The Godfather

Jessica Nguyen85 Active MemberOP

162 messages
joined Jul 2003

#21 · Mar 21, 2003

I’d go as far as calling it Fellini-esque!!!

👍

That scene where the elephant is just running circles during the ritual? It feels like a Scorsese Hommage Fellini moment. There are other influences tucked in there too... maybe some Visconti or Antonioni, though they aren't quite as obvious.

Daniel Smith3 Newcomer

7 messages
joined Jul 2003

#22 · Mar 21, 2003

Jessica Nguyen85 said:👍

That scene where the elephant is running around during the banquet feels like a total Scorsese Hommage Fellini moment. There are definitely other influences creeping in there too... perhaps a bit of Visconti or Antonioni, though they aren't quite as obvious...

Oh my, yes, that little elephant idea is truly quite clever... 😁

It actually just reminded me of another particular sequence....

The part where mada Cameroon-ka shows Leo her necklace, and then he unbuttons his shirt and she starts kissing his chest.......to me, that is definitively one of the most erotic scenes I have ever witnessed in cinema.... 😳 😳

Jessica Nguyen85 Active MemberOP

162 messages
joined Jul 2003

#23 · Mar 21, 2003

when mada Cameroon-ka shows him her earring, then he unbuttons his shirt, and she starts kissing his chest

Man... 😉 ... it's a stinger

I just can't get behind mada Cameroon-ka for this role, especially not for that specific scene. The whole point is for this guy to be wild and actually intimidating, but she just doesn't really project that vibe. Honestly, I'd much rather have seen a young Dema Moora or Uma Thurman in that spot...

mistypanther Member

45 messages
joined Nov 2003

#24 · Mar 22, 2003

This movie is nothing but an overblown, bloated mess!
The way they portrayed DiCaprio's character was about as nuanced as a kitchen rag.
It’s just flat-out garbage.
Absolutely terrible.

Daniel Lopez Active Member

187 messages
joined Sep 2003

#25 · Mar 22, 2003

TzU said:Cammie (I'm not her boyfriend, I just enjoy teasing her)

🤮

And to anyone else who feels like giving her a hard time too 😁

Daniel Smith3 Newcomer

7 messages
joined Jul 2003

#26 · Mar 22, 2003

Jessica Nguyen85 said:Goodness me... 😉 ... it's a stinger

I simply cannot wrap my head around mada Cameroon-ka being cast in that role, especially given that specific scene. The intention was clearly to portray a character who is wild and somewhat dangerous, yet she unfortunately lacks those particular qualities. I find myself wishing they had gone with a young Dema Moora or perhaps Uma Thurman instead...

Now, if we consider the alternatives, Uma seems a bit too tall to play L. di Capri's love interest, and as for Dema Moora, her current age might make her more suited to playing his mother....😁 😁 Well, one could argue she might work as an older sister or perhaps even an older lover, but for this specific part? Not at all!

Hmmmmm, I wonder who else might have been suitable... perhaps Emmanuelle Béart, Cate Blanchett, or even Kate Winslet or a young Sophie Marceau... there are so many talented women out there, and truly, Cameroon-ka just feels like an unfortunate choice.....

northernseal6 Member

38 messages
joined Apr 2012

#27 · Mar 22, 2003

Daniel Smith3 said:Oh man, yeah! That elephant idea is totally brilliant. 😁

I just remembered another scene too...

When mada Cameroon-ka shows him her necklace, then he unbuttons his shirt and she starts kissing his chest... For me, that is definitely one of the most erotic scenes I have ever seen in a movie! 😳 😳

Don't be mad, Daniel Smith3, but that scene wasn't erotic to me at all...😛
Plus, the movie felt a bit hollow; it didn't really blow me away. But DD Lewis was great, and I don't have anything bad to say about Liam Neeson either!

Daniel Smith3 Newcomer

7 messages
joined Jul 2003

#28 · Mar 22, 2003

northernseal6 said:And please don't be mad, Daniel Smith3, but I didn't find that scene erotic at all...😛
I also found the plot to be a bit hollow; it just didn't really grab me. That said, DD Lewis was quite good, and I don't have anything negative to say about Liam Neeson either...

To each their own... so there is absolutely no reason for me to be upset!!
As for my thoughts on the movie and my overall impression, I believe I covered everything in my very first post!!!

Anonymous Veteran

3.6K messages
joined May 2005

#29 · Mar 26, 2003

I watched the movie last night. Honestly? It was kind of a letdown... the characters felt half-baked, the atmosphere was way too pretentious... and the whole "good vs. evil" thing was just pathetically cliché.

Anonymous Veteran

3.6K messages
joined May 2005

#30 · Apr 6, 2003

To’s Scorsese at his best for me—we're talking incredible direction, brilliant concepts, and top-tier acting, but just a good movie. I absolutely love the guy; there isn't a single one of his films that I don't 😉like even a little bit, but he somehow manages to stumble on something in every single movie that keeps it from being truly great.

Like a critic from The New York Times put it, the film feels like a Bruegel painting come to life. To be more precise, Scorsese used a Tolkien-level obsession to build out this entire geography, setting, and "mythology" for his various "factions," but the characters themselves (with the exception of Bill Butcher—BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT D.D.L.) are either flat archetypes or just completely useless. Even the plot is pretty thin, unless you ignore all the heavy-handed symbolism and allegories that feel slightly anti-American (like, for example, the assassination of an immoral, violent gang leader taking place... where? In a Theater! 👍 ).

It could have been shorter. It definitely didn't need that "melting-pot-method-for-building-a-nation-is-hard-but-heroic" message during the final scene, and honestly, it could have used a lot less pretentiousness.

Still, I'd give the movie a four out of five, and Scorsese definitely isn't ready for retirement yet.

cosmiccanyon68 Newcomer

5 messages
joined Mar 2005

#31 · Apr 7, 2003

I’d give this one a solid four or five out of five.
It’s just missing that tiny bit of magic for me to personally crown it a masterpiece... but it's close.

The plot itself? Honestly, it's fantastic. It does such a killer job showing how the USA was actually being built—you see those massive American metropolises coming to life right before your eyes. And if you look between the lines, you can really dig into the whole settlement of the country, the birth of that specific breed of politician we're stuck with today, and all that stuff...

Where it kind of trips up, though, is definitely L. di Capri's performance. I mean, he just wasn't the guy for this role. To me, he's more in that tier of "weak, flimsy, total pushovers"—you know, guys like Tom Hanks or Richard Gere. He would have been way better served by a real character actor, someone like a young Robert De Niro, or maybe Liam Neeson... honestly, nothing else is jumping out at me right now.

Anyway, bottom line: DEFINITELY WATCH THIS MOVIE—it's worth your time!

Anonymous Veteran

3.6K messages
joined May 2005

#32 · Apr 7, 2003

shadowraven382 said:Such an incredible movie! It’s set back in 1862 and really captures the struggle of Irish immigrants fighting for equal rights.👍

It’s basically the same kind of adrenaline rush you get from Die Hard or a classic Deadly weapon, just with period costumes!👎

shadowraven382 Newcomer

4 messages
joined Apr 2003

#33 · Apr 7, 2003

I watched it last night. From a purely technical standpoint, the filmmaking is superb, and I found the portrayal of the current state of America to be quite fascinating.

***SPOILERS***

That being said, I can't help but feel the screenplay feels somewhat formulaic, almost like it was written "by numbers." It follows this predictable cycle where friends fall for the same woman, leading to one betraying the other; then, much like how Butcher betrayed L. di Capri, Butcher eventually betrays him, and finally, Monk hands the razor to Capri, who then proceeds to slash his own face—which honestly felt pretty pointless and cliché. I'm struggling to find the right words for how trite that was.

***END SPOILER***

It seems to me that the film is actually quite subversive. It suggests that America hasn't really progressed since the old days at all—you see the same old themes of war rhetoric, body bags, the wealthy avoiding combat while the poor die, politicians chasing votes, and election fraud. Ultimately, the message seems to imply that you shouldn't challenge the establishment, because you simply cannot win against the state.

Jessica Nguyen85 Active MemberOP

162 messages
joined Jul 2003

#34 · Apr 7, 2003

I get the feeling the movie is actually pretty subversive. It sort of highlights how America hasn't really moved the needle since forever—you know, the usual talk about war, the endless body bags, the wealthy staying safe while the working class gets sent to the front lines, politicians just hunting for votes, and election fraud. Plus, there's that underlying sense in the final message... like, don't go picking fights with the state because you aren't going to win.

👍

Steven Hernandez9 Newcomer

3 messages
joined Apr 2003

#35 · Apr 8, 2003

[i
***END SPOILER***

I suppose one could argue the film is quite subversive, illustrating how the USA hasn't really progressed much since the beginning—the war rhetoric, the body bags, the wealthy avoiding combat while the poor die, politicians chasing votes and rigging elections. Perhaps the ultimate message is simply "don't mess with the establishment because you can't win." [/B]

The movie is about as subversive as a mainstream pop ballad on Top 40 radio. In my estimation, Gangs of New York is by far the worst Scorsese film I have ever seen; it feels overextended, shallow, and dreadfully pathetic. Daniel Day-Lewis looks like he’s suffering from permanent heartburn (somewhat reminiscent of De Niro in those comedies), DiCaprio seems even paler than usual, and even John C. Reilly is underwhelming. The plot is incredibly melodramatic, handled with such Hollywood excess that even a seasoned director would find it embarrassing. At the end, everyone is dead, and DiCaprio just stares at the sun playing a flute. Whatever happened to Kate Winslet? She seemed to be looking for too much screen time, though I suppose Titanic is sixteen times better than this mess. As for being provocative or subversive🙄 politicians are evil, Italians and Irishmen fight, Black characters are stereotyped, and nobody likes anyone. It's hardly provocative at all.

Kenneth Roberts Newcomer

4 messages
joined Feb 2003

#36 · Apr 8, 2003

To movie was perfectly fine by my standards—though, let’s be honest, if it hadn't featured Butcher (or if someone else had been cast in that role), the whole thing would have fallen flat by at least half.

The interesting part is that those gangs aren't just some Hollywood invention; I actually heard that the Butcher character himself was inspired by a real-life figure.

It’s a shame this isn't something like Harry Potter, because then we’d actually see action figures and all that gear in the stores—I’d have snatched up a Butcher figure in a heartbeat (assuming the cleavers and butcher knives weren't sold separately, of course). The man simply dominates the screen from the moment he appears.

🙏

Jessica Nguyen85 Active MemberOP

162 messages
joined Jul 2003

#37 · Apr 8, 2003

Robert De Niro style

De Niro passed on this role. It’s kind of like how DD Lewis once passed on a part in Pulp Fiction.

cosmiccanyon68 Newcomer

5 messages
joined Mar 2005

#38 · Apr 9, 2003

Steven Hernandez9 said:Look, let's just be real—Titanic is sixteen times better than this absolute garbage.

Wow, really? Such refined taste you've got there... truly sophisticated.

If I were measuring pure, unadulterated cheesiness, I’d probably have to start with Titanic.

But hey, whatever. To each their own, I guess...

Steven Hernandez9 Newcomer

3 messages
joined Apr 2003

#39 · Apr 9, 2003

Originally posted by cosmiccanyon68 .

If I were to establish a scale for pure pathos, I suppose I would have to start with Titanic.
[/B]

And you know what the most frustrating part is? You might actually be right. I guess Titanic does suffer from an excess of hollow sentimentality, though regardless of whether one can perceive it, there is at least some semblance of a functional love story within it. Here, however, nothing seems to work. It is almost difficult to believe I am defending Titanic.😁

Anonymous Veteran

3.6K messages
joined May 2005

#40 · Apr 9, 2003

So, Moose, you’re actually a fan of Titanic? I can't say I'm surprised! As for Gangs of New York, all I can say is I'm pretty bummed that Scorsese totally botched such a killer concept and turned it into a mess. It wasn't even an issue of being too long; if anything, the movie felt way too short considering how much ground it tried to cover.

The Godfather

🔗 Similar threads