- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Godfather 1, 2, and 3
Posted on 3/12/10 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 3/12/10 at 4:19 pm
Why is it generally accepted that 3 isnt good?
I like 3 more than 2.
I like 3 more than 2.
8
Posted on 3/12/10 at 4:21 pm to yeanheard
quote:
I like 3 more than 2.
not me
Posted on 3/12/10 at 4:23 pm to yeanheard
I know a lot of older people who don't like 3 simply because of how the Catholic church is portrayed in it. That doesn't bother me cuz it's just a damn good movie and I really enjoyed it, but it's not as good as 1 or 2.
Posted on 3/12/10 at 4:26 pm to SW2SCLA
I mean, 1 is terrific. Probably my fav. movie of all time (at least top 5, hard to pick one)
2, IMO, is overrated.
3, underrated.
2, IMO, is overrated.
3, underrated.
Posted on 3/12/10 at 4:29 pm to yeanheard
quote:
I mean, 1 is terrific. Probably my fav. movie of all time (at least top 5, hard to pick one)
2, IMO, is overrated.
3, underrated.
Agree
Part of the reason I probably dislike 2 is how high my expectations were after watching Part 1... that and the fact they might as well have left the lens cap on teh camera with how dark they made some scenes
Posted on 3/12/10 at 4:34 pm to yeanheard
2
1
3
This is the order in my opinion. 1 and 2 are nearly perfect and 3, though a really good film, is just not as good.
1
3
This is the order in my opinion. 1 and 2 are nearly perfect and 3, though a really good film, is just not as good.
Posted on 3/12/10 at 4:40 pm to yeanheard
quote:
Why is it generally accepted that 3 isnt good?
I like 3 more than 2.
3 is very good, especially compared to other non-Godfather movies, but compared to 1 and 2, it sucks.
People forget that 3 was nominated for best picture (assuming you give any credence to the Oscars)
Posted on 3/12/10 at 5:04 pm to yeanheard
quote:
Why is it generally accepted that 3 isnt good?
Because it isnt
Posted on 3/12/10 at 5:05 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
3 is very good, especially compared to other non-Godfather movies, but compared to 1 and 2, it sucks.
pretty much
Posted on 3/12/10 at 5:16 pm to iwyLSUiwy
You sir are insane. In 3 they turn Michael into a total cream puff pussy which he was not in 1 or 2. He was a badass. He was not the wimp they made him in 3.
Plus 3 is full of terrible acting from Sofia Coppola to Talia Shire. I thought Andy Garcia and Joe Mantegna were lousy too.
Maybe if you saw three first, but seeing Michael as a total badass and then seeing the pussy he became was blasphemy in my book.
Basterd killed his own brother but lost the balls to do anything in III.
Plus 3 is full of terrible acting from Sofia Coppola to Talia Shire. I thought Andy Garcia and Joe Mantegna were lousy too.
Maybe if you saw three first, but seeing Michael as a total badass and then seeing the pussy he became was blasphemy in my book.
Basterd killed his own brother but lost the balls to do anything in III.
Posted on 3/12/10 at 5:20 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
People forget that 3 was nominated for best picture (assuming you give any credence to the Oscars)
but lost out to a different mob movie
Posted on 3/12/10 at 5:23 pm to yeanheard
quote:THIS. perfectly summed up.
I mean, 1 is terrific. Probably my fav. movie of all time (at least top 5, hard to pick one)
2, IMO, is overrated.
3, underrated.
Posted on 3/12/10 at 5:23 pm to yeanheard
the Godfather 2 is probably one of the greatest movies ever!!!
2
1
3
2
1
3
Posted on 3/12/10 at 5:24 pm to LSUgirl4
quote:
2, IMO, is overrated.
This statement greatly confuses me.
Posted on 3/12/10 at 5:27 pm to CTexTiger
quote:
This statement greatly confuses me.
how? people in this thread are saying 2 > 1. and that gets a
Posted on 3/12/10 at 5:29 pm to yeanheard
A BIIIIIG
Posted on 3/12/10 at 5:32 pm to yeanheard
quote:
yeanheard
You have yet to say why you think 2 is overrated...
also to
peoples opinion is 
Posted on 3/12/10 at 5:36 pm to yeanheard
GF 1 and 2 were amazing movies. I'm one of the people who prefers 2 over 1.
GF 3 is a great movie if you watch it without the context of the first two films. But I think the absence of Tom Hagen and the change undergone by Michael (and Pacino's acting - Michael is like a different person, and WTF is up with his hair?) hurt it a lot.
I actually thought Andy Garcia did a good job as Vincent.
GF 3 is a great movie if you watch it without the context of the first two films. But I think the absence of Tom Hagen and the change undergone by Michael (and Pacino's acting - Michael is like a different person, and WTF is up with his hair?) hurt it a lot.
I actually thought Andy Garcia did a good job as Vincent.
This post was edited on 3/12/10 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 3/12/10 at 5:48 pm to yeanheard
I've said that I thought both 1 and 2 are near perfect, but I prefer 2. I don't care which one you like better, but I don't get how you can say 2 is overated.
Posted on 3/12/10 at 5:52 pm to CTexTiger
I've never seen 3, and it has been a really long time since I saw 1&2.
While good, I don't include either in a top 25 list.
I really need to see them again, as I may enjoy them more now that I'm older. Maybe I'll take a weekend and watch all 3.
While good, I don't include either in a top 25 list.
I really need to see them again, as I may enjoy them more now that I'm older. Maybe I'll take a weekend and watch all 3.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News