2001: A Space Odyssey, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather - Faults (1 Viewer)

[Jon_W]

These are three films that are hihgly praised around the world as being among the best ever. They are also well respected in this forum. They are all among my favourite films. My question is: what faults do these films have?

I don't want this thread to be a bashing thread because that is not the point of this exercise. This is more for people who are big fans of the films, but are confident enough in there respect for the films to point out legitimate criticism. I do not consider length to be a legitimate complaint. Pacing maybe, but not length.

Lets have a good discuss about the faults of some of our favourite films. I would really like to hear from someone like Jack and have him discuss any faults he has with 2001. I think this could be interesting. It should only deepen our respect for the films.

 

[Patrick McCart]

As far as I know, Lawrence of Arabia is a perfect movie. I can't think of one thing wrong at all about the film!

2001 is pretty close, but I think the dawn of man prologue should have been a little shorter...but the whole point of the film was visuals, so longer scenes are ok.

The Godfather...it's perfect. (Latest film I saw on the AFI 100 list)

 

[Rain]

I would really like to hear from someone like Jack and have him discuss any faults he has with 2001. I think this could be interesting.

If you can get that to happen, you could charge admission.
But I'm going to think about this question, it's interesting. Of course, having not yet seen LOA, I couldn't comment there.

 

[Steve_Ch]

Interesting, I don't know if there is such a thing as "perfect", but offhand, I can't think of any faults, it will be interesting to see what others come up with, especially in the spirit of "non bashing".

 

[RobertR]

If a change in a film only results in a "difference" instead of a genuine "improvement", then the film is indeed "perfect".

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "if only so and so was done a little differently, it would be better" about these 3 films.

 

[Bill J]

Rain, have you really not seen Lawrence of Arabia?

 

[Seth Paxton]

I agree with RobertR's definition and by that I can't currently think of a "fault".

Maybe the length of the "warp" at the end of 2001 could be cut back a bit, but that's iffy.

One thing that might hurt LoA is being so front-loaded with grand scale shots to fit the epic proportion. However, Lean does do a good job of slowly bringing the film back down to intimate proportions before you get there so that it smoothly adjusts.

Perhaps the fact that we have the repeat of Lawrence returning to Cairo gives the film a "drags on" quality to some viewers.

I can't think of solutions for that though.

Godfather has never thrilled me, though I totally respect and enjoy it. But I can't find a fault, just not a story that I connect with as much. That's just taste. The presentation seems damn near perfect to me.

2001 is my #1 all-time, LoA is #4. Godfather might be top 20-30 for me, not sure. But I understand why it tops other lists.

 

[Agee Bassett]

I will interpret the original poster's choice of the term "fault" as meaning elements or aspects of the films which our subjective POV perceives as harmful to our valuation of them as a whole entities.
The Godfather: Critically hurt by a narrative which abandons almost any semblance of cohesion in its second half; and rendered emotionally false in every scene which features a thoroughly artificial, yet inexplicably overpraised, Marlon Brando.
Lawrence of Arabia: Critically hurt by the filmmakers refusal to consistently stick to one POV during its second half; or provide much insight into its leading character; and by several scenes which drag on longer than the director's obsession with detail justify.
2001: A Space Odyssey: Critically hurt by the director's trademark disinterest in the human spirit; and by several scenes which drag on longer than the director's obsession with detail justify.
I thoroughly expect to be flamed for these subjective opinions. But I may not feel compelled to defend them.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

This is one of those no win critiques.
The Godfather is my favorite film and remains as disturbing today as when I first saw it 30 years ago. This film makes probably the most stinging indictment of man's sinful and corruptable nature. No institution - religion, the family, friendship is spared the corrupting influence that the seduction of power can't overcome. Certainly the character of Don Vito is romanticized beyond believability. Goodfellas and Donnie Brasco give a more realistic feel of life in the mob, but because of their attempt to be more literal, they fall short. Vito and Michael start out wanting and trying to be honorable men, but circumstances and their human nature do them in. They are corruptable and making them less noble from the beginning would detract from the message. I don't know how I would rewrite the parts to improve what has already been laid down.
2001 I agree that it not nit picking this film, especially 30+ years after the fact and with the hindsight of technology. The key question is - how would you change HAL? It is not obvious in the film, but HAL becomes Schizo because of shortsighted programing. If HAL were brutally honest with his human wards would he have agreed to return to Earth and cause the mission to fail? Moses came down from the mountain and got a little peeved with his followers who build a sacred calf. Worshiping the calf didn't save anyone from his and God's wrath. Man invents HAL and we worship our great technological god. But HAL offers no more salvation than the golden calf and man dies anyway. Another plot point that I would have a hard time altering.
Lawrence of Arabia I am going to have to look up what this movie is about and even when I rented it last month, all I can find is a very pretty picture and some vain guy. Flame me so maybe I can get some insight here.

 

[RobR]

I think the dawn of man prologue should have been a little shorter

Shortening it would eliminate a sense of how slow and/or boring time was back then, at least according to my interpretation.

 

[Josh_Hill]

All 3 films are sheer perfection!

 

[george kaplan]

Well, I'll hold my tongue on LOA since you only want feedback from those who love the film (hint: the screenplay is the problem ).
As for 2001, I thought the fade from the bone to the nuclear warhead could have been better lined up. Other than that, it's hard to find fault.
The Godfather is a great film, but the primary fault is two-fold. First, Michael's transformation from despising what his father does to embracing it is too sudden. This actually plays much better with the scenes that were cut and then restored in the trilogy, then unfortunately left out of the current dvd.
Second, the minor characters are underdeveloped. I never understood who Neti was until I read the book. Now, I get it, but it's a problem when you have to read the book to understand the film. Of course, this is much more of a problem in Part 2, for which there is no book :frowning:.

 

[Mike Broadman]

2001 is by no means a "perfect" movie simply because it's so "weird." I consider a great film, certainly, but I don't think a movie like that can be perfect. It's too full of allegory and more concerned with conveying ideas than telling a story. It's brilliantly quirky.

Godfather is quite possibly my favorite film of all time. The only thing that bothers me sometimes is Marlon Brando, but it's still entertaining. Also, I think a couple of the shots were overexposed. Other than that, though, I don't see any faults. Perfect story, perfect acting, and it goes above and beyond creating the right "feel" for it.

I've only seen LOA once a while ago and don't remember it, so I can't really comment.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

2001 - On my first viewing, I had hoped that the 'star child' would grow up enough to be able to do something or another. It would have removed a lot of speculation on what "he" was doing there though.

Glenn

 

[Jeremiah]

The biggest flaw in The Godfather is during Sonny's fight with Rizzi and on one camera angle Sonnys' punch misses Rizzi by about 2 feet and Rizzi falls back. I think it is a great, great movie but that part makes me laugh every time.

 

[JonZ]

Jeremiah beat me to it. I was gonna say the only thing I can think of in The Godfather is that punch.

2001 A Space Odyssey is a Holy Relic as far as Im concerned.Perfection.

LOA I like alot less than the other 2 but I cant think of any real faults with it either,its just not my cup of tea.

 

[teapot2001]

Compared to how great its first half is, I think Lawrence of Arabia runs out of steam in its second half.

~T

 

[Jack Briggs]

..."Critically hurt by the director's trademark disinterest in the human spirit..."

Not really, as the film is about the triumph of the human spirit--though Dave and Frank's dialogue is deliberately banal, it serves to contrast with the sheer grandeur of what surrounds them (interplanetary space, an extraordinary interplanetary spacecraft, and the pinnacle of artificial intelligence, HAL-9000). Nor is the film about visuals alone; plot is central to its success, which the visuals convey.

Can't find any faults with it--even the "mistakes" are deliberate (the shifting alignment of the Jovian moons, for example).

One could quibble about certain technical details: the participants in the briefing conference at Clavius--particularly the photographer--are walking and moving at an apparently 1G gate; the Aries 1B lunar shuttle looks more like a model when it's landing at the base, that sort of stuff. Here, Mr. Kubrick was limited by the technology at his disposal. And one cannot fault him there, especially given how groundbreaking his special-effects work was in the first place (nothing like it had come before).

So, from my view, we're not talking about faults so much as we are discussing technological limitations placed on the director by time and circumstance.

As for Lawrence, I consider it the definitive statement of the epic film--the apex of Lean's career, along with Bridge. It is a film that endeavors to be "grand scale" every step of the way, and it is. Though there are issues regarding historical veracity, they pale in comparison to the film's artistic merit.

 

[Jason Whyte]

To add to what Jack has said about 2001:
YEAH!!!!!

 

[Brook K]

2001 is about the dumbest thing I've seen. It's so sloooowwww and weird, first I thought I accidentally put in Planet of the Apes and then it's like they're in space and then all of a sudden there's old guys and babies and this big black wall keeps showing up everywhere. What's up with that? Of course I may have missed something because I keep falling asleep, and then I had to take like half a bottle of aspirin because this crap gave me a major headache. Who want's to think about the duality of man or the Jungian thing? Human spirit? Capacity for self-destruction? Blech, it's all just way too pretentious and mechanical. If they can't be bothered to explain everything to me, than why should I bother to try to watch.

Lawrence of Arabia? I don't like that either, it's all overacted and silly and too long and there's not enough fighting or romance or jokes. It's no Apartment that's for sure.

The Godfather?? PLEASE, I can't take any more talk about these old movies, I'm going to find a thread about Fight Club or Moulin Rouge so I can talk about REAL movies that people actually ENJOY watching.