MovieChat Forums > Tabbycat > Replies
Tabbycat's Replies
So did Mitsy.
That was the whole idea.
Does there have to be an “X” in every movie of hers (at least on the poster)?
Pattern detected.
Her attitude sucked.
Her life philosophy sucked.
Her life sucked, and she wanted her daughter’s to suck as bad.
She was no good at all.
“horror is looked at like its smut”
Not really so much anymore.
Slasher flicks are mainstream now: “Saw XVII” now plays to teenagers in the mall next to Applebee’s.
In my youth, I had to brave downtown all-night theaters alongside Quentin to see my favorite genre. None of my friends joined me.
I’ve said many times that back then, horror was regarded as one step above pornography.
Major studios *did* release horror films, but were embarrassed enough to hide it by inventing a phony releasing entity, as 20th Century Fox did for even highlights like “Suspiria” (International Classics) and “Halloween” (Compass International). I guess they were hoping “International” gave things an arty, European flair.
Google “Missing Tile Syndrome” and find a way to get happier.
Absolutely.
I was 13 in 1974, and 1959 seemed impossibly far in the past.
2009 does not, and not just because I’m older.
Speaking of 1974, I went to the fourth largest US casino recently on a Saturday night. The bar was packed with “kids” drinking and dancing to … a hit song from 1974, Redbone’s “Come And Get Your Love.” They knew the song, knew the lyrics, probably a few sang along.
In my youth, the very idea of even tolerating a 49-year-old song was unthinkable. Is that because culture changed so much more between, say 1925 and 1974, compared to 1974 vs 2024? Or is it simply that 50- and 60-year old hits sound great because the recording technology was there (if you could afford pro studio time), and we can now hear those same recordings in master quality, straight from the original tape, on digital disc or streaming, whereas in 1974 all we’d have had were squeaky old 78’s? Either way, it’s an astonishing social phenomenon no one could have predicted.
Another post in this forum asks whether the Godfather series would be interesting to today’s 20-year-olds. I’d say that depends: have they got a 77-inch OLED with Dolby Atmos surround sound and blackout curtains? Some films do better than others. Comedies like ‘Airplane!’ and ‘Stripes’ seem universally loved, at least by men, while minor classics like ‘Dirty Harry’ and ‘Bullitt’ are not. Family-friendly fare like the original Willy Wonka are universal, as evidenced by the recent several slot machine series found in casinos. So it seems 50-year old hit films are not as universally loved as 50-year-old hit songs.
The 1972 paperback edition includes stills from the film, one of which shows Tattaglia’s bedroom massacre with the caption “The end of a white slaver don.” In the film Michael refers to him as a “pump,” not smart enough to set up Sonny’s hit.
II is not as good as the original.
The Vito backstory scenes in Sicily are compelling, but the whole thing with Hyman Roth isn’t really.
Plus it’s nearly a half hour longer.
3 is a big step down. Pacino is nearly a self-caricature (“It vas not vat I VANTED!”)
The story of the new corporate Corleone structure and the corrupt Catholic church isn’t very interesting or credible and seems to belong in a different film series.
I don’t really care for it.
It was very aggressive and to Moe, insulting.
Michael was tired and obviously not in a good mood, but he gets even more aggressive and insulting with his offer in II.
Unclear whether his father’s tact would have helped.
Michael becomes even more so in II:
“I’m prepared to make you a counter-offer: nothing. Not even the license fee, which I would appreciate your paying personally.”
Your question is answered fully in Paramount’s “The Offer” miniseries.
Yes … if you see it with parents you like.
No, but I’ll say this about the author:
For a sleazebag with no acting talent or experience, he manages to hold his own very well against Pacino in one of the most dramatic scenes ever filmed. That face when he looks up from dialing the phone to see Michael’s glaring, half in black … Coppolla called him “typecasting at its best” but he must have used his top directing skills to get such an unexpectedly real performance. And that fight with Connie doesn’t seem like acting at all — shocking the way unedited found footage of abuse can be. Like everything in this movie it just seemed real.
Thought some cells like those in the brain aren’t replaced.
I’m with you on “Mafalda” and “Yoko Tsuno,” but I’ve known about the Mahavishnu Orchestra from their quadraphonic eight-track tapes in the $2.99 bin at Longs Drugs. Those same mixes are up on Apple Music now in Dolby Audio — I should maybe give a listen. Still don’t know who they were.
“Wonderful” doesn’t exactly cover it.
He disappears into the character.
I can’t even see the acting.
Giovani Ribisi is one of our best actors. I’ve thought so ever since “Boiler Room.”
Were I a director, I would just hire him and then change the material to put him in it.
Yep.
And I’ve seen footage of Evans, from that documentary about him and elsewhere.
That’s him.
Casting is the strongest feature of the series.
Ironic considering casting was arguably the biggest battle of the subject film.
That was dumb. But why single out such a relatively minor detail when much of the entire series is so divorced from reality.
Honestly?
A little.
While in no way excusing what he did, he had a horrible childhood he didn’t choose. Especially ironic being a child star whose main frustration was that he couldn’t get women. One need only look at the history of child stars to see what lifelong misery they reap. In a perfect world, he would have been able to get some real help early on with his damaged psyche, instead of being enabled by loser friends and a no-good fraud of a mother.
He had to Cranch.