Imo the acting in goodfellas is so much better bro. Ray Lioetta, Robert De Niro, and joe Pesci were amazing. Paul Cicero abd u even had Samuel for a couple scene. And it’s based on real life events and is told in such a seamless way it only took 1 movie. The Godfather is a drama/tragedy and offers absolutely no type of comedic relief, Goodfellas does it unintentionally (job Pesci) which is a credit to the story, the characters and the acting while also telling a great story from start to finish. Every thing ties together and u aren’t left asking questions. In godfather, u can’t watch 1&2 to understand the full story then just forget about 3, which was horrible. All in godfather gets the hype because it came first and has notoriety but if u judge them alone goodfellas just a better movie...I’ll add this, the Godfather tries to depict the Mafia and it’s bosses with some sort of moral, ethical codes, (some say it was depicted that way from influencing of real mobsters) which is the furthest thing from the actual truth. As depicted in the Goodfellas (I always thought the name was ironic) there was nothing noble to glorify. The life of the mafia was grimmy, unforgiving and chaotic. Bloodshed didn’t just stay within the mob, there was wholesale betrayals and disloyalty, back stabbing and snitching going on. They weren’t these noble men living and standing by a code of honor. And Goodfellas depicts this perfect
Literally, every single thing that you said is wrong.
Acting (I) - OSCARS - Brando (Actor, won); Caan, Duvall, Pacino (Supporting Actor, all nominated)
Acting (II) - OSCARS - Pacino (Actor, won); DeNiro, Strasberg, Gazzo (Supporting Actor, all nominated, DeNiro won)
Acting (GF) - OSCARS - Pesci (Supporting Actor, won); Bracco (Supporting Actress, nominated)
Next, The Godfather (novel and movies) is absolutely based on real life events, and it took 2 movies because the story was told over multiple generations of the Corleone family, from the early 1900s up through the 1960s. In The Godfather, all of the names have been changed and "fictionalized" because at the time the book was published (1969), the code of Omerta (silence) had only recently been broken in 1963 by Joe Valachi, so there were very few first-hand accounts of mob activity and anyone who wrote about it and used real names would have been subject to reprisal. On the other hand, Henry Hill was such a talkative rat in the 1980s that he would go on the Howard Stern Show, so, sure, it was easier for his accounts to use the real names (though the movie DID change the names of most characters, such as Paul Vario being called Paul Cicero). But don't misunderstand, The Godfather is just as equally based on real people, such as Frank Sinatra being called "Johnny Fontaine".
The Godfather had comic relief, which was appropriate to the time and style of the story.
The Godfather ties together and you aren't left asking questions. The Godfather ends in the 1960s. The book was written in 1969. The first movie came out in 1972. At that point, the Mafia was still incredibly strong. I'm not sure what "questions" you had left to ask.
And, again, don't misunderstand. Godfather III was a money-grab. It is not based on the book, nor was it ever supposed to be contemplated based on either the books or the first two movies. Don't act like its existence undermines the monumental achievements of the book or the first two movies. III never should have happened. The full story IS told in the book and the first 2 movies, that is all. The rise of the Mafia in America, based on Italian immigrants, when they DID have a (relatively) moral code and the change through the 1950s and 1960s culminating in the breaking of Omerta and the more modern (and paranoid) Mafia, which was not as easy for people to embrace.
I and II don't get "hype" because they were "first", they are the best because they are the best. Period, full stop. You can jabber about what was depicted in I and II as "the furthest thing from the truth", but you are clueless. Actual real-life mobsters ALL spoke about I and II with reverence (and you can even see that in The Sopranos) because I and II told the true story of the evolution of the mob over 60 years, and did so in an incredibly truthful and authentic way. While Goodfellas ranks incredibly high in the Mafia movie pantheon, at its core, it is the story of a lower-level ratfvck who was never even a made man. Goodfellas is incredibly well-done, but Henry Hill is a very minor operative in the grand scheme of the Mafia, and his own personal story plays out over about 20 years.
Again...Godfather (book) and the 2 movies - early 1900s to mid-1960s.
Wiseguy (book) and Goodfellas movie - predominantly mid-1960s to 1970s.
Completely different time periods of the Mafia. For YOU to compare Goodfellas to I and II, and then to claim that I and II are inaccurate or idealistic (compared to what YOU think is the "accurate" depiction) is just ridiculous. Different time periods.
Goodfellas is great, it's a Top 5 Mafia movie. But the 2 best Mafia movies are, and will always be, I and II.
As for III, you can forget about it.
