I just watched these 2 films for the first time and sat riveted for 7 straight hours and was wondering if you HAD to pick which film is better which would you choose and why? Any answers would be appreciated.
Haters gonna hate
To me, it's like trying to pick out a favorite child. I love them all.
shareMy reactions were a bit inconclusive.
When I (re)watched Pt 1., I said "This is the best one."
Then I (re)watched Pt 2., and said "No. This is the best one."
Then I later (re)rewatched Pt 1., and said "NO NO. This is the best one."
Later I (re)rewatched Pt 2., . . . .
Essentially is was the 'apples & oranges' analogy.
Both are outstanding.
It is the first one for me. So many compelling characters. The evolution of the brothers, the cunning Don, how the brothers react in crisis, their relative niavety being shattered and being thrust into the turbulent Mafia world without their father.
Part 2 was still very good but i found Michael less compelling as a character. He was blander and hadn't the charisma of Marlon Brando's Vito. I did enjoy the flashback scenes though.
Essentially, the two stories parallel the story of the American Mafia/La Cosa Nostra.
Part I is the tradition, the omerta, the disrespect for those dons/families who deal in drugs and prostitution.
Part II is the shedding of the tradition, the mob run amok, the testimonies of numerous mob guys who give zero crap about all the "old" ways.
Both great, but the first film is better simply because it can be enjoyed on its own terms. One cannot sit down and watch PART II without watching and understanding the first film; it would be incomprehensible to be introduced to THE GODFATHER SAGA by watching only the second film. Greatest sequel? Yes. But THE GODFATHER is the greater movie.
sharethe second is better
it reeks of personal and political tension and is just so absorbing, didnt even miss marlon brando for some reason
personally, i look at them as a continuation of the same movie.
shareMaybe the first one. The two of them are stupendous films that are pretty much flawless in every aspect imaginable, but, Michael's story doesn't quite grab me in part 2. In fact, I find several of his scenes in the sequel somewhat uninteresting (loved them at first but they oddly didn't get easier to watch with subsequent viewings).
At any rate, I do prefer the look and direction of part 2. Also, the Vito sequences in part 2 are the most compelling parts of these two films, for my money.
You want something corny? You got it!
The original has had a larger impact because it's the "original", of course. Brando & Caan's performance, Michael's scene at the restaurant, the car bomb, Sonny at the toll booth, the baptism montage, etc. - so many historic scenes, quotes, lines, & moments.
HOWEVER, I personally like Part II better. It's essentially a perfect film for me. Though Brando is missing, I an fully enamored by De Niro's performance as a young Vito. He's entirely convincing & I LOVE the prequel, watching him turn from a poor immigrant to the baddest man in the city. At the same time, the juxtaposition of Michael's downfall is absolutely brilliant, and his performance is wonderful. Probably Pacino's best role to date Fredo kiss of death, the argument with Kay, his talk with Frankie (...in my HOME! and "keep your friends close), watching out of his lake house window and hanging his head during Fredo's assassination.
They're both amazing and Part II wouldn't exist without Part I, obviously, but the second part is just completely perfect to me. Not a single moment of the 202 minute run-time is wasted.