Why is...?

[Guest ShamRock]

Why is The Godfather good? Or in that case, why are most old movies good?

 

I like The Godfather and Taxi Driver, but movie marks (my term for those who think movies such as Rollerball and XXX are cool movies) think of these as boring movies.

 

 

So why do you think Godfather is good?

[Guest MaxPower27]

I've never seen it.

[Guest WrestlingDeacon]

Then you have nothing to add to the conversation Max, so why post?

 

What makes a movie good to you is all personal opinion, you like certain things and don't like others. In a general sense of what makes a film good, it's all about having quality fundamental and technical elements. Solid acting, inventive direction, sharp editing, good lighting, good sound, good sets, good costumes, kick ass script. The Godfather naturally had this in spades along with focusing on a level of Americana (the naturalized Italian mafia) which had never really been touched upon much in films to that point, beyond the gangster films of the thirties.

 

Studios and producers today are more focused on making money first and a good movie second. That's why you see elements, like big computer effects and top names, in movies regardless of whether they play into making a quality film, just as long as they can make a high grossing one. Also, it's said that the "MTV generation" has a short attention span and lower expectations so you can get away with shorter and sloppier films. Those who find older movies to be slow and boring are exactly the stereotyped Gen-X'ers that people are always pointing to as the ruin of society.

 

In general though, I find this question to be a little too broad to give a consise, specific answer too.

[Guest MaxPower27]

Then you have nothing to add to the conversation Max, so why post?

Because maybe someone can clue me in on why these movies are so HYPED by everyone. Of the parts that I've seen, I wasn't impressed.

 

Since Shamrock asks the question "Why are these movies considered good?" I threw my hat into the ring. I too would like to know.

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

Well, I've never actually been able to sit down through the whole thing, because I just can't get into it. However, most people do say the story and the acting. So, I'll just say that people like the movie because of why a movie should be liked: the cast and the script.

 

People like pieces of shit like XXX and The Fast And The Furious because they think "big budget + sexy cast + guns + extreme stunts + TONS OF EXPLOSIONS~! = good movie." My friend Emily is a prime example, only change "movie" to "book" (she can't stand The Catcher In The Rye because, and I quote, "I need explosions and guns and shit to keep my attention;" yes, I hate some of my friends too).

[Guest El Satanico]

Most old movies weren't good, just as most new movies aren't good.

 

It just seems like most old movies were great because only the great movies are remembered 20 years later.

 

 

20 years from now the last ten years will appear to be the greatest era ever because there's been alot of good movies over that time. However, the last ten years will look alot better than it actually was in twenty years. For every good movie there has been two bad movies and in Twenty years the bad ones won't be remembered.

[Guest The Amazing Rando]

The Godfather is good because there had not been a real good mafia movie ever made and when it was released it drew alot of attention to itself because of it showed a pretty accurate portrayal of what we would consider a "traditional crime family"...

 

that is something that had not really been done before in filmmaking. It also had an excellent cast that they knew would bring in the moviegoers with the plot and drama that would keep them coming back to see it again and again.

 

I've seen the movie probably ten times and I love it. It doesn't feel like a very long movie, though I'm sure if I watched with a critic's eye that I could point out things that could have been cut...but as just a moviegoer.... it's just a fantastic piece of cinema.

[Guest WrestlingDeacon]

Not shitting on you Max, just wondering, but I can see where others would wonder this. If I sat down and watched The Godfather again and make notes, I could tell you all why it's one of the greatest movies ever made in extreme detail, but I don't see me having the time or will to do that anytime soon.

 

I still say that if you're trained to like the films of today and that type of blockbuster Hollywood mentality, then it might be harder for you to get into some older films simply because of the slowed down style and unfamiliar actors and settings. Same thing if you tried to watch wrestling matches from the '70's. But the things that make any movie good will always generally stand and I could list a bunch of classics from the past ten years that I love dearly and think will be revered just like the Godfather 30 years from now.

[Guest Youth N Asia]

The Godfather is a good story, but it can be slow at times. I liked the movie a lot, but not something I'll watch over and over again.

[Guest godthedog]

Or in that case, why are most old movies good?

how is one supposed to answer that question? i've seen thousands of movies, hundreds of "old" ones, and i can't imagine how i'd even respond if someone said to me "you know 'citizen kane', 'rear window', 'the 400 blows', 'umberto d', 'greed', all those kind of movies...why are they good?" that's something you just have to answer on a case-by-case basis, cause all old movies don't fit into one genre with a set of rules, and no 2 movies are good for the same reason. i could probably answer something like "why did ____ make good movies?", cause there's consistencies you can point to. but you can't just give a reason for old movies being good.

 

 

 

 

***********************SPOILERS (fuck the syntax)*********************

 

 

 

anyway, why i love 'the godfather': endearing story that's pitch-perfect, with the pacing just right to make the central story (michael's descent into a cold bastard) as dramatic as possible. it hits all the right notes, and doesn't take too long to dwell on anything--it makes a point concisely & effectively, then moves on. i think pauline kael said it was "the perfect balance of exploitation and high art," & that's exactly what it is: there's superficial thrills like sex & violence & the machismo, but it's woven into this beautiful story that manages to say something important and give you great characters.

 

there's few movies i can think of that run you through the emotional gauntlet that 'godfather' does. there's suspense, there's warmth, there's pathos (i seriously come close to tears when vito breaks down after sonny is massacred), there's moments that give you chills...

 

it sets up a very firm value system, and then totally twists it around & perverts it into something unholy. vito corleone is lionized by everyone and values his family more than anything else in life, yet his family falls apart from the violence that vito bred into them, and by the end of the movie, the "family" becomes an abomination that took the most wholly good person in the film (michael) & turned him into a monster.

 

some of the best ensemble acting ever, possibly THE best ensemble acting ever. i still think robert de niro would've been a better choice as sonny than james caan, but caan can still hold his own with everyone else. not to mention everyone else (brando, pacino, duvall, cazale) is each one of the best actors of their generation.

 

i could go on & on. but those are the basic reasons.

 

"big budget + sexy cast + guns + extreme stunts + TONS OF EXPLOSIONS~! = good movie."

oddly enough, 'the godfather' has most of these.

 

Studios and producers today are more focused on making money first and a good movie second. That's why you see elements, like big computer effects and top names, in movies regardless of whether they play into making a quality film, just as long as they can make a high grossing one.

studio heads have ALWAYS been concerned with money first & quality second. for every 'ben hur', there's a hundred 'cleopatra's. they've always relied on sure bets & doing things the way they've been done before (in the days before, it was genres & the star system; now it's those 2, and special effects), and they'll only try something different when their backs are against the wall. this is what lead to the big upshot in quality of the 70s in american movies: the studios were losing insane amounts of money, and taking chances on young directors to do films that were faster & more youth-oriented, trying to be more like 'bonnie & clyde' and 'the graduate' than 'gone with the wind'

Edited May 22, 2003 by godthedog

[Guest NoCalMike]

Kind of off subject here, but if you want to see the difference between how movies are marketed to american audiences opposed to foreign audiences, just watch The Ring, then RINGU. You will see which elements the american version keeps, and which they try to "enhance" and then you will see what they change or put LESS emphasis on.