I was a little surprised to see no thread like this had popped up yet, so I thought I'd start one up. After all, it seems like this might be one of the bigger debates among film lovers. Last week I watched both of the films again, and was wondering how everyone else felt about them.

Personally, I prefer Part II. The whole thing gels better and feels more natural. The first movie seems to be more of a slice of life type of thing. Other than Micheal taking over the family, which seems to remain in the back round most of the movie, there is no substantial overarching plot. It's all a bunch of self-contained incidents in the lives of the same characters. I know this may seem like a silly point to make (After all, some films, like The Last Picture Show, get by just fine with what seems like no plot at all) but since each incident has it's own climax, it felt draining in the end, and I didn't feel as impacted by the final scene as I felt I was supposed to be.

Part II though feels much more complete. All the events that happen to Micheal are connected, and the De Niro scenes provide a fitting opposite to Micheal's storyline. And I don't mean to commit cinematic hari-kari, but I think De Niro did a better job with the Vito character than Brando. De Niro showed the kind of deadly charisma that it seemed Brando lacked. De Niro was at once intimidating and trustworthy, the kind of guy you wanted to respect, for reasons other than if you didn't you were as good as dead. Brando didn't display that quality as much to me. He seemed a little disorientated, a little dead the whole time. Maybe that was the point and it just flew right over my head. They were both great performances, just I have the feeling I'll remember De Niro's more.

So how does everyone else feel about this?

Godfather II, DeNiro was amazing in it.

You don't mention part 3 - just kidding!

Every time I watch both these films I realize how they work so well together.

For me the first film is slightly superior because it was the original and opened my eyes to a type of film that I don't think I'd seen the like of before. That said, part II is a great movie on it's own. I gave them both 9/10.

It's a tight call, but if i have to pick a favorite, I go with the original.

Rob

It's been too long since I've watched The Godfather I & II. When the series first came out on dvd I got the set for Christmas. Still in the wrapper! That was, what, way back in '01?

You can't go wrong with either. But after further viewings I can to the conclusion that II was the superior film. My only beef was that I didn't but Vito's transformation from Bobby to Brando. Nothing against De Niro or the films it's just a little something that always stuck out to me.

It seems that 2 beats 1 so far.

I wonder why?

I'm not saying that is wrong, I'm just curious to understand the reason.

Rob

Both Part I and II are great movies. I slightly prefer Part I, though, largely because I find the ensemble of characters in Part I more fascinating - in particular, the presence of Brando as Don Corleone.

The second is the more complex of the two and this seems to be the key to why people choose it over the first. I guess.

The second one is two movies for the price of one: you get the De Niro scenes which parallel the fall of Michael... oh, it's all so wonderfully Greek tragic. Hyman Roth? Sick and dying? F*ck it, have him killed.

If forced to choose, at gunpoint, I'd pick the first. It's self-contained and all about the family, never taking time to consider the "good guys" that don't exist in this film's universe. But if forced to say which one is the "better" (in terms of complexity, character, tragedy) Godfather Part II is the better. It's harder to watch and a little bit less readily enjoyable but still better.

I prefer Part I, but both are amazing movies. One of my favorite things about them is how the final scene in Part II (the flashback) not only serves as the most devastating possible ending, its impact manages to reach back and deepen and intensify the drama of the first movie.

Part I to me flows better and the story carries you through better. The second movie has no bad scenes and many amazing scenes, but they aren't quite tied together as well. Of course a lot of that is because of the ambitious decision to tell two parallel stories.

That said, Part II is edited about as well as it could possibly be done. Has anyone else seen the version shown on TV sometimes that is both movies (with deleted scenes thrown back in) with all the scenes shown in chronological order? The Part II storyline with Michael just does not work as well with the Vito storyline 3 hours in the past.

I would argue that Part II appears to be more complete because it has the advantage of an established background, the main players need little if any introduction. It would be interesting to see how somebody rates Part II without having seen Part I first.

Personally, I watch both in succession (although not necessarily in one session) once every two years or so. Therefore, I tend to think of them as a double feature and couldn't identify, which one I like better.

Regarding Part III - pass the oranges, please

That's easy for me. Part I is better.

In fact, I'm going to say something that many will find simply blasphemous. I think Part III is a great film and is better than Part II. I find it sad that when most people talk about The Godfather saga, Part III is treated like the black sheep of the family where jokes and derisions it doesn't deserve are made.

While Godfather part II is a very good film, I felt like I was watching 2 different films edited together. I do not feel any strong connection between The Rise of Vito and The Fall of Michael, except for the ending. Furthermore, I was more interested in Michael's story and whenever they switched back to Vito's, which is slower-paced, I feel like it drags the whole film down. Now, I will admit that when the ending comes, the 2 stories do converge brilliantly and it ends on a very haunting and emotionally powerful note. But by then, over 3 hours have already passed and my patience was already stretched thin.

But then again, the last and only time I watched all The Godfather films in chronological order was 5 years ago. Maybe if I watch Godfather II again now, I could revise my opinion. But one thing about watching the films many years after they're released is I was able to appreciate Part III for what it is - without the hype that might have come with it when it was released in 1990 - and found it better than what its reputation suggests.

i agree, you cant go wrong with either.
but although i liked 1 better if we compare frist viewings. ill vote for 2.

just cuz of cazale.

Amen. He is brilliant in Part II. On a level, in my mind, with Pacino and De Niro.

Regardless of how fantastic Godfather 2 is, most of the difficult groundwork was laid in part one. The template for the story takes time and energy to develop, free from that burden godfather 2 can expand into the already established atmosphere and themes with relative ease giving it a freedom that the original didn't have. Godfather one contains that sense of orginality that makes it so memorable. The performances, dialogue and music all set a tone that could not be duplicated. As far as the De Niro/Brando debate, some forget that Micheal was far more ruthless than Vito. Brando was a true family man, avoided drugs and gang war till it was unavoidable. To say that he didn't have the hard edge like DeNiro was to miss the the whole theme of balancing his crime life with his family, something micheal ultimately could not do. The Godfather is the superior film.

My vote goes to Part I.

Michael's path from innocent bystander to head of the Corleone family is enthralling, heartbreaking, and tragic. I love it just a little more than Part II.

This is a tough one. You can't have one without the other really, but I prefer The Godfather just a little bit more. It's got a much tighter and focused story and doesn't suffer from all the time shifting in Part II. People will no doubt argue that the time shifting makes Part II a better film because it's more ambitious, and they have a point, but I prefer the simple elegance of the first one.

Listen, both are great movies. But they're both really different movies. What makes the second one better, in my opinion, is that the flashbacks help to amplify just how much things have changed by the end of the film. Seeing Michael sitting by himself as we get a short glimpse of his family riding away on that train... it's such a gut-punch. Just such powerful stuff.