someone explain why this movie is considered one of the best, because I can't see it.
valid arguments please
Good acting, good cinematography, good score
It's hard to find many faults in it. I don't think it's the best ever but it deserves to be on the top more then most the imdb trash like Dark Knight and Pulp Fiction.
>>71751611
But it is imdb trash. #2 imdb trash even.
if you can't see it, you're beyond helping. Godfather's appeal is universal
>>71751540
Nino Rota and Brando not enough? It was for me.
it introduced the movie going public to Jar Jar Binks
>>71751687
I'm just saying compared to the other stuff on imdb's top chart.
>>71751540
Watch the first half an hour, the wedding party.
You almost can tell it's reality. It's like a documentary, absolutely realistic.
And this is the first argument.
It's literally flawless. Everything in it is perfect: acting, directing, story, soundtrack, cinematography, pacing... I think Part II is better, though.
>>71751540
You can google your question and find a million results, so instead why don't you make some valid arguments on why you don't think it's a great movie
>>71751763
this 2bh
>>71751778
vice versa
It's okay to not like a film but if you need someone to explain to you why you should because you just don't get it, you never will. Don't try to force it on yourself just move on.
>>71751883
maybe I gave the wrong impression, I do like it, I just can't see why it's always in top 5 lists.
was it groundbreaking in cinematography or acting or some other technique?
not hating, I'm genuinely curious
>explain color to a blind man
cant help you
>>71751768
the restaurant scene alone is better than anything in part 2. what a perfect scene
It had a lot of great lines too.
>>71751987
it has an amazingly deep story with no wasted scenes or story to make it deep
every single scene unto itself is outstanding alone, and as it contributes to the whole of the story
it's also some of the finest American artists working at their crafts at the top of their games
>>71751768
Part I needed tighter editing which was improved in part 2
Pacino is excruciatingly wooden in Part I but he really improved in part 2
Sterling Hayden's acting was cringy in part I. Odd since he was so mesmerizing in Dr. Strangelove
Diane Keaton isn't to blame but the writers made her a shitty character, especially in part 2
DeNiro in part 2 was more fun to watch than Brando in part 1 although Brando's the better actor
Part 2 was an improvement especially with it's kino elements
>>71752165
>wooden
absolute pleb, he was stoic
>>71751987
It was the first gangster film to look at The American Mafia from a cultural perspective, instead of just 'American gangster's rise and fall' which was the norm up until that time.
It's also just very well made in every respect, one of those movies that just doesn't have any weak aspects.
Also I always love the scene where Brando smacks the Frank Sinatra character and yells at him, 'You can act like a man!' when he starts whimpering about not getting a movie part he wants. It was partly improvised and the actor playing the Sinatra stand in goes from being offended by the slap to laughing at the face Brando makes when he imitates him whimpering.
Cracks me up every time I see it.
>>71752094
I think the scene in part 2 where DeNiro shoots the guy in the building and climbs from roof to roof while deconstructing the gun and throwing it down chimneys is really fucking close.
DUDE ITALY LMAO
it's decent
that ost is just pure sex
>>71751540
>>71751687
Someone always gotta make it simple. If it took 25 posts, better be me: Kill yourself, OP
>>71753205
/thread
