[deleted]

1, because it is a simple rise and fall story. Michael rises to power but falls from grace. He’s kinda like the opposite of Oscar Schindler. Schindler was a greedy scumbag playboy industrialist who revealed himself to be a saviour. Michael is a wholesome young war hero who reveals himself to be the most ruthless gangster Don ever.

2 is fantastic but it’s basically a fallen man falling further. Of course, this is cleverly contrasted with the parallel story of Vito’s rise to power, so it works really well but it’s not as effective in my opinion. I also find it odd that everyone loves Vito yet condemns Michael despite them being remarkably similar. 2 also fails to clearly identify what Fredo was guilty of, making it difficult determine whether Michael whacking him was psychotic or justified.

3 is also great, not as much as the others but it has some of the best moments of the trilogy and I’m glad it’s getting reappraised, although I’m disappointed that Coppola’s recent re-edit removes some key moments. I’m sticking with the 1991 version.

I'm friends with several GF fanatics, and along with myself, all agree that 1 and 2 are interchangeable in quality and watchability. I don't have a preference - I'll watch either or both when they're on TV.

Both. The one I liked the most was called the Godfather Epic. I think that’s what it is. Where they brilliantly combined both.

How can you choose? Just when you thought something was so spectacular, you get the second one. The story of Vito and you get De Niro.

Ironically, I have watched Godfather III only once.