The Godfather vs. The Godfather Part II

[CaptainCanada]

I watched the trilogy for the first time in the past week, so the question of which of the films is the best comes to mind.

I'll start by saying that while Part III isn't quite in the same league as the first two, I really don't see why some people seem to really hate it. It's a very solid movie with mostly strong performances (Sofia Coppola excepted, and even she's not as bad as you'd think from the way people talk about her), and in particular I thought it made the best use of Connie of the three films. I included it in the poll, though I don't imagine it will get many votes (if any).

Anyhoo, on Part I vs. Part II, I found that I enjoyed Part II more. I thought that it benefited a lot from the stronger focus on Michael, and the ending was more powerful. However, there's a caveat there, in that Part II has a major advantage over Part I these days: numerous pieces of Part I have been parodied so much they've had their impact severely dulled. I thought this especially the case with Marlon Brando's performance, which I thought was at times a little difficult to take seriously. Had I been in theatres in 1972 and 1974, I might view the two films differently.

Your thoughts?

 

[Octoberist]

I actually prefer the first one, though the second one was more about Michael's..fall.

Not to bring out Godfather Part 3, but it's the first sequel that I have seen where it's problematic to have another chapter in a series YEARS later: It feels different, the film stock is different, and it just doesn't have the same gravity as the old ones.

 

[Mr.Webs]

Part I is just so damn iconic, it seems to have stuck with me more, with so many incredible scenes and shots that I can't even begin to mention them all. I don't doubt Part II is just as good, if not maybe superior, but having seen both several times, for this guy, Part I will always be in my heart just above it.

 

[TX85]

I&II are tied or perhaps II is slightly above it by a few extra inches!,I personally think III is pretty underrated even though it is indeed very different and stuff compared to the first two But I think it's still great on it's on and not bad of a sequel!

 

[lime]

As mutch as I love the first one. the second was just more...It got my love with the young Vito scenes

 

[The Morningstar]

I love the first one, but I prefer the second just by a little bit. As lime mentions, it's the scenes of Vito growing up and growing in power that tip the scales for me.

The part where he goes back to Sicily and kills the Don who murdered his family is just amazing.

 

[JAK®]

I prefer the first, it engages you more as a story, while the second is almost like something you are observing without it really including you.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Both are masterpieces of cinema. I prefer II because of Michael's fall and his journey. It's so damn tragic and sad that he becomes this hollow shell of a man that he would go so far to kill his own brother. As someone who has a brother, that effects me alot. I could never imagine someone doing that. Over his job too. But it was too late for him. Seeing him go from a nice guy who didn't want to get involved to that last shot of him completely transformed into this uncaring and cold shell is just sad.

 

[Assassin32]

The second film benefits from the fact the original masterpiece already had you emotionally invested in the characters and their arcs.

Oh, and Part II features Robert DeNiro straight murdering mother****ers. End of discussion.

 

[Motown Marvel]

choosing between I and II is like choosing between my testicles. both are masterpieces that are rightfully adored for different reasons.

i remember when i first saw III i thought it wasnt amazing, but not terrible like everyone says. but then repeated viewing make it terrible like everyone says.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I don't think III is that bad. It definitely wasn't needed and was only made because Coppola was broke, but for what it is, it isn't terrible. For what it is, they developed the characters in a right way despite how perfectly Part II ended. Michael, now matter how hard he tries can never escape his sins and it will haunt him. He pays for it with the death of his daughter. If Duvall came back, I do think it would have been better. It just wasn't the same without him.

 

[CaptainCanada]

and was only made because Coppola was broke

Much like the first one (and the second one was only made because they offered him a lot more money).

 

[Sgt.Pepper]

Wow, this is hard. I really love these two films equally but I think prefer the first film over the second film. Maybe because the first film is possibly one of the greatest film ever made. Also the second film lose a little because it didn't have Marlon Brando in it.

 

[Crockett]

Both are masterpieces and are equally good, but if I have to choose which of them is more of my favorite it's The Godfather Part II. It's one of the best sequel but I always have seen Part II more than just a sequel, more like a companion piece to the first part. Both Pacino and De Niro gives an outstanding performance and I like that's a non-linear storyline and the dual narrative of it that's between young Vito and Michael, but The Godfather is a damn iconic film.

 

[Sawyer]

I don't think III is that bad. It definitely wasn't needed and was only made because Coppola was broke, but for what it is, it isn't terrible. For what it is, they developed the characters in a right way despite how perfectly Part II ended. Michael, now matter how hard he tries can never escape his sins and it will haunt him. He pays for it with the death of his daughter. If Duvall came back, I do think it would have been better. It just wasn't the same without him.

The mixture of bringing Duvall back and finding at least a passable actress for Mary would've improved Part III tenfold.

Well maybe not tenfold, but still a whole lot...

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

"I" didn't do that much for me. "II" felt fairly epic by comparison, the downbeat ending was also great. "III" was total crap imo.

 

[Drizzle]

I've always loved Part I more than Part II. Mainly because Brando and Caan are my two favorite actors in the original and they are absent in the second film (save for a brief cameo from Caan at the end). I still love Part II, though. The Young Vito storyline is a great counterpart to the Michael storyline.

 

[bullets]

I prefer the first . I guess I liked the story more. Part 2 lives up to expectations but 3 was too different I think.

 

[Drizzle]

I actually don't mind Part III all that much, and I think it might have been close to the greatness of the first two if Robert Duvall had come back and if they cast someone else as Mary Corleone.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Which one's better? I don't know, but I think I like the first one more.

 

[Bim]

I don't think III is that bad.

I think what makes III not as good is Sofia's acting. It really was horrible , but overall i liked Michael's story in this one, and of course it has a quote i adore: "Just when i thought i was out they pull me back in!". I still like this one.

Choosing between Godfather I and II is almost impossible for me, because i really think they're both masterpieces and i adore them. I'll have to go with I, but only by a hair; II is very close behind.

 

[The Morningstar]

I liked III too. I really liked Vincent's story arc and how Michael was teaching him. Trying to shape him into a great leader of the family, but also to be a better man than he was.

 

[Dark Victory]

I think the sequel's structure is flawed and need to see the third. #1 for me.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Part II personally. I just like watching Michael's story and Vito's story running concurrently, seeing how each man is similar yet different and the ending is perfect. The first is great, though.

Part III just sucks.

 

[JAK®]

Godfather III sucks because it's like a cartoon compared to the first two.

Fat Tony is in it for gods sake.