1. It was absolutely groundbreaking, in that it it gives us a pov of the Mafia in a manner which hadn’t been really done before.
You might be right, but to actually prove that, you'd have to prove that there were no other movies with the POV of gangsters. Like, there was no Scarface or The Public Enemy. And no movies on the Mafia specifically. Like Mafioso, which is specifically on the Sicilian Mafia, and it came out in 1962. And if you emphasize "in a manner that hadn't been really done before", then I can say this: The gist of it is still the same. There had never been movies like Indiana Jones before. But there were old adventure films whose quality varied but whose purity of vision was not soiled by Spielberg's quasi-revisionist approach that traded dignity for two-bit scraps of entertainment. It's not to say there's no value in entertainment, all the more entertainment that poses meaningful questions about our nature, but for a film to be groundbreaking it has to significantly expand the map of the medium, be it innovative visual/sound, technique, or experimental approach. Attempts at adding variety to the medium are worth noting, too. But they're for the most part insufficient to hail a film the greatest of all time.
2. I’m not sure how you think it didn’t “push cinema forward”, as it was highly influential.
I actually explained this in the brackets: "Or worse yet, if it did, it
did versus being so special it
didn't but
should have!". Singular, sublime works of art are that for a few reasons. One of them is, nobody can repeat these feats, sometimes including the very auteurs. Hence the suggestion that movies that are truly the best are those whose influence was, paradoxically, smaller. Or, even if it was great, nobody managed to achieve the same results. Notwithstanding, I believe you overrate the influence The Godfather had, which would actually align with my point and promote The Godfather as truly great, oh the irony. After all, even Coppola himself couldn't make the third Godfather film as great as the previous two. So yes, this is a double-sided issue. I can see why people who don't know any better would see The Godfather as truly the best film in existence. And maybe that's good. After all, there has to be a film that
has to be seen as the best. And The Godfather is a more fitting candidate than The Shawshank Redemption.
3. Its aesthetics are quite fine. Maybe it just doesn’t fit what you want, which is fine, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t has great aesthetics.
I literally said that it looks great. And again, I described in more detail in the brackets: "Not in the artistic sense of the utmost standard of saintly beauty.". I don't think aesthetics are dogmatic at all but I believe that one who dabbles in the highest echelons of cinematic art does sooner or later develop a certain taste for a higher level of aesthetics that The Godfather does not embody. It's another thing to accept another sort of visual flair. But recognizing ascetic, spiritual beauty when you see it is paramount to truly start the "best ever" debate. When you think about the best movies, go for the "archaic" definition of the word sublime and see if the film fits the criteria: "elevate to a high degree of moral or spiritual purity or excellence".
4. It isn’t meant to “lift” one’s soul, but show how easily one’s soul can be corrupted. It’s almost Shakespeare like its tragedy.
I agree that not all films set out to achieve such a commendable goal. (If anything, only a select few ever attempt this!) But this is even more the reason to promote those that do and succeed! It's not sufficient for a film to express principles applicable to all members of society, though that's an excellent start. The movies that are truly the best are the most sublime and IRRATIONALLY so. I think it's natural we apply standards that are realistic and allow us to enjoy most movies. But this isn't the reason to forget about the ideal of beauty. No doubt there is more than one ideal, and which one is superior, and if any, is up for debate. But if our standards are so low that we refuse to look for or admit there is an ideal, oh how low our souls have sunk.
5. Doesn’t have to be transcendental, as this is a rather arbitrary (as are most of these issues, really).
I'm sure you'd agree that in order to be called "the best of all time", a film has to be
something. It has to stand out in at least one way if not many ways. Ideally, it has to be an ideal, a film that sets fire to life. Now the question remains, how does the film achieve this? By merely being good craftsmanship without a soul? Surely not. So there's a need for something more. Something beyond its "materialistic" nature.
6. Restrained? How? It actually is unconventional it it’s structure and themes for it’s time.
If so, it isn't unconventional enough. Think of a work of art that attempts to totally change the way we think about movies. That seeks to change our way of seeing. And notice that The Godfather isn't one of them. Sure, there's a lot of value in movies that are perfectly balanced. Think Sansho the Bailiff and how well every element of the film works towards the ultimate goal of the film. Or Parsifal, what a Gesamtkunstwerk it is! I'd say The Godfather is relevant, too. Just not an exemplar.