I love Leone, but I wasn't taken by Once Upon a Time in America. However, I also just kind of caught it part-way in on cable. However however, I also first encountered The Godfather that way, and it was mesmerizing. The Godfather is easily one of the greatest films ever made. Godfather II is terrific, but I don't quite get people who think it's better than the first.

I'll note that there are a handful of fan commentaries for Godfather, Godfather II, Wizard of Oz, and Casablanca, but zero commentaries for Citizen Kane. It's slow, methodical, character-based, and narratively complex but emotionally simple. It's ingeniously shot, and as a result is mainly beloved by directors and cinematographers, not film lovers. Wells and most reviewers prefer The Magnificent Ambersons. I like much of Wells' other work better.

In short, if DIF does it, very tough to do well.

Now, Apocalypse Now also has zero commentaries, and is nearly the opposite of Kane. It's methodical but not slow, episode-based, and narratively simple but emotionally complex. Plus, it has explosions and helicopters and other crazy shit.

In short, that's a win-win, regardless of your opinion of it.

Yes. Altho I respectfully submit that there is little danger of DIF parroting the dialog of film critics past.

Also, I don't mean "slow" as a pejorative here, but "deliberate" is probably the better word. Most films pre-1970 moved pretty slowly except screwball comedies and good westerns, and you and I love them.

In Psycho (1960), it takes an hour for the first kill, another 20 minutes or so for the second, and another 15 minutes or so for the climax. And what happens in between? Talk, and a lot of it by characters we don't much care about. There are zero chases, zero fights, and almost zero melodramatic revelations. Whatever it is, it's not "fast-paced." But is it boring? Hell no.

Crazy thought, but have you guys considered doing any of the Bond films?

Bond would be great, but it's such a can of worms.  There have been how many "Bonds" and how many directors?  I'm all for it, but short of doing all of them, choosing one would be a challenge.

I love the Bond series substantially more than it deserves. If DIF wants to sample it, I suggest...

• Dr. No because it's the first

• Goldfinger because it's one of the best

• You Only Live Twice because it has the hallowed out volcano

• The Spy Who Loved Me because it's one of the best

• Goldeneye because it's the best in a long time

• Casino Royale because it's a good reboot

You have to do one of the campy ones too, though, like Moonraker. Can't just touch on the high points.

Moonraker stands as an example of one of the very worst Bond films, it could use a good thrashing.   

As someone who lived it in realtime, The Spy Who Loved Me was mind-blowingly awesome at the time, and at the end it said (as all Bond films did in those days) "James Bond will return in... For Your Eyes Only".   

But a year later Star Wars debuted, and the next Bond film became Moonraker because that justified them doing an outer-spacey story.  And badly.    The fx aren't bad, but wow, that ending with Bond and Lois Chiles sitting placidly in a shuttle cockpit while she shoots a laser at satellites is the least exciting climax to a Bond movie EVAR.

But I give the makers credit because they learned from that mistake and the movie after THAT was For Your Eyes Only, which is one of my faves.   Instead of trying to do an even-bigger-blockbuster-epic-than-last-time, they downsized the whole thing, focused on small-scale but great action scenes, and most interestingly started to mess around with the Bond "formula".

In FYEO, Bond drives TWO Lotuses, but doesn't get into a car chase in either one.  Instead he ends up in a car chase in a little tinfoil econo-car and he isn't even driving it.  And it's one of the best Bond car chases in the series.    Also, a gorgeous young girl throws herself at him and he turns her down.   And so on.    It's a fun film that also has fun tweaking the whole "Bond" thing without becoming parody.

Oh, agreed about OHMSS, another of my faves.   Diana Rigg, mmmmmm.   She's the only Avenger _I_ give a damn about. 

Also, George Lazenby - I still dunno if it's really him, but I hope so - is a wonderfully demented Twitterer, well worth following.

Yeah. I thought I liked that one until I watched it again recently and realized it was really pseudo-blaxploitation. Not much worked for me but Jane Seymour and the 7-Up guy.

My little 11-year-old head could not contain the awesomeness. This is the film that had me going home and retelling the entire story to my mother at her bedroom door. Way better than The Incredible Melting Man, and way, way better than Grizzly.

Moonraker was a joke. It literally felt like we were being kidded. As a child I thought it was dumb.

But Lynn-Holly Johnson was about 22 playing about 18, and Roger Moore was 3 years older than Sean Connery—but I WASN'T. Suddenly, the reality of an aging Bond became unbearable. And Lois "Moneypenny is starting to resemble a drag queen" Maxwell wasn't helping any.

Lazenby was great, and the tone is marvelous and really puts character into Bond. But the plot is ridiculous. And the ending is a gratuitous punch in the groin.

They might as well have had Bond miraculously grow a third arm and then have that arm chopped off by a deathtrap. Then in later movies, they could have had Bond wistfully rubbing the scarred stump and reacting angrily whenever anyone mentioned it.

Speaking of confusion over older men and younger women in the cinema: I saw 10 when it came out, and despite being only slightly younger than Bo Derek, I simply couldn't grasp why anyone with an ounce of sense would cheat on Julie Andrews.

Julie Andrews is the perfect woman. I've said it before: I don't know if I'm in love with Julie Andrews or if I want to be her.