|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
i think instead of doing Godfather III, Coppola should've done Apocalypse Now II and set it during the Gulf War. Possibly with Keanu Reeves as the Willard surrogate.
Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
sethsez posted:I actually really dislike this, if I'm being honest. The issue is that Vito's story was clearly meant to parallel Michael's journey in the first movie (after all, it was in the original novel and for a time was considered for the first film until George Lucas convinced Coppola that it was a distraction and Vito stood on his own without it, a choice I agree with), so its inclusion in the second results in a Michael story that's been written to mirror it, which means we wind up covering a lot of the same ground in a way that feels a bit forced and arbitrary. Michael was already corrupted completely at the end of The Godfather, so watching him get even worse just so Vito's story would have a parallel didn't give us anything new. The flipside to this is, while I agree that Godfather I is the better movie, I think Godfather II has the better Pacino performance.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Cacator posted:The scene where Kay tells Michael about the abortion has, like, the best acting ever. And it needs it, because Kay's monologue is awful.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Even if that were the case, the two movies stapled together are two excellent movies excellently edited together. I agree with this, and I definitely don't dislike Godfather II, but as fun as the De Niro stuff is to watch, I do feel like his arc is a little lacking. As magnificent as De Niro's performance is, it takes his all to keep Vito actually feeling like a character and not just a type.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 15:39
|
|