The Godfather - ugh!

mr_goo

Watched this for first time last Sunday afternoon. What is all the fuss about? I persevered for the whole film and afterwards felt that I had wasted 3 hours of my life. Quite a tawdry, meandering film. This film viewer is not convinced by the hype.
Which now begs the question. Which other films are there, lauded by the film critics as 'must watch', but do not live up to the expectations?

Cubic

Number two's better. Number three is worse.

I watched Zero Dark Thirty the other day. God that was a boring film, the only good bit were the soldier's cool dual night vision goggles at the end.
And it had the woman out of Pride and Prejudice in it, which surprised me!

mr_goo

Cubic wrote:

Number two's better. Number three is worse.

I watched Zero Dark Thirty the other day. God that was a boring film, the only good bit were the soldier's cool dual night vision goggles at the end.

Got the box set given to me as a birthday present by the younglings. Looks like this sunday afternoon is going to be blowing a gale. Godfather 2 it is.

MountainMonster

I think it also depends on what type of films people like, if you were expecting lots of action then that isn't the film for you. I personally love the films, and I can handle boring movies as long as the story is good (think opposite of Drive), but it is a slow series.

simonhead

Stick with it, if you want a truly brutal film watch Casino

rolf_f

Mr Goo wrote:

Watched this for first time last Sunday afternoon. What is all the fuss about? I persevered for the whole film and afterwards felt that I had wasted 3 hours of my life. Quite a tawdry, meandering film. This film viewer is not convinced by the hype.
Which now begs the question. Which other films are there, lauded by the film critics as 'must watch', but do not live up to the expectations?

For me, the fundamental problem with it is that, aside from Michael Corleones missus who barely gets a line before being blown up, there isn't a single significant character in the film that you can care about. So, without any emotional interest in the fate of anyone in the film (the quicker they all end up dead the better) how can it be interesting?

Nice cinematography. Everything else hugely over-rated. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it is a crock.

Not on the same level but I can't understand why the critics rated Batman Begins or Skyfall - both stinkers.

mr_goo

Rolf F wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Watched this for first time last Sunday afternoon. What is all the fuss about? I persevered for the whole film and afterwards felt that I had wasted 3 hours of my life. Quite a tawdry, meandering film. This film viewer is not convinced by the hype.
Which now begs the question. Which other films are there, lauded by the film critics as 'must watch', but do not live up to the expectations?

For me, the fundamental problem with it is that, aside from Michael Corleones missus who barely gets a line before being blown up, there isn't a single significant character in the film that you can care about. So, without any emotional interest in the fate of anyone in the film (the quicker they all end up dead the better) how can it be interesting?

Nice cinematography. Everything else hugely over-rated. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it is a crock.

Not on the same level but I can't understand why the critics rated Batman Begins or Skyfall - both stinkers.

Agree with you. Skyfall was excellent. Now they are 'rebooting Bond'. What for?

heavymental

Star Wars.

Doctor House

I think the Godfather is just out dated. I watched it for the first time earlier this year and thought it was dreadful. So much empty space in the film - nothing being said, nothing being done, just a dodgy soundtrack churning away. It was so disappointing because it was a film I'd been meaning to watch for about 20 years but just never seemed to get round to it. The Sopranos series is the benchmark mafia/gangster based viewing for me.

laurentian

Personally think the trilogies are some of the finest examples of cinema ever made - Part 2 being the best.

Can't see how anyone can't sympathise with Michael Corleone as his heritage keeps coming back to bite him as he tries to legitimise the family business and seek catharsis for his and his family's past.

Each to their own I guess . . .

giant_man

simonhead wrote:

Stick with it, if you want a truly brutal film watch Casino

wasn't that brutal tbh ... great film though

brucey72

I didn't enjoy Godfather but did enjoy the second one. Another film that disappointed me was The Deer Hunter.

CanalRider

Lost in Translation.

At least it lived upto it's title.

Daz555

brucey72 wrote:

Another film that disappointed me was The Deer Hunter.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Noooooooo! It's a bloody classic!

freddiegrubb

One of my regrets is not seeing any of the soprano's, next time around perhaps.

pinno

Sopranos was just a brilliant concoction of black humour, power struggles and psychotic temperamental delusional mafioso blokes with huge fragile ego's.

FWIW, I thought the Godfather was compelling and Casino was over-rated and seemed contrived to me.
The Deerhunter is worth more than one viewing.
BTW, Delicatessen was superb, so was Jean De Floret and Manon des Sources.

rick_chasey

CanalRider wrote:

Lost in Translation.

At least it lived upto it's title.

In my top 3.

dmclite-3.0

Yep, Lost in translation is a favourite.

The Godfather, I think, is excellent along with part 2. Not rushed, played out beautifully and compelling.

meursault

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

Yep, Lost in translation is a favourite.

The Godfather, I think, is excellent along with part 2. Not rushed, played out beautifully and compelling.

Agreed, it's a masterpiece. A landmark in the history of the arts. If you don't get why, I can't help you. Go back to your explosions and bad acting.

john_kline

laurentian wrote:

Personally think the trilogies are some of the finest examples of cinema ever made - Part 2 being the best.

Can't see how anyone can't sympathise with Michael Corleone as his heritage keeps coming back to bite him as he tries to legitimise the family business and seek catharsis for his and his family's past.

Each to their own I guess . . .

Totally agree they're absolute classics made at a time when cinema was a true art form rather than today when most films seem to be made to a formula cynically aimed at the most profitable certificate 15 yoof market

john_kline

giant man wrote:

simonhead wrote:

Stick with it, if you want a truly brutal film watch Casino

wasn't that brutal tbh ... great film though

You should check out who the film was based on in real life, Tony Spilotro, him and his contemporaries such as Mad Sam Destefano, now they really were brutal.

rolf_f

Mr Goo wrote:

Agree with you. Skyfall was excellent. Now they are 'rebooting Bond'. What for?

I may have given the wrong impression! I didn't think much to Skyfall - firstly, the plot. Normally we have attempts to take over the world, here we just have someone wanting to kill M. What next - an attempt to kidnap Q's goldfish?
2) Action scenes of a preprosterousness not seen since the Italian Job remake - I mean, the whole London underground chase. Think about it - how would you have managed to foresee the sequence of events to have made all of that work! I know it's Bond, and really just a bit of fun, but even Roger Moore would have raised an eyebrow at that one.
3) The final sequence - or how to go about putting everyone at the maximum risk possible and maximising the chance of failure which leads me on to.....
4) The baddie won! Since when has that been allowed to happen! That's just wrong.
5) The baddie looked like David Walliams. Enough said.
6) The theme tune stank. Go away Adele!

This may also help! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmoIDKqfY44

It's cringeworthy. I don't mind suspending disbelief a bit but I expect the directors to at least make a bit of an effort. There's plenty of worse films but Skyfall isn't in the top 10 and probably only looked a bit good by the good fortune of following Turkey of Solace.

4kicks

Notwithstanding the attempts at cinematic deconstruction of a Bond film above (hint: Its stupid, and supposed to be so), I think the common themes across both the Godfather and Lost in Translation is how some of the scenes are just so well constructed, acted and shot that they (for me, of course) stick in the mind
Im talking about moments like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpwIbqm-umk

Tony K´s American History X, (the shower scene shot in B&W, ) Apocalypse Now, the Mission and a few others, mostly Kurosawa, are others that for me are just about cinematography as art.
But what do I know, my favourite film is LA Story...

rolf_f

4kicks wrote:

Notwithstanding the attempts at cinematic deconstruction of a Bond film above (hint: Its stupid, and supposed to be so),.

All the worlds directors of sh1t films love you*

I did like Lost in Translation. There is a lot to be said for a well made film in which sod all happens.

The Exorcist is another hopelessly over-rated crock.

*Hint - Casino Royale was good (mostly.... The non Fleming bits were a bit crappy but otherwise it was good). You'd have to be very undemanding to think it is OK to make no effort at all to make a good film on the excuse that it 'is only a Bond film'. There's no reason why Skyfall couldn't have been an excellent film - action doesn't have to be stupid but in this case it was.

heavymental

4kicks wrote:

Notwithstanding the attempts at cinematic deconstruction of a Bond film above (hint: Its stupid, and supposed to be so), I think the common themes across both the Godfather and Lost in Translation is how some of the scenes are just so well constructed, acted and shot that they (for me, of course) stick in the mind
Im talking about moments like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpwIbqm-umk

Tony K´s American History X, (the shower scene shot in B&W, ) Apocalypse Now, the Mission and a few others, mostly Kurosawa, are others that for me are just about cinematography as art.
But what do I know, my favourite film is LA Story...

Yep, bits where not much happens are often the best bits. As we've already mentioned the Deer Hunter, there's a scene where De Niro sits on the edge of a bed and doesn't do much and it's a brilliant piece of acting.

Goodfellas is my fave mafia flick.

meursault

Heavymental wrote:

4kicks wrote:

Notwithstanding the attempts at cinematic deconstruction of a Bond film above (hint: Its stupid, and supposed to be so), I think the common themes across both the Godfather and Lost in Translation is how some of the scenes are just so well constructed, acted and shot that they (for me, of course) stick in the mind
Im talking about moments like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpwIbqm-umk

Tony K´s American History X, (the shower scene shot in B&W, ) Apocalypse Now, the Mission and a few others, mostly Kurosawa, are others that for me are just about cinematography as art.
But what do I know, my favourite film is LA Story...

Yep, bits where not much happens are often the best bits. As we've already mentioned the Deer Hunter, there's a scene where De Niro sits on the edge of a bed and doesn't do much and it's a brilliant piece of acting.

Goodfellas is my fave mafia flick.

Yep, tho it is helped by that theme tune.

heavymental

My god, Scarlett Johansson is excellent, and beautiful, in Lost in Translation.

pinno

Heavymental wrote:

My god, Scarlett Johansson is excellent, and beautiful, in Lost in Translation.

She was. ...and in The Girl with the Pearl Earring. Now that she has become Hollywoodised, she looks like a Barbie doll.

jawooga

I thought Quantum of Solace was brilliant. But then I watched it the day after Casino R.

Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. There's a book that Joe Public knows of, but I've not met a single person who watched the film and understood it.

seanoconn

MountainMonster wrote:

I think it also depends on what type of films people like, if you were expecting lots of action then that isn't the film for you. I personally love the films, and I can handle boring movies as long as the story is good (think opposite of Drive), but it is a slow series.

Drive was the best film I've seen in a couple of years. I even bought the lead stunt driving/murdering characters jacket. I could have pulled off the look but my wife made me send it back. The lead character and director's next feature after 'Drive,' Only God Forgives, was one of the worst films ever.

mrfpb

jawooga wrote:

Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. There's a book that Joe Public knows of, but I've not met a single person who watched the film and understood it.

I watched the TV series (1979) about two years ago on BBC4, then read the book. I saw the movie last week. I thought the TV series (7 hours) was great, and delivered the twists and turns really well. It had an astonishing cast. Alec Guiness is the best actor at disappearing into a role, it's impossible to see any trace of Obi Wan Kenobi (from the same period) or the colenel from Bridge on the River Kwai in George Smiley. He is the expert at acting while seeming to do nothing (though Patrick Stewart tries to outdo him in his brief cameo). There is a scene at the end of episode one of TTSS where the mild mannered retired spy takes off his glasses and cleans them. When he puts them back on he is clearly no longer retired and ready for the interogation. Superb.

The movie makes a good effort but simply can't compare in the time available. The book is fantastic btw.