I think both were great, but I tend to agree that 1 is superior.

I think they’re pretty close to equal but would give the edge to the first film. I do feel that John Cazale gives the trilogy’s best performance in part II, and I like De Niro’a work a lot too, but Pacino’s Michael is much less interesting than in the original movie.

@A-Dubya said:

I think both were great, but I tend to agree that 1 is superior.

I actually thought both were great for the longest time, but this was mostly because everyone else kept saying Part 2 was so prestigious, but to be honest I sat down and watched Part 2 the other night it was on AMC and realized wow its far inferior to 1.

Much more dull story, hardly any action or suspense. The characters were not even compelling at all. It was more annoying than anything.

@rudely_murray said:

I think they’re pretty close to equal but would give the edge to the first film. I do feel that John Cazale gives the trilogy’s best performance in part II, and I like De Niro’a work a lot too, but Pacino’s Michael is much less interesting than in the original movie.

Robert D was the best part of TGF2 but he alone was not great enough to make it a great movie. Michael Corleone was not as interesting or compelling as he was in the original he's actually quite obnoxious. Should we be as impressed of him battling it out with a geriatric enemy where there's hardly 4 short action scenes where in the first movie he literally rises to power and outsmarts all the other 5 families.

It goes from exhilarating thrill ride in part 1 to an over the hill man working out his marital issues and sitting for 90% of the movie in TGF2

Well, that is a very interesting perspective. I never thought of him that way before, but I suppose he was far less active in 2.

I think we can all agree that BOTH are vastly superior to Godfather Part 3!

@A-Dubya said:

Well, that is a very interesting perspective. I never thought of him that way before, but I suppose he was far less active in 2.

Yeah I was actually shocked when I re-watched it the other night I could of sworn there was a lot more intense suspense and action in the movie and there's literally like 10minutes if that at all out of an almost 4 hour movie.

You would think for a sequel the enemies get bigger, badder and tougher not older, weaker, and duller. Al Pacino wasn't even that into it as he was in the first one. I mean the guys sitting 90% of the movie. He's sitting at the Lake Tahoe party, his desk, the car in Cuba, the meeting in Cuba, the meeting with Roth, its like was it in his contract that he gets to sit all day and only has to stand for very short quick scenes lol.

Then he kisses Fredo and says I knew it was you it was you. REALLY? Was that supposed to be big intense suspenseful scene? Because I thought it was pretty lame and someone pointed out it was the kiss of death but yeah even so not really intriguing at all.

@The Midi-chlorian Count said:

I think we can all agree that BOTH are vastly superior to Godfather Part 3!

LOL everyone hates 3 but at least Sofia Coppola gets killed in it right? LOL

3 is when the helicopter shows up and shoots everyone in the vegas meeting right? I think thats probably the most unrealistic scene out of all 3 movies right?

@boxcat said:

@MrCharmingMan said:

3 is when the helicopter shows up and shoots everyone in the vegas meeting right? I think thats probably the most unrealistic scene out of all 3 movies right?

Yes. And comparing it to Part 2 and Part 1 is definitely a joke. It just doesn't fit.

But as a stand alone movie Godfather III definitely beats A Bronx Tale and American Gangster.

LMAO I remember thinking if i was in that meeting why not duck under the table and play dead and use the other bodies as shields or bust down the door it was only locked by like a broomstick or something right? it wasn't even a steel padlock or anything. These guys are all supposed to be tough mobsters and they can't even break down an old wooden door?

What I found most unrealistic was that if you showed up in a helicopter and shot a dozen mobsters its not like you'd just fly away and hide some where lol.

I mean now especially after 911 no one would be able to pull that off. But back then in the 70's I think is when this movie takes place i still don't think you'd be able to shoot a bunch of mobster and just fly off its not like there were a lot of random helipads you could go fly off to and hide in. Maybe you could hide the helicopter in a farm town where no one ever goes but that still is reaching lol.

I don't recall bronx tale I'm note sure if I ever watched it from beginning to finish or american gangster....... Oh yeah I do do you mean the Denzel Washington movie? I thought it was good and it was based on a real life drug king pin right? I like When Denzel says "the loudest person in the room is the weakest person" this is very true! you look at social media today alone and that statement sums it up.

Also you go to your family's gathering for Thanksgiving and the loudest relatives are usually the weakest ones, any party, club, workplace its very true.

I love Godfather 2, mostly for the backstory and its gorgeous cinematography. I did not even notice any lack of action, as this film comes from a filmmaking era where the story, not the action sequences, dictated the narrative. It’s probably why I find much to like about 70ish films like Eyes Wide Shut or George clooney’s The American or The Ninth Gate, all of which aren’t action films at all and don’t follow the modern trend of film storytelling now.

Godfather 1 remains the one I have watched the most, though. A rare case of the movie being superior to the source novel, IMO.

@catmydogs said:

I love Godfather 2, mostly for the backstory and its gorgeous cinematography. I did not even notice any lack of action, as this film comes from a filmmaking era where the story, not the action sequences, dictated the narrative. It’s probably why I find much to like about 70ish films like Eyes Wide Shut or George clooney’s The American or The Ninth Gate, all of which aren’t action films at all and don’t follow the modern trend of film storytelling now.

Godfather 1 remains the one I have watched the most, though. A rare case of the movie being superior to the source novel, IMO.

Typically I personally would rather have a great story with great acting verses an action flick. But studios today do not produce that. They want big explosions and unrealistic gun fights to satisfy the very short attention spans of the audience all with ADHD. This trilogy being about the mob should be entertaining, suspenseful and full of action not a bunch of over the hill guys sitting around working out their marital problems. Who the F wants to see that.

We want to see Michael Corleone take the "family business" to the next level and outsmart his enemies in the most clever, brilliant way. We don't want to see him arguing with his wife on custody battles there's a bunch of that crap for non mafia movies. But yes I agree with you the 70's were great for both tv and film they do call it the Golden Age right?

@boxcat said:

@MrCharmingMan

What i find even more unrealistic is the assassin who makes the sound of a donkey and he makes himself look like a donkey too. May be it's a sign of danger or a sign of death in their assassination lingo but that was really awkward and something not what the audience expect from a movie like The Godfather. Imagine fans who have waited for almost 2 decades, and what they must have gone through after witnessing that guy making the sound of a donkey.

And yes American Gangster stars Denzel.

Sorry I forgot about the donkey guy. So this was in part 3? Wow that sounds awful. I pretty much only remember Sofia Coppola getting assassinated, the helicopter killing everyone at the meeting, and "Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in" doesn't Andy Garcia pose as a fake cop on a horse or something and shoots his enemies?

I think Godfather part 3 could have been a great movie - if it hadn't been directed like a Grand Opera and fallen on the sword of nepotism. I have to say Sofia Coppola's acting was no worse than Al Pacino's. I thought his acting in this was so fake and the scream at the end was laughable. Had they simply cut the last twenty minutes of this movie - let Vincent become the new Don after sacrificing his "cuz" and have Michael retire to his seat in the garden then this movie may have succeeded.

Godfather II is often cited as the textbook example of a sequel that surpasses the original. Having watched both movies several times over the decades, and recently back to back, I've upped my opinion of the original over the years and think less of the sequel today than I used to.

I think there is a seductive quality to the back story of Vito and those scenes are beautifully acted and filmed. But when an objective eye is cast over that part of the story, it doesn't actually make a lot of sense. How for example does Vito go from a guy carting fruit baskets, to a NY Don, just by killing a Moustache Pete? And the Moustache Pete isn't even the top dog. And why does Vito take his young family to the same village run by the Sicilian Don when his intention is to kill the guy? It's ridiculous.

And the later in time scenes jump all over the place trying to get as many references to real life events as is possible. The story arc is poorly constructed and the editing (script and cinematography) is woeful. And Keaton is bad. Really bad. That 'I had an abortion!' scene is cringeworthy, and not because of the subject matter: but because it is really really badly acted.

Imo, there are a lot of problems with Godfather II, whereas the original is nearly perfect. Don't get me wrong, Godfather II is a very good movie. But The Godftaher is a genuine contender for the best movie ever made.

I don't think Godfather ll was better than The Godfather. I agree with your points about Vito becoming a Godfather the way he did and the kill visit to Sicily. One would have imagined a Don - even retired - would have had better security than that - and the getaway and leaving the country was too easy - they would have been scouring the island for him. His visit wasn't exactly a secret - the entire village would have known who he was - and the pursuit would not have stopped in Sicily - they would have tracked him down and killed him even back in America. Don's do not take kindly to one of their own being murdered. There are always faults to be found in retrospect - it depends on how good the rest of the film was if we forgive them or not. I forgave them easily because I loved The Godfather - even the music was memorable - and although I didn't love "Godfather ll" quite so much I still enjoyed it. I hated the abortion scene - I don't like Diane Keaton anyway - but for us to believe that Kay even considered it possible for a second that Michael would let her take the children was ludicrous. I found it implausible that she would take him back after he had gotten married and returned home and never got in touch with her for what was it - two years or something? - How can you believe a man still loves you when he has married somebody else? I could have done without the Kay character entirely - she didn't add much to the films in my view.