The Godfather series

[XwolverineX]

I got the DVD collection today, and I was just wondering if it's as perfect as it's said to be? How's part 2? And 3? Kthx.

 

[tinister]

Hey. I have the same collection. It's pretty good. The extras disk is full of goodies.

The Godfather series are one of my favorites. Part I is really good. Part II is even better. PIII takes place in the 70s, so it loses a bit of the texture from the setting of PI and PII - and has pretty much a new cast of characters, but it's not nearly as bad as everyone says it is.

I think you'll like it.

 

[The Shape]

Great films. The third is decent, but not on par with the first two. Part II is the best. Pacino's performance is amazing in all three. My favorite scene is in Part II, and it brings tears to me eyes every time.

Just the look on Pacino's face. His kisses Fredo and saysm "I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart."

Awesome series.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Um.... its the Godfather... need anyone say more...

 

[tinister]

Great films. The third is decent, but not on par with the first two. Part II is the best. Pacino's performance is amazing in all three. My favorite scene is in Part II, and it brings tears to me eyes every time.

Just the look on Pacino's face. His kisses Fredo and saysm "I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart."

Awesome series.

That kiss scene is powerful, but remember the scene at the strip show - when Fredo slips and hints to Michael that his own brother betrayed him (takes place at the weird strip show) - you can feel Michael's heart sink. Especially when he and Fredo shared a rare brotherly moment together the day before (sitting in the outdoor cafe).

I have to watch them again now. LOL

 

[tinister]

I think Pacino's portayal of Michael pulls the three movies together so well. Although there was a little too much of the modern "growling" Pacino in Michael in PIII.

But in all three movies - you can see and feel the transformation in Michael. Especially in PI - when his father is gunned down and Michael is almost compelled to join in the family business. That scene where he visits his father at the hospital late at night and realizes his father is in danger and enlists a stranger to help him scare off the assasins. It's a cool scene because it shows the bond between him and his father. But it is that bond that compells Michael to get involved in the family business (which his father wanted him to have no part in).

And in PII - you see Michael (now fully within the business) slowly transform into the type of figure that his father despised. And again - he is tragically almost compelled to do it because of his misguided yearning to protect his family and be his father's replacement.

And in PIII - he realizes that all his efforts to protect his family have actually put them in harms way.

It's such an awesome - tragic - colorful story.

 

[The Shape]

^ Amen, brotha.

 

[Karem-Knight]

The Godfathers are truley great films, Al Pacino shows the tragdey of Micheal Coreleone from an aspring young man to a Richard III like charcter.

 

[Iceman]

I & II are all time classics. III is good but not at the same level.

 

[The Chairman]

The first two films are defining moments in cinema, two of the most powerful and groundbreaking movies ever to grace the silver screen, and are among the films that got me hooked on film in the first place. Both masterpieces. The third has some good performances and dazzling scenery, but is otherwise pretty forgettable.

 

[The Shape]

The third doesn't have the same feel as the first two, but it's still a good entry in the series. It's a decent way to end everything, and shows how Michael has evolved through all the films.

 

[The Chairman]

The third doesn't have the same feel as the first two, but it's still a good entry in the series. It's a decent way to end everything, and shows how Michael has evolved through all the films.

There's just more wrong with it than there is right IMO. Plus, I hate the fact that Tom Hagen is just thrown out with no mention whatsoever. I also felt a lot of the characters were forgettable (namely George Hamilton and Brigitte Fonda's, neither of whom have roles which I recall). Sofia Coppola should never be allowed to act again. Pacino, Keaton and Garcia were the best performers hands down.

I thought the plot, especially the subplot involving The Vatican, was drawn out and rediculous.

The film's best scene IMO is when Michael takes Kay to visit Italy. It is beautifully shot and is one scene that is on level with all the great moments in the first two.

Other than that, I'd say at best it's a 2.5 out 5 for me.

 

[DACrowe]

The first two are classics and among the very best in cinema history. The third is a decent movie that concludes Michael's story poetically and tragically with another great turn from Pacino (something so rare these days) but it lacked the finesse of the first two, the way it immersed you or the quality acting outside of originals and Garcia. For the record Sofia Coppola was never supposed to be in it, it was going to be Wynona Ryder and Sofia was a last minute replacement (unfrotunately....terrible actress, but good director).

And for the record they do mention Tom Hagen "passed on" in the third movie though.

 

[mister Lennon]

First two, masterpieces. Third one, a pretty good movie, but not at the same level.

Maybe, best triology on cinema story. Brando, Pacino, Deniro, Keaton, Duvall, Can, Coppola, etc.

 

[Shuley]

I liked the first one more than the 2nd one...2nd one was 3 1/2 hours long! It was good though,but the 1st one was alot more exciting to watch since it had Brando in it and everything.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

They're all long and move really slow so be prepared when you watch them.

 

[The Shape]

They're all long and move really slow so be prepared when you watch them.

They only seem slow if you don't understand what's going on, or if you're not interested in the story.

Otherwise, I lov every minute of the first 2. The third is fairly boring when compared to the first 2.

 

[Cinemaman]

The Godfather - Excellent and great movie!

The Godfather II - Even better movie than another 1st!

The Godfather III - not bad movie, but it could be much better.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

The first two are amazing.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

They only seem slow if you don't understand what's going on, or if you're not interested in the story.

Otherwise, I lov every minute of the first 2. The third is fairly boring when compared to the first 2.

I understood what was going on and was interested, but it still moves slow. More so the 2nd one. The going back and forth with the past and present makes watching it rather tedious at points.

 

[The Chairman]

I understood what was going on and was interested, but it still moves slow. More so the 2nd one. The going back and forth with the past and present makes watching it rather tedious at points.

I disagree. I think if you understand what's going on, it moves much faster. I saw the first two when I was maybe 8 or 9 and managed to take in what was going in with ease.

 

[The Shape]

I disagree. I think if you understand what's going on, it moves much faster. I saw the first two when I was maybe 8 or 9 and managed to take in what was going in with ease.

Yeah. I saw them at a young age too and was meserized. I don't think I realized that movies didn't need constant action or adventure to be interesting until I saw The Godathers.

They never seemed slow to me.

 

[LostSon88]

There's just more wrong with it than there is right IMO. Plus, I hate the fact that Tom Hagen is just thrown out with no mention whatsoever. I also felt a lot of the characters were forgettable (namely George Hamilton and Brigitte Fonda's, neither of whom have roles which I recall). Sofia Coppola should never be allowed to act again. Pacino, Keaton and Garcia were the best performers hands down.

I thought the plot, especially the subplot involving The Vatican, was drawn out and rediculous.

Well if its any consolation, even Coppola has stated that Part III feels "incomplete" without Tom Hagen. He said in past interviews that had Robert Duvall been in the movie, part III would've focused on Tom's detetiorating relationship with Michael.

Unfortuanately it was all a money issue.

 

[The Chairman]

Well if its any consolation, even Coppola has stated that Part III feels "incomplete" without Tom Hagen. He said in past interviews that had Robert Duvall been in the movie, part III would've focused on Tom's detetiorating relationship with Michael.

Unfortuanately it was all a money issue.

If Tom had come back and it focused on his realtionship with Michael, it would've been a much stronger movie IMO. Too bad Duvall didn't get what he wanted.

 

[XwolverineX]

I disagree. I think if you understand what's going on, it moves much faster. I saw the first two when I was maybe 8 or 9 and managed to take in what was going in with ease.

I watched 1 last night, and I really liked it. But there's not way an 8 year old could comprehend it.