If not for the boring Cuba portion, this movie would be on the same level as the first one, I don't understand the hype behind these movies, they're not bad but they're not so good that they make me wanna cum in my pants despite how everyone tries to make them sound.
>Godfather 1 7/10
>Godfather part 2 6/10
Cuba portion was the best part, weakest part is the flashbacks with De Niro, which is literally cut content from the first movie they added in the sequel because the script for Part 2 wasn't long enough. It's filler, and focuses too much on Vito before he becomes a gangster, and only one brief superficial scene after he becomes boss. It's dull and unsatisfying.
Part 1 - 10/10
Part 2 - 7/10
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that the second one isn't as good as the first one despite what everyone says. Also, it's interesting how we have opposite views on the Cuba and flashback scenes, I really liked the flashbacks but thought the Cuba portion was dull and unsatisfying.
>I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that the second one isn't as good as the first one despite what everyone says.
You're definitely not the only one. The original is much more cohesive, engaging, and has the superior cast. It has Brando, James Caan, Abe Vigoda and Richard Castellano. The story and pacing are perfect, so much better than switching back and forth between two parallel stories which are both shallow in comparison to the original script.
Anyone who thinks 2 is just as good or better is smoking crack
i won't read the rest of the thread, but i agree, the first is one of the few movies i rated 10/10, i think i gave the 2nd a 6 or a 7
the first movie is an all-time classic, the second is in dire need of slimming down to come anywhere near it
The Godfather influenced virtually every film that came after it. The reason you think it is dull is because everything that makes it novel and great has been copied and lifted by other movies. That being said, if you are unable to realise the greatness of these movies then you were filtered.
The Vito flashbacks is cut content from the books. And it is not ‘filler’ it is there to juxtapose with Michael’s spiritual downfall and demonstrate the dilution of their Sicilian identity. Vito expands his business and takes his revenge without losing his soul while Michael becomes cold and emotionless and is only concerned with business.
>The Vito flashbacks is cut content from the books
No, it's content that was IN the book, and CUT from the film, because it wasn't as interesting or important as the other parts of the book.
>And it is not ‘filler’ it is there to juxtapose with Michael’s spiritual downfall and demonstrate the dilution of their Sicilian identity. Vito expands his business and takes his revenge without losing his soul while Michael becomes cold and emotionless and is only concerned with business.
I get that, but I don't think it's that clever or interesting. The fact that you are "juxtaposing" two stories isn't inherently good writing.
>No, it's content that was IN the book, and CUT from the film, because it wasn't as interesting or important as the other parts of the book.
It wasn’t cut because it was less interesting or important. There was heavy studio inference and they didn’t want a five hour movie.
>I get that, but I don't think it's that clever or interesting. The fact that you are "juxtaposing" two stories isn't inherently good writing.
I’m not saying that ‘juxtaposing’ two stories is inherently good writing. It does fit with the Godfather II though. And while you're allowed to not find it clever or interesting you can’t say it is filler because it serves a narrative purpose.
>Where this falls apart is that the first movie already did a good job of juxtaposing Vito's style and Michael's style. Part 2 doing it again was redundant.
Not really. Michael expands the family business by moving them to Nevada, getting them involved in Vegas gambling, and ‘Americanising’ them for lack of a better term. Vito rose to power by serving as a community leader, and has intense morals and scruples. If anything Part I juxtaposes with Part III as they show the two at the apex of their power.
>Michael becomes cold and emotionless and is only concerned with business
Yeah, killing Fredo was completely unnecessary at that point. He was completely broken, removed from the family business and seemed content. His biggest problem was that he was never cut out for that life.
Fredo was a liability who would have done some other stupid bullshit which hurt the family, eventually. Doesn't matter if you cut him out of the business, he's still a Corleone and people will try to use him against Michael. It's also not the first frick up Fredo has done, it's more like frick up number 725. In the real life Mafia he would have been whacked out years earlier, then again The Godfather is more of an epic family drama than a real look at the mafia.
>Filtered anon attempts to justify fratricide
moron
From the context of the story and Michael's loss of humanity, sure. I guess it was the point that it was wholly unnecessary, just came across as ott.
>Fredo Corleone: I'm your older brother, Mike, and I was stepped over!
>Michael Corleone: That's the way Pop wanted it.
>Fredo Corleone: It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!
Fredo Corleone: I'm your older brother, Mike, and I was stepped over!
Michael Corleone: That's the way Pop wanted it.
Fredo Corleone: It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!
>Michael Corleone: I've always taken care of you Fredo.
>Fredo Corleone: Taken care of me? You're my kid brother and you take care of me? Did you ever think about that, huh? Did you ever ONCE think about that? "Send Fredo off to do this; Send Fredo off to do that." "Let Fredo take care of some Mickey Mouse nightclub somewhere." "Send Fredo to pick somebody up at the airport." I'm your older brother Mike and I was stepped over.
Fredo had a big ego and no brains. Imagine discarding your own family for israelites, not once but TWICE. He was a liability and his confrontation with Michael at the funeral laid out perfectly why he could never be trusted.
>His biggest problem was that he was never cut out for that life.
Absolutely wrong.
Michael was in fact perfectly cut out for that life. He was the only possible heir. Fredo was a moron and Sonny was a hothead, but Mike was just like Vito, and a bunch more ruthless and cunning. Without Mike as padrino, the Corleone crime family would have just vanished after Vito's death.
And he wanted to get away from that, but the assassination attempt on Vito ruined that plan and basically woke up all those dormant inner demons that were already within him.
Basically it's an ego vs. id thing.
His rational side knew that being a gangster was wrong and that living with Kay would have been great and being legal yadda yadda, but he just wasn't able to rise beyond the maccaroni blood in his veins.
You see... just when he thought he was out.... THEY PULLED HIM IN!
I was referring to Fredo.
At his end he was broken, cucked if you will and had just settled into being an uncle.
Ah shit should have read properly.
Yeah, Fredo just resigned. But then again, he had to be tard wrangled from day 1.
No you idiot. Out of the three brother, Michael was the one who was never cut out for Vito's mafia life and career. There is a scene in Godfather 1 where Vito talks to Michael after Michael is new appointed the Don. Vito clearly says something along the lines of "I never wanted this for you. I wanted you to be a a man of substance. A politician or a governer. Senator Michael Corleone." And Michael replies back "Another pezza novanta". Vito always knew that Michael was always the silent, shy offspring with good intentions. Michael wanted to be morally good - he even joined the army to serve his country.
But, due to the events of godfather 1 he was forced to abandon his morals and was pushed into the role of the Don, because was already assassinated and Fredo didn't have the brains to run the family.
The Michael of godfather 2 is cold and emotionally dead because he never chose this path in life. It was a burden he inherited from his father. He always kept his distance from that world, but it eventually came for him. It was his fate, not his choice.
This is what differentiates Vito Corleone from Michael Corleone. And this is why godfather 2 despite being long and drawn out is important because it clearly shows the contrast between young Vito in his 20s and young Michael in his 20s by switching between the two storylines. The main theme of this parallel storytelling is that Vito chose the Don lifestyle and career, he embraced because he came to America empty handed and just did what needed to be done to feed his young wife and young children. He was content being a Don because he chose that life. And Michael? He didn't choose that life. It was thrust upon because of unfortunate circumstances. That is why Vito Corleone never becomes an emotionally dead zombie by the end of his life. And that is exactly why Michael Corleone becomes a man with filled regret at the end of his life.
Go listen to Coppola's audio commentary on all 3 movies noob.
Apologize for typos. I'm on phone. don't care what you think about it
I meant Sonny is assassinated.
Vito Corleone fully embraced the mafia lifestyle and career while keeping some things ethical.
The legacy and the business that Vito Corleone created and left behind was something he chose to do - it was Vito Corleone's free will. But this legacy becomes like a massive spectre looming large like a shadow that Michael can't escape from. This is one of the themes Mario Puzo intended to show. How generational choices bring about the rise and fall of families like dynasties.
I miss "family dramas" that encompass generations in this way. It feels like we're far too atomized for modern writers to even think in these terms now.
You're slightly in luck. JC admitted long ago that he wrote the Avatar movies borrowing from the family arc style of storytelling in Godfather series. they are of course highly watered down and very shallow cliche-ridden series because the focus is on the world of pandora and the fantasy of being in the body of a blue alien who can seemingly do anything wild. this is clusterffrick series is the best this generation is going to get to a modern family saga.
you are infact right. society is more atomized and such family stories are only going to be soap operas if made today. Movies gained a lot from the new hollywood wave of the 60s, 70s but they also lost a lot because george lucas has a small dick and got lured by the dark side because hollywood and the audience were too scathing towards his arty farty thx1138 and he decided to make money just out of spite.
You just paraphrased what I said, you buffoon.
No I didn't you dumbfrick. You said Michael was perfectly cut out to take over the reigns as the role of the family Don. I said he was not cut out. Sonny was the one who was perfectly cut out to be the heir to Vito Corleone. Michael was forced by circumstances.
Not him but Vito says Sonny is a bad Don.
His actual plan is just to get rich and powerful enough no one takes advantage of his kin, then let his kin live their lives. Only that things got too big and his family actually liked the crime life.
He knows Mike is the best choice for Don, but this conflicts with his desire to free him. It ends with the idea to move out and go full legit (which doesn't make them as legit as they hoped).
Mostly this. Sonny was heir apparent but an uncontrollable hothead. He likely would've done OK until Vito died. Fredo didn't have the head for the business at all, at most he would've likely ended up as a mid-level capo doing something safe he couldn't frickup. Vito just didn't want Michael in the life, period. Events unfolded differently and as it turned out he was the ideal person for the role.
>Sonny was the one who was perfectly cut out to be the heir to Vito Corleone.
No he wasn't, he was just meant to take over because Vito wanted Michael to be legal.
>Michael was forced by circumstances.
Yes, and then it became apparent that he was, indeed, the perfect heir.
he's not the perfect heir my man. Michael is internally destroyed by the end of part 2. what part of this don't you understand? he took over from Vito due to circumstances I agree, but just because he ran the family business in a cold calculating manner doesn't mean he was perfectly in sync with that life. He was running the family business and being the Don? yes? But was he mentally stable? He was screaming inside all along. Vito is a good example of how someone is perfectly cut out for that lifestyle. No internal demons, very few regrets but nothing big.
Someone in this thread above said Sonny was a bad don. True. But sonny was a bad don after all the events unfolded following Vito's assassination attempt. If none of that would have happened Sonny would've taken over the reigns and took legal advice from Tom Hagen and made Vito his consigliere.
The sad thing about the Corleone family is that the stars aligned so perfectly for Vito but for Sonny, Michael, Fredo and Connie they didn't.
Sonny complained to Tom "Pop had Genco, look what I got". All of Vito's children have disastrous lives.
How about you get some reading comprehension you utter moron?
See
>His rational side knew that being a gangster was wrong and that living with Kay would have been great and being legal yadda yadda, but he just wasn't able to rise beyond the maccaroni blood in his veins.
So yeah, you are just paraphrasing what I already said, with more words and less brains.
Michael was MADE to be Don, he just didn't WANT to, but eventually he yielded to his destiny without fully embracing it.
Though I have to agree that it's not as clear in the movie if you haven't read the book, because in the book several people notice that Mike is even looking and behaving like Vito.
>Yeah, killing Fredo was completely unnecessary at that point. He was completely broken, removed from the family business and seemed content.
He almost got Michael killed because he was bitter about not being in the family business in the first place. The reason Michael excommunicated and eventually killed Fredo isn't just because of what he said outside the family that led to the hit attempt, it was because of the speech afterwards where Fredo revealed that it was more than just an accident on his part, he was and would remain jealous of Michael's success.
His jealousy is a threat, his blood is a liability, and his skills are a hazard.
Cuba was to Mike as New York was to Vito.
I thought it was less him knowing and more him having negilible doubts but choosing to say it right when it will hurt the israelite guy's rep. If he was smart he'd have escaped the moment he sees those soldiers marching in the party.
>And it is not ‘filler’ it is there to juxtapose with Michael’s spiritual downfall and demonstrate the dilution of their Sicilian identity. Vito expands his business and takes his revenge without losing his soul while Michael becomes cold and emotionless and is only concerned with business.
Where this falls apart is that the first movie already did a good job of juxtaposing Vito's style and Michael's style. Part 2 doing it again was redundant.
I thought the flashbacks were the best part of II tbh
Yeah
Flashbacks were in the book, shows us a bit of the "good ol days" everyone is talking about.
main themes in godfather 2 were generational differences and cultural differences. flashbacks were needed to strengthen this.
when michael asks his old italian mother about a family being destroyed, she literally can't comprehend it and say something like "family is forever"
The pleb filter will be the third one.
The problem with the third one is that everyone involved no longer understands their own source material.
to be honest: Deniro's portrayal of Don Corleone didn't appeal to me. Brando got it right with the first one. Deniro being a young Don Corleone was kinda meh. The third one got shit because Coppola's daughter was in it.
I liked the third one better than the second one.
>3 and a half hours of nothing happening and Pacino having a poker face
Best movie ever
>the police are paid to fight, the rebels aren't
The really underrated part of these movies is how perfectly they live and breathe Machiavellian power politics with pithy lines like these.
I thought that part was kinda stupid, obviously the writers have the hindsight to know how the conflict turned out, and want to make Michael look SUPA SMAHT by predicting the future with his basic b***h analysis.
The whole movie filters zoomers because it's got too much subtlety and the plot is too complex for them to follow.
The plot was a little complex.
>YEAH BUT DA MOB WUZ IN PRE-CASTRO CUBA AN SHIT
who fricking cares?
People who aren't halfwit zoomers or reddit Black folk, people who are just enjoying the story, people who aren't trying to appear to be above everything while posting like Black folk and attempting to derided a nearly 50 year old movie because they personally can't appreciated it?
>People who aren't halfwit zoomers or reddit Black folk
>people who aren't trying to appear to be above everything
Pick one, you're either dissing zoomer morons or obnoxious film buffs.
>implying zoomer Black folk don't try to pretend they're above everything they don't get.
The difference is that they pretend they're above it but they probably don't believe it deep down, obnoxious film buffs on the other hand do.
The zoomer shit poster is so disingenuous that it really doesn't matter what he believes
Cuba was Lansky's pipe dream of creating Monte Carlo in the Caribbean
>its a Lucy Mancini gets her pussy surgically tightened episode
The Cuba parts are the best fool, americans invested more in Cuba than almost anything else in their own country bwahahaha american's epic giga fail.
Viva Fidel!
>fool
I will take nothing that you say seriously.
>The Cuba parts are the best fool
I didn't know this was an ese question.
If you think about it they're nothing more than a glorified soap opera. That being said I still enjoy them for their campiness.
Why are these recommended as Father’s Day favorites? Just because they have the word “father” in the title?
Godfather 2 is fricking trash. The first is the best movie of all time.
Anon, you're my brother and I love you, but don't ever take sides against the Godfather again, ever
2 is dogshit, they fricked up Clemenza's part of the story, just kill him off-screen and replace him with some random guy cause they wrote a shit script and told the actor to loose 200 pounds then gain it back months before the shoot, fricking morons. Now we have a movie with flashbacks that don't mater due to everyone involved being dead, at least clemenza would have bridge the gap to some degree if the character wasn't alien 3'd. 3 hours to find out that Mike is a monster WOW JUST LIKE THE FIRST MOVIE. 1 is a masterpiece, 2 is pointless, need to watch 3 one of these days.Oh and OUR MARRIAGE IS AN ABORTION is godawful terrible garbge. deniero doesn't have shit on brando, kept thinking the taxi driver theme was going to chime in every-time deniero is on screen. LAME WASTE OF MY FRICKING TIME.
>2 is dogshit, they fricked up Clemenza's part of the story, just kill him off-screen and replace him with some random guy cause they wrote a shit script and told the actor to loose 200 pounds then gain it back months before the shoot, fricking morons. Now we have a movie with flashbacks that don't mater due to everyone involved being dead, at least clemenza would have bridge the gap to some degree if the character wasn't alien 3'd.
Is Clemenza your boyfriend?
>3 hours to find out that Mike is a monster WOW JUST LIKE THE FIRST MOVIE.
Yeah because Michael in the first film totally would have murdered his brother
>Oh and OUR MARRIAGE IS AN ABORTION is godawful terrible garbge.
Won best adapted screenplay
>deniero doesn't have shit on brando, kept thinking the taxi driver theme was going to chime in every-time deniero is on screen.
Won best supporting actor