I watched it recently for the first time, and I really don’t get why it’s so loved. IMDB rates it as the second-best movie of all time, but it seems far worse than that to me. I like most old movies and see their hype, but The Godfather didn’t do it for me. What am I missing?
Sometimes works of art (paintings, music, film, sculpture, architecture, literature, doesn’t matter) are so profoundly influential as to become a part of the fabric of that medium. I think the Godfather is one of those films that inspired an entire generation of filmmakers to weave the special bits into everything they created since.
The problem with watching it now is that the craft of filmmaking has spawned from it and molded around it, and the things that made it special are now mundane. Try to watch Citizen Kane, or 2001 A Space Odyssey, or Seven Samurai, and you’ll see every trope and flaw because their impact is no longer unique. But that’s not because they weren’t amazing films, it’s because they have all be copied and modernized and lampooned to death.
With the Godfather, a film buff could talk for hours about the lighting, the symbolism, the mise en scene, the music, and how it was all seminal to half the movies made since. Watching it with virgin eyes, though, and you’ll see reflections of Goodfellas and Casino and Scarface and Once Upon a Time in America and The Irishman and A Bronx Tale and Donnie Brasco and New Jack City and Road to Perdition and We Own the Night and The Departed and The Untouchables and probably 50 other movies I can’t think of off the top of my head.
You can’t help but see it as a relic, a source of inspiration for the movies you saw before and loved. That’s why you don’t see it the way they did, and why it seems over hyped.
Was thinking that the other day. I love the Maltese falcon, it’s got so many tropes for film noir. Then I remember, and then I recall showing my wife The Matrix and her eye rolling so hard at things that became so popular they were overdone. Didn’t expect a laugh at the slow mo bullet scene but it definitely cracks me up now too.
I rewatched this recently, and yeah, all the cliches are there (some rather clumsily filmed even by 40s standards) - but fuck me if Bogie still doesn't blow it out of the water with that performance. I can't think of a single film noir protagonist that matches what he pulled off in that film. He's better here than he is in Casablanca by a long shot imho.
If you liked the movie, try reading ‘Red Harvest,’ by Dashiell Hammett, the original author. A tough private eye shows up in a corrupt mining town and decides to clean it up by starting a war between the biggest crooks. Now that’s an idea that’s been redone a few times.
Great write up. 2001 a space odyssey is a great example. The story holds up, but the effects were blown away (with star wars etc being a main example). It’s interesting, but not at all a good watch except in the context of film evolution. That said, it changed so much in cinema, storytelling, and more.
Having read the book some time before seeing the movie, I was pretty unimpressed with how much of the story was left out. Most notably the reasons behind Hal going off the rails.
And that explains why it was impactful movies in the 70s, but that doesn’t explain why it’s rated 2nd best movie today. If anything you provided arguments against that.
Because things can be appreciated for their historical relevance. It’s like saying that the Sputnik should be forgotten because SpaceX launches 20 satellites with a single rocket every other month. Or that Michelangelo statues are overrated now that we invented 3D printing.
this isn’t a dig at gen-z for being “uncultured” or whatever, just pointing out that a substantial chunk of the population was able to experience the film before it became as “cliche” as it is today.
It’s rated highly because the people who do the ratings are familiar with how impactful the movie was. They understand the quality of the film within the context where and when it was created.
If you were to compare a Manet to an AI generated photorealistic version of the same painting, an art buff would prefer the Manet. Someone who lacks the context and background might complain about the brush strokes or the imperfect color blending or the lack of definition in the faces, and say that the AI generated image is “better.” That preference does not in any way diminish the quality of Manet’s work or the appreciation people have for it.
When discussing art, “best” is always subjective. You’re allowed to not like the Godfather. It’s not my favorite movie, either, but I enjoy watching it now and again. People who love the film have written many books on why it’s their favorite masterpiece. You won’t win an argument with them that it’s not among the best movies of all time, but then neither will they convince you to appreciate the movie if you didn’t enjoy watching it.
I had this weird sensation when I watched Metropolis. I found myself thinking "ugh every trope and this is hacky as hell" then I remembered: "oh wait, this is the source of all of those things." It made it a lot easier to appreciate.
That’s how Seinfeld is too. Seinfeld pioneered so many things in comedy but if you view it as a relic it seems lame. As a youngin I couldn’t understand why anyone thinks it’s funny
What you’re forgetting completely (like 90% of “movie guys”), is that most people don’t care or notice most of what you’re talking about. Godfather is fundamentally a boring film. The story is banal, was back then probably too. You can have the best lighting you want, if the story is boring, the movie sucks.
A movie or other work of media is quite revolutionary when it is released, it gets copied so much that many of its features become common in later projects. Then someone goes back to the original and thinks, Why was everyone so impressed with this?
Citizen Cane is another example.
Or:
It could be that you personally don't like the movie. Taste is not universal and not everyone likes everything.
Well most of those shows like Seinfeld fall victim to the fact most only laugh at it bc of the laugh tracks. Which for me I don’t get bc I could imagine friends or golden girls without it and they’d still be good imo 🤷
True but it is the same effect as a laugh track. The actors have to pause their delivery to let the audience react so that they are not talking over or getting drowned out by the laughter. There are a few scenes where you can see Jerry and the others almost break character while they are waiting for the audience to finish laughing.
You’re missing the point. Back then audiences weren’t told when to laugh (that became a thing a bit later). But were more like a live barometer of the script’s quality. The recordings of Jerry doing a standup on a bar stage were filmed the same day. They would test material, improvise jokes, actions and lines on the spot and look at the audience reaction, not because they expected a laugh, but because they were getting a laugh. They weren’t pausing for the editors to insert a laughtrack, they were pausing because the audience was laughing and their lines would be inaudible on the mics. This allowed them to fine tune the show, then during edit make it as hilarious as possible. It was a thing they actually struggled with the sections filmed out of studio, but they showed them to the audience so they got the context for the set comedies. It was a whole art, and the actors were part of the writer’s room. An entirely different vibe from this decade’s sitcoms. Modern sitcoms are emulating what they were getting organically during filming.
Everyone who’s ever said that that spends a significant enough time around me changes their mind. Most of the folks that said it had either only seen it as children or never watched it once reaching a point in life that makes the show so relatable.
If you don’t get it, you don’t get it, and that’s fine.
From someone who’s went through film school:
It’s a great movie. I wouldn’t call it second ever, but it’s up there. The cinematography is some of the best put to film, the writing is excellent, and the acting is phenomenal. I love the music as well, personally. Mafia stories are/were big hits for film in general, dating back even to the black and white era.
In simple terms: basically everything about it is made better than your average film, and if there’s something you specifically like about films (music, cinematography, etc.) It’s usually an easy example to point to for a quality example of said thing
But yeah, there are too many movies in existence to put any real stock on “x best movie of all time” things
2001 absolutely is a boring film though. Impressive on a technical level, but very slow burning, and there is so much that they don’t bother to explain to the audience that the books actually cover, for example Hal’s reasons for going off the rails.
It’s a masterclass in acting, cinematography, and soundtracking. Not only that, but Mario Puzo’s novel which came out shortly before the movie was produced was a smash hit.
In the 70s, movies didn’t look like The Godfather. They looked like weird objective cameras put on a tripod and just filming actors, with not as much thought put into the “feel” of the film. FFC (as well as other directors such as Hitchcock and Kubrick) essentially invented modern cinematography. Remember watching Avatar for the first time? It was kind of like that for movie going audiences.
It was always hailed as an “epic drama” so you have to kind of temper your expectations based off that. It’s not a “murder a minute” gangster flick like a Scorsese picture.
My theory is that The Godfather suffers from pioneer syndrome. It was incredibly modern at the time of its release, with ultra-naturalistic acting and new techniques of cinematography. Which everyone proceeded to copy. So that now it looks like just a decent film, maybe from the 80s. But at the time it was a breakthrough. That’s what it’s getting the credit for.
It’s better if you watch other movies from the same time and a bit earlier so you can appreciate the direction and cinematography. Comparing it to modern films is akin to comparing modern games to Half Life 1. You lose something without the context of the contemporaries of the time.
Please read John Truby’s book “The Anatomy of Genres”, and have your mind BLOWN by all the psychology in the different 14 Genres of story, dominating our cultures throughout the world, now…
It will make fiction in book AND movie form sooo much richer for you, and it will make other-people much-more-understandable, as well…
I’m autistic, am NOT likely to ever watch another movie in my life ( waaay too overwhelming ), but now I understand story so much better…
Truby’s got a special place in his heart for both Godfather I & II.
With reason, his explanations show.
There are an amazing number of awesome stories identified in that book, as examples demonstrating this, or that, aspect of story…
Please read it from beginning to end, so the explanations ( which build on each-other ) weave into the whole, properly ( instead of just hitting 2 chapters & not getting why it doesn’t make as much sense as I’m suggesting it does ).
The only significant error in the book worth noting, is the misunderstanding of Comedy:
Improbably-violated-expectations is the PROPER definition of it, and there is no requirement for any “drop”, which seems an American subset of humour.
I appreciate book recommendations as much as the next person, but just a book recommendation without answering the question isn’t super helpful. I’m not going to read a book before I continue scrolling.
Honestly, I think time hurts the movie. Coppola is excellent at his craft. It’s cinematically pretty (though aged) Pacino and Brando nailed it, but the content is no longer relevant. The movie is over 50 years old, it’s not paced for the appetite of this decade. It’s a big, complicated, dark, slow burning movie as a lot of the stuff from the 70’s and 80’s was. At the time the subject matter was fresh-ish, There was still a lot of interest in the Mafia and almost nothing of quality on the topic had been published since the 30’s. If was absolutely the best, for it’s time.
You’re not alone in your feelings on the flick. As some have said, Part II was better, but if you really didn’t care much for Part I, you shouldn’t expect to love part II.
Movie pacing has changed a lot. I remember as a kid or even an adult, trying to watch movies from the 70s, and even if I was enjoying it, they moved soooo slooow. Fast forward and I’m trying to share my favorite movies from the 90s and IF it can keep their attention for more than a few minutes, I find myself thinking “I remember this being better.”
It’s the end result of pushing everyone away for the sole pursuit of power. It’s an old man realizing the life that he was trying to recreate (his father’s life), is nothing but a twisted version of the real thing.
It’s supposed to be depressing because the movie is in dialogue with the two that came before it.
Many people say that Sofia Coppola ruined the movie for them, but IMO it’s more so the stark contrast between a young/middle aged Michael coming into his own in the 1st 2 movies, and a senior citizen Michael regretful of his choices in the final act. The party comes to a close and we’re reminded of the terminus of all things.
Pulp fiction was my jam. It wasn’t cookie cutter. It didn’t just start at the end, it wrapped around a bit. Unexpected things happened. Where’s it going next? WTF knows, Quentin goes wherever he wants. The dialog was unusual for the time, intentionally unpolished. It wasn’t a bunch of big named actors trying to make you believe they were in the scenes, they were there to take the scenes over the top. In an age where everything was honestly kinda boring, Tarantino put this flick outside the box. But that’s his thing, the scenes are there to look good, the dialog is there to be memorable, the overall story is not all that compelling and the the scenes are barely stitched together.
What I really liked about Pulp Fiction is how much better it gets in the days after you’ve seen it for the first time. A confusing mess of a story that you piece together after the fact. I enjoyed Memento for similar reasons.
It’s subtle and kinda moody. It also has some nice performances from Pacino and Brando. I think for me, I liked the moodiness and vibe of it. It felt old in a way that fit the subject matter and its time (late 40s early 50s). Also the basic story is nice. I wouldn’t be surprised if it resonates more with people who have or seen similar family dynamics where it really does suck everyone in.
Add comment