Did Noodles deserve it for trusting a jew?
Don't we all?
Why did he have to do it, lads? ;-;
>>69256132
Noodles was Jewish. They all were in the movie. In the original book they were Italians but they changed it to Jews for the movie
>>69257020
Implying that uppity bitch wasn't asking for it. Since she was a little girl she wanted noodles noodle
Essential mobcore ranking:
Once Upon A Time In America > The Godfather Part II > The Godfather Part I > Goodfellas > Casino > The Departed > Scarface > The Godfather Part III > Mean Streets
He IS a jew
>>69259108
Godfather Part II > Godfather Part III ?
You dun goofed son
>>69258508
Why?
Although that would make that business about owning a pope's chair make a bit more sense.
>>69259211
you rank part III over part II? are you one of those contrarian people that just has to disagree with everything or are you literally retarded?
Noodles deserved it for being a rapist thug. I really couldn't feel bad for him at all, or see him as tragic or complex in any way.
>>69259108
Godfather 1 is way better than 2. 2 just repeats everything from the first movie in a less memorable way with 40 more minutes tacked on. 3.5 hours to say what we already knew about Michael and Vito from the first one
>>69256132
I just love that smile he gives in the end
>>69259108
Which Scarface? DePalma's or Hawks'?
>>69259108
A bit tough on Mean Streets, anon. It's only partially a mob flick.
>>69259108
>no Donnie Brasco
Awful ranking
>>69259211
Yeah, right.
>>69260319
I is a pretty direct movie about a family in the mafia. II is way more dense and artistically acomplished, as it's a story of a man's alienation and moral decay, compared to his father's rise to the same position he's into now. Part I implied that Michael became his father by the end, while Part II makes you see that they're way different in their aproach to the criminal activities, and that Michael, while achieving much more in business than his father, couldn't keep his family - the most important thing.
>>69260399
DePalma's
>>69260548
I'm not saying it's bad, but it's certainly a lesser movie than the other ones mentioned.
I don't think Keitel was good as a lead and Scorsese's directing wasn't as good as in his other movies. Still has great parts, specially DeNiro's.
>>69260780
>Part I implied that Michael became his father by the end
You completely missed the point then. Vito abstained from violence unless it was necessary or justified, Michael slaughters everyone who could oppose him and completely loses himself in the process. One of the few positives of 2 for me is the way the Vito flashbacks establish Vito as this folk hero/community leader, even if he's a bit of a prick pushing his weight on the little guy he had some respect and respected others, and kept that until his death. Michael's first act as Don is to sell his soul.
The door closing on Connie at the end of 1 is the same act you're describing in 2, putting a hard wall between his work and family, and choosing which side of that door to be on. It's done with much more tact than the completely turgid divorce subplot in 2. There's nothing explicitly said about Michael in 2 that isn't implicitly said in 1.
>>69261115
That makes sense. I still prefer Part II, I feel like it makes a deeper analysis of Michael's character, instead of (as you said) treating it subtlely like in Part I.
Don't get me wrong, Part I is still one of my favourite movies, but I like Part II slightly better.
