The Godfather Thread

[Gia]

I think my favorite scene in the whole series is the Bonasera scene in the beginning of the first film. "If an honest man such as yourself were to make enemies then they would become my enemies. And then they will fear you." Such great dialogue in these films, I think that is what Part III lacked, the films lacked memorable dialogue.

That's a great quote

Part 3 just isn't memorable... it was seriously a movie for money I believe.

I like when clemenza was like "leave the gun... take the cannolis" lol

That was a wonderful improv by Richard Castellano. I am actually glad he couldn't do Part II because Michael V. Gazzo as Frankie was amazing. That scene where they briefly talked about his death was last minute because they were trying to get him back as the scene was shot. After that they just went along with Frankie. Hence why Clemenza's death was barely mentioned.

You are right about Part III being about money, at least for Paramount. Coppola actually wanted make Part III work but Paramount rushed him, he was only given a year to write, shoot and finish the film. If he had more time writing the film with Puzzo and they actually got Duvall back with the money he waned, it would have been a better film.

I did not know that was improvised?

I saw that Godfather is your favorite movie, do you have books on the film?

My brother does, I plan on really reading it one day

[Georgy Zhukov]

I don't have any books. I do try to watch Part I and II at least once a year. They get better after each viewing.

Yeah, the actors should all get writing credits

I recently found out Scorsese's mother was in Part III as the elderly woman who asked Vincent to get rid of those drug dealers. The more interesting part of the film was how the real Italian mafia or Camorra was involved in Italian politics and the murder of Pope John Paul I (though never proven). Man if they had spent more time writing and getting the right people, this film would have been better.

[Gia]

I don't have any books. I do try to watch Part I and II at least once a year. They get better after each viewing.

Yeah, the actors should all get writing credits

I recently found out Scorsese's mother was in Part III as the elderly woman who asked Vincent to get rid of those drug dealers. The more interesting part of the film was how the real Italian mafia or Camorra was involved in Italian politics and the murder of Pope John Paul I (though never proven). Man if they had spent more time writing and getting the right people, this film would have been better.

She was also in Casino... she's adorable

Was there anything you didn't like about the Godfather parts 1 and 2?

[Georgy Zhukov]

Nah they are perfect.

[classicrawker]

I will bet have seen parts 1 and 2 a hundred times as they are my favorites of all time....so many favorite lines it is hard to pick but two that come to mind are

I gonna make him an offer he can't refuse

and

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.....

James Caan was on Howard Stern a couple of weeks ago and told some great anecdotes about the filming of the GF. Check out youtube as most of Howard's interviews pop up there

[Georgy Zhukov]

I love how Michael transitions to being a cold hearted gangster. Where he woo's Kay to marrying him.

"My father is no different from any other powerful man. Like a President or Senator"

"Michael, do you know how naive you sound? Presidents and Senators don't have men killed!"

"Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?"

That had to get some laughs.

[wasted]

Id be interest if Scorsese made The Last Don. Or Coppola made The Family. Im not sure why they are taking so long. Theres an obvious market of Godfather fans.

[arnold layne]

Really boring movie tbh.

[wasted]

I think its better to read the books. Everything that is good about it is in the books. So the movies lend themselves to rewatching learning all the complexities of the story and dialogue. So its kind of the movie you read. But is it a stunning piece of cinema, no quite contrary, its almost completely lifeless from minute to minute. Its kind of like Game of Thrones, the reward is long term, in the details, but its heavy going.

[Georgy Zhukov]

I heard that Michael's character in the book was more Northern Italian in appearance than Sicilian. Puzzo was hoping for a casting of Robert Redford.

[classicrawker]

I read Puzo's book years ago but from what I remember the movie is pretty faithful to the book. What it does do is give some additional background on some things that happen in the movie.

One thing it flesh's out is Luca Brasi's connection to the Cordeleone family and why the Don has such disdain for him...If you remember during his daughters wedding Tom came to announce that Luca wanted to pay his respects and the Don said " Is this really necessary?" and seemed disgusted? well the reason is explained in the book that it had to do with Luca having his own new born child killed.

If you are GF fan Puzo's book is a must read IMHO as it really develops the characters and gives you insight in too things that happened in the movie.........

Edited October 27, 2013 by classicrawker

[Georgy Zhukov]

Yeah, remember reading about Lucas's child. I believe it also described by Vito overlooked that atrocity when Brasi singled-handedly won a war for him. Vito's leadership and Brasi's enforcement is what made the Corleone family so powerful. With Luca dead and Vito hospitalized with Sonny in charge, the Corleone Family lost strength. With Michael in control and his new forcer Al Neri, they dominated again. I did like that line in Part III when Kay mentioned Neri still being around, Michael says "He carries my briefcase"

Coppola did express interest with Puzo of a Part IV where they show the best years 1927 to 1945 and the Post 1980 decline and fall of the Corleone family.

[wasted]

I just found the books gripping, and to be the best of what they are. Its all in the detail, the textures of the famiky and traditions and how it all just meshes together. The books run like a movie in your mind. I didnt feelthe movie added much other than scenery. But I feel that about a lot of paper back books. Like Dragon Tattoo the book, is much better or intwresting thriller, whereas the movie seems formulaic. Wich is kind of what movies do for Godfather. The period drama aspects and somehow the menace and black comedy are lost. It softens it. The movies are kind of cheesy but books are taut and flashy.

[classicrawker]

The book "The Family Cordeleone" written by Ed Falco is based on a Mario Puzo never used screenplay. The story line describes Vito Cordeleone's rise to power starting during the depression and was meant to build upon the flashback scenes from the GF II. Would love to see that made into a movie.......

[supercool]

this is how coppola adapted mario puzo's novel:

i've read puzo's novel, it's an average book. coppola's movie is much better than the book. very often, bad books become great movies whereas great books become bad movies...

in fact, the godfather isn't puzo's best book, his best work is "the fortunate pilgrim".

[classicrawker]

this is how coppola adapted mario puzo's novel:

i've read puzo's novel, it's an average book. coppola's movie is much better than the book. very often, bad books become great movies whereas great books become bad movies...

in fact, the godfather isn't puzo's best book, his best work is "the fortunate pilgrim".

Have to agree that Puzzo is no Hemingway but the book and the movie fit together nicely IMHO......

[wasted]

If you go through the great paperback books The Godfather is way up there. You could put Paradise City by Calcucertta. They arent lterary works but they sit just ahead of the basic churners.

The movies while entertaining are workmanlike from a filmaking point of view. Youve seen the first 20 minutes, thats it cinematically, its basically retelling the book. In a way it was the precusor to dramatic tv weve seen recently. Sopranos, BB, GOT, these long drawn out character oriented series. Same kind of pace.

Godfather isnt powerful movie making like Scarface or even Goodfellas.

[classicrawker]

If you go through the great paperback books The Godfather is way up there. You could put Paradise City by Calcucertta. They arent lterary works but they sit just ahead of the basic churners.

The movies while entertaining are workmanlike from a filmaking point of view. Youve seen the first 20 minutes, thats it cinematically, its basically retelling the book. In a way it was the precusor to dramatic tv weve seen recently. Sopranos, BB, GOT, these long drawn out character oriented series. Same kind of pace.

Godfather isnt powerful movie making like Scarface or even Goodfellas.

You seem to like movies for the filmmaking art of it while I want a good story and to be entertained which the Godfather movies do in spades.....IMHO if you have to think too hard to like a movie it most likely is not that entertaining but too each his own.............

And I don't agree The Godfather is not as powerful as Goodfellas or Scarface............ more subtle and realistic yes but less powerful no............in fact IMHO Scareface is one of the cheesiest movies I have ever seen and I think it is vastly overrated........

Edited October 27, 2013 by classicrawker

[Georgy Zhukov]

Having watched Scarface recently, I have enjoyed it for what it was. It was made and released during the Cocaine Cowboy days. When people did not understand why all of a sudden the streets got more bloody Scarface gave the answer. It also was a film about Hollywood.

Goodfellas was great about the associates of Mafia families. The Godfather gives you the stories of the bosses, their capos and advisors. Goodfellas plays it at the POV of the associates who look up to Made Men. But it was more stylized. The Godfather is just an honest film.

[wasted]

If you go through the great paperback books The Godfather is way up there. You could put Paradise City by Calcucertta. They arent lterary works but they sit just ahead of the basic churners.

The movies while entertaining are workmanlike from a filmaking point of view. Youve seen the first 20 minutes, thats it cinematically, its basically retelling the book. In a way it was the precusor to dramatic tv weve seen recently. Sopranos, BB, GOT, these long drawn out character oriented series. Same kind of pace.

Godfather isnt powerful movie making like Scarface or even Goodfellas.

You seem to like movies for the filmmaking art of it while I want a good story and to be entertained which the Godfather movies do in spades.....IMHO if you have to think too hard to like a movie it most likely is not that entertaining but too each his own.............

And I don't agree The Godfather is not as powerful as Goodfellas or Scarface............ more subtle and realistic yes but less powerful no............in fact IMHO Scareface is one of the cheesiest movies I have ever seen and I think it is vastly overrated........

Yes, I came to just say that. That The Godfather leans more heavily towards telling the story, and that's fine because books are interesting enough and entertaining enough. I'm not saying it's not great entertainment and that it's not enjoyable. It leans more towards dramatic tv like Sopranos or Breaking bad etc. We all enjoy it.

I just think film has more to offer. So in terms of greatest movie of all time category, which is kind of stupid idea but, it's not enough. Like I said if the Aliens came down and said take me to your Movie. I wouldn't pick The Godfather to impress them or show them how we do it here on earth. It's shot basically in one style. I would put in Natural Born Killers, it has a bunch of different things going on, lots of editing, it's vast, entertaining. I could almost see it coming down to taste. Godfather is very middle brow. And there is a strand running through cinema history of it. The Shawshank Redemption, Dead Poets Society, The King's Speech, the Oscar movies which keep it classy, while entertaining the world. But that is far from being representative of popular cinema or the talent in movies over the years, I'd want to rep that that's all. Even in The Godfather, Coppola is held back by the studio to make the product they need. De Palma is a gangbusters director, he's a little trashy, exploitative, a voyeur of his subject but showing how it really is, while taking the audience on a ride. I don't want want to hate on Godfather, but after 3 movies you never get that excitement or rush that movies can give, it has other qualities though, it means a lot to people, there's a lot to find and get into.

Sorry, this isn't really what this thread is meant to be about. Sort of went on a bit tldr i know

[wasted]

Having watched Scarface recently, I have enjoyed it for what it was. It was made and released during the Cocaine Cowboy days. When people did not understand why all of a sudden the streets got more bloody Scarface gave the answer. It also was a film about Hollywood.

Goodfellas was great about the associates of Mafia families. The Godfather gives you the stories of the bosses, their capos and advisors. Goodfellas plays it at the POV of the associates who look up to Made Men. But it was more stylized. The Godfather is just an honest film.

Godfather is more of grand narrative like Rebecca meets those old gangster movies, but updating it. It seems more like a job for Coppola than his best work.

Scarface and Goodfellas are the best from those guys. Scorsese is a way better director than Coppola anyway. Again Coppola was kind of caught up Lucas' drive for power. They wanted to be moguls. Scorsese has been banging it for 30-40 years, a master with the camera, always looking for a new way to see with the camera. Godfather shot by shot, honestly if you know what they are doing there, establishing shot, hollywood narrative over the shoulder shots, it's like torture. You get nothing after nothing every scene apart sexy italian looking guys in suits talking. That's all that was needed I think cos of the source material, but it hardly qualifies as a movie. De Palma is another look at all his other movies then look at Scarface again, there's a master at work. It's just about story telling and wine, well that's great, I get it, Godfather is like a lifestyle.

There are cool scenes in Godfather though. I like when Brando dies in the garden. That scene where De Niro runs the roof. Definitely a must see, even if people find it slow, it's worth it if you can stick with it.

[Georgy Zhukov]

That whole scene where Michael kills Solozzo and McClusky followed by a montage was great. It was sort of like an intermission as Paramount originally wanted but they decided to no interupt the flow.

[classicrawker]

If you go through the great paperback books The Godfather is way up there. You could put Paradise City by Calcucertta. They arent lterary works but they sit just ahead of the basic churners.

The movies while entertaining are workmanlike from a filmaking point of view. Youve seen the first 20 minutes, thats it cinematically, its basically retelling the book. In a way it was the precusor to dramatic tv weve seen recently. Sopranos, BB, GOT, these long drawn out character oriented series. Same kind of pace.

Godfather isnt powerful movie making like Scarface or even Goodfellas.

You seem to like movies for the filmmaking art of it while I want a good story and to be entertained which the Godfather movies do in spades.....IMHO if you have to think too hard to like a movie it most likely is not that entertaining but too each his own.............

And I don't agree The Godfather is not as powerful as Goodfellas or Scarface............ more subtle and realistic yes but less powerful no............in fact IMHO Scareface is one of the cheesiest movies I have ever seen and I think it is vastly overrated........

Yes, I came to just say that. That The Godfather leans more heavily towards telling the story, and that's fine because books are interesting enough and entertaining enough. I'm not saying it's not great entertainment and that it's not enjoyable. It leans more towards dramatic tv like Sopranos or Breaking bad etc. We all enjoy it.

I just think film has more to offer. So in terms of greatest movie of all time category, which is kind of stupid idea but, it's not enough. Like I said if the Aliens came down and said take me to your Movie. I wouldn't pick The Godfather to impress them or show them how we do it here on earth. It's shot basically in one style. I would put in Natural Born Killers, it has a bunch of different things going on, lots of editing, it's vast, entertaining. I could almost see it coming down to taste. Godfather is very middle brow. And there is a strand running through cinema history of it. The Shawshank Redemption, Dead Poets Society, The King's Speech, the Oscar movies which keep it classy, while entertaining the world. But that is far from being representative of popular cinema or the talent in movies over the years, I'd want to rep that that's all. Even in The Godfather, Coppola is held back by the studio to make the product they need. De Palma is a gangbusters director, he's a little trashy, exploitative, a voyeur of his subject but showing how it really is, while taking the audience on a ride. I don't want want to hate on Godfather, but after 3 movies you never get that excitement or rush that movies can give, it has other qualities though, it means a lot to people, there's a lot to find and get into.

Sorry, this isn't really what this thread is meant to be about. Sort of went on a bit tldr i know

But see that is why I think the Godfather is so great as it does not need the continuous action to hold your interest like Scarface or Goodfellas. I loved Goodfellas but to me Scareface did not age well and was cheesy IMHO.

The Godfather is timeless and while it may not be artsy, like some of the movies you mentionoed, it tells a story, has great character development and does not need over the top action to hold your interest............that is one of the main problems I have with modern movies. The directors seem to rely on shock and awe to hold an audiences attention and character and story devlopment gets lost in the action.............

But then again I prefer older movies like Papillon, Cool Hand Luke etc., as they told a story and developed the characters......today's movies are like junk food...empty calories

Edited October 28, 2013 by classicrawker

[Georgy Zhukov]

One of my favorite scenes in The Godfather was Clemenza cooking pasta sauce. Frying the meat at the bottom of the pan, adding the tomatoes, the suguar, the red wine. I get hungry everyime I watch The Godfather.

The film had personality, the wedding scene alone was beautifully shot. It wasn't staged, it was shot documentary style, people looked like they were having a good time. Only an Italian-American director can pull that off.

[Gia]

One of my favorite scenes in The Godfather was Clemenza cooking pasta sauce. Frying the meat at the bottom of the pan, adding the tomatoes, the suguar, the red wine. I get hungry everyime I watch The Godfather.

The film had personality, the wedding scene alone was beautifully shot. It wasn't staged, it was shot documentary style, people looked like they were having a good time. Only an Italian-American director can pull that off.

I love that scene... he starts singing to Michael to tell his girl he loves her

I can't watch the Sopranos or Godfather without getting hungry.

I really liked Clemenza... in the 2nd and first one