1&2 are both masterpieces

1&2 are both masterpieces...

But which is better?

Bump

Bump

2

Why

You wouldn't have 2 without 1.

You make a good point

I have to say 1, even though I really love 2. The problem with 2 is that there is just too much going on, too many different story lines. You could have taken half of them out and made a 3rd movie.

My first trip 0's in years and i waste it on a stupid, irrelevant post

Goodfellas

Ray liota is cool

2 is better cause Lake Tahoe scenes.

Fredo's brains still float around there

Trivia:
The horse head in the bed scene was a real horse head. Coppola was not satisfied with the fake one. They had a slaughterhouse ship one on dry ice. In the 70s horsez were still used for dog food.

1 by a nose.

I guess the main issue i have with the first one is the quickness of character development. Michael is a very deep, leveled character. Obviously, killing a police of chief, seeing your wife explode, and realizing your older brother has been shot to bits is very traumatic

But in the sequel, we really see Michaels complete dive into darkness. He loses his humanity

I personally find the first one to be my favorite of the two, but I do think that the 2nd is technically better. I feel the acting in The Godfather Part II is the greatest acting in any film ever. Pacino, Brando, Duvall. I mean the list goes on. It's like the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, it's always more fun to watch the rise, but the fall is inevitable and equally as important.

He would have died in that car with her had she not started driving so she could go 'look at me'. Her death was a wakeup call the fantasy was over.

2, because De Niro drives that other story line like a mother fucking boss. I don't think I've seen a movie where another actor takes a main character that someone like Brando cemented into our minds and made it not only watchable, but damn right epic.

If you try to imagine someone doing that today, following the success of a first film, its usually down right bad and only lasts like 10 mins.

1 was more iconic but 2 imo was just overall better.

You're right. That was his wake up call

>Not mentioning a young De Niro in one of his first roles

Niggah please

2 is a masterpiece but depends heavily on the fact that you've already seen 1.

De niro did something that no actor can ever do, again.

He improved a perfect character that was already immotalized by an iconic actor

Only two actors to win an oscar for playing the same character. Brando and DeNiro.

Yeah, exactly my point and some of those scenes with him, confronting his fathers killer and the scene with the landlord who wants to evict the lady were just brilliant.

My only personal quarrel between which one is better comes from the scene where Brando is talking to Pacino in the backyard and mentions something along the lines of 'You'll be asked to attend a meeting, absolutely guaranteeing you safety. And at that meeting you'll be assassinated"

The delivery is so casually cold, blunt, even though its his son. Even then, the godfather knows he has to remain calm, collected and thoughtful despite seeing his 'clean' son become what he was. Michaels reaction to him during the delivery is spot-on too. One of my fav scenes in cinema history.

"I like wine more than I used to"

Me and you both had trips.

The godfather series is the best ever

Awesome movies, can be considered the best. But the 'series' I can't consider the best because of 3... Only good part of that film is the last 15 minutes.

For me that award goes to LOTR and as fucked up as it even sounds to compare this next one to Godfather, possibly the batman trilogy is even better for me due to consistency.

Juxtaposition of Michael and young Vito makes 2 so much deeper. You feel how everything Vito does is out of pure love and protectiveness for his family. Michael on the other hand builds the empire into something cold and soulless, into a corporation almost. He is successful against his enemies but it is empty and hollow. Because in the process he loses the most important thing - his family. Perfect ending the way he is left alone at the end

Lotr is quite honestly the best fantasy story of all time. And Nolan's Batman trilogy was so much more than a super hero series... it was true cinematic history.

Then again though, the Godfather series is the strongest written, deeply connected, and most inpressively acted film franchise of all time

Watch The Godfather saga special. 1 & 2 are edited into one movie. Runs on HBO every now and then.

Yeah, I'll give it written and acted, for sure (Although the writing in LOTR for an adaption was pulled off quite well)

I think my issue was the connection part. While the Godfather was amazing, it was hard to relate to any of the characters imo, especially 3 (The sister and garcia's character were just fucking retarded I felt)

Maybe that's why I chose 2 over 1, because of all the films I felt I connected with Vito Carleone the most and seeing Deniro bring his youth to life gave me even more of an understanding/connection. Knowing it was never intentionally supposed to be like this, like some scarface fantasy, but just a means to the end in order to help his family and community.

But you're right when you say LOTR is the best fantasy. In the end, it's apples and oranges or better yet, lembas bread and oranges.

Coppola made a bad decision casting his daughter Sophia in 3 for such a critical role. I believe it was supposed to go to Winona Ryder but she dropped out.

Peter Jackson will always be the best adapter of a screenplay; the way he brought middle earth to life is unbelievable.

The godfather triolgy is unique on its own just because every small action is instrumental in the grand scheme of it all

Yea but he rushed the Hobbit to get it done. I dont think his heart was in it anymore.

Hobbit should've went to Guillermo Del Toro.. guy who did Pan's Labyrinth.

Would've been darker and all make up instead of CGI. But they didn't want to risk it and gave it back to Jackson instead. Weak move, but it worked for their wallets.

I heard he wanted to do an animatron/make up realistic smaug and they just didn't want to risk the budget.

Jackson tried to combine the hobbit and the silmarillion into one.

We may fault him for some issues, but no matter what he did such a good fucking job or creating tolkien's world

I agree. Guillermo Del Toro had a vision. Peter Jackson was just a safer bet.

Tough call, both are really good....
Maybe Part One, by a hair, because of Brando.

He didn't really use the Silmarillion

He just included a bit of Middle Earth lore and some parts of the Lord of the Rings that he didn't use in their movies.

But you're right. He did an awesome job of creating Tolkien's world.

Which hobbit was Brando?

2 ofc

This was the best fucking pun I've ever seen on this stupid board