I always thought if I had to choose, I would pick The Godfather as the best of the trilogy, but thinking about it, it’s very, very close. I have the first Godfather movie memorized scene by scene, and I think that’s why I find The Godfather, Part II so riveting when I watch it, because it always seems like I notice something new with every viewing. It’s a deeper, richer story, Part II, so I’m going to say The Godfather Part II is the winner here.
I’ll stick with The Godfather. The contemporary struggle in Part II – Michael struggling with internal conflict in the organization and the failed Cuba venture – just have never seemed as compelling to me as the Corleones’ fight to survive and ultimately turn the tables on the other families in the original. (The DeNiro/Vito backstory in Part II is awesome, but the fact that it’s included at all underscores the relative weakness of the contemporary story.)
If you haven’t seen Part 1 you don’t really understand the jump from immigrant Vito to angsty Michael, so, while both are excellent, Part 1 is necessary.
I didn’t really care much for any of them but if I have to choose, the second one. It’s the only one I could follow most of the plot.
Even after seeing it many times and reading what the plot is supposed to be, the first movie is still largely incomprehensible to me on its own. It feels like a collection of short vignettes that are only marginally related to each other.
I’d agree with that. I’ll also add that the 7-hour Saga, which tells the whole story of Parts I and II chronologically, IMO doesn’t work as well as either individual movie. It feels like three episodes – Vito, Vito-to-Michael, Michael – with completely different narrative structures.
The first one is a great movie. But I feel the second one is a notch better.
I feel both had great narratives about the Corleone family struggles. But the first movie had Vito as its main protagonist in the struggle and he was a fixed character. The second one had Michael as the protagonist in the struggle and his character was undergoing a interior transformation during the external struggle, which gave the movie an extra layer.
The third movie was unnecessary. It didn’t say anything that hadn’t been said in the first two movies.
+1. I like the DeNiro/Vito timeline the best of the three, and the Michael/Roth/etc stuff the least. Plus Godfather I has the baptism sequence, which is difficult to top in any movie…
I had a friend whose first exposure to the movies was seeing the story told chronologically via a television showing of the seven-hour saga. I think it also includes a few deleted scenes.
That was how I first viewed them. The Godfather Saga was broadcast on TV in 1977. This was before the era of home video so if you hadn’t seen the movies during their theatrical runs in 1972 and 1974, you hadn’t had an opportunity to watch them.
I go with the first one but it’s understandable the second movie would be favored by many. I wonder when people saw the movies. The first one was a breakthrough movie that affected so many mob related movies that followed. Someone who had not seen the first one before being exposed to the new media concept of the Mafia might find a better story in part 2 without appreciating how it depended on the first movie and it’s broader effect as a prerequisite to understanding part 2.
Yes, so you can see what I mean. If the first movie had been Godfather 2 without the first having been made opinions might change. Not that 2 was a bad movie at all.
I think Godfather II is the better movie, but both are among the best ever made.
Godfather I was about the corruption of Michael Corleone, going from a staunch moralist who wanted nothing to do with the family to rising up to lead it.
Godfather II was about the corrupting influence of power, and how Michael went from a normal person who just did what he had to do to protect the family, and became a secluded, paranoid monster who would turn to violence at the drop of a hat. It was also about how his descent destroyed the family he started out to protect. The flashback plot showed how the same basic process corrupted his father as a young man.
The second movie was more nuanced and complex, edging out the first one, IMO.
I still remember the review in Newsweek when Godfather III came out. I don’t remember the exact wording but it was something like “One of the three movies has to be the worst, and this one is it.”
