The best Godfather film?

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I finally watched the entire trilogy for the first time over Christmas. I'm curious to know what others think is the better film. I actually personally think The Godfather is the best followed by Part III (yes, I am considering Sofia Coppola), and then Part II.

[Paul Kemp]

Please reevaluate your life decisions.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Please reevaluate your life decisions.

I just wasn't convinced by Michael's killing of Fredo. I could see Michael leaving Fredo to die but otherwise I didn't buy it. Even considering how ruthless he was at the end of Part I, Michael's ultimate loyalty was to family, and I couldn't buy him ordering Fredo's assassination (that said I didn't buy Michael pretending to reconcile with Fredo in the first place -- he'd probably have him run out of the country instead).

[retromike22]

It's actually a Christmas tradition to watch the Godfather trilogy. My favorite is Part I. Part II is interesting but I always some minor scenes could have been edited out. Part III has two problems, one the horrible acting of Sofia, and two, the story just doesn't seem right. A Vatican conspiracy? Also it just feels like a follow-up story to the first two, like a "Where are they now?" drama.

I wish Part III was half a sequel to Part II, with Michael in the 1970s-1980s, and also half a prequel, with more of Vito in the 1920s-1930s.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I watched part 1 for the first time 2 nights ago, and I was horribly unimpressed. I gave it a 7, and a low 7 at that. I was in shock after all the hype especially from relatives. Some good filming, a few interesting scenes but almost entirely boring

[Miles]

The original (normal).

[DemPGH]

I finally watched the entire trilogy for the first time over Christmas. I'm curious to know what others think is the better film. I actually personally think The Godfather is the best followed by Part III (yes, I am considering Sofia Coppola), and then Part II.

Winona Ryder was supposed to be in Part III, but that fell through. She got to work with Francis two years later on the Dracula version that they did. To me, Sofia looked the part at least. I think Part III is vastly underrated (the silent scream is chilling) whereas Part II is vastly overrated, so I would probably agree with: I, III, II, although I do like them all.

To me, Part II's problem is 3 hrs. 20 mins. There are parts that drag, parts that refer to something that happened 2 hrs. ago, and in all it really needed edited. A lot of the Vito stuff should have been edited and the later Cuba stuff should have been edited as well as, I'm sure, other parts.

Back about '91 or so there was a cut of Part I and Part II that put them together in linear order. It was on 3 tapes, I think, and was called something like The Godfather Saga or Complete Epic or something. I never saw it but always wanted to. I don't think it ever got a DVD release.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My understanding is that they only ever made two such films. Rumours of a third film are entirely apocryphal. Now, as a film the first of the two is probably superior, but the second includes Lee Strasberg (!!!) in a rare major role, so I don't know...

Please reevaluate your life decisions.

^^^

[Mr. Smith]

Part III was pretty good, even if clearly misnamed. Easily the best acting from Pacino. But it dragged without him and the new guy was not very interesting. Excellent plot, and a very poetic conclusion.

Part I glamourized the affair too much, and Michael was a pretty boring character until the restaurant shooting. And like Part III, Brando and Pacino were what made it work while the other characters didn't do much. It's more a meme fountain than movie these days. The plot was so-so though.

So I'll go with Part II, for Lee Strasberg, more interesting characters, but most importantly for really hammering in how grisly the whole affair is. Michael was at his best as a character here. Kay was at her best. Vito was taken off the pedestal slightly. And good heavens Fredo. Also it has Lake Tahoe, so that helps.

[Keystone Phil]

For anyone that seriously or even ironically says III, I have only one reply: What am I gonna do with this guy?

[retromike22]

For anyone that seriously or even ironically says III, I have only one reply: What am I gonna do with this guy?

You can make him an offer he can't refuse.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Easily the best acting from Pacino.

...

...

...

Get out.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Probably the first. The third was absolutely tedious, all I can remember is "person tries to kill Michael, person fails, Michael kills them".

[politicallefty]

I'm pretty embarrassed to say I haven't seen any of the the Godfather films. I've been meaning to watch at least the original. Apparently, all three of them are available on demand. I will try to make a point of watching at least the first sometime soon.

[retromike22]

I'm pretty embarrassed to say I haven't seen any of the the Godfather films. I've been meaning to watch at least the original. Apparently, all three of them are available on demand. I will try to make a point of watching at least the first sometime soon.

You should post a response here after you've seen each film.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I'm pretty embarrassed to say I haven't seen any of the the Godfather films. I've been meaning to watch at least the original. Apparently, all three of them are available on demand. I will try to make a point of watching at least the first sometime soon.

This was exactly what was on my mind a couple weeks ago so I decided to watch it over Christmas week. One of the best choices I made last year.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Calling the Godfather III a Godfather film is like calling Phantom Menace a Star Wars film.  It technically is, but no one means that movie when they refer to the film series.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The Godfather Part III is terribad.

[Dr. Cynic]

Calling the Godfather III a Godfather film is like calling Phantom Menace a Star Wars film.  It technically is, but no one means that movie when they refer to the film series.

I feel this same way. I don't even acknowledge it. It needed to be the final struggle between Michael and Tom Hagan. Once Robert Duvall backed out, in my view, they should never have bothered.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

II, I...          No Godfather at all, III.

[Reaganfan]

The Godfather Part II. Hands down.

Part III is the weakest in the series and it is really sad what ended up becoming of Michael. Clearly he did wrongs, ie Fredo, but at the same time he was the college son who went to fight the Japs in the Pacific who nobody could have foreseen becoming the natural successor to Vito Corelone. Part III also lacked Robert Duvall's character.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Godfather Part II. Hands down.

Part III is the weakest in the series and it is really sad what ended up becoming of Michael. Clearly he did wrongs, ie Fredo, but at the same time he was the college son who went to fight the Japs in the Pacific who nobody could have foreseen becoming the natural successor to Vito Corelone. Part III also lacked Robert Duvall's character.

I like how you are more understanding and compassionate toward a mafia boss than toward drug users...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Godfather Part II. Hands down.

Part III is the weakest in the series and it is really sad what ended up becoming of Michael. Clearly he did wrongs, ie Fredo, but at the same time he was the college son who went to fight the Japs in the Pacific who nobody could have foreseen becoming the natural successor to Vito Corelone. Part III also lacked Robert Duvall's character.

I like how you are more understanding and compassionate toward a mafia boss than toward drug users...

In fairness, it is a fictional mob boss   What I find more disturbing is that characters like Michael Corleone, Walter White, and Lester Nygaard (i.e. good people who become horrible monsters who destroy everything they used to care about) often paradoxically end up being among the most truly evil villains in their genre and yet always seem to attract considerable sympathy from viewers.  I find that some people who watch the Godfather for the first time these days try to argue that there was a clear trace of guilt and regret on Michael's face in the scene where he is becoming Godfather to Carlo and Connie's baby which is absurd at best (it kind of flies right in the face of the scene's main themes) and strikes me as a sign of how far people will go to rationalize the actions of a villain if we see the story from his/her perspective.

I suppose in Nygaard's case, he was never really a protagonist, but I've watched that season of Fargo three times and the people I watched it with (over the course of about a month) all didn't really seem to get that Nygaard was just as much of a Big Bad as Lorne Malvo until a certain scene when the season is like 90% over.  I think that's because he's initially introduced as someone we feel sorry for, but it is alarming how long it seems to take for some viewers to realize what he really is even as the show makes it pretty obvious fairly early on. 

However, the most disturbing are definitely the folks who saw Walter White as basically the hero of Breaking Bad even during the last season.  Without spoiling anything, it's pretty clear that he's basically the devil: a supreme corruptor who destroys and/or morally compromises everyone he comes into contact with (except Walt Jr., though even that is debatable imo).  Yet because we see things from his perspective and he is a character who takes control of their life/circumstances so many viewers bend over backwards to rationalize his actions and demonize any characters who stand up to him in even a limited capacity.

TL;DR: Sorry that I accidentally went on a bit of a tangent there   Basically, I don't think Naso's post should be compared to expressing sympathy for an actual mob boss.  However, while I agree with him that it is tragic that Michael became what he did, I get a bit creeped out by the fact that his post seems to suggest considerable sympathy for the character.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I understand applying different moral standards for fictional characters when you see things from their point of view (as a fan of Dexter, I'll have to plead guilty myself ). Still, as you pointed out, the lengths at which some people go to rationalize the actions of some unquestionably evil characters really creeps me out sometimes. There is a thin line between understanding and justifying, and we should all be careful about not crossing it.

[DemPGH]

I admittedly don't get the hate for Part III. It's poetic justice. And Pacino is actually emotional in it as opposed to stoic and calculating. It's like he's struggling against time and fate.

I'm indifferent to Michael personally in Part I. He rises to power in a system that's basically Medieval.

Part II is a meandering, unfocused wilderness of a movie, but it's finally, ultimately, at long, long, long last rewarding. I do find him basically repulsive by the end, though.