- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: The Godfather: Rewatch
Posted on 4/8/24 at 11:19 am to deeprig9
Posted on 4/8/24 at 11:19 am to deeprig9
quote:
it should probably be called Part III because Part I feels like two movies.
Naw, baw.
Just wait for the real Part III. If you like Part I and Part II, then you are in for a real treat with Part III.
1
Posted on 4/8/24 at 4:48 pm to TheFonz
Johnny Ola said Fredo never had the makings of a varsity athlete
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:03 pm to Cleathecat
Fredo could have won State. I just know it.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:09 pm to genuineLSUtiger
If you think the first one should have been split up into two movies Part Two is going to annoy the shite out of you.
That has always been the single reason I have never considered it to be in the same league as the first one(don't get me wrong it is good but everyone saying it is better than the first one is sniffing glue). The young Vito chunk of the movie should have been one movie and the current Michael chunk of the movie should have been another movie. It has never made any sense to me why they mish-mashed both storylines into one movie.
That has always been the single reason I have never considered it to be in the same league as the first one(don't get me wrong it is good but everyone saying it is better than the first one is sniffing glue). The young Vito chunk of the movie should have been one movie and the current Michael chunk of the movie should have been another movie. It has never made any sense to me why they mish-mashed both storylines into one movie.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:09 pm to genuineLSUtiger
So Lucy Mancinis vag............
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:12 pm to genuineLSUtiger
I can't wait until OP watches Part II and asks, "Who was that one guy that went fishing on the lake, and why does he say a Hail Mary prior to casting and when they cut away, what was that sound effect they used? They really didn't explain what happened very well."
This post was edited on 4/8/24 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:18 pm to 88Wildcat
quote:My takeaway has always been it's to juxtapose their journeys. Vito creating "The Family" and Michael trying to "Keep The Family".
It has never made any sense to me why they mish-mashed both storylines into one movie.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:42 pm to Cleathecat
quote:
So Lucy Mancinis vag............
Only the realest fans know about Lucy Mancini's cavernous cootch.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:46 pm to 88Wildcat
quote:
That has always been the single reason I have never considered it to be in the same league as the first one(don't get me wrong it is good but everyone saying it is better than the first one is sniffing glue). The young Vito chunk of the movie should have been one movie and the current Michael chunk of the movie should have been another movie. It has never made any sense to me why they mish-mashed both storylines into one movie.
They're definitely in the same league, but I prefer part 1 as well.
But to your point, I actually kind of agree. The book is actually a back and forth timeline between the "current" stuff from part 1 and the flashback from part 2. The Vegas stuff is not in the book at all. I think the current timeline of part 2 is the weakest part of the first two films (still love it though).
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:50 pm to Northshore Aggie
quote:
Only the realest fans know about Lucy Mancini's cavernous cootch.
I have no idea what Puzo was thinking. The amount of time and effort dedicated to something completely meaningless to the actual narrative.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 6:30 pm to drizztiger
It's so weird. And it's like only there to be a supporting plot device to bring up Sonny's huge dong. Which we ALSO don't need to know about.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 6:31 pm to drizztiger
quote:
Only the realest fans know about Lucy Mancini's cavernous cootch.
I have no idea what Puzo was thinking. The amount of time and effort dedicated to something completely meaningless to the actual narrative.
I'm glad they left that out of the movie.
Just doesn't fit.
Amirite?
Posted on 4/8/24 at 6:57 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Amirite?
It would be an enormous plot hole.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 8:46 pm to deeprig9
Playing on the big screen in theaters that do Flashback Cinema this week. I am going on Wednesday to watch with some friends. Never seen it on the big screen so very excited.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 8:59 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:MP was trying to write a best seller, & he was convinced (justifiably) that most best sellers involved a major female character.quote:I have no idea what Puzo was thinking
Lucy Mancini's cavernous cootch
But why he chose to stress the pussy instead of telling about Kay, Connie, or Mama Corleone I dont know.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 11:04 pm to Kafka
Kay and Connie sucked, maybe the Grand Vagcanyon was the right choice!
Posted on 4/8/24 at 11:38 pm to Cleathecat
quote:Kay I agree
Kay and Connie sucked
But Connie's story could have been interesting:: spoiled Mafia princess forced to transition into dutiful mafia wife.
And in Mama Corleone Puzo could have told the story of his own mother (whose quietly tough personality was an inspiration for, I kid you not, Don Vito)
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:10 am to deeprig9
quote:
If I understand correctly, when Michael took over, Vito semi-retires to consiglier, which was Bagen's existing position, so he gets demoted to running the legitimate side of the family's business, despite the things he's involved with throughout the rest of the movie.
Because Tom wasn't a wartime consigliere. Things were going to get rough with the move to Nevada, and it was better for Tom to handle all of the legit interests of the Corleone family, while Vito served as the wartime consigliere.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:13 am to drizztiger
quote:
My takeaway has always been it's to juxtapose their journeys. Vito creating "The Family" and Michael trying to "Keep The Family".
That was exactly the intent, and it works.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:15 am to 88Wildcat
quote:
The young Vito chunk of the movie should have been one movie and the current Michael chunk of the movie should have been another movie. It has never made any sense to me why they mish-mashed both storylines into one movie.
The Godfather Trilogy: 1901–1980 shows all three movies in one sitting and is set in chronological order.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News