Michael's character progression in the first part makes it my clear favourite, from outsider among his own family to killing for it. And the relationship with Vito.
The Godfather trilogy
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Yeah easily is perhaps a touch overzealous, given part 1 Is also one of the greatest films of all time. Maybe a 9.4 and a 9.6 out of ten respectively.
I have intended to watch once upon a time in America for a while now and have attempted to sit down and go through it twice but haven't managed to set aside that amount of time, its length is a bit intimidating, 100% worth the effort?
It's worth it for the score alone, which is about the most atmospheric you'll get.
Godfather I was the best of the 3 IMO. The 2nd was very decent but I didn't like the Hyman Roth/Cuba plotlines.
I didn't know the backstory about Cazale and The Deerhunter until I wiki'd his name after seeing it mentioned here. Heartbreaking stuff.
On first viewing, I thought 2 was better than 1. But I was so wrong. 1 is perfect. 2 is right behind it though.
It's classic Leone which is interesting alone considering it wasn't a Western but De Niro and Woods are great. Make sure to see the correct version because the theatrical release is poor. Personally, I love the film
De Niro's audition for the role of Sonny:
(edit): and Pacino's for Michael, featuring James Caan and Martin Sheen going for the same role:
(edit): and Pacino's for Michael, featuring James Caan and Martin Sheen going for the same role:
Last edited:
I love 2 and think 3 is actually very good.
1 is the perfect film, every scene is a classic.
1 is the perfect film, every scene is a classic.
The gravita of Brando made that first film special. You just feel his presence throughout the film whether he's there or not.
2 was great too especially with Fredo's emotional outburst at the end and Michael's decision. The chemistry between those two is incredible.
2 was great too especially with Fredo's emotional outburst at the end and Michael's decision. The chemistry between those two is incredible.
Three isn't good but has one of the best emotion scenes, when his daughter dies near the end, phenomenal acting
Sofia's acting was so bad that they shot her.
Old bump I know, but no need for a new thread.
Just watched part 1 for the first time in about 5/6 years.
What an incredible film. The attention to detail in every scene is insane.
I love part 2, and the Vito in the 20’s scenes are amazing, but there’s no better film ever made than than part 1 for me.
Just watched part 1 for the first time in about 5/6 years.
What an incredible film. The attention to detail in every scene is insane.
I love part 2, and the Vito in the 20’s scenes are amazing, but there’s no better film ever made than than part 1 for me.
You clearly didn’t watch Rebel Moon yet.
Sorry, I did mean there’s no better film ever made than part 1, other than Rebel Moon.
1 & 2 will always be in my top 10 movies. The score, the acting will always be re watchable.
Parts 1 and 2 are cinema Pantheon. Ridiculously good films. That Coppola, between 72 and 79, came out with those, + The Conversation and Apocalypse Now, is frankly insane.
1- Great
2 - Boring
3 - Decent
2 - Boring
3 - Decent
Yeah. Agree with this. Incredible cinema. The Conversation might be underrated because of the company it keeps.
Honestly, don’t think there’s a wasted scene in part one. Cannot think of a better film.
Stanley Kubrick once said that Godfather I was the best film ever made. Coming from maybe the greatest auteur in all of cinema, that is fairly high praise. He is probably right - it is a perfect film.
Yeah perfect filmmaking and that is an incredible set of films to chug out in 7 years.
Been a very long time since I watched The Conversation, probably over 20 years so I’m gonna try and rewatch that at some point.
The only glitch in 1 is that weird voiceover when Moe Greene goes “I talked to Barzini”.
But without that George Lucas never gets the idea for Darth Vader, perhaps the most iconic villain of all time. So swings and roundabouts.
2 boring oh man the Caf has some bad takes but this one oh boy
In another universe, Wynona Ryder did not get sick and Duvall got the money he asked for and III suddenly improved exponentially.
I watched them all again over the course of 2023, and I think I'd rate the three films 5/5, 4/5, and 3/5.
Part 1 is obviously great and one of my favorite films. The story, the acting, the shots - pretty much everything is great about it. The only thing that struck me when I watched it again is that it looks/feels a little 60s for a film from 1972 (regardless of it being set in the 40s). Or maybe I got that wrong.
Part 2 has the same technical qualities (amazing acting and filmmaking), but I am not a fan of the story - hence the 4/5. In principle, the core idea is good: Michael running his 'business' in a way and with such paranoia that he alienates everyone, loses his wife (although he basically already did at the end of Pt 1, so that's a little redundant), and ends up 'having to' kill his own brother. Lots of drama and development. But the intrigue with Hyman Roth and Cuba is too convoluted and becomes a distraction. It might have worked better if the main story were set against US authorities trying to get a handle on the whole mafia thing. More importantly, I don't much rate the young Vito part. Yes, it's well done and looks great (assuming the settings are real, I loved just seeing 1910s/20s New York), but the story is poor. There is no arch, it's just Vito doing increasingly well until he basically becomes a crime boss for the first time. Vito's story also doesn't really provide a contrast with Michael's, since they are in very different parts of their career's; a better comparison would have been to show how Vito managed to continue being a personable, friendly individual (unlike Michael) while he already was a crime boss. Or other shots like the film's final one, around Vito's 50th birthday, which is among the most powerful in all of Pt 2.
Part 3 just drops another level on all counts. To me, basically the entire story is too convoluted and uninteresting. All this international stuff and the intrigues within the Catholic Church - scrap it all. The romance between Michael's daughter and Vincent (Andy Garcia): out with it. (It does not actually affect anything. Remove it entirely, and the final scene on the theater stairs can remain exactly the same.) Even the whole bit about Michael's succession could go out, cause what little functions Vincent could have been fulfilled by any crime grunt. I mean, the basic idea of Michael in his old day, trying to make amends with his family and arrange things for the next generation is a good one, but the execution to me isn't very interesting. I also think the retrospective of young Vito would have fitted better here, if it were changed and expanded into a contrast between how things go for Michael when he returns to Sicily and how Vito used to live his life there. (I have all kinds of ideas for that, but who cares.
) Obviously, the film is still well made, but set against the standard of Part 1, it's just really not on the same level.
So sue me.
Part 1 is obviously great and one of my favorite films. The story, the acting, the shots - pretty much everything is great about it. The only thing that struck me when I watched it again is that it looks/feels a little 60s for a film from 1972 (regardless of it being set in the 40s). Or maybe I got that wrong.
Part 2 has the same technical qualities (amazing acting and filmmaking), but I am not a fan of the story - hence the 4/5. In principle, the core idea is good: Michael running his 'business' in a way and with such paranoia that he alienates everyone, loses his wife (although he basically already did at the end of Pt 1, so that's a little redundant), and ends up 'having to' kill his own brother. Lots of drama and development. But the intrigue with Hyman Roth and Cuba is too convoluted and becomes a distraction. It might have worked better if the main story were set against US authorities trying to get a handle on the whole mafia thing. More importantly, I don't much rate the young Vito part. Yes, it's well done and looks great (assuming the settings are real, I loved just seeing 1910s/20s New York), but the story is poor. There is no arch, it's just Vito doing increasingly well until he basically becomes a crime boss for the first time. Vito's story also doesn't really provide a contrast with Michael's, since they are in very different parts of their career's; a better comparison would have been to show how Vito managed to continue being a personable, friendly individual (unlike Michael) while he already was a crime boss. Or other shots like the film's final one, around Vito's 50th birthday, which is among the most powerful in all of Pt 2.
Part 3 just drops another level on all counts. To me, basically the entire story is too convoluted and uninteresting. All this international stuff and the intrigues within the Catholic Church - scrap it all. The romance between Michael's daughter and Vincent (Andy Garcia): out with it. (It does not actually affect anything. Remove it entirely, and the final scene on the theater stairs can remain exactly the same.) Even the whole bit about Michael's succession could go out, cause what little functions Vincent could have been fulfilled by any crime grunt. I mean, the basic idea of Michael in his old day, trying to make amends with his family and arrange things for the next generation is a good one, but the execution to me isn't very interesting. I also think the retrospective of young Vito would have fitted better here, if it were changed and expanded into a contrast between how things go for Michael when he returns to Sicily and how Vito used to live his life there. (I have all kinds of ideas for that, but who cares.
) Obviously, the film is still well made, but set against the standard of Part 1, it's just really not on the same level.So sue me.