JohnMcCock is wondering if there is ANYONE who thinks that?
He would find it really hard to believe that someone actually prefers this sequel of lesser quality over the first two masterpieces.
That's an interesting question, i've always wondered that too. I'm sure there's someone out there that feels that way.
shareI have come across a couple of people over the years who think so, yes.
I haven’t actually watched this one since 1991 when I was pretty young, so I should see it again some day. I remember it as being rather plodding and LONG.
I bought the DVD about 20 years after watching because it was about $5. I though maybe I was wrong way back when; I wasn't. It was still horrible. If Bridget Fonda didn't cross her legs the movie would be 100% unwatchable.
However, I don't mind Sofia's performance
No
shareHard to imagine that anyone thinks it's the best installment. That's just me of course.
shareJoey Ruthless here, McCock
Most likely, but it’s probably like asking guys if they still beat off...many probably like it, but won’t necessarily admit to it...
https://youtu.be/42BBdzzgPNM
Joey, you still doing side work? There's this movie producer who won't give my godson a role in his new war picture.
How’s ya nephew look in a speedo with a thin mustache and blow-dried wavy hair? I’m not sure if I can talk to the producer and make him a offer he can’t refuse, but if anything, I may be able to get him work on a project from the genre that calls its capital the San Fernando Valley, the kind where a key grip is always on the ready for more baby oil and a director may yell out “more cries of ecstasy babe, yell it like you love it...”
Good times!
Very good film that had the potential to be great, but was always destined to be in the shadow of the first two.
shareI would say that the only people who would prefer this movie would be those who saw it first and had no knowledge of the first two.
Quite often the movies you see in your teens are the ones that tend to stay with you, regardless of quality.
One of my first cinema experiences was Live And Let Die. At the time I thought it was the best film ever made. I didn't know anything about the earlier Bonds, and at the time I didn't care. That's how early movie memories and experiences work. Over the years you obviously see more and more and your tastes develop.
But yes, I am sure somewhere there are people who have only seen 3, or saw it first and like it better than the other 2.
They will learn...give them time...
To Live and Let Die in L.A. IS a great film, though....
shareNo.
shareI will say this:
I think the original is the best of them all -- and audiences agreed. Godfather II may have won a Best Picture Oscar to match I, but it made about half of the original's gross at the box office. General audiences don't seem to have been enthralled enough with Godfather II to give it return business...or maybe to go in the first place.
And II is very much an "art film" of sorts -- with the long historical sequences with DeNiro (they rather return the "Godfather" story to the kind of boring 1960 epics like "Dr. Zhivago" that "The Godfather" rejected with its "epic action and suspense.") Critics responded to this stuff and so did the Academy, but II isn't nearly as fun as I. And II doesn't have the "action characters" of Brando and Caan. Pacino and Cazalle are a brooder and a whiner.
Consequently, if there was one thing I DID like about Godfather III is that it returned more to the "pulpy action" and gangster stuff of The Godfather and rather eschewed the "art film epic" feeling of II.
Thus..Godfather III is not nearly as perfect as Godfather II, but it is closer to the "crime movie thriller" spirit of Godfather I. I have more fun watching Godfather III than Godfather II.
Oh hell, put simply: -- Godfather III is a worse movie than Godfather II, but more fun to watch, so I DO like it better.
The Godfather is better than both of 'em.