GODFATHER review up on DVDFile (1 Viewer)

[Adam_H]

I just bought the Godfather collection yesterday and I'm extremly happy. So far I've only watched part one with new 5.1 mix and dir. commentary.
The picture, especially in the beggining, is bad. I know I might sound ungrateful but compared to versions I saw on tv, I would even say it looks identical. I have to say it's a mixed bag. Some scenes are horrible, vhs quality, and then others (mostly the outdoor scenes) look fantastic.
The main problem I noticed, for lack of proper term, is where things like someones shirt, and when a person moves it looks like some of the shirt doesnt move with the rest of the shirt.
The sound, well, I'm not gonna complain too much. In the beggining, the rears were hardly, to my ears never, used but then during the scene at the hospital and micheal meets up with that cop, well at the point the rears kick in REALLY loud and scared the daylights outta me since I hadn't heard anything from them since the movie started.
It almost seems odd because then they (the rear speakers) are hardly used again until Mike meets at the little resteraunt, there the trains going by are blasted in the rear and then when he's in Italy the rears are used again prodominently with the sound of the wind and what sounds like rattle snakes in the fields.
Other than those scenes the sound is pretty Mono. Seems odd, at least to me, that only a few scenes got the full 5.1 treatment when others could of benefited.

 

[Deepak Shenoy]

Is it just a case of the picture quality not living up to the very high expectations that everyone had, or is it really bad (at least in some scenes) ? I have a number of Paramount DVDs of movies from the same time period (Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, Conversation, Marathon Man, etc), and the picture quality is great on each and every one of them. I can't imagine the picture quality on the Godfather movies being any worse. How do the transfers on the Godfather DVDs compare to these other DVDs ?

 

[Julian Lalor]

You do not lose 4% of the picture information, you gain 4% with an aspect ratio of 1.78:1. The films were shot open matte and then masked for 1.85:1 presentation. If this offends, then I'd be looking very closely before purchasing any film transferred in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio to DVD. Many of them are actually 1.78:1.

 

[Robert George]

I watched all of The Godfather this morning and sampled parts of Part II. I am more than a little impressed, particularly in light of the abysmal quality of the laserdisc box set I had previously seen. Are they perfect? No, of course not. It is well known the first two films were allowed to deteriorate badly. These new DVD transfers are very close to a full restoration, or at least a full restoration on video.
One bit of advice. These films are very dark by design. These transfers are an accurate representation of the films. One should make certain one's monitor is setup as well as possible and watch in a light-controlled room. Under the proper conditions, expect to be mesmerized by Gordon Willis' stunning cinematography, Coppola's direction, and exceptional acting performances from top to bottom.
Remember, The Godfather is not ranked #3 on the AFI list of the top 100 films for nothing. A few hours with this DVD will show you exactly why.
[Edited last by Robert George on September 30, 2001 at 12:14 AM]

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Whoops - duplicate post!
[Edited last by Colin Jacobson on October 02, 2001 at 12:09 PM]

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Is it just a case of the picture quality not living up to the very high expectations that everyone had, or is it really bad (at least in some scenes) ? I have a number of Paramount DVDs of movies from the same time period (Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, Conversation, Marathon Man, etc), and the picture quality is great on each and every one of them. I can't imagine the picture quality on the Godfather movies being any worse. How do the transfers on the Godfather DVDs compare to these other DVDs ?

The Godfather films look and sound worse than any of those you mentioned, mainly due to excessive print flaws. I keep hearing about the horrible state of disrepair in which these films were left, but I also seem to recall similar statements about Citizen Kane, yet somehow that disc looks almost totally free of defects.
Of the three, probably the biggest disappointment is III. As the newest, it should offer the highest quality, and it does from an objective viewpoint, but it's not the leap one would expect. Frankly, it looked and sounded a lot like its predecessors, and the fairly high number of speckles and other print flaws I saw during III led me to believe that ALL of them could/should have been cleaner. For all the talk about problems with the older films, there's no reason the one from 1990 should show this many concerns. If they didn't bother to clean it up better, that leads me to feel that the first two could have been stronger as well.
In regard to sound, the 5.1 mix for II is pretty good - it easily offered the best sound of the three. I and III suffered from an overly processed sound; someone went nuts with the reverb, and they often came across as artificial and phony. Again, III offered the biggest concern because it was newest. Dialogue during exterior shots sounded especially weak; it was all clearly looped, and the excessive echo created an extremely unnatural impression.
Am I displeased with this set? No, I still think it's a decent package, especially due to the solid extras. Do I think the presentation of the movies is weaker than it should have been? Definitely. These are arguably the crown jewels in the Paramount collection, and I expected more from them. No, I didn't think they'd be vivid and vibrant and lively - they're dark films that should look drab to a degree. However, I believe they should be much cleaner, and the soundtracks needed to be clearer and less artificial sounding. It's a decent package but not a great one, and I think this trilogy deserved better...
------------------
Colin Jacobson
DVD Movie Guide
www.dvdmg.com

 

[Elbert Lee]

It's a supreme disappointment because SUPERMAN raised the bar for restoration.
I love the content, which is definitely where the effort was placed.
Elbert

 

[Marvin]

So is this going to be the same situation as with the Kubrick collection where we'll all have to re-buy it when they put out the digitally-restored-and-done-right-this-time
set next year?

 

[Robert George]

I seriously doubt there will be a "new and improved" version of the Godfather films on DVD ever. Zoetrope has been working on these films for well over a year so, despite the "Monday morning quarterbacking" by some, one has to assume this is the best they can do. These are hardly films Coppola would allow to be shoddily presented.
On the other hand, it is entirely posible that we will see the re-edited version of Godfather I and II at some point. I would expect these same masters would be used for that.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I seriously doubt there will be a "new and improved" version of the Godfather films on DVD ever. Zoetrope has been working on these films for well over a year so, despite the "Monday morning quarterbacking" by some, one has to assume this is the best they can do. These are hardly films Coppola would allow to be shoddily presented.

"Monday morning quarterbacking"? Have I earned that status because I voiced the concerns I felt about the set? I think it's a huge mistake to make any assumptions about this being the best the discs could look and sound. Again, my opinion of the clean-up work went seriously downhill when I saw III, which has a lot of problems. If they couldn't offer a fresh-looking presentation for the newest of the bunch, why would I believe that they did their best for the older ones?
And I don't believe anyone ever said the presentation was "shoddy". Disappointing? Yes. Shoddy? No. Overall, they're decent, though the sound on I and III can be pretty bad. I simply feel that "decent" isn't good enough for a set of this stature. Others are more than welcome to disagree, but I think that the package could/should have been better...
------------------
Colin Jacobson
DVD Movie Guide
www.dvdmg.com

 

[TonyD]

You do not lose 4% of the picture information, you gain 4% with an aspect ratio of 1.78:1. The films were shot open matte and then masked for 1.85:1 presentation. If this offends, then I'd be looking very closely before purchasing any film transferred in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio to DVD. Many of them are actually 1.78:1.

for those like me who aren't sure does this mean there will be more picture on my widescreen tv or less of the filmed picture?
for example the SILVERADO dvd when it first came out was to wide from top to bottom showing more of the intended picture. then was re-released with a shorter top to bottom frame.
so before i confuse myself even more i'll stop.

 

[Chad R]

I also think that this could be a case of many of us being too young to have seen the original release, and the rest not having the memory of what these originally looked like. It has been my understanding that these films are stylized to look like they do. I don't think black is supposed to be solid black in the shadows. I think there's supposed to be a more sepia tone to the whole production. Remember, films today use newer better stock and better lenses, so there's no way that Godfather will ever look as sharp as today's films. You shouldn't ever judge a film against another's transfer, you should only judge it for what IT's supposed to look like.
In defense of the last LD editions (the picture at least) I saw the first film in its 25th anniversary theatrical run in 1997 and the LD is a good representation of that print. The sound remix was a little off (most notably the newer LFE thunder rumble when Michael encounters the police chief outside the hospital which wasn't as subtle as it used to be).
[Edited last by Chad R on September 30, 2001 at 01:47 PM]

 

[ScottR]

I was very little in the 1970's, but I do remember most films of that time period being really dark and grainy. Very rough to look at...and the sound wasn't anything to shout home about. Sometimes it sounded as if the actors were performing in cans. So it may be that these discs are pretty representative of that time period in American film.

 

[Robert George]

Colin:
I don't refer to an individual, but to a particular attitude amongst some reviewers to interject assumptions into what should be objective reviews.
My opinion and my approach in reviews of DVD (not movies) is to report what one sees and hears and, in some cases where there is historical reference, to place those observations in some relative context.
I am continually irratated by those that try to compare one disc to another without regard for the vast differences that exist. Making a comparison to establish a frame of reference is one thing ("X" transfer looks as gook as The Fifth Element), but drawing a conclusion based on this sort of comparison is flawed reasoning. Every film is a unique entity and must be taken on its own. One should not make assumptions based on comparisons between two very different entities. It is not right to say assume the Godfather disc is not as good as it should be because Citizen Kane looks better. We don't know what sort of film elements are available, how they have been stored, how they were prepared, etc..
I'm not debating you or criticizing your comments, Colin. We all have our opinions. I'm merely explaining mine.

 

[Matt_Stevens]

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

Actually, from what I have read, THE GODFRATHER was NOT properly restored and I believe even Robert Harris has commented on this? Hopefully he can say something here.
------------------
www.deceptions.net/superman

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It is not right to say assume the Godfather disc is not as good as it should be because Citizen Kane looks better. We don't know what sort of film elements are available, how they have been stored, how they were prepared, etc..

I mentioned Kane because a) it's very recent, b) it looks and sounds terrific, and c) it was also reputed to be in terrible shape. I understand your point, but I can't help but feel that if something that was apparently in such a terrible state of disrepair can be brought up to such high levels, I'd think the same could occur for these films. Yes, that's an assumption, and it may well be mistaken.
However, I backed up that idea with other concerns. I continue to feel that more could have been done with the set as a whole due to the problems seen/heard during III. I DON'T think there's any reason this one should have been anything less than virtually flawless; it's too new. However, it sports nearly as many defects as its predecessors, and the sound lacks much punch or clarity. III wasn't the worst of the bunch, but it was the most disappointing, for it had many fewer excuses for its problems.
Once again, I want to reiterate that I don't dislike the set. I understand that none of these films will ever be reference material. I continue to feel that they could/should have been better, however...
------------------
Colin Jacobson
DVD Movie Guide
www.dvdmg.com

 

[Kris Deering]

I had the privelage of reviewing these films for HTspot and I do agree with a little of what Obi is saying here. You really can't compare one transfer to another with films this old. Yes there are films such as Citizen Kane or even North by Northwest that have had outstanding restoration done. But we don't know what state the film was in that these were transfered from. The Godfather films did have a certain look to them that was intentional but I also think more effort could have been done in other areas. The prints have a LOT of nicks and scratches and some scenes look like they were pieced together from multiple prints do to the random softness in the same sequence. The biggest problem I saw though was compression artifacts. I noticed a lot of blocking around objects that was just unexusable. One scene that was real bad was when Sonny got shot up in the first film. Look at the sign on the toll station and all the compression artifacts. I noticed this a lot throughout the films and this is just bad authoring as far as I'm concerned. I realize there is a limit to what you can do with an old print but problems associated with the compression should be ironed out by now.
[Edited last by Kris Deering on October 01, 2001 at 12:23 AM]

 

[Damin J Toell]

I mentioned Kane because a) it's very recent, b) it looks and sounds terrific, and c) it was also reputed to be in terrible shape. I understand your point, but I can't help but feel that if something that was apparently in such a terrible state of disrepair can be brought up to such high levels, I'd think the same could occur for these films. Yes, that's an assumption, and it may well be mistaken.

the quality of the Kane DVD transfer is the direct result of the discovery of an interpositive (in France, IIRC) in a much better condition than prior elements known to exist. this high quality interpositive led directly to the high quality transfer. it is quite true that Kane was in dire need of restoration, but the newly discovered elements changed the game entirely. sadly, for The Godfather, there has been no magical discovery of this sort. simply said, comparing the two in this light is improper.
DJ

 

[Frank L]

DVDFile just snuck in what is probably the first online review of the Godfather Collection (not counting Frank's informal review on the HTF).

Hey... someone actually noticed my review
Anyway I had the chance to finish the whole set this weekend and I agree with Peter, obviously he can say it much better than me. And I too am happy to finally have them on DVD.
------------------
Frank

DVD Collection | Website

 

[Patrick Larkin]

These are hardly films Coppola would allow to be shoddily presented.

Coppola's was once a great film director. Remember, we are now talking about the guy that directed Jack. If he can create a terrible film, what makes you think he'd not let this masterpiece get a less than stellar transfer.
Of course, I haven't seen the DVDs yet and will take them on whatever improvements they offer.
I too am hoping that we don't have the Kubrick Collection Revisited.