|
No disrespect to The Godfather Part II, because it's a great movie, but the original one was better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIBpHO1gZgQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efMQRfmrlA0 Discuss.
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
When they would show Godfather 1 on network tv they would cut to a commercial right after Michael asks to use the bathroom. Then after the break they'd pick up like way after. Literally sinful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
I agree op
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I agree op
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Yeah, I think Godfather is a little more focused than Godfather II, and it lets the movie resonate more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Yeah, I think Godfather is a little more focused than Godfather II, and it lets the movie resonate more. Agreed, I think focus is a good way to put it. Its just a tighter, more streamlined film while of course still having that epic quality that makes it so timeless. Godfather 2 has DeNiro as Brando though, so its a close race. I rarely watch one without watching the other very soon after.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Let's just agree Godfather III was bad
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Let's just agree Godfather III was bad I think it's under-rated. Not great, but it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
I think I prefer the second one overall. It actually tries to make you empathize with Vito and what he did (at least to an extent), but juxtaposes that with Michael having all the power that Vito risked everything to gain and still being miserable. That said, none of this would have any resonance without the first film, so...Vegetable posted:Let's just agree Godfather III was bad kuddles fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Let's just agree Godfather III was bad It's alright, just not a masterpiece like the first two are. It would be pointless to make a megacut of all three films, but as a standalone movie it's okay. Also, agreed OP
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
They're both quite good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:They're both quite good. Definitely. But it's like comparing two high-end menu items, they're both good but it's okay to have a preference for one or the other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
I prefer "how's the food in this Italian restaurant" and Sonny's fake punches to almost anything in Godfather 2, despite the fact that the second is a better movie in every way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:No disrespect to The Godfather Part II, because it's a great movie, but the original one was better. I mean, yeah
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Parts of Godfather 2 are better than the original. The scene where Michael drives to Hyman Roth's house in Miami is amazingly tense and ominous even though, obviously, nothing is gonna happen. Everything that happens in Cuba is amazing, and the "YOU BROKE MY HEART" scene is probably the best moment in the franchise. But as a whole it isn't better than the original. The problem is that the fact it's two separate but closely-linked movies sandwiched together. But I will say that if it had been entirely the De Niro's segments it would be clearly the better of the two. Maybe I'm just prejudiced because my favorite characters, Brando's Vito and Clemenza, were only in the original (and I agree with Clemenza's actor that the original plan of making Clemenza the character who goes to the Feds would've made no sense for the character). Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
I definitely lean towards the first film. Seeing the fall of Michael from where he was at the beginning, drat
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Both are great films, but the first is one great scene after another. I'm not the biggest Brando fan, but his performance is deservedly iconic. Especially the scene where he visits the undertaker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
First is a better whole, coherent, experience, the second has better individual scenes and has more interesting themes going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
The first is better if only because the 2nd can get kind of muddled with the Michael Corleone section and the various plots with the government investigation and his dealings with Hyman Roth. As for Godfather part 3, I finally ended up watching it, and it wasn't as bad as I was expecting it to be. In fact, I think the final section to that movie involving the opera house was genuinely interesting to watch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
My favorite part about rewatching these movies is Tom Hagen. You don't notice the first time round but on rewatches you see how he tears up for the Don's death and messes with the Senators at court. He's the character that Godfather III really needed (and was supposed to be about).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
I still haven't seen a Godfather movie. I should probably change that one day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
This is one of my favorite scenes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idP5-vtkhBE "You can act like a man!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
I've never been huge on Part II. While it has great individual scenes, the whole thing feels like a combined prologue and epilogue to the true story that already occurred in the original, and Michael's story in particular feels like a prolonged reiteration of what the final half hour of the original had already conveyed far more elegantly. It's weird, the quality is absolutely there, but separated from the first it feels incomplete, and with the first it feels redundant. I've never seen in it what so many other people have, and these days I just accept it as a major blind spot of mine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
I've started to realize that one of the problems with Godfather III is that too many of the actors in it grew up with The Godfather and let that inform their performances. They act like they think people in a Godfather movie should act, rather than just acting like gangsters in 1979 New York. I guess that raises the question of whether the Godfather movies exist in the Godfather universe? I'm going to echo a lot of the thread when I say that Godfather II has a lot of great scenes but it feels like a supplement to the first. The rise of Vito Corleone is great stuff, but it wouldn't work without intercutting Michael's story. That said, while there are great performances in it, the actual details of Michael's story are so banal that it's harder to get worked up over. Trying to tie the whole thing into the American involvement in Cuba and the revolution feels a bit forced, and at the end of the day the movie starts to drag when we get into the details of what the Corleones are trying to do. That being said, I'm forever grateful it gave us this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsXyG1R2MhQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
sethsez posted:I've never been huge on Part II. While it has great individual scenes, the whole thing feels like a combined prologue and epilogue to the true story that already occurred in the original, and Michael's story in particular feels like a prolonged reiteration of what the final half hour of the original had already conveyed far more elegantly. That's basically how I feel about II. It's great, but it's never quite clicked with me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
vols bitch posted:I still haven't seen a Godfather movie. I should probably change that one day. You should! I hadn't seen them until I picked up the blu-ray collection when it was super cheap, and I really regretted having waited so long after I did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Yeah, I think Godfather is a little more focused than Godfather II, and it lets the movie resonate more. This. Part II is scattered and plotty. And dare I say, boring in parts. Part I is a tight well-oiled machine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:(and I agree with Clemenza's actor that the original plan of making Clemenza the character who goes to the Feds would've made no sense for the character). I loved Clemenza too and thought part II was worse off without him, but I always thought he didn't do the movie because of money. I can see the sense of this, though too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
I wish they would've kept the Michael Corleone parts in The Sicilian. It would've been cool seeing a young Pacino running around the hills of Sicily. Anyone see the Godfather Epic, where they cut 1 and 2 together? They've been running it on cable the past couple of months, but I haven't had a chance to catch it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
sethsez posted:I've never been huge on Part II. While it has great individual scenes, the whole thing feels like a combined prologue and epilogue to the true story that already occurred in the original, and Michael's story in particular feels like a prolonged reiteration of what the final half hour of the original had already conveyed far more elegantly. I think a big part was that people expected the sequel to have the quality of a...French Connection 2, and it ended up exceeding those expectations and even making the original a little better by building on it. Exceeding expectations makes a movie better received.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Both are neck and neck, in my opinion, but this thread is a great reminder for me to go back and re-watch them. And that is a quality I don't find much in movies anymore: the ability to re-watch a movie. True story: the actor who played the opera singing son in Godfather, Part III, Franc D'Ambrosio, also played the Phantom in the San Francisco production. I got to see it, and he has a nice tenor range. I still prefer the first two movies, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Anyone see the Godfather Epic, where they cut 1 and 2 together? They've been running it on cable the past couple of months, but I haven't had a chance to catch it. I'd also be interested in knowing if anyone has seen this and if so how the pacing works out compared to watching them separately. Do the De Niro sections work without the context of the first movie? (I would think probably)
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
My favorite scene in Godfather III is this one because of how over-the-top and out of place it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td8eEM9KDig
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
That helicopter scene always struck me as being really cheap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
How different would the third movie have been had they gotten Winona Ryder as intended? Would it have been any better? I always wondered that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Artsygrrl posted:How different would the third movie have been had they gotten Winona Ryder as intended? Would it have been any better? I always wondered that. Considering that Sofia Coppola is a horrendous actress there's no way it could have been worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
That whole character was a bit misguided though, I don't know if having a better-than-god-awful actress would have salvaged it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
That and the really weird love story. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Considering that Sofia Coppola is a horrendous actress there's no way it could have been worse. Winona doesnt save that movie though. Coppola gets too much blame for being the most obvious had part of a massively bad film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
I hate so much that Tommy Hagen isn't in that movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 16:23
|
|