I used to like Godfather 2 more when I first started getting into movies and the artisty side of things (I used to really love the Young Vito / De Niro scenes particularly) , but I do think now that the First movie is the best and by quite a distance.
It is just more cohesive, sharper and coherent, 2 feels like it has too much padding now, and some of the storylines are a bit clunky (Fredo just loudly revealing his secrets etc)
Yes, indeed.
shareThey're both phenomenal but yes, the first is better.
shareI think the first is infinitely better than the second. Mainly because 1 has Brando. But also because I have always been completely disinterested in the Al Pacino parts of part 2. The Cuba parts, the senate hearings, the senator....just doesn't do it for me. Now on the other hand, if 2 was strictly the Robert De Niro portion, expanded into a full movie -- then I could listen to an argument about which is better -- but as it is, it's 1 -- by alot.
shareThe Godfather was definitely the tighter & more focused film. Brando's iconic performance is just pure gold in every scene he's in. A number of the extended scenes make the film even better IMO & especially the extra Sonny scenes. The Godfather II has its moments of greatness on par with the first but was more uneven, with some uneven pacing & frustrating plot holes that never get explained. I feel like the Vito flashbacks should have been released as its own separate film instead of repeatedly interrupting the GFII's main narrative, which felt unnecessary and stifles the pacing of the film. While Robert Deniro would go on to be one of the most accomplished actors of his era, his performance as a Young Vito doesn't hold a candle to Marlon Brando's iconic performance, making his Oscar win for the role feel more like a Godfather hype consolation prize, than truly being acknowledged for an outstanding performance. Pacino definitely got robbed though.
sharecompletely agree, and don't understand the consensus that 2 is better.
Maybe at the time, in the early 1970s, sequels were usually just cheap spin-offs rushed out to cash in on the success of the original, so for a sequel to still be of such high quality and as good as pt2 was, was a pleasant surprise to the critics and viewing public and maybe that's where it's come from.
In fact, maybe it showed that, when done well, sequels can form part of a series and make the original not such a standalone as the only movie of that franchise worth seeing, and maybe this paved the way for the Star Wars trilogy as the decade ended.
For me, though, it doesn't even compare to 1. I'd be typing forever explaining why I feel that way.