The Great Debate

so which one is superior?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wj-r7ARXfSs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Two

Patrician choice: II
Pleb mostly masquerading as a patrician: I

The first one but only marginally. They work so well as one story though that I hate separating them. I actually can't remember the last time I didn't watch them both back to back.

other way around
you tried though

I wish Brando was able to show up at the birthday scene

This

This desu, I and II can be basically considered one film, III is clearly a completely different thing which films like a terrible second part.

Only thing missing from part II would be Clemenza's death, but it's just a minor detail.

Two. Next question

you broke my heart fredo

I know its you shit posting fredo.

you broke my heart.

YOU BROKE MY HEART

I've seen both at least a dozen times.

After the second or third viewing of them together I said two was the best. Now after those dozens of viewings, and 17 years later, two is still clearly the best one.

>dat moment

Fucking Fredo, fucking doorstep gipsy.

what about two puts it over the edge for you

Clemenza in the Frank Pantangeli role would have been structurally perfect (since he had his father's other partner Tessio killed in the first one, and Clemenza was fatherly toward him in the original) --- but Coppola had little choice (In addition to wanting too much money, Castellano insisted on having his girlfriend write all of Clemenza's dialogue on Godfather II with him!)

Not to take away from Michael Gazzo, who is GOAT in his role.

Brando in the last scene might have been nice, but the way he's a ghost through the whole film, I think I prefer it without him.

Two is a better, more ambitious (almost insanely so, considering the time it was made) film, but needs the first film in a way that the first film doesn't need the second -- So Godfather 1 wins. But both belong together.

That fucking third one should either have never existed, or been mainly about Michael vs. Tom Hagen, and what it means to be a 'real' Corleone. Diane Keaton's character's role was concluded at the end of Part II -- Part III does nothing with her but waste screen time (and further highlights how Diane Keaton's performances was so close to being bad/ almost anachronistic in the first two).

Gotta go with what everyone else said. They're far too closely tied together as films about the death of the American dream.

>Michael vs. Tom Hagen
It was going to be, but they refused to pay Duvall half of what Pacino was getting.

>tfw i tAHlked to barzini

hes moe green

he buys you out

I know -- not just what Pacino was getting, but Keaton too! (and according to Duvall, Coppola in meeting with him about the film was more interested in a getting a recipe from him than in actually trying to encourage him to take the role).
A terrible, stupid creative tragedy. Part III has just enough of the same talent involved (and on display) in the first two to make you fucking hate it all the more.

That dub was so bad, literally the worst part in the movie.

The two flowing storylines that weave together.

Both are clearly period peices, but one is ever older and starts off in a nother country. Both, especially the older times with his father are beautifully shot, acted and the sets are incredible. Coppola took his time and it shows.

Basically it shows you how his father came from nothing and became a great father and family man because he cared about his family over wealth and power. Michael got all the power and lost his family because he didn't put them first like his father. Most people don't notice it at first, but watching it now its pretty obvious that is the theme of the movie, and it's set up so strongly and beautifully for over 3 hours.

The first movie is a 10/10 for sure. Both are in my top 5 movies of all time. The first one is a great movie with one linear plot centered around a family and goes into great depth. Two takes two separate plots at two different times, goes to many locations all over the world, and does it with even more finesse and mastery than the first movie. It's not even close in my opinion. Second is the best.

How come robert deniro speaks like an old man in GF2?
I can understand Brando speaking that way because by then the character was fat and old.

>Pacino for Godfather Part II and Nicholson for Chinatown were nominated for Best Actor on the same year
>neither of them won
Why was this allowed?

YOU KNOW THAT THING I JUST ASSURED MICHAEL A MINUTE AGO? HERE'S ME BLATANTLY REVEALING THAT WAS A LIE LOUDLY RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM! WHAT A TWIST THIS MAKES!

GF2 is vastly overrated here and in popular culture. Nowhere near the first. Sort of a cash-in/what didnt make the first movie/rehash. That's why Coppola didnt even want to do it at first, Brando didnt do it. The young Vito stuff looks nice but isnt in itself revelatory, nor does it really connect, mirror or compliment the Michael plot which again looks terrific, but goes nowhere new. The door closing in Kay's face, the rift at the end of the first is essentially where they remain.

Fredo arc is only real interesting thread

refresh my memory

it was later during the night after theyd all had a few iirc but i feel you

youtube.com/watch?v=wj-r7ARXfSs

whichever one had this part

Never got the praise for 2. Way too much Fredo to be great. 1 has Brando

weird, what's the story with that dub

Checked.

Fredo was a fuck up, even if he hadn't drink that many Banana Daikiris he was still too stupid and easy to manipulate, he's basically like Anthony Junior from The Sopranos, a freeloader without any real talent who could never have any real talent in the family and that everyone just had to deal with because he was one of the Don's children.

but Cazale was a great actor, he should have gotten more scenes.

Because if he tried any other way of speaking fanboys would bitch and moan, even though yes, he should have a different voice at 30 then he did at 65

was it the best film kiss of all time?

Fredo was everything a mob boss wasn't supposed to be. Weak, easily manipulated, a bad liar, and a worse shot (and enjoyed Superman's dick a little too much to not at least be bisexual)

But outside of the business, he was a better family man than Michael ever was. Which makes me wonder if he carried on Don Vito's true legacy. Michael certainly didn't.

What did Michael mean by that?

Was he in love with Fredo?

2 for Cuba and the Vito prelude

1 was better.

2 was still very good but less good because the vito flashback has aged much less well than the rest of it. seems like a stale story by today's standards.

One

Goodfellas

>and enjoyed Superman's dick a little too much to not at least be bisexual

?

>But outside of the business, he was a better family man than Michael ever was

He couldn't handle his woman.

Part II. Even Tony Soprano agrees with me.

First one is a masterpiece, second one is okay.

I think it might be from one of the novels that came out after Puzo died that were written by other authors. I read one and it was okay.

first because marlon.

Is the miniseries version worth a watch?

>I know it was you Fredo

They're basically one film.

I think I like the first one better (one of my favourite movies, by the way), but as I said, it doesn't matter.

The second one has fantastic moments, too.
De Niro is a brilliant young Vito, and the parallels between the two generations are well-built.

>Fredo was everything a mob boss wasn't supposed to be.

Yeah. This is what made part one so good. It was a family story. Vito had everything necessary to make a good mob boss. Fredo got nothing. Sonny got the strong paternal instinct. Michael got the cold and calculating thinking. But to keep the business and the family together you need both. Tom was the closest to having both but he was an outsider.

I loved the dynamic.

Dubs confirm

Also, it was interesting how Vito became such a powerful force through life experience. He was forged by his trials as a man. His boys only lived in his shadow so all they got was a meager inheritance. They were incomplete as men.

Mario Puzo is pretty a pretty neat guy.

Part 3

2 because De Niro is a better actor than Brando

My man

>That fucking third one should either have never existed
eh it wasn't that bad I kind of liked it to be honest though it is a shameless cash grab and the best part is when sophia coppola gets btfo but all in all its a decent flick

NEVER MARRY A WOP

...

They're both overrated trash.

The spectator had to understand that he was lying. In There will be blood you don't understand how he find out, I was just thinking he was acting austist on the beach.

Part 2 had the potential to be a better film, but since the ending is literally the same as the first part it takes it's originality and, even if it wasn't the same, the final shot of Michael getting zoomed seemed retarded as opposed to the great ending of the first part

II by a fucking mile

Not him but at that point in their careers he was.

Brando had the leading role in last tango in Paris, the only performance from De Niro that could only match that one is raging bull (his best ever)

>godfather II ending scene didn't have marlon brando

Fuck I've really drank my memory.

>They work so well as one story though that I hate separating them. I actually can't remember the last time I didn't watch them both back to back.
/thread

>His boys only lived in his shadow so all they got was a meager inheritance. They were incomplete as men.

This was a neat angle at first, but mind you Sonny was being molded by Vito until the assassination attempt and all that. Michael wasn't going to be part of the family, etc. It's not that they lived in his shadow, it's that shit got fucked up. Fredo was the only one who, if anything, lived in his father's shadow.

>In There will be blood you don't understand how he find out

When Henry doesn't react to the "take them to the Peach Tree dance" line, Daniel shakes his head to himself and mouths "no" with a distraught expression. If you didn't catch that you may have blinked, user.