Movie Thread

bravesnumberone said:
If you've got about three hours of time, Once Upon a Time in the West is worth a watch.
Click to expand...

This. I'm inclined to say it may be the best opening ten-minutes or so of any film; just a masterful introductory sequence.

Plus: Claudia Cardinale.

(Not to mention Henry Fonda's somewhat daring decision to dive into a villain's role — especially considering similar stars like John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart were not really comfortable taking the cool-but-villainous roles they were offered later in their careers.)
 
KeithLockhart said:
I personally never understood GFII when I was younger. As I got older and watched it more, I understood the subtle things not so obvious like in the first, the betrayal and the chess match between Michael vs. Roth. It was a darker and deeper movie IMO than one, which was more star power and in your face drama. It's to where I put GF2 right at the same level as GF1 for me. They're both movies I could just keep watching over and over and enjoy.

On a criterion note, I picked up Seconds yesterday, one of Rock Hudson's more notable movies. I'll be enjoying it. Beautiful 4k restoration.
Click to expand...

Yea, I guess for my tastes the first film holds more power and sway, and – as I mentioned – I just think it's a tighter and more technically superlative film. But my inclinations and reflections with respect to the two films may be decidedly influenced by the fact that I hadn't seen either until I grew more seriously interested in the broader filmic landscape during my later years in college; in high-school, it was pretty much The Gospel According to Kubrick.

Let me know how Seconds is. I'm a huge Rock Hudson fan, and if you like him you should definitely check out Giant – which isn't in the Criterion Collection, but is an incredibly affective psychological Western co-starring my girl, the resplendent Elizabeth Taylor, and featuring what is perhaps James Dean's finest performance – along with two exemplary Douglas Sirk films available on Criterion dvd: All That Heaven Allows and (the even better) Written on the Wind.

(Sirk, by the way, is a damn fine director.)
 
KeithLockhart said:
I personally never understood GFII when I was younger. As I got older and watched it more, I understood the subtle things not so obvious like in the first, the betrayal and the chess match between Michael vs. Roth. It was a darker and deeper movie IMO than one, which was more star power and in your face drama. It's to where I put GF2 right at the same level as GF1 for me. They're both movies I could just keep watching over and over and enjoy.

On a criterion note, I picked up Seconds yesterday, one of Rock Hudson's more notable movies. I'll be enjoying it. Beautiful 4k restoration.
Click to expand...

Have to disagree SAV. I think 2 is good. But the seeming need to have the Vito subplot to support the movie clearly indicates the movie isn't as strong as 1 was.

I got into a discussion with my girlfriend the other day. And I decided Al Pacino is a massively overrated actor. You often see him at the top of best actor awards but he's really 1 note and for me the only role he succeeded in was Michael Corleone. I think DeNiro is a much better 1 note actor.

We also discussed who would be our top 10 actors and had a hard time really formulating the list. Only truth I'd admit is that in my top 10 you'd have Brando, DDL, Newman, and Nicholson. After that it gets really debateable. But I picked those guys because no matter what movie they're in in any role, they shine through. My case examples are the Departed and Apocalypse Now. Brando was barely in Apocalypse Now, maybe has what 30 minutes of plot time in Redux if that, and the thing people remember from that movie is "the horror". And the Departed despite all the other names and a very underrated performance from Marky Mark, Nicholson steals the screen every chance he gets.
 
zitothebrave said:
Have to disagree SAV. I think 2 is good. But the seeming need to have the Vito subplot to support the movie clearly indicates the movie isn't as strong as 1 was.

I got into a discussion with my girlfriend the other day. And I decided Al Pacino is a massively overrated actor. You often see him at the top of best actor awards but he's really 1 note and for me the only role he succeeded in was Michael Corleone. I think DeNiro is a much better 1 note actor.

We also discussed who would be our top 10 actors and had a hard time really formulating the list. Only truth I'd admit is that in my top 10 you'd have Brando, DDL, Newman, and Nicholson. After that it gets really debateable. But I picked those guys because no matter what movie they're in in any role, they shine through. My case examples are the Departed and Apocalypse Now. Brando was barely in Apocalypse Now, maybe has what 30 minutes of plot time in Redux if that, and the thing people remember from that movie is "the horror". And the Departed despite all the other names and a very underrated performance from Marky Mark, Nicholson steals the screen every chance he gets.
Click to expand...

The entire Vito subplot, is to explain and show and explain parallels in the present time:
1)Michael's rise to power was similar to his father's. (They both had to assassinate someone important).
2) Why Vito always cared extra about Fredo because he was sick. It showed how weak Fredo was from birth to the present day.
3) When Kay says "with this sicilian thing that's been going on for hundreds of years", it's to show how the game has not changed that much.
4) It shows how cunning Vito became, how loyal he was to people before he was in power, and how he rose to power. It shows lots of similarities to Michael.
5) The last scene was particularly important, because 1) Everyone at the table was against Michael's decision to join the Marines, except Fredo who ironically would be the one Michael killed. 2) It reaffirms what Vito said to him in Part 1 that "I never wanted this for you Michael (to join the crime world)."

The movie itself is deeper than Part 1, which is not really a mind game. Part 1 is more fun, but Part 2 has a darker tone which is what evens it out for having a lesser cast. The Senate Investigation of Michael Corleone itself is amazing to watch, because of how realistic it is even to this day.
 
zitothebrave said:
Part Two is deeper?

I think I've heard it all. The main story line is truly skin deep.
Click to expand...

What was the main story line in part 1?

Vito trying to be assassinated? Saulatso being killed? Michael becoming a Don? Michael cleaning house? There was no central plot, it was just superstar actors putting on a show. I have nothing against Part 1, I probably watch Part 1 6/10 vs. Part 2 just because of Brando, Caan, along with Pacino.

At least Part 2 had a storyline from beginning to end.

I used to not like GF2, but after having watched it several times, I appreciate it much more. There's small bits and pieces that don't stand out that you appreciate after having watched it.

It had a weaker cast because no Brando,James Caan, Castellano, Vigoda. GF2 has more subtle stuff, more of a chess match you're watching.

Everyone was on the same page in GF1, the Corleone Family were the true protagonists.

Part 2 there's just more mafiaesque activity going on, Fredo was a traitor (even if it was unknowingly), the way they set up Senator Geary in that brothel, the way they brought in Pentangeli's brother when he was testifying in front of the Senate, the betrayal, the breaking down of the Corleone Family. Part 1, the only betrayal really is Tessio turning to Brazini after Michael becomes Don. Even that, and Carlo beating up Connie were dead obvious just awesomely executed.

And DeNiro's time as an up and coming guy in that time in New York was also very important. It's something I didn't care for initially, but I think it was well done to parallel Vito's rise and Michael's rise and the similarities. It also shows Don Tommasino and why Vito is so loyal to him and vice versa.
 
Two of the most underrated scenes from GF2

Show me a scene comparable in Part 1, where the dialogue and subtle context of what Hagen and Pentangelli are talking about, is matched? When they killed Tessio after finding out his betrayal, it was only a brief exchange of "It wasn't personal, it was strictly business". Duvall's acting in this scene was awesome as well, because you could see the nostalgia in his character.

This scene is important as well because it's the only scene in the entire saga where we see Mama Corleone talk. She was the backbone for Vito for several years and she was probably the most innocent member of the family, so it's interesting to see her take on the values of family and her strength.
 
The second Godfather definitely has some exemplary scenes – the closing flashback sequence with the family at the table before Michael enlists, in particular, is astoundingly resonant – but there are also, in my opinion, so very underwhelming scenes; the slow pan over the immigrants' faces as they stare up at New York from the boat-deck, for instance, is downright hammy. Meanwhile, I don't think there is a single bad scene, moment, or decision in the first Godfather, which is why I ultimately prefer it, and regard it as an effectively perfect film.
 
zitothebrave said:
What's the plot of the first? Seriously SAV?
Click to expand...

I am serious.

And that's not to take away from the movie because it's still something I prefer over 1.

But there are tons of things going on in Part 1.

Half the movie is about Vito's attempted assassination, a portion is Michael in Italy getting married and coming back to USA, a portion is him coming back and taking over, then Sonny dying and Michael killing all the Dons + Carlo.

Part 2 is consistent from beginning to end. There's a traitor, a snitch against the family from within the family, and it's all about uncovering and revealing that person who turns out to be Johnny Ola, Roth, and Fredo, and then getting rid of them to settle family business.
 
What's the story? It's basically a story about a passing of the era. It's about the rise of a new don and the falling of old ways.

Though the story is much more indepth than that of course, in all reality it's a story about family (and betrayal) and business.
 
By the way: Jiří Menzel's Closely Watched Trains (a recent Criterion purchase of mine) is ****ing ridiculously great.

Closelywatchedtrains.jpg
 
Mud ended up being pretty good, I thought McConaughey's role was well acted. Would recommend checking it out
 
A fascinating article entitled Stanley Kubrick's Unmade Film About Jazz in the Third Reich, a short description of which I'll quote:

Kubrick wanted to tell the tale of Dietrich Schulz-Koehn, a swing-loving Luftwaffe officer who wrote about the music scenes in Nazi-occupied cities using the pen name "Dr. Jazz."
Click to expand...
 
Only God Forgives might be the weirdest movie I have ever seen, top 3 for sure....that's really all I can say about it, for now.
 
New Criterions:

The Furies (1950), directed by Anthony Mann and starring Barbara Stanwyck and Walter Huston in one of Mann's first westerns. The Criterion edition includes the long-out-of-print source-novel by Niven Busch; this is a title I've been excited about buying for a long while, and was lucky to snatch it at a steep discount.



Pale Flower (1964), directed by Masahiro Shinoda and accurately described by Criterion as a "cool, seductive jewel of the Japanese New Wave". I watched a downloaded copy of this film a few years ago, and can say that it's an absolute masterpiece and entirely worth watching even if you aren't a fan of yakuza films or the Japanese New Wave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top