Godfather 1 or 2?

Tools    





one was my Fav



Godfather 2 because Coppola was more ambitious and clearly more confident in his direction than he was on the first film, when he was working each day in fear of being fired.



ofc 1, godfather 2 is a borefest to me.



“You dirty rat...”
I prefer the first.



We've gone on holiday by mistake
The first one quite easily but 2 is great aswell.

The 2nd one suffers a bit by not having Clemenza, the actor apparently was being a real pain with demands( before studios properly tied down actors to sequels) so they dropped him and instead we have Frank Pantangeli who was ok but we never heard from him in 1. Similar problem with Hyman Roth, it would have been better if he appeared in 1 also to make him a believable match for Michael Corleone.

I've never been a huge fan of the flashback scenes either, I mean we know Vito is going to the top so the journey is spoiled a bit. Prequelitis.
__________________



Both movies are one of the greatest of all time.For me the second one is a little bit better.Al Pacino's and Robert De Niro's performances are great.Although the first one has the great Marlon Brando.As i said first both are masterpieces and we must not compare them.



I have to say that james Caan character in the was a bit too much with his foul mouth and loud anger on everyone, he thought he s god s given , and look how he ended up...they made him a bit too much tbh to the point where his character isn t believable anymore...



Victim of The Night
I think Part 2 is a great film, but it's Part 1 by a significant margin for me.
DeNiro does not make up for the lack of Brando, for starters.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Definitely the first one. I would pick Part 3 over 2, as second best as well.



Victim of The Night
Godfather Saga (then there is no choice, it's all one movie!)
As long as I don't have to watch that godawful Part 3.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
The first one quite easily but 2 is great aswell.

The 2nd one suffers a bit by not having Clemenza, the actor apparently was being a real pain with demands( before studios properly tied down actors to sequels) so they dropped him and instead we have Frank Pantangeli who was ok but we never heard from him in 1. Similar problem with Hyman Roth, it would have been better if he appeared in 1 also to make him a believable match for Michael Corleone.

I've never been a huge fan of the flashback scenes either, I mean we know Vito is going to the top so the journey is spoiled a bit. Prequelitis.
What I don't understand is, why didn't they just get another actor to play the character Clemenza? Why have a new character with a new name? They didn't have a problem with a different actor playing Clemenza in the flashback scenes, so why have a problem with getting a different actor for the character in the present?



I can never choose one over the other. It's a great complete story, they work so well together, and there are elements I love in both. Heck, in all three. I'll go to bat for the third part which, although a notch or two below the first two, is still a pretty great film.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



What I don't understand is, why didn't they just get another actor to play the character Clemenza? Why have a new character with a new name? They didn't have a problem with a different actor playing Clemenza in the flashback scenes, so why have a problem with getting a different actor for the character in the present?
Well, a different actor in the flashbacks is obvious and expected because he's younger, but recasting a character is always a shaky situation. I think it's easier for people to accept a different character than a different actor in the same role.