no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Mar 14, 2017 23:40:04 GMT
Yeah, the second is best.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Mar 15, 2017 0:24:15 GMT
I prefer Part II as well, but mostly for the Michael storyline which I find unbelievably interesting.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Mar 15, 2017 0:38:14 GMT
Considering I find the first one to be exceedingly dull (in terms of pacing, not plot), the second is vastly superior. Still wouldn't say they are two of the greatest films ever made, but there is a lot of merit - and the acting is fantastic.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Mar 15, 2017 1:12:05 GMT
Yeah, I think it's a better film too. More focused, and Michael's story is just great.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Mar 15, 2017 1:18:55 GMT
They are two of the greatest films ever made, but Part II is a teensy bit better. Both are masterpieces in their own unique way.
|
|
|
Post by taranofprydain on Mar 15, 2017 2:33:40 GMT
Sad III couldn't have been produced quicker perhaps. Actually, even though he eventually did it, Coppola did not want to make a Part III (or for that matter, he did not want to make Part II either). I know that Part III gets a ton of flack. I know it is much hated, but I really thought highly of it. Coppola went through with it to pay off debts from One from the Heart, The Cotton Club, and Tucker: The Man and His Dream. And everything seemingly went wrong during production. Paramount gave him only about a year and a half from first script to completion. Robert Duvall refused to come back and the whole script had to be rewritten. The whole film ended up being a rush job mainly given a cold shoulder by critics and audiences. And yet, I think it is woefully underrated, and very well done. By the way, my favorite is Part I.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Mar 15, 2017 5:24:11 GMT
I like the second one due to the acting and direction being as good as the original, but it is deeply flawed. Michael is basically a static character. We know that he's become a terrible person at the end of the first film, so the movie is three and a half hours of watching him be a terrible person. He doesn't do anything (with the possible exception of the bad business with Fredo) that we wouldn't expect him to do based on the ending of the first film.
De Niro is good, but his scenes really drag down the pacing, whereas I think the first one always flies by and is one of the best paced long movies of all time. Also the depiction of Vito as a Robin Hood figure actually does glorify the mob (which the first film is wrongly accused of doing) and contradicts the ending of the first film which implies that he and Vito are just as bad.
The first Godfather by contrast is a perfect film.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Mar 15, 2017 11:52:13 GMT
Yes, Part II all the way. The fishing trip scene near the end = goosebumps and boner due to too much atmosphere
I love how the 2 storylines are intervowen. Vito's storyline is just plot, plot, plot and Michael's is a thick tapestry of atmosphere which lets you follow him into his own loneliness and isolation. Neither would work alone (ok, in all honesty, they would but in that case it wouldn't be the masterpiece it is).
This is the single best thing Coppola ever did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 15:12:55 GMT
I like them in order of release, but they're all very good.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Mar 15, 2017 15:51:32 GMT
The second one
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Mar 15, 2017 17:44:58 GMT
I prefer the second because I always liked young Vito's storyline. That was my favorite part of the movies.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 15, 2017 18:50:55 GMT
Yeah, I prefer the second film to the first. The only thing I wish is that Clemenza had been in it. As brilliant as Michael V. Gazzo was (and indeed, if it weren't for Cazale he'd be MVP), Frankie Five-Angels was no measure against Clemenza for importance and gravitas.
|
|
|
Post by thelistenercanon on Mar 15, 2017 21:48:45 GMT
Am I the only who thinks both are equally good and should be one movie?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 22:07:14 GMT
They're on the same level for me, but I think the first one is slightly better.
Cazale in Part II gives the best performance of both films though.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Mar 16, 2017 1:20:40 GMT
They're on the same level for me, but I think the first one is slightly better. Cazale in Part II gives the best performance of both films though. I can understand people approaching them as one story as with LOTR, but the Vito flashbacks sort of separate the second one since they were made specifically as a compare/contrast with Michael in that film (putting them before the first film like they did in that "novel for television" thing in the late 70's sounds like a terrible idea). The first one also stands perfectly fine as a standalone thing, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Mar 17, 2017 3:06:49 GMT
I largely prefer the first, but both films are excellent masterpieces.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 17, 2017 21:21:45 GMT
Timothy Olyphant does.
They're almost neck and neck for me. What puts Part I a little over for me is its brisker pace.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 21:10:45 GMT
Sad III couldn't have been produced quicker perhaps. Actually, even though he eventually did it, Coppola did not want to make a Part III (or for that matter, he did not want to make Part II either). I know that Part III gets a ton of flack. I know it is much hated, but I really thought highly of it. Coppola went through with it to pay off debts from One from the Heart, The Cotton Club, and Tucker: The Man and His Dream. And everything seemingly went wrong during production. Paramount gave him only about a year and a half from first script to completion. Robert Duvall refused to come back and the whole script had to be rewritten. The whole film ended up being a rush job mainly given a cold shoulder by critics and audiences. And yet, I think it is woefully underrated, and very well done. By the way, my favorite is Part I. Glad I'm not the only one who loves III. We all know it's flaws, but it has some excellent pieces that make up for some of the lesser aspects. I love finally seeing what happened to Michael, and his grief and remorse, the way it has eaten away at him, and eventually how it catches up to him. I was young but I recall stumbling out of the theater afterwards, having just seen a chapter of The Godfather that was spoiler free, having read way too much about the first two before watching them on VHS.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Mar 30, 2017 2:47:01 GMT
used to prefer part II. Now I slightly prefer part I
Part III is garbage
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 3:26:51 GMT
Timothy Olyphant does. They're almost neck and neck for me. What puts Part I a little over for me is its brisker pace. God, this clip is 20 years old! (and STILL correct!) When I first watched this film, I had no clue as to what movies they were talking about!
|
|
|
Post by Longtallsally on Mar 31, 2017 12:59:14 GMT
Love them both, maybe Part II a little bit more.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 1, 2017 4:19:05 GMT
Apparently Brando wanted to play vito again. Where did you hear that? He was cast to make the cameo at the end of Part II, but didn't show up the day of filming so they had to re-write the scene and get James Caan to show up the day of, hence why he gets the "special thanks" credit. I'm surprised Coppola would want to cast him again in Apocalypse Now after he did something like that.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 1, 2017 6:30:48 GMT
Coppola said he considered having Brando play the young Vito in Part II with make-up. Not sure if Brando was game, though.
|
|