>>64405721

You might say it insists upon itself

>>64405721
Here, here. Its no different from Citizen Kane, a good movy for it's time but nothing compared to modern efforts. Goodfellas alone stomps all over it, let alone Sopranos or Breaking F*cking Bad.

Everything has it's time and place, and The godfather's time and place was 30 years ago. It's over.

What films has it been displaced by? Most of the films I could think of that would be considered better were released before 1973

>>64406024
>Here, here
Where, where?

>>64406024
I think Citizen Kane is different. It ruled so hard for so long, it's still talked about a little bit. The Godfather is kind of yawn-inducing. Only dads like it.

Is it just a meme among normalfags to hate Part III or is it legitimately bad?

>>64406098
Underrated kek

>>64406284
its not that good, and came much later.

it's like releasing Star Wars and Empire in a short time, then farting out Return of the Jedi 15 years later.

>>64406284
III is fucking amazing because Michael is finally made to suffer for his evil.

>>64406284
It's not bad, it's average and has some great moments

>>64406284
I like it a lot, although it's nowhere near the first 2 in quality. But it has a solid plot, amazing cinematography and photography, gorgeous soundtrack, and, aside from Sophia Coppola, good acting, specially from Andy Garcia. I give it a solid 8/10.

>>64405721
No movie/film ages well. People just have varying degrees of nostalgia for them.

>>64407147
Paths of Glory aged well.

>>64407147
Here's your reply

I think it's held up really well, especially compared to other movies from late 60s/early 70s. I remember watching it a while ago and the scene where Carlo beats Connie with the belt still feels intense.

>>64406024
>Here, here
>Goodfellas, Sopranos, Breaking Bad are better than the godfather
i tip my fedora to you, you mighty redditor!