The Godfather

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
according to critical consensus, Part I is the 7th best film of all-time and Part II is #15

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually like Part II a lot better than Part I..Am i in the minority?

[/ QUOTE ]

a lot of very intelligent people like Part II more than part I. It's a minority, but a small one.

[Mickey Brausch]

I never expected that I would enjoy II so much. And I never expected that III would be so bad.

[diebitter]

I asctually like the linear TV version. What a philistine, huh?

[danzasmack]

The first time I watched this movie I had to because of a class. I watched it at least 15 times in one week and I still can't get over how good this movie was.

[phillydilly]

I would just like to say that III is not anywhere near as bad as everyone makes it out to be. It's simply a matter of III being a ok to good movie while I & II are all time greats.

[yellowdoyle]

Pryor,

I noticed on your link that Citizen Kane was far far above the second place movie. Is the marginal difference between that movie and the rest of the top films really so large? If so, could you explain why?

[pryor15]

i don't know that the actual difference in quality between Citizen Kane and La Règle du jeu is as large as the numbers indicate, but it is the greatest film ever made by a noticeable margin. it's just that virtually everyone agrees Kane is number one and few agree on what should be number 2, so it's easy to imagine someone slotting La Règle du jeu as far down as, say, 10 or 11, since there's probably 15-20 films you could make a good case for as #2. Hence, the gap.

as for Citizen Kane itself, part of the magic is in how many of the rules of cinema it created. from the narrative to the deep-focus photography to the extensive special effects (most people don't realize just how many effects the film has). Welles puts so much in the film that it can be nearly impossible to take it all in on the first, or even 5th viewing.

actually, Roger Ebert can probably say it better:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...401010334/1023

to call it a stunning film isn't entirely accurate. more to the point, it's the type of film that rewards study. it doesn't so much stun as it slowly reveals itself.

[orange]

I have seen I & II and enjoyed both very much (II was better IMO). I've heard bad things about III though. Is is worth it to see III? I don't really want to be disappointed, thus I have never seen it.

[fish2plus2]

i love godfather, but good fellas is such a better movie.

[pryor15]

orange,

it's worth seeing. it isn't in the same class as the first 2, but it's still better than most films. just try to look past Sofia's acting.