happy ever again.
You are insane. Apo was a gold digger who married elderly man who find ugly for money. Line from the book ... she agreed to marry him after only 2 weeks of knowing him because she thought he must be rich. That's a direct line from the book. Kay was all he loved and valued most in the world, something he himself said to her in the end . Michael speaking to his father in backyard Are you happy with your wife and children Michael says VERY HAPPY. You Apos fans are mental.
@@dc6461 I'm insane? I'm discussing an opinion about a film I'm not talking about the book. Give ur opinion but why personally insult a stranger about a movie. Jesus ur angry
@@natalieps2387 that is comple and utter misinterpreted way of looking at the movie. Her death has nothing to do with his change. In Sicily he was just a gangster hiding from justice when he came back he became full blown mafia with a job to do, with a task to commit mass murder to preserve position of his family. He would behave no differently no matter who was by his side. First movie doesn't follow book to a letter but that's bc it was stretched into a trilogy. Almost everything in a movies is inspired by the book. One more thing he began changing in Sicily before she died. The scene when he was told his brother died she is in car shaking like a spoiled idiot you can tell he was visibly annoyed, similar thing was described in a book. Killing Fabricio is a another thing you got wrong. In a book his murder wasn't purely about revenge Michael himself said that to his father. Did she deserve some justice sure but the main reason was security of his family.Coppola said in an interview that the reason he took those scenes out of both movies was bc he didn't properly cinematically portray that fact.When Kay left Michael changed completely. When he lost Kay he stopped smoking drinking killing even wearing silky suits like mafia usually does.Throughout entire third movie he wants out that world legitimacy of his business redemption for his sins and his family back. And in the end you said she was a real victim..... no she wasn't. That's the point She married a man for money and was killed in an object of her material desire...THE CAR. Get it irony.
i was going to say the same thing. IN THE ORIGINAL FILM, Apollonia was portrayed as an innocent teenager, and basically a CIVILIAN, but ended up being caught in the crossfire. she died from a bomb meant for michael. REGARDLESS of what the novelization says, that is how the audience first perceived her character. but this idiot poster had to bring in the novel. a FILM, whether it’s appreciated or not during its theater run, has to stand on its own initial release as this is HOW the audience first encountered and perceived the movie. this is why Spielberg, despite his movie JAWS looking dated, has never felt the need to release a CGI-corrected version. the only changes Spielberg ever went for were just fixes to each frame just to clean up all the effects of time. Lucas on the other hand doesn’t care how much he bastardizes his original movies.
@@darthvirgin7157 coppola in an interview: "everything in a movie is from a book ". Never but NEVER has Coppola had plans to change structure of the characters. In a movie she was portrayed exactly like in a book. Michael saw her had an eraction. He came to her house with presents she is not interested. He came next day, they are sitting around table. She looks at him, kinda smiles than looks away rolls her eyes. That was Coppolas way of showing she doesn't like him but is interested bc of the present he gave her which is why she will go out with him ie she is goldigger Next scene marriage. You are in the movie theater watching spectacle of hypocrisy that was their wedding and you didn't think to yourself...where is this coming from. Well that is bc you are an idiot. That fact, them getting married so soon is also Coppolas way of showing.. marriage was for "other reasons". In bedroom he is direct she is not shy at all. They fucked. After he satisfied his sexual desire he is killing time bc there is nothing to do, she is interested in car more than him or being a housewife. He is getting out of the car to recieve info that his brother died, she is in the car shaking like a brain dead moron.That was Coppolas way of showing she is spoiled immature brat. Essence of a book is captured. You can argue that he didn't do the best job in portraying it but the intention was there. Take into consideration that there is not one registered conversation in a book between them which means her character had to be shown through acting not dialog. If some people you included didn't get the flashing pictures known as scenes that is bc they are thick in their head like you are.
Siskel said kay and michael are the most beautiful thing in the movie. It wasn't a dig at all re release happened decades after first godfather people change that's normal.
But how could you not like The Godfather whats wrong with you thats like with asking about food you saying you dont like apple crumble or chocolate icecream
I can respect your opinion, but I think it is one of the all time greats. I love it for the story and how it tells that story. I also think the novel is one of the all time greats. When I first saw it as a teenager, I was turned off by the violence. Now I look at it as a story told about the world from inside the Mafia. The story about a family and the life of crime. I think it’s one of the best acted films ever made. I love The Godfather.
@@stevenbaxter9099 your only saying that just to be different and try and sound cool. Like saying i dont love the greatest film ever because i dont want to be a sheep, pathetic 😂
No way they academy was giving that honor over the likes of Marlon Brando. Remember Pacino was a nobody back then and Brando had been considered the best actor in the world since the mid 50's. Yes Pacino has much more screen time and is the glue to the film but Brando was bigger than life in the acting world back then.
