TS: Godfather vs Godfather II

Coppola himself says he could've done a smarter, more polished job on the first one (much of which he shot under rumor of being imminently fired).

Also, his performance in the film is overrated anyway! Oh noes, DeNiro learnt Eyetalian!!! Oh noes! FILM OF TEH YEAR! etc. If he learnt Eyetalian, got fat, and shaved a mohawk into his head, now you'd be talking.

"completely and utterly," eh?

No, it wasn't "necessary," but Coppola's triumph (and Mario Puzo's too, i guess) is that they deepen this pulp with a flashback that's no hazy romanticization of the Corleone family, but a clearheaded explanation of how this family sunk their meathooks into the New World.

No scene moves me more in GFII than the one in which young Vito, alone in a dank Ellis Island room, sings a half-remembered tune in this angelic voice, his back to the camera. Unnecessary, yes, but haunting.

Alfred, if you want to respond to the entirety of what I wrote, which is that one or the other part of the movie was unnecessary and that having BOTH is what constitutes train wreck status, that would be nice. I'd prefer it if they left out almost all of the "modern day" crap!

gabb, you mean Gordon Willis not Parks yes? II is one of the great 'underlit' American films. Gimme gimme gimme my dark, well-upholstered interiors.

The second one I kept waiting for the cops to show up and violently bust everyone. Kung-fu cops. I couldn't figure out what the fuckin' point of that shit was at all.

It's not a BAD film -- Pacino is just about as good (and Joe Mantegna offed too soon), but almost everything else is two to ten notches below the standard.

i am amused that dom kind of repped for 'you've got mail', upthread.

The bum lines are worse in II, and the pattern repetition thing is overdone, and I still can't figure out exactly what Fredo did (give the location of Michael's bedroom? Kill the shooters himself?). I do think the De Niro stuff romanticizes the Don, and that his turn to crime is a little too elegant. But it's still a great family drama.

III sucked mainly because he stopped being Michael and started doing "Al."

er, yes. I'm not a fan of dark, "well-upholstered" interiors per se. I love Willis' dark moody semi-exteriors in ATPM, but perhaps only because they're balanced by the warm light of the newsroom (never has fluorescence looked so good) and the, er, harsh light of day when Woodward walks through that Justice Department (?) courtyard.

A rather perverse claim, since at the time of On the Waterfront I don't believe Brando was getting his lines through an earpiece or from cue cards scattered around the set and taped to his fellow actors' foreheads.

god cazale makes me want to cry in II. damn.

I think I like the first one better. They are both true masterpieces.

i used to be a big fan of these and have had this conversation a bunch of times with friends. i've flipped back and forth over the years, but at this time in my life i think my answer is: Goodfellas.

Godfather. Godfather II was very good too, no doubt, but it was mostly Coppola whereas the first one came directly from Puzo's book (and did a wonderful job of editing, as there was a lot of editing to be done).

I've always been iffy on the Hymen Roth story, but other story arcs like Fredo's betrayal, and the Robert Deniro scenes (which sort of come from the book, but are modified a bit) make up for it.

I've always been curious what would have happened if they had left in popular characters from the book Nino Valenti and Lucy and her doctor boyfriend, and ended the first movie after Michael shoots the cop and Sollozzo, and then picked up the second movie after that, ending it where the first movie did.

I kinda think though they did the right thing in getting rid of those excess characters as on the screen it can get tedious.

The Godfather remains the only movie I've seen more than 10 times.

it's too bad they couldn't get clemenza back for 2, and brando.

also anyone who complains about brando in one i am not on the level with

I'm going with the first one, though I like them both.

i mean for all the great sadness and double-layered story of the second, with the first you've got brando... james caan... clemenza dude (forgot his name)... abe fuckin' vigoda!!

My father loved the book, and when he originally heard in the 70's Marlon Brando was going to play Vito Corleone, almost blew a gasket, and said he thought he was going to be horrible. He loved his performance!

And so do I.

"Never let anyone outside the family know what you're thinking again!"

yea, it really was a tour de force of acting.

If they were making a movie like that for the first time today they'd get a bunch of pencil dicks to play half of the parts.

Ben Affleck as Fredo Corleone....

The ending of the first one is also just plain one of the greatest endings ever.

the murder of the heads of the five families while Michael becomes Godfather to Connie's son...gives me CHILLS

The ending of the first one is also just plain one of the greatest endings ever.

-- Eric H., Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:47 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

ya. it's so familiar and i've seen it a billion times and yet seeing it again the other day that last shot still hit me in the gut.

II. Because Leopoldo Trieste is in it and the whole Don Fanucci Assassination sequence is awesome. I love the entire DeNiro part of the film w/o reservation.

I like that Sterling Hayden is the bad cop in "I".

don fanucci so great. love the way he slurps back his coffee.

Don Fanucci : what a peacock. I kind of love that Vito messes with him for a bit before the meeting in the stairwell.

pretty great flicks, i'll go with II. the first one is awes but also just slightly more ridiculous and i've never been able to buy michael going from xmas-shopping civilian to ice-cold soldier that quickly, at least in the manner that it played in the film.

though i think as both versions of michael he's totally hoos for the role.