Which Godfather Film Is Best?

[spiny norman 0]

I'm asking this because I just was watching the second one yesterday and found I wasn't sure if I prefered it or the first, so I figured I'd put it to a poll.

Which do you think was best (and please don't vote for one if you've only seen one)?

[BlackFlagg 0]

a tough call, I'll have to go with 2 by a slight margin.

[Nighthawk 0]

1 and 2 are nearly equal, but I also give it to 2 by a slight margin.

[Ravenbomb 0]

Heh, it's tied between 1 and 2 (as of my posting this)

[Guest Crazy Dan]

I want to see the one who thought the third was the best one. Just so we can throw some lightning bolts in their direction.

 

I liked the first one the best. The first real movie I got to see that trully help me become a movie lover, and willing to watch movies that might not be so main stream. And what is amazing that Coppala did not win the best Director award that year. Funny world. Of course I was in 7th grade when I saw this, so there were many scenes that completely lost me, but the scenes of violence and Michael's rise to the top is awesome. And Sonny getting gunned down is still one of my all time favorite on screen deaths, mainly due to its graphic nature (for the time) and the fact that it forshwws Michaels decent to the top, past Fredo, which will becme important later.

 

The Second one was great too, but I was still fairly young, and so I found some parts to really follow. But this is where DeNiro is amazing, and showed he was a actor who was going to be something special. And Pachino is amazing. The scene where he slowly closes the door in Kay's face, without saying one word is amazing. And also throw in Fredo, the jealous brohter who wanted to be the one in charge. The one who didn't want to be known as the dumb one, the one who wanted to be the respected one. But, the one who just doesn't have it in his nature to be the Godfather. The scene where you just know that Fredo knows he is doomed is haunting. And Michael proves he is the Godfather, but you get the feeling that Don Vito (Brando) if he was stilla alive would think that he had failed becuase the one son that he didn't want to take over the business, as followed in his father's footsteps.

 

Part III -The biggest rule that all directors should have learned from you Francis is that your daughter Sophia Coppala is better behind the lens, not in front of it. Not the best casting call. Andy Garcia and her have absolutely no chemestry, because Sopie can't act. And this was suposed to be a big part of the movie, whcih convinced no one that the only reason they were falling in love due to the writers. And this was supposed to be a key part to the movie. ALso, there was no reason to make this movie. Sure it got it's nomoniations, but I thank the Academy memebers who must have though the they were watching the first work Godfather, and then placed their vote, even wothout seeing it.

 

What made the first two great was the charachters and story tellinig. The first movie was based on the a book, and appears to be fairly faithly to the story. The second one had some of the best performances ever to gracet the screen. The third has... uh... well this had to be made so that the studios could make more money. I have never read the books, but I have a feeling the new one suffers from "Hannible Syndrom" Where he author gets offered a whole bunch of money to write a whole new story based on prior books. And the auther not knowing what to to do, ends up wtriting a strory that is guarantee to disapoint. And as history has shown, these movies end up being to convaluted and end up basically driving a stake into any chance of part four, which I hope every Hollywood Exec actually finally says no, and ask that the crappy new strory might make kindling for a fire than a sorry excuse for a movie.

 

So in conclusion: Watch Part I and II. You will love it. As for Part III.... you might want tosee it if you have watched the first two and you want to see how the third movie basically kills anyone saying that this is one the best triologies, then suck it up, bring a ton of booze and other substances that might make it throuh this flm. I still think that there was no reason to make this version. Absolutely none. Ok we get it, Michael loses all the women he moves, boo hoo. While the first two were masterpiececs, this one is just plain uninspirring. There wasn' enough in this movie to warrant it as a classic. I am not sure what could have been done dirfferenetly to make it better. I am so happy the academy decided to vote for a movie that was actually good, and not a movie trying to ride the coat tails of the previous two.

 

In conclusion, Coppola made some of the best films of the 70's. They had edge, creativity. and made you leave the theater going "wow" I need to catch that again. And when he finished Apocolypse Now. He capped off a great decade. And then the 80's and 90's came along. Copoppola decided to spend time on his winery, probably sampling too much of his product, and gave us great classiscs as such as Junior (he isnta classic of a child who grows super fast and becomes Robin Williams acts like kid much of the time, but did we really need another movie based on this? The Color of Money - ehh... mainly made so Newman could win the award for his body of work,( this is one my pet peeves with the Academy Awards. They tend to overlook performances that should win at first, then the voters realize that gee maybe he should have won) and then years later when the actor gets nominted the Academy attomatically votes for him, more as life time achievement award, insread of because he was the best actor. And so the award is given to make up for the mistake, even though a good chance that this is not the performance that should have won. This happened when Denzel Washington should have gotten is for Malcolm X, but Pachino got it for Scent of a Woman. So Denzel finally gets rewarded a few years later for Trading Day, but as good as he was, he was better in Malcolm X.

 

So Coppola peaked in bout 1979. He made have made a decenent movie here and there, but his 80's-2000's moives have been less that inspiring. I think that the jungle in the Phillipines really fried his brain, or the part to make intriguing films when he lost it making Apoolpyse Now.

 

So Scorcesese will take me choice as the top American Drector to come on in the last 25 years or so, with Tranatino a close second (still needs to make some more films). Coppola I am afraid made great films, but the inconsistency in his latter movies has brought him down to just a good director. And no, just becuase he made some great movies, he has also made a bunch of crap. And that crap kind has kind of made it hard for me to consider him one the best directors ever. Maybe next time don't cast your daughter in the Godfather III, and don't cast Keanue Reeves in Dracula, when we all know he will go whoa about three thousand times.

 

Sorry Coppola, you lost it. For some reason once the 80's began, so did you willingness to make great movies. But hey, we will always have Robin Williams pretending to be a fast growing kid, and a Dracula story which for the most part bored me to tears. How about we all get a money drive to stop you from making anymore soulness crap,. And we also can use it to find your cajones, which you obviously lost in the jungles.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

norman, I hope you were kidding in the subtitle.

 

This post will seem very inferior coming after Dan's, but I elect The Godfather: Part II. The first was masterful, but the second surpassed it, and I didn't enjoy Part III anywhere near as much as the first two.

 

Speaking of which, Part II is on tomorrow night.

[spiny norman 0]

Yeah, I noticed it being on tomorrow night. I don't think I'll watch it though, I think the ad breaks would kill it plus they'll have probably heavily edited the thing.

 

That said, I agree with all of Dan's post (and he must be CRAZY to make such a long-winded post) except for the following:

 

This happened when Denzel Washington should have gotten is for Malcolm X, but Pachino got it for Scent of a Woman. So Denzel finally gets rewarded a few years later for Trading Day, but as good as he was, he was better in Malcolm X.

 

I'm not going to be a dickhead and correct the spelling of Pacino and that the film is Training Day (well, aside from doing it just then) but rather saying Denzel deserved the Oscar for Malcolm X. I thought Stephen Rea got robbed from The Crying Game, and also liked Eastwood's performance in Unforgiven. And Washington did nothing for me in Training Day, and I'd say him beating Russel Crowe was the biggest Oscar disgrace in history, barring perhaps Oliver! beating 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

I decided to vote for Part II after much deliberation, btw. I have no idea who the hell it was who voted for Part III.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

Yeah, I noticed it being on tomorrow night. I don't think I'll watch it though, I think the ad breaks would kill it plus they'll have probably heavily edited the thing.

 

That said, I agree with all of Dan's post (and he must be CRAZY to make such a long-winded post) except for the following:

 

This happened when Denzel Washington should have gotten is for Malcolm X, but Pachino got it for Scent of a Woman. So Denzel finally gets rewarded a few years later for Trading Day, but as good as he was, he was better in Malcolm X.

 

I'm not going to be a dickhead and correct the spelling of Pacino and that the film is Training Day (well, aside from doing it just then) but rather saying Denzel deserved the Oscar for Malcolm X. I thought Stephen Rea got robbed from The Crying Game, and also liked Eastwood's performance in Unforgiven. And Washington did nothing for me in Training Day, and I'd say him beating Russel Crowe was the biggest Oscar disgrace in history, barring perhaps Oliver! beating 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

I decided to vote for Part II after much deliberation, btw. I have no idea who the hell it was who voted for Part III.

Nothing much else on tomorrow night. Yeah, fuck Channel 10 and free-to-air television, a lot will be edited.

 

All of those films are great - Denzel Washington and Al Pacino are fucking great actors.

 

Anyway, SmackDown!'s back on, and after the Big Show theatened, I'm going to go and show my love for Mark Jindrak.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Put me in the camp of liking II a bit better than I. (Part III never happened...)

[Guest Anglesault]

I like One better than two, but I can understand how people see it the other way.

 

I was never able to force myself to watch 3.

[Guest JumpinJackFlash]

Part 1: The restaurant scene is one of my favorite movie scenes.....

 

and the dead horse.

[Guest Beingz0wningj00]

I liked the first one a little more then the second. Both were very good, I mean I loved Robert De Niro as the young Don, and Michael's true rise to power and dealings with Hyman Roth.

 

However there's a certain intensity in the first one seldom matched. Granted I read the book as well, so little things such as Tessio's betrayal and the beautiful execution of Barzini done by Al Neri. It helped me enjoy the movie. And let's face it... James Caan as Sonny Corleone... nuff said.

[Ravenbomb 0]

I don't get the Godfather 3 hate (I voted for part 1, btw)

[Sass 0]

Both Part's 1 and 2 are great but I'm going to give the nod to...

 

Part 2.

[BlackFlagg 0]

I don't get the Godfather 3 hate (I voted for part 1, btw)

Yeah, while it's nowhere near as amazing as the first two I still enjoyed it....

 

 

I think 2 for me get's the edge because my favorite scene is when Vito goes to Don Ciccio's villa

[Youth N Asia 0]

I like the first just a tad more then number two. So that was my pick.

[DangerousDamon 0]

I voted for number 1. What can I say? I'm a sucker for Sonny Corleone.

 

And part 3 confuses me so bad. I don't even know what it's about.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

I taped the second one from television last night (I would've watched, but Raw VS SmackDown! deleted itself five times on me), and I watching it this morning in bed before I went to sleep, when I saw a PPV ad telling me that Backlash was on at 10:00 AM.

 

"Shit, I'd better get some sleep!"

[Brush with Greatness 0]

I think Part one is the better film, with the whole movie being laid out in the opening wedding scene incredibly well. They tried to do this again at Anthony's communion (or whatever) in part II but it didn't work as well.

 

For me, the current scenes in II tended to drag at times. Don't get me wrong, there are some great scenes and stuff throughout, but I just don't care for any of the shit with Kay (even though it is somewhat integral in the continued development of Michael) I loved all the old stuff with Deniro and Bruno Kirby though. Part II is carried by the flashbacks.

 

Part I, I could watch over and over and over continously without ever tiring. Part II is one that I just like to watch once in a while. So yeah, I voted for I.

 

A question though, in part II at the bar when the Rizzoto brothers are going to kill Pantangeli, why does the one guy say "Michael Corleone says hello!"? I mean, I understand how it sets up Pantangelo's turn and shit, but weren't the Rizzoto's legitimately trying to kill Pantangeli (under Roth's orders). If that was the case, then why would they bother making the Corleone reference?

[Guest thebigjig]

My opinion on 1 & 2 change every week... on some days, I like 2 better than 1... right now, I'm leaning towards 1

 

My opinon on the third film... is that it's unfairly bashed. Yes, it wasn't nearly as great as the first two, and it's my opinon that THATS the only reason it's treated like a step child. But on it's own, it stands as a very good film. A masterpiece? No... but not horrible. That being said, the third film still bugs me... simply because when you watch all of them, back to back, you go from liking Michael, to hating Michael... to admiring him, and then hating him again at the end of the second film... and then... with no showing of a transition, Michael goes from brother killing asshole... to nice guy trying to get the family out of the business... I realize that 30 years passed in the timeline from part 2 to part 3 but I just never got the impression that I was watching the real michael corleone in the third film...

 

that, and sophie was so horrible that when I watched it with a group of friends that had never seen it before... they actually CHEERED when she got shot at the end. If I were to pick a single major flaw... its that casting choice... her character was VITAL to the emotion of the ending... it should've been gripping, and powerful, and while Pacino's reaction is probably one of the single greatest acting moments in the trilogy... it still didnt have the punch that it would have if Wynona Ryder had been cast as originally planned

[godthedog 0]

always good to see additional hate for my least-favorite movie ever.

 

i voted for the first, mostly for its brevity and pacing; doesn't feel a second too long, characters are strongly and simply drawn. the second takes its time and tries to find its own rhythm (with a lot of dead space of characters staring out into space--sometimes to great dramatic effect, sometimes not), but it could've used some trimming. it tried to be grand & operatic a little too hard in some places, particularly some of the killings (especially the parade/assassination, with the editing & just SCREAMING, "HEY, LOOK! DON CICCIO'S GOING TO DIE! KEEP LOOKING, IT'S COMING! LOOK, IT'S SUCH AN AMERICAN PARADE, AND HE'S GOING TO DIE! WE'RE SHOWING THE DARK UNDERBELLY OF THE AMERICAN DREAM! LOOK AT HIM, SO GRAND AND HAPPY AND EVIL, WHEN HE'S ABOUT TO DIE~!!")

 

so, yeah. none of that in part one.

So Scorcesese will take me choice as the top American Drector to come on in the last 25 years or so, with Tranatino a close second (still needs to make some more films).

off the top of my head, david lynch & paul thomas anderson are much better than tarantino. tarantino is the poster-child for empty postmodernism (i.e., quoting other movies for the sake of quoting them, without saying anything of his own behind it), and while he's well-versed and very clever, i never quite get the feeling that he's trying to get at anything deeper, that there's anything more to art or life than being cool by quoting shit. scorsese, as an inverse example, quotes a LOT, but it's always in aid of telling his own story. take the pool scene from 'raging bull': scorsese baldly admits ripping it off from 'on the waterfront', but it still exists as its own scene: the greatness of the scene doesn't begin and end with, "oh, look at the way he wove 'on the waterfront' into this!", there's more to the scene. i defy anyone to say the same thing about a single scene in volume 1 of 'kill bill'. tarantino got the quoting part down pat, but he doesn't seem to care about using it for anything. the only "deep" example of his i can think of is the final diner scene in 'pulp fiction', which is one of my favorite scenes ever: it's about something larger than itself.

 

i've yet to see volume 2, so i may be proven wrong on all this in the future, but i kind of doubt it: the praise i've heard from it thus far has been, "dude, it has a PLOT and CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!", not "wow, those characters are really well done", as if any kind of character development in itself is an accomplishment. just my take on what i've heard about it so far, not a judgment about the movie in itself.

[nl5xsk1 0]

I voted for 1 because the poll is which one is best, and I think that one is better than 2. If the poll had been "Which one do you like better?", I'd have voted for 2.

 

Number 3 wasn't in the running regardless of which poll was being conducted; I don't think it's terrible or anything, it's just terrible when compared to parts 1 & 2.

[OldSchoolWrestling 0]

Every time this has come up I've always seen most pick Part II so I'm glad to see some love for Part I in here. While I love both I and II, I consider Part I to be my favorite movie of all time. I love Brando in the Godfather role and can watch that film over and over.