
I'm a completist so I kinda feel like I have to, but I'm worried that it will taint not only my appreciation of the first two films, but also my adoration of the films Sofia Coppola has directed.
Thoughts?
.
"I too quit smoking (2013) AND find this type of pictures cool. Also, PSA: if you're feeling like you want to start smoking again, just remind yourself "I do not want my body and house to stink like stale horseshit", then go drink one more glass of water to entertain your hands and lips. Congrats, btw."--- Anonymous congratulates us on another year of not smoking, which we celebrated with an enormous photo-dump of sexy smoking pictures as we're wont to do, annually. .
3 comments:
You'll end up liking Part II more. It'll sneak up on you.
No, you don't need to see III for completist reasons. There's really no need since you'll just end up saying "that doesn't count." But you might want to watch it just for fun. I actually like the movie fine--it's a fun mafia movie with some good business in terms of the killings. But that's all it is, esp. compared to its forebears.
I did like Part II very much already, but I think there's something that appeals to me more about the solid structure of the first film, as opposed to the looser feel of the second. What I mean is, a lot of the time during the 2nd film I kept feeling like I was watching "here's what we didn't show you in the last film", but the 1st film felt more complete to me, like it ended where it ended and could've stood by itself, but I don't think Part 2 could stand by itself.
I liked Part II more but that's essentially because the DeNiro storyline was so fascinating. But I only liked it a bit of an iota more than Part I.
I also liked Part III. It's flashy and stuff. The scene at the opera is really tense, even if Sofia Coppola really can't act.
Post a Comment