No question that both are masterpieces, but Godfather Part II just has such an epic scope that it’s hard to ignore. De Niro, Pacino, Brando. Wonderful stuff. Plus the Kiss of Death at the New Year celebration in Havana…. amazing.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 8, 2008 @ 9:30 am
I gotta go with the first one. While I enjoy the backstory of 2, I didn’t find the rest all that compelling for some reason. It’s a tough choice though.
And while Steve is right about the Kiss of Death scene, the horse head, tollbooth, diner, and the baptism assasinations were quite memorable.
Far superior ensemble acting, and far more dramatic storytelling. The problem with the second one is that it mixes two completely separate stories together. They take away from the flow of the story.
I think that the most recent time I viewed both films I saw a version in which I and II were spliced together in chronological order, so I have some trouble distinguishing…
Comment by a random John — September 8, 2008 @ 11:46 am
I know I’m *supposed* to like II better than I, but I admire the first movie’s straight-forward narrative. Plus, I think Michael Corleone is more of a compelling character in the original (feel free to disagree with me on that).
But hey, at least I’m not trying to argue that III is really the best of the bunch.
Comment by BTD Greg — September 8, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
Godfather 1= touchdown
Godfather II = returning the ball 99 yards for a touchdown
Oh, 1 all the way. The backstory in II is cool, but Michael’s decline into evil in I is breathtaking and compelling — the christening montage is breathtaking.
I think that the most recent time I viewed both films I saw a version in which I and II were spliced together in chronological order
I’m not claiming it was a good idea. I will claim that it seemed to take a damn long time.
Comment by a random John — September 8, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
arJ, not directed at you. I remember when it was marketed, I think as The Godfather Saga. The filmheads I hung out with in LA were shocked to the root of their sensibilities.
I think I’m supposed to say 1, but I just can’t. Even though 1 is a superb movie, I have to go with 2. Although considering them together is probably the correct thing to do. I said considering, NOT splicing. The horror…
I’ll definitely agree with you on that, Clark. But I disagree with your parenthetical–mostly because I and II are so great that III makes you wanna string Coppola up the nearest tree.
I dunno. I’ve rented III twice now and also tried to get into it another time when it was on TV and I stumbled onto it flipping channels. I can never get past the first hour.
Comment by Mephibosheth — September 12, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
Loading …
No question that both are masterpieces, but Godfather Part II just has such an epic scope that it’s hard to ignore. De Niro, Pacino, Brando. Wonderful stuff. Plus the Kiss of Death at the New Year celebration in Havana…. amazing.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 8, 2008 @ 9:30 am
I gotta go with the first one. While I enjoy the backstory of 2, I didn’t find the rest all that compelling for some reason. It’s a tough choice though.
And while Steve is right about the Kiss of Death scene, the horse head, tollbooth, diner, and the baptism assasinations were quite memorable.
I did like the flashback ending to sequel though.
Comment by Tim J — September 8, 2008 @ 10:53 am
The Godfather I
Far superior ensemble acting, and far more dramatic storytelling. The problem with the second one is that it mixes two completely separate stories together. They take away from the flow of the story.
Comment by Dan — September 8, 2008 @ 11:14 am
Godfather I.
Re: Godfather II: some say “epic” others say “too many notes.”
Comment by sister blah 2 — September 8, 2008 @ 11:28 am
I think that the most recent time I viewed both films I saw a version in which I and II were spliced together in chronological order, so I have some trouble distinguishing…
Comment by a random John — September 8, 2008 @ 11:46 am
I know I’m *supposed* to like II better than I, but I admire the first movie’s straight-forward narrative. Plus, I think Michael Corleone is more of a compelling character in the original (feel free to disagree with me on that).
But hey, at least I’m not trying to argue that III is really the best of the bunch.
Comment by BTD Greg — September 8, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
Godfather 1= touchdown
Godfather II = returning the ball 99 yards for a touchdown
Comment by jjohnsen — September 8, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Oh, 1 all the way. The backstory in II is cool, but Michael’s decline into evil in I is breathtaking and compelling — the christening montage is breathtaking.
BLASPHEMY!
Comment by Norbert — September 8, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
I like II more. But you can’t have a good II without a good I, so perhaps the two are to be considered as a package, like LOTR or something.
Comment by David J — September 8, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Norbert,
I’m not claiming it was a good idea. I will claim that it seemed to take a damn long time.
Comment by a random John — September 8, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
arJ, not directed at you. I remember when it was marketed, I think as The Godfather Saga. The filmheads I hung out with in LA were shocked to the root of their sensibilities.
Comment by Norbert — September 8, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
I gotta go with Godfather I as well. I was completely blown away by it the first time I saw it.
Comment by Geoff J — September 8, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
I said II just because of how bad the fight scene with James Caan was. Come on, I love The Godfather, but that scene is horrible.
Comment by Clark — September 8, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
I think I’m supposed to say 1, but I just can’t. Even though 1 is a superb movie, I have to go with 2. Although considering them together is probably the correct thing to do. I said considering, NOT splicing. The horror…
Comment by tracy m — September 9, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
Tough call. I’ll give the edge to 1 by the nose of a severed head’s horse.
Comment by Matt Thurston — September 11, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Can we all at least agree that III is bad? (Albeit I don’t think as bad as it sometimes is portrayed)
Comment by Clark — September 11, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
I’ll definitely agree with you on that, Clark. But I disagree with your parenthetical–mostly because I and II are so great that III makes you wanna string Coppola up the nearest tree.
Comment by Jack — September 11, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
Yeah, but that’s kind of my point. Taken on its own it’s highly flawed but not that bad. It’s just that the first two are so great…
Comment by Clark — September 11, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
I dunno. I’ve rented III twice now and also tried to get into it another time when it was on TV and I stumbled onto it flipping channels. I can never get past the first hour.
Comment by Mephibosheth — September 12, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
http://www.filmforum.org/films/godfather.html
In Manhattan, you can currently go to see these movies in the theater.
Comment by danithew — September 15, 2008 @ 3:33 pm