The 19th Hall of Fame

Tools    





Women will be your undoing, Pépé

The Godfather (1972)

So what is it that people love about this movie? In a way it could be described as the ultimate soap opera. Now I know people use the phrase 'soap opera' negatively when talking about a movie, but not me. To me a film that's soap opera like, means it has a lot of heart and it has a lot of complex human interrelationships, and to me that's what makes a movie interesting. With a 'soap opera' movie if it's done well, you get so much more than just an action-thriller. The Godfather takes us inside of the Corleone family and make us a part of that closely woven family for a three hour journey. We see their hopes and aspirations, we learn the meaning of loyalty and respect, and we see how interconnected relationships can break down when loyalty is lost.

The first act is by far my favorite that's where we meet the Corleone family as they come together to celebrate their daughter's wedding. The Godfather is based on a rather lengthy novel and that's why the second and third acts seem condensed as the director is tying to squeeze this big story into a 3 hour movie. That's always a problem for lengthy/detailed novels being turned into a screen play. If this had been made as a 2 part movie, with 6 hours the full story could have been told exceptionally well. I do think highly of Francis Ford Coppola, and I've considered nominating a couple of his films. Well maybe one day I will. What keeps me from loving The Godfather, is that I'm not at all interested in organized crime or movies about it.
Had a very strong feeling you'd enjoy the soap opera aspect of The Godfather, regardless of it being a genre you're not a fan of.
Glad to hear it.
__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes
~Mr Minio



Let the night air cool you off
The Godfather


The Godfather gets touted as the greatest movie of all-time a lot. I don't think that's true, and I don't think it gets close to a whole bunch of my favorite movies. That's not the name of this game though. It only has to be the greatest movie of this small group of films to be the winner. If you make the argument that it is indeed the greatest movie of this group of films, I wouldn't look at you sideways. There's a lot to like about The Godfather. The daughter's wedding is perfect. You couldn't ask for a better way to set the table. The end of the film is perfect. You couldn't ask for a better way to solidify Michael's transformation. The juxtaposition of the baptism and the violent ends to all those involved with the attacks on the Corleone family was so well done that I think that scene has a legitimate claim to the throne of the best movie scene of all-time. I also love the look of the film. From the usage of color, such as the different fruits, plants, and colorful outfits of the various people not involved in the family to the dark colors of the well-dressed mafia men, it all looks good. Luca Brasi looks like my aunt's ex-husband, and that is funny to me, which is a bonus for this film. I also love the music. It makes parts of this film feel so haunting. Pacino's young, handsome face is perfect for the character of Michael Corleone. It fits the music. It all adds together and creates a lot of tension. The horse head in the bed is iconic and great. There's a lot to love in this film.

The Godfather is not perfect though. Citizen mentioned the pacing, and he's right. The back half of the film feels rushed. It doesn't seem like enough time is spent on Michael in Italy, or maybe that portion of the film is unnecessary. I'd never dictate to Coppola on how to do it or what should have been, but the stuff in Italy didn't really do it for me. Michael's courting and marriage and loss of his Italian wife just flies by and I don't really know how I am supposed to feel about it. He seems stricken by her at first, but I don't know if I am supposed to interpret this as him really, truly falling in love or not. Maybe there could have been more gravitas there. Citizen also mentioned soap operas, which at times, I would agree with him on. The Corleone sister acted as though she was in a soap opera, which was kind of off-putting for me this time around. It's not enough to ruin anything for me, but it was noticeable to me how much better I liked all the performances of the guys playing the Corleone men.

The Godfather is not the best film of all-time, but it is still pretty damn good. The sequel is better and so is The Sopranos.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
I would rank the best mafia movies as (and this is the part where you all kill me):

1. The Godfather 2
2. Once Upon a Time in America
3. The Godfather 1
4. Goodfellas
5. The Untouchables



Women will be your undoing, Pépé



Tombstone

Wyatt Earp: How are you?
Doc Holliday: I'm dying, how are you?

I will first start with what I truly love about this film.
Val Kilmer.
His every nuance, swagger, spoken word; including a very well done Southern accent via Georgia, Kilmer utterly nails it. Giving Doc Holliday a bit of panache that places him on an equal plane with past actors who have, in equal measure, did an outstanding job as the former dentist, now gambler and killer, dying of tuberculosis. Placing Kilmer, accordingly, within their number. His performance shines with a brilliance above and beyond everyone and everything in this film.

Perhaps that's why I find almost everyone else sort of dulls in their performance. Which is a complete shame for actors who should be doing the exact same thing. Kurt Russell and Sam Elliott should have knocked their roles out of the park. And yet, somehow, it feels more like a half-hearted attempt at something they've grown tired of doing over and over again, previously.
The same with Boothe Powers, whom I KNOW can do a man of villainous persona far, FAR better (eg Deadwood for one) than the mere serpent beneath the feet of righteous men that he does here. Along with the rest of the Clantons and McLaurys that are portrayed as cowardly scum and thereby exalting the Earps to almost mythical stoicism.
The exception to this is Michael Biehn's Johnny Ringo who, even in the end, this ruthless gunslinger loses his grit upon facing off with Doc Holliday.

Perhaps I'm being unnecessarily critical of an action western focusing on the bravado of a historical and famous shoot out and it's aftermath than on the participants themselves. Making things more of a flash. The rare bits of substance are more to enhance the flash of this real life incident made legend.
Perhaps that critique is because I've seen past renditions that still provide a humanistic connection with, at least Wyatt and Doc.
Thereby, the fault is mine for seeing the immense potential and taking umbrage with it merely skimming the surface. And I shouldn't fault a film for taking that route. As I do find myself doing from time to time when viewing this very worthwhile western.

I do enjoy this film. And have enjoyed revisiting it on several occasions.
It is just that it only incurs a deeper thirst for the story and the people involved instead of sating said thirst or, for that matter, creating an inebriation worthy of that story and those people who lived it.

So, while this particular revisit wasn't of the highest caliber, I still consider this a good rendition with an incredible Doc Holliday.




Tombstone (1993)

I've been meaning to re-watch Tombstone ever since I got on an O.K. Corral movie kick. Over the last few months I've watched a number of films about the gunfight at O.K. Corral. Some you might know of, like John Ford's My Darling Clementine (1946). Others you should've heard of like John Sturges' pair of fine films: Gunfight at OK Corral (1957) & Hour of the Gun (1967)...And others like the Marie Osmond's TV vehicle, I Married Wyatt Earp (1983) is best unheard of.

As I worked my way through all these films and documentaries too, I started getting an appreciation for the life of Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday and the infamous fight in Tombstone at the O.K. Corral. Well actually the gun fight only lasted seconds and took place in a vacant lot next to the O.K. Corral, but like they say, 'don't get your history from movies.'

I probably could write a mini novella about the real Wyatt Earp and still get it all wrong because the only true facts are: that no one left alive knows the real story and it has been spun so many different ways that Wyatt and Doc have entered that magical realm of mytho-heros and have become like Captain Kirk and Mr Spock.

Tombstone doesn't try to be factual, thank goodness...Instead it takes the myth and delivers it up in a folklore way. The characters are larger than life with memorable lines and unforgettable scenes that one can recall long after the movie is over. The last Wyatt film I watched was Kevin Costner in Wyatt Earp (1994), I can't say I remember a thing about that movie, not one line, not one scene...and I just watched it a couple month ago. Dennis Quad was a great Doc in it, but for my money I'm going with Val Kilmer as the best Doc Holiday around. Val's Doc has heart and damn if he doesn't get all the best scenes to boot, even the scene without his boots! I loved the scene where he first meets Johnny Ringo who pulls out his gun and spins it around all fancy like...then, Doc answers him by taking a tiny tin cup and spinning it around his finger like it was a fancy six shooter. Did Val Kilmer win best supporting actor? If not he was robbed!
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	a.jpg
Views:	615
Size:	154.4 KB
ID:	54631  





Gaslight (George Cukor, 1944)
Imdb

Date Watched: 06/01/19
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: The 19th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by Siddon
Rewatch: No.


Well, I've got some mixed feelings on this one. I realize that my task in this Hall of Fame is to compare this film to the other nine nominations but after my little mix-up it is of course impossible not to compare this film to the 1940 version.

First I'll talk about its strengths. I thought the performances were much stronger here. They felt a little more natural than in the earlier film and I had an easier time buying into the charm of Charles Boyer's "Gregory Anton" than in Anton Walbrooks's "Paul Mallon." I also felt more strongly for Ingrid Bergman's "Paula" than for Diana Wynyard's "Bella." (I see what you did there with the names, writers.) Paula seemed far less frail in the beginning than Bella and so her husband's efforts to break down her mind felt more tragic. I also think it was smart to change it from the husband being the nephew of the previous owner to the wife being the niece and heir to the house, rather than a random victim with money enough to allow the husband to buy the house.

Now to its big weakness: the length and pacing. I felt less engaged with this film than with the earlier version and paused it a few times to take some breaks. I'll allow that part of my struggle with it was the familiarity with the basic plot, having just watched the other version the previous day, but mostly it was the unnecessary padding of the story. There was no need for us to actually see the romance between Gregory and Paula and those scenes only made the opening drag and make a story that took 84 minutes to tell in 1940, plod on for nearly 2 hours. I was also rather irritated with Miss Thwaites - the utterly pointless and annoying nosy neighbor character whose scenes also padded out the film.

Overall still a very good story and a strong film, though I can't say for certain which version I liked better.

-





Gaslight (George Cukor, 1944)
Imdb

Date Watched: 06/01/19
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: The 19th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by Siddon
Rewatch: No.


Well, I've got some mixed feelings on this one. I realize that my task in this Hall of Fame is to compare this film to the other nine nominations but after my little mix-up it is of course impossible not to compare this film to the 1940 version.

First I'll talk about its strengths. I thought the performances were much stronger here. They felt a little more natural than in the earlier film and I had an easier time buying into the charm of Charles Boyer's "Gregory Anton" than in Anton Walbrooks's "Paul Mallon." I also felt more strongly for Ingrid Bergman's "Paula" than for Diana Wynyard's "Bella." (I see what you did there with the names, writers.) Paula seemed far less frail in the beginning than Bella and so her husband's efforts to break down her mind felt more tragic. I also think it was smart to change it from the husband being the nephew of the previous owner to the wife being the niece and heir to the house, rather than a random victim with money enough to allow the husband to buy the house.

Now to its big weakness: the length and pacing. I felt less engaged with this film than with the earlier version and paused it a few times to take some breaks. I'll allow that part of my struggle with it was the familiarity with the basic plot, having just watched the other version the previous day, but mostly it was the unnecessary padding of the story. There was no need for us to actually see the romance between Gregory and Paula and those scenes only made the opening drag and make a story that took 84 minutes to tell in 1940, plod on for nearly 2 hours. I was also rather irritated with Miss Thwaites - the utterly pointless and annoying nosy neighbor character whose scenes also padded out the film.

Overall still a very good story and a strong film, though I can't say for certain which version I liked better.

-

Yeah I can't imagine not hating the length and pacing when you watched the shorter version first and then immediately watched the remake you basically had to do a scholarly comparison on a thriller which y'know takes a bite out of the central drama and theme.




Angel Face (1953)

I liked it! I re-watched it last night and really got into the movie this time. I think the reason I didn't care much for it the 1st time was that I was watching a bunch of film noirs, back to back. And when I got to Angel Face, it didn't quite jive with the other noirs I was watching, with their hard boiled detectives and slinky femme fatales...and quirky one liners. But you know what? There was no such genre as film noir back in the 40s-50s, that's a made up movie term. So it's no surprise that Angel Face doesn't fit into what we now consider noir. It wasn't trying to be noir-ish, it has it's own unique style.

Both Jean Simmons and Robert Mitchum were great in this and so was the supporting cast. I swear ever time I see Miss Simmons she's playing a cold, calculating, odd ball, that men are best warned to stay away from! What I liked about Robert Mitchum's character is he's kind of sneaky lying to his girlfriend and kind of a not to bright type of guy. That all works well for the story so that the two love birds can end up feathering their own nest.

Otto Preminger handled the pacing and direction beautiful, never a lull or awkward scene, the movie flows from start to finish. I'm for one am glad to see an older film nominated, thanks @neiba
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	385fb71f.jpg
Views:	378
Size:	25.9 KB
ID:	54633  




Angel Face (1953)

I liked it! I re-watched it last night and really got into the movie this time. I think the reason I didn't care much for it the 1st time was that I was watching a bunch of film noirs, back to back. And when I got to Angel Face, it didn't quite jive with the other noirs I was watching, with their hard boiled detectives and slinky femme fatales...and quirky one liners. But you know what? There was no such genre as film noir back in the 40s-50s, that's a made up movie term. So it's no surprise that Angel Face didn't fit into what we now consider noir. It wasn't trying to be noir-ish, it's its own style.

Both Jean Simmons and Robert Mitchum were great in this. I swear ever time I see Miss Simmons she's a cold, calculating, odd ball that men are best warned to stay away from! What I liked about Mitchum's character is he's kind of sneaky, lying to his girlfriend and kind of a not to bright type of guy. That all works well for the story. Otto Preminger handled the pacing and direction beautiful, never a lull or awkward scene. Even the court scene was interesting. I'm for one am glad to see an older film nominated, thanks @neiba
If feels like every time I see her she's an absolute doll. Maybe that's why I like her so much.



Women will be your undoing, Pépé

Angel Face (1953)

I liked it! I re-watched it last night and really got into the movie this time. I think the reason I didn't care much for it the 1st time was that I was watching a bunch of film noirs, back to back. And when I got to Angel Face, it didn't quite jive with the other noirs I was watching, with their hard-boiled detectives and slinky femme fatales...and quirky one-liners. But you know what? There was no such genre as film noir back in the 40s-50s, that's a made-up movie term. So it's no surprise that Angel Face doesn't fit into what we now consider noir. It wasn't trying to be noir-ish, it has its own unique style. [/url]
I had the same scenario the first time I saw Angel Face. Had been watching a slew of fatales and sleuths that a subconscious list of what should be and critiquing it for it instead of enjoying its own way of things.
Which, like you, I'll most likely be doing this time around.



You can have her she always creeps me out, but she's damn good at doing it.
Hmm. Maybe it's because I've only seen her in a handful of swords-and-sandals type flicks, but I've never found her creepy.



BTW I am in this I'm just not sure where to start
Step One: Choose one of the ten nominated films.
Step Two: Watch it.
Step Three: Write and post a review of it in this thread.

Repeat 9 times.





The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972)
Imdb

Date Watched: 6/2/2019
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 19th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by KeyserCorleone
Rewatch: Yes


This is the third time I've sat through this movie and, honestly, I hope it will be the last. I hated it when I watched it the first time back in 2014. I didn't care about the story and I didn't care about the characters. I was bored nearly to tears and felt like it wouldn't ever end. I had to watch it again last year for the Best Picture Hall of Fame and was surprised to find that I didn't hate it. I respected it. The performances were strong, the story was engaging (though I'm not convinced it really needed 3 hours to tell it), and the film looked great, but I still felt nothing for its characters. I also came away with the feeling that perhaps a second rewatch might push me over the line from respecting it to actually liking it.

My feeling was wrong. My experience tonight was really no different than it was last time. I still think the performances are strong, I still think the story is engaging, I still think the film looks great, and I still don't really care about any of its characters. I am once again coming away from this film with a feeling of respect, but not one of fondness.

+



And you thought Forrest Gump was better than the Godfather


/smh







Cinema Paradiso is the coming of age story of Salvatore and his relationship with Alfredo the owner and projectionist of a Movie House named Cinema Paradiso. The film takes the familiar three act structure of portraying Salvatore as a child, teenager, and adult. The adult portion is used for exposition, the teenage part for conflict and the child part for the world building.


Like most films from this era it has a very simple and strong message that I'm not sure I agree with and that's what hurts the film in my eyes...to a point. The film isn't just about a love of movies but also the role of a father and family in each person's lives. Salvatore has been orphaned by the war while Alfredo is a confirmed bachelor. Alfredo leads a somewhat sexless life while Salvatore grows into a person that just has meaningless relationship after meaningless relationship. What is this film telling us about love. The conflict in the first part is the teenage Salvatore falling in love with a girl and then going off to serve and losing touch with her. Is their is a strong sense of cynicism to go with the nostalgia, at one point Alfredo loses his sight in a fire and his love of film is basically taken away from him.


Unfortunately when you have a film where the artist is trying to tell you something other things fall by the wayside. I'm not really sure if any of the performances where strong or if they even mattered because the messaging overwhelms the film. Is this a film or is this a philosophy lecture and how does one properly rate a film like this.



Tombstone 1993 (re-watch)
nominated by: Citizen Rules



This is the first time I have revisited Tombstone since I saw it on the big screen in ‘93. I loved it back then and it has never left my all time Western top ten since.

Big budget, star packed cast movie with very well balanced never too serious or dramatic performances. Features some of my favorite actors in great roles; Powers Boothe, Michael Biehn, and Kurt Russell. Although not one of my favorite actors, Val Kilmer really stole the show, haven't checked his catalog in awhile but I think this may be my favorite Kilmer performance.
A classic and simple story, with like-able characters, delivered in a fast pace for western standards, so it’s never boring. Love the opening and ending title sequence font.
Locations are very town based, it's a bit light on cinematographic wide open landscape shots we usually get from Westerns. (Could also be I was just too spoiled by my last Western nom viewing Open Range which had this aspect in abundance.)

When re-watching a movie after so many years there is always that fear it may have aged in some aspects , but i'm happy too say it stood the test of time and still very much lived up to my memory of it.
Excellent re-watch and nomination.

fav scene



Did Val Kilmer win best supporting actor? If not he was robbed!

1993 was stacked...




John Malkovich - In the Line of Fire
Leonardo Dicaprio - What's Eating Gilbert Grape
Pete Postlethwathe - In the Name of the Father
Raph Fieness - Schindlers List
Ben Kingsley - Schindlers List
Harvey Keitel - The Piano
Denzel Washington - Philadelphia
Will Smith - Six Degrees of Separation
Sean Penn - Carlito's Way

Jeff Daniels - Gettysburg
Tommy Lee Jones - The Fugitive


He was only nominated for one award
https://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000453/1994/1



Angel Face (1953)
...
Otto Preminger handled the pacing and direction beautiful, never a lull or awkward scene, the movie flows from start to finish. I'm for one am glad to see an older film nominated, thanks neiba

A unique noir for sure. The film always seems somehow contemporary in feel to me. You're right about Simmons: sort of a "black widow spider" type. The ending is always a shock, even though it was adequately forewarned. I never felt that the Mitchum character deserved the outcome...

~Doc



And you thought Forrest Gump was better than the Godfather


/smh
I rate movies based mostly on personal enjoyment, not on which is objectively "better."
Forrest Gump is more enjoyable than The Godfather.