Why do people think this was better than Goodfellas?

Why do people think this was better than Goodfellas?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=N0Os0Q9SA2k
youtube.com/watch?v=NLvKtstNUD0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Doesn't have Ray Liotta for one. Also has better fleshed out characters and iconic scenes.

That said I prefer Godfather Part 1. Casino is better than plebfellas as well

>Also has better fleshed out characters
I disagree. Mikes motivation is really one dimensional and unrealistic. He basically just wants revenge no matter what

Because Ray Liotta is a garbage actor.

Because few people have seen the gangsterkino masterpiece OUATIA

Why do people think Godfather or Goodfellas are worth fighting over when pic related is the true king.

This, but I still like Goodfellas more, even having Ray Liotta

Its good, but its a bit too long

Perhaps Marvel and DC or Star Wars is more your speed.

>watch the 4 hour cut of this
>jarring unfinished scenes are included
ridiculous this cut was made in all honesty

Please dont be rude, user
Just because a movie is long doesnt make it good, you know?

Theyre not comparable. Casino is better than Gfellas though

>tfw you will never see the 6 hour cut


Nigga it's 4 hours, that isn't long at all for a movie. Hell, LoTR is a very normie movie and the last one is around half an hour below Once Upon a Time in America in runtime. It's literally the greatest mob/gangster movie out there.

What does Sup Forums think of A Bronx Tale?

am I the only one that likes Ray?

His character in Blow is good, other than that I just dont care for him.

so what exactly makes it so great?

Tommy Vercetti is by far his best work.

I thought this was nowhere near as good as the first one.

characters and acting we obviously amazing but the plot was very uninteresting. and i definitely would rather watch goodfellas.

It brings a non existent neighborhood and a non existent time period to life with such richness it somewhat rings true, its contemplative pacing has more in common with Italian neorealism than classic gangster movies, it has a beautiful soundtrack and camerawork and it still has DeNiro's greatest performance to date, its non linear structure filled with callbacks and joined by motifs instead of events is also great, all around a masterpiece.

because Goodfellas is a meme film akin to Fight club for people who think LMAO GANGSTER LIFE SO COOL while The Godfather films are actual drama with realistic acting.

How is it possible to get a character this wrong?

Michael's character is about hypocrisy, especially regarding family values. And hes a character study to contrast his father. The final scene of II makes it obvious.

>all about revenge
LMAO

this

Anyone just like part 2 for the early era parts?

>The Godfather films are actual drama
To me, The Godfather is just over the top dramatic. The characters behave as if they were in a Shakespear play, and not like real people.
Meanwhile, the characters in goodfellas are far more relatable and realistic, you understand exactly why they behave the way they do

It just doesn't make sense to me that he wants revenge no matter what. Even after years (his brother), or against people who had very good reason for what they did (the guy who killed himself in the end in prison)

Oh I see. That makes sense. I havend seen the movie since I was a teenager, maybe I should rewatch it

Please rewatch it man, it's criminally underrated.

de niro is the right age to redo the unfinished scenes at this point

Mainly because how the film was shot, the godfather not only looks beautiful but has superior acting.

>but has superior acting
any examples?

He'd do it in a heartbeat as well, simply because of the cash

every single actor in the film have a better performance that the goofy acting in goodfellas

The early parts are by far the worst part of II. De Niro acting is wooden and there's no realistic character development, he just becomes a stone cold experienced assassin out of nowhere and then he's the main man?? Also that cringe fan service scene where he says I'll make him an offer he can't refuse.

Scene with Michael and Fredo where Michael says you're nothing to me. Both actors are superb, but especially Fredo. Probably the best acting performance in II, definitely deserved an Oscar ahead of de Niro.

any examples for goofy acting in goodfellas?

youtube.com/watch?v=N0Os0Q9SA2k
youtube.com/watch?v=NLvKtstNUD0

It should of just been a whole movie. Release that as part 2 and Michael's story as part 3. The set design was phenomenal though.

Yeah i didn't understand that at all. if Vito was that cold and capable why was he poor for so long? what if that guy never extorted him?

>tfw when I watched the godfather movies, I watched with the subtitles when they went to Italy

did people actually watch that shit and NOT know what they were saying?

>he can't speak Italian
Fucking plebs I swear

yeah I was taking to someone who didn't like the film and I brought up the car explosion scene and he said he skipped the Italian scenes because he couldn't understand them

well, i have to admit, the acting in those parts are good.
But as the other user pointed out, the prequel stuff didn't really make sense.
And It also didnt make sense to me why Michael was so eager on revenge, and never forgave. For example, why did he have to kill Fredo at the end?

because that's their way, he betrayed his family after he warned Fredo not to do it again.

but what was the point of it? Michael wasn't mad at him anymore, and killing Fredo served no real purpose

Because he betrayed the family.. it's an honor and loyalty thing.

it isn't practical but betrayal = death

and thats my beef with Mafia. In my opinon, it fails to portray why they act the way we do. To the audience, it seems like Mafia has some strange traditions that are never explained or make sense.

This is in strong contrst to Goodfellas, where you can relate very well to the characters and understand exactly why their rules work the way they do

but it's obvious why they act the way they do

Fredo almost had his own brother and the Don of the family killed in an organization that relies on honor and loyalty. how can you expect him to live?

My point is, there was no reason for killing him all this years later. He was not a threat anymore and michael has forgiven him. it is never explained why he gets killed

Michael says he doesn't want his brother harmed while their mother still lives.

Then at end of the film they are at the funeral of their mother and Michael gives the order.

long term it hurts the family reputation if you excuse that kind of treachery.

also, I suspect Michael always considered stupid, weak Fredo an embarrassment to the family.

>tfw you prefer Godfather I

...

Henry Hill's hubris is defined at the outset, he chose to be a mobster, and he trusted his friends but couldn't remain loyal to them when one mistake was made. You could argue that it was Henry's fault that Tommy wasn't stopped from killing Batts, but it's not a direct decision on his part.

Vito Corleone has a very Scorsese-style trajectory, but Michael is a mafia prince and is able to make his own decisions. The son isn't a mere object of circumstance.

In Greek drama, destiny is tragic, while in more modern Shakespearean drama, it's the man's decision-making.... in Godfather II, you can have it both ways, Michael's actions represent both the Greek sense of fate and Shakespearean notions of tragic consequence.

No but there's 3 parts
As a group they do beat out goodfellas

1vs1 they don't hold up against it

Because Goodfellas is just another mobster movie.

The Godfather is the king.

*In Greek drama Fate is tragic, while in Shakespeare its Destiny as a result of decisiveness.

You see the Classical culture was very similar to the Byzantine or Eastern-European sense of political fortune, while in the West we only consider great personalities or decisive characters.

We'd have to conclude that Scorsese is very Greek in terms of his outlook, he's maintained a dramatic style that is rooted within the Classical Culture.

Now it's an irony that most Westerners relate to The Godfather as this has little relationship to the way we actually live. It's a grand analogy, because we need grand analogies in order to see ourselves more clearly. This is probably what Spengler would call "Faustianism", which concerns more highly poised characters with a broad view of their world.

Don't forget the fact that a Western audience is generally disassociated from circumstance, concentrating itself primarily upon shared Ideals. Practicality and subsistence narratives don't engage Western Europeans or even many Americans at their core. Barack Obama could not function as a referent, while Trump is almost too immediate. It's the same way with Henry Hill and Michael Corleone.

When Salman Rushdie criticizes Scorsese films for being a 'nightmare of contingency', he's spitting on the Classical-Apollonian culture, which predated the Magian Arabs. He's located inbetween two western concepts of drama.

Are you nuts?

Goodfellas is actually based on the real mafia and the Godfather is pure fiction.

Goodfellas kind of flirts with metaphysics when the painting is introduced, it all hinges on that moment so it's not aiming at Realism, which is always boring and untrue to life. I agree with you though Goodfellas is a story about individuals and the Godfather is a whole history comprised in one family -- a complete impossibility.

Nothing about that contradicts what I said. A film thats based in reality can easily seem less realistic than a fictional story. The critical part is "based on".