MovieChat Forums > Tabbycat > Replies
Tabbycat's Replies
[I think offering him less money was perhaps a final test and way for Vito to further confirm that Fanucci was nothing more than a bag of hot air. Fanucci should have been furious, yet he let Vito get away with it and even said he would help him find work. At that point, Vito had made his decision.]
Makes perfect sense to me.
I didn’t read the book and so was wondering, same as OP.
This also explains the unexpected (to me) thoughtful look on Vito’s face as Fanucci left. Seemed odd, as I would have thought the temporary acceptance of much less money and the job offer a victory. But Vito was clearly more perceptive and street-smart than I.
No.
Every sequel starts off at a huge disadvantage: it’s simply never going to be as necessary as the first. As Roger Ebert explained, an original film — even a bad one — is just that: original. It was somebody’s genuine inspiration. A sequel, on the other hand, he called “a filmed deal.”
Though this film is, quite arguably, the finest sequel ever made, it still suffers from covering the same ground as the first. A good joke or magic trick is never as effective the second time.
That said, it is undeniably a very fine and effective film.
The acid test is this: how would it fare on its own for someone who had never seen the original?
I’ll never be able to know. But I’d guess not too badly.
That is a very good point.
I just can’t see Clemenza flipping no way no how.
He was all about family loyalty.
Zaluchi?
If anyone needed a rug, it was Don Fanucci. Later on, Clamenza and that guy heading the Kefauver Comission coulda used one. Hell, half the fat middle-aged stumps in both flicks needed one.
How right you are.
Seen this maybe seven times, but only noticed her this time.
She never says a word.
No.
I don’t even think it’s very good, let alone great.
“Leave the gun.
Take the cannoli.”
Completely agree re color and brightness.
Saw this as a kid in a big theater in 1972, but don’t remember anything about the color.
Also on laserdisc (1982) and various home video releases.
The first presentation I had a problem with was the 1998 (1997?) theatrical rerelease.
It looked old and faded — terrible.
Just watched the 2007 restoration on Netflix — the same one found on the latest Blu-Ray (which I’ve also seen). The indoor “prince of darkness” scenes with deep blacks look magnificent, but as you say — the outdoor scenes are overly bright.
Does anyone know what caused this deterioration?
I’d guess it’s an issue with the negative since it didn’t seem to appear until decades after initial release.
I’m really looking forward to seeing this in a 4KHDR-mastered presentation on an 80” OLED screen someday. Those blacks just aren’t very black on a backlit LCD.
And more important, why didn’t he sign the check first?
One little detail movies don’t deal well with ... is details.
No.
That bell could not be unrung.
The kid disappearing — and the overreaction to it — bothered me at first.
Then I thought about it.
1. Bad told the kid to “Go on — explore!” He likely meant the bar, but the kid probably thought he meant the mall. He’s four.
2. Kids disappear all the time. Ask any parent.
3. He was drunk.
4. The one thing Jean asked of him was not to drink in front of her son.
He not only did just that, but took him to a bar to do it.
5. Bad asks Jean what the most important thing to know about her is.
Her reply: “I have a son.”
So while it is true that a four-year-old can disappear anywhere, any time — even with a sober adult watching — the incident led Jean to learn that he had broken a critical promise to her and could not be trusted with the most important person in her life.
I agree that was dumb.
I see your point, and I won’t argue it.
The whole premise is a longshot, requiring a giod-sized parlay of unlikely events.
But in real life, longshots do come in.
Frankly, I was too busy thinking how *plausible* much of it seemed.
The opening ten minutes were more exciting and engrossing than anything in memory — and shot on an iPhone. In the 70’s there were a whole slough of involuntarily-commited protagonist flicks. It was practically a sub-genre. What I felt watching her induction here was, substantively, how little had changed, except now the motive was primarily profit instead of evil. Once inside, you have no rights, and no one will listen to you. No one’s really watching so it’s all the honor system. (I would like to know how they think they can stick her full of powerful drugs without a full medical history and current medications list.)
When it is revealed that the mild-mannered orderly is actually our stalker villain, I did feel a palpable drop in plausibility. But they had some fun with that — remember the no-nonsense nurse complimenting George on his great work ethic and how she wished the other orderlies would stay late all the time as he does? Funny.
I actually have a much bigger gripe with the ending, as I’ve detailed in another post.
Actually, I liked that.
And noticed how quiet the background was (due to no noisy camera).
Not at all.
No found footage, no documentary style.
If you hadn’t known it was filmed with an iPhone you’d likely never have known.
The colors glare garishly, and any white light blooms uncontrollably.
There’s no detail in the bright areas of the screen.
That said, the cinematography amazed me.
I have an iPhone 7+, and was constantly wondering, “It can do that?”
There are some shots that are so astonishing I want to see if I can duplicate them, as when the jogging woman comes into frame. Then there is a two-shot at the beginning — our hero in foreground, co-worker in background. They’re both in focus, yet it seems to shift to the co-worker when she speaks. They did all these shots with just the built-in autofocus? Wow.
Other handheld shots seem very smooth — more so than I would think possible just holding the phone. And I definitely see how much a simple tripod helps.
Agree completely.
The entire ending is just horror cliché, nothing we ain’t seen a hundred times and done better.
Shame, cuz I liked the movie lots up till then. I even liked the cinematography, especially since they used my phone model. Some of the shots were simply amazing (my phone could do that?) the whole film is Exhibit A for anyone who thinks fine cinematography can only come from big-bucks pro gear.
Actually, it’s douchey to turn everything into spam.
And lame.
No, we’re not interested in your review.
I don’t think so.
In addition to the tech issues mentioned, this ain’t 1983, the year of The Day After and other TV specials on the fear of nuclear annihilation. I lived through it. Marching Younguns shouting “No First Strike”. Believe me, back then it was Topic One. Probably the main reason this project was developed.
That line about 41 being old is intended to play as a joke and it does.
Got a big laugh in the theater.
Like many in the script, the line also supports the recurring theme of both kids thinking they’re too young to die and expecting there to be plenty of time for living ahead.
BTW, Falken was 41 at the time of his death in 1973.
Presuming this movie takes place in 1983, he’d be 51.