now that the dust has settled, which movie is better?
Bane
>>64136731
only decent scenes from the 2nd was deniros
>>64136731
Part One.
>>64136731
probably the 2nd.
Since the first one is so slow paced that you just have to fell asleep, the 2nd must be better.
>overrated movies general?
Part II is slightly better (and my personal favourite movie). It's more acomplished artistically than Part I, and it goes deeper than telling a story about a family in the mafia, as it actually explores Michael's moral decay and alienation with his ascension to power, drawing a parallel with his father's. It just goes deeper than the first in many ways.
>>64136837
>slow paced
>aka I'm a retarded pleb
Thanks for letting us know ;)
>>64136877
i know YOU are a retarded pleb, but what am ME?
1 > 2 > 3
>>64136859
this
it's really close, they really compliment each other beautifully too, but I'd give the slight edge to part 2, the De Niro scenes are outstanding
both boring shit.
>>64137286
>plebeian detected
I get that a bunch of contrarians here dismiss The Godfather movies because they deem it too popular and "IMDBcore". But are there any people that actually find these movies bad? Some say they're boring, but I just can't see it; everytime I watch them, I just can't blink. They're so well made, directed, acted, etc. The whole pacing, plot, soundtrack, direction, cinematography, photography, they're all perfect to my eyes. Can anyone who doesn't like them actually show me some sort of argument as to why they're not good?
>>64137776
I agree. They're very entertaining imo and very immersive from the start.
Part II > I >>> galaxy gap > III. It's the only real ranking
>>64137776
the viewer needs to be mature to really appreciate them.
people who truly don't like them probably just don't like crime dramas in general, but they probably understand that the films were very well done.
I prefer the 1st.
I love the setting and era, I like the dialogue, the drama is portioned well, and the scenes are more characteristic.
2nd is very good but it's too depressing and grimdark for me; Michael spends the whole movie basically killing off everyone he doesn't trust.
>>64138027
I didn't think Part III was that bad. Of course, it was nowhere near as good as the first two, but it was actually quite good. My main problem with it is Sofia Coppola's abismal acting, which is compensated by the rest of the cast, that has a pretty strong performance (specially by Andy Garcia). In technical terms it's on par with the previous ones, and the ending is great. I'd rate it a solid 8/10.
>>64138243
I don't think it's as bad as its reputation, just bad compared to the first 2. my biggest problem, even more than Sofia, is Pacino is playing a completely different character than the Michael from 1 & 2. part of that is the writing, but it's mostly Pacino. it feels like Al Pacino is playing the character of Al Pacino instead of Michael.
>>64138727
that's true.
>>64138243
I liked 3 as well
I don't like the tendency for these storied franchises to hyper-criticize their "worst" iteration, even if its a solid movie in its own right
>>64136786
Largely wrong
>>64137776
People who dismiss movies because of imdb rankings should not exist anyway.
