Critics say it's 10/10

>critics say it's 10/10
>normies say it's 10/10
How has it accomplished this feat? I don't know of any other movie that is so loved by everyone.

Good character development, excellent acting, ample violence.

>I don't know of any other movie that is so loved by everyone
People feel like they have to pretend to love it. Many people haven't even seen it but just say they did to fit in.

fell asleep about 10 times watching this trash

SPBP

I really despise these kind of nigger tier movies. Really no better than rap songs desu.

I've never met a normie who has actually seen it so I just assume they're parroting time magazine best movie lists

Well most normies convince themselves to like it to seem intelligent. Same with David Lynch movies. I'd rate it 9/10, but it really isn't an easily accessible movie. The run time combined with the fact that it's a bit outdated, most normies would hate it if it were any other movie.

It insists upon itself.

>it's a bit outdated
What do you mean by that?

But did Atlas shrug?

>he hasn't seen it
>tried to justify his utter plebbetry by projection his film inexperience onto a generalized demographic

It's 40 years old. Not all movies age that well.

i liked this when i was a teen but i really don't see the appeal now

fav coppolla movies are rumblefish, the outsiders, and tetro

The film deeply depicts the private life of a family. This makes it instantly relatable to all human beings, even if only on an abstract level where the women are largely silent. Of course, Kay is (sort of) brought into the fold, but she becomes part of the feminine minor of the film.

The film contains plenty of violence as has been said, and beautifully portrayed violence. There is the premonition of ruining the G-man's camera, the slow burn and creepy reveal of the horse-head (now we understand what these people are capable of), and there is the quiet nihilistic cynicism of Leave The Gun Take The Cannoli, and there is the high Gangland Passion of the Toll Booth. These are all topped off by the finale, of course.

The film slowly and sincerely gives its main character's arc. At first he hates and rejects his family's lifeways, but by degrees he comes to rely upon and eventually embody them. The complexity of this character arc is another component of the film's appeal, which later media have only rudely approximated.

The film depicts and fictionalizes a particular social subject: the Italian-American experience in New York. In this fantasy space, we are free to project, but there are enough historical precedents to connect this fiction to reality.

When I was younger I was certain it was a 10/10. But as time progressed, I realized I only thought that because everyone seemed to agree with the sentiment. If you didn't think it was that good, you were clearly missing something and not sophisticated enough for it.

As an adult, it's still a fine movie, but it's not perfect or even all that great. The runtime is far too long, the Italy sequence was entirely unnecessary, and the ending was cartoonish.

The whole movie had been billing it as these masterful chess moves and the resolution is... kill everyone. Even the mob families not moving against the Corleones. Somehow all power and influence would just default to them because why wouldn't it? How it's accomplished is similarly left untold. Apparently no mobster was ever under the impression someone might attack them and so never took precautions.

I've never seen any of them somehow. Not even accidentally.

The more films I see the less impressive Godfather is and the more impressive late career Coppola is

One thing I never really understood about this movie is why Michael marries the girl in Sicily, only to have her die and then goes back and marries Kay. What was that suppose to represent?

American critics*

When Michael spends his time in Sicily, he is fully in touch with his family and with his culture in every way. He trusts his brother Sonny, and Tom. He wants to come back, sometime. He is speaking the language again, and he has successfully murdered. He is a made man, a powerful man.

In the first act of the film, Michael was clearly rejective of this life, and said so to Kay. But life happened, and pride happened,and so he involved himself in "this thing of ours". Michael perversely finds his authentic culture, and at the same time learns how to an evil murderer. The first impulse is somehow noble and enviable, while of course on the face of it the latter impulse is officially contemptible (though great fun to watch in a fictional movie). This is a central tension of the character, beautifully left unsaid for large swathes of the first two pictures, and instead merely developed, depicted, /shown/.

So when Michael goes after Apollonia (notice her name starts with A!), that is literally plan A in his life at this point: he understandably wants a cute native brunette slut to bear his sons and that's it. But plan A goes up in flames. Kay is Protestant outsider plan B, and now we have a cynical killer, which is why he goes after her again.

Michael's LARPing journey in Sicily had tragic outcomes, and he had to regroup upon return.

Fair enough critique. And I'm sure if you talked to Coppola about this he'd most likely agree with you. Years back he had a very candid interview on Howard Stern where he talked about the novel being trashy (man it most certainly is) and somewhere else he said he thinks of The Godfather like a well made lamp. It's great and he's proud of it but he doesn't think it's the masterpiece everyone else does.

What really carries The Godfather is the performances. Brando's presence is just captivating and there's a reason it's endless quotable. From "YOU CAN ACT LIKE A MAN!" to the heartbreaking scene where Don Corelone talks to the undertaker after Sonny is whacked. And then you got Pacino, Caan, and Robert Duvall being just so good in that movie.

In a sense I do like Part 2 more, although I find the flashback scenes with De Niro to be underwhelming besides the fantastically shot assassination scene in Hell's Kitchen. What I love in Part 2 is just that Pacino gave his best perfomance ever, there's so much bad news his character deals with and he really looks like wanted to murder Diane Keaton during their argument.

In a sense I'd compare The Godfather to a Shakespearian Drama, yes the broad strokes of the story fall under scrutiny but actors performing is what makes or breaks it.