GODFATHER review up on DVDFile (1 Viewer)

[Deepak Shenoy]

DVDFile just snuck in what is probably the first online review of the Godfather Collection (not counting Frank's informal review on the HTF). The picture quality seems to be quite decent especially given that the original negatives are not so well-preserved. I guess I won't be nitpicking on these movies - I am just happy to finally be able to own them on DVD.

 

[Dave H]

Was there any restoration done to these films for the DVD, or were they just cleaned up?

 

[Tom-G]

I'm assuming that original negatives that have deteriorated were Parts II and III? The first one was restored only 4 years ago for its 25th anniversary. The LDs that followed had nothing less than a wonderful picture. Wouldn't the same transfer have been used?
October 9, cannot come fast enough for me. As big a Star Wars fan as I am, I'm more anxious to own The Godfather.
------------------
As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day. --Roger Ebert on The Phantom Menace

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

The LDs that followed had nothing less than a wonderful picture.

I hope you're not referring to those awful AC3 editions with the greeny covers. I thought Godfather 1 in particular was horrid!
------------------
Link Removed | Burt Lancaster is Link Removed | dOc

 

[Tom Ryan]

The DVD File review says the three films are framed at approximately 1.78:1, while the theatrical ratio was 1.85:1. This is only a tiny difference, but should this have happened? Is it just a product of overscan, perhaps, or is it what Coppola wanted? What's going on?
-Tom

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The first one was restored only 4 years ago for its 25th anniversary. The LDs that followed had nothing less than a wonderful picture.

I never saw the LDs, but my reaction to the DVD of Godfather is one of disappointment. The picture has some very good moments, but it shows a LOT of print flaws; little speckles crop up throughout the movie. The 5.1 remix has some fine bits as well, but overall it sounds fairly weak. I'm giving Godfather a "B-" for picture and a "C" for sound; the latter is higher than I might like because the mix DID include some excellent moments, but much of it sounds pretty bad, even for a nearly-30-year-old movie.
Hope the other two flicks look/sound better...
------------------
Colin Jacobson
DVD Movie Guide
www.dvdmg.com

 

[Dave H]

Considering the price of these DVDs, you would think the picture would be outstanding.

 

[Tom-G]

I hope you're not referring to those awful AC3 editions with the greeny covers. I thought Godfather 1 in particular was horrid!

Jeff, I don't share your opinion. When compared the VHS tapes I had, the laserdiscs were a marked improvement. I'm sure that if one were to critique the laserdiscs now, one would find them to be subpar. Standards change.
I sold off my laserdiscs a while ago and have been stuck with the VHS versions again. The DVDs will be a very welcome addition.
------------------
As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day. --Roger Ebert on The Phantom Menace

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I wasn't comparing the LDs to anything other than themselves (ie previous VHS copies), and all I can say is that when I bought them, I felt ripped off due to the poor image quality, which was also subpar at the time compared to most of the LDs I had.
The AC3 sound on Godfather 1 was also pretty bad, with lots of distortion throughout. If Godfather doesn't look dramatically improved, this set will be a pass.
Edited for clarity.
------------------
Link Removed | Burt Lancaster is Link Removed | dOc
[Edited last by Jeff Ulmer on September 29, 2001 at 12:25 PM]

 

[cafink]

I wasn't comparing the LDs to anything other than themselves, and all I can say is that when I bought them, I felt ripped off due to the poor image quality, which was subpar at the time compared to most of the LDs I had.[/quote
So are you comparing them to "nothing other than themselves," or to "most of the LDs" you have?

 

[Doug R]

By some stroke of insane luck I managed to pick the Godfather DVD collection today at an unnamed B&M. I couldn't believe my eyes. It was priced at $75, pretty much what most online places are preordering it for (though I'm sure I coulda got lower if I waited).
------------------

 

[Julian Lalor]

Many, many films with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 are mastered with a ratio of 1.78:1 for DVD. And yes, this is to accommodate 16:9 sets. Virtually all Warner and Columbia product use this ratio for 1.85:1. Paramount or Coppola decided to do the same for The Godfather movies.

 

[Dharmesh C]

My expections have dropped a little, I'm quite disappointed that the quality of the picture and sound is not fantastic.
------------------
British film-making blows away Hollywood.
Why? Verisimilitude!
Superman CINEMA
http://www.deceptions.net/superman

 

[Michael Reuben]

"Fantastic" is a relative term. The first two Godfather films will never look good to some people because of the unusual stylized photographic techniques. Even Gordon Willis said that he "went too far" with underexposure in Godfather 2.
I thought the remastered LDs of a few years ago were an excellent presentation of the first two films (I never watched the remaster of the third). People who complain about print flaws apparently don't realize just how badly the elements had deteriorated by the early 90s; if you want to see what poor shape they were in, find someone with a copy of The Godfather Trilogy LD boxset. The improvement from that presentation to the THX remasters was exceptional, and I'll be satisfied with the DVDs if they do no more than eliminate analog noise and provide the increased resolution of anamorphic enhancement.
As for the sound, we'll just have to settle for the inherent limitations of that era's technology (aggravated, on the first film, by budget constraints).
M.

 

[Dharmesh C]

It seems that DVDFILE are not too interested in this title, this is a biggie!!

 

[Michael Lee]

On a positive note, my friend previewed the set and said the Coppola commentary is fantastic. He also said this is clearly better than any previous incarnation of it so far.
------------------
Link Removed
My Home Theater Pics
My Equipment List
My DVD Collection
Link Removed

 

[Colin Jacobson]

People who complain about print flaws apparently don't realize just how badly the elements had deteriorated by the early 90s

It's not a matter of being unaware of deterioration. I think DVD picture should be rated as an absolute to a degree. To a point, I'll curve my grades upwards based on age; I don't expect a movie from 1972 to look as pristine as one from 2001. However, I won't give an ugly picture a good grade even if it shows a big improvement over past incarnations. It still remains ugly, and a high grade would be misleading.
Godfather is a disappointment largely because it's such a high profile title. I admit I expect more from an "A"-list catalog release like this than I do for something less well known. The wonderful clean-up done on Citizen Kane shows how much can be done with older films, and I find it hard to believe that some extra work couldn't have made Godfather cleaner. In any case, a lot of Godfather looks terrific, but the whole is less than wonderful...
------------------
Colin Jacobson
DVD Movie Guide
www.dvdmg.com

 

[Coressel]

I can't wait to see how many people take their GF DVDs back because "everything looks yellow in the Part 2 flashback scenes..."

 

[Tom Ryan]

I'm surprised more people aren't put off by the matting of the films to fit a 16x9 TV. Sure, you only lose 4% of the picture but it's the principle of the thing isn't it?
-Tom

 

[Damin J Toell]

I'm surprised more people aren't put off by the matting of the films to fit a 16x9 TV. Sure, you only lose 4% of the picture but it's the principle of the thing isn't it?

well, were they cropped to 1.78:1 or was the matting opened to 1.78:1? either way, Coppola was at the switch here and he made the call, so there's no problem for me.
DJ