See this post for details on what this is all about.

Film vs. Film Challenge: Round 2, Match 1

The Godfather vs. The Godfather Part II

Coppola's epic gangster masterpiece earned a Best Picture ... and so did its sequel, the only time a film and its sequel garnered the award. Both are considered masterpieces, huge, sprawling things that influenced cinema for years to come.

VS.

VOTE!

Both are good movies, but I think the cast in Godfather II earns it my vote.

Can they both lose? I'll go with Godfather because of the Brando factor.

Having just watched The Godfather this weekend, I’m reminded of just how brilliant it truly is. There is not a wasted moment in that film. Every scene serves some purpose; advancing plot, establishing tone, enhancing character. Hell, think about that brilliant opening, with the long monologue and slow pullback of the camera. We learn everything we need to know about the Godfather in that one scene. Who he is. What he does. How people approach him. In most movies, that would be enough, but not here. The scene comes back later, when Sonny is killed, and the Godfather asks for his service. It pays off in an unexpected and emotional way. Just brilliant.

But I’m voting for the Godfather part II, which I believe manages to sustain the same unending sense of tension, while further adding a scope the first does not have. The flashback scenes with DeNiro would have made a great movie on their own. He’s superb, as is the amazing recreation of Depression era New York City. God, I love those scenes. Pacino pushes even further into the role he developed in the first movie, and plot threads are advanced, expanded, and tied up with tragic results. The Godfather Part II is just big, big, big, and a rare sequel that is better than the first.

I voted Godfather for Brando. I like the performance, even if it is obvious to me he is performing, rather than living as the character. the movie is sllllllllooooooowww though for much of it, and the horse scene comes off, today, as goofy.

Godfather II i tried watching but couldn't get into. Maybe some other time.

Tough one, but I went with The Godfather.

Part 2's one of my favorite movies ever, but the original is my absolute favorite.

Godfather.

It took me 10 years, and many repeated viewing before I understood who the 'Godfather' was in the title of the movie.

I decided that the "Godfather" is Michael, and not Vito, since the movie is about Michaels struggle to become the Godfather, and continue in the family tradition. This allows me to enjoy the movie all the more, since the dramatic tension is on Michaels growth from naive veteran to psychopathic murderer.

Insightful or retarded.

Eric?

I believe the answer to your question is Eric is retarded, Todd.

Insightful. I believe you're exactly right. The titular Godfather is Michael Corleone, Pacino's character, not the Godfather we are introduced to in the opening scene. More than a clash of mob families or a meditation on violence, the real arc of the movie is about his struggles, first to distance himself from his family's nasty business, and then to assist his father without getting too involved, and then to get past the turbulent mob war, until finally he is sucked fully into their world -- and he's better at it than any of them.

Brando's Godfather comes to us fully formed. He is aged, respected, a man who has already lived his life. His period of growth is done, and therefore is not the focus of the film. His character arc is but the last piece of his full arc (the start of which is revealed in GF2). Really, he's only there to provide a means for Michael's journey, first through being shot, then through dying. His role is to step out of the way and to give Michael a reason to get involved in the life of crime he once avoided, and to provide a context for Michael's rise to the top. He is the mountain peak you show at the start of a film about mountain climbing. Michael climbs that mountain. The movie is about Michael.

When all is said and done, when that door closes in the final scene, it's clear we were not watching a movie about Brando as the Godfather, but about Pacino becoming the Godfather.

I have read my share of books about screenwriting, and the character arc that Michael travels in Godfather is almost iconic, with regard to the classical narratives.

I do like the movie. Maybe #4 all time on my list.

T

ps. But the thing that throws you off is the Big Ass Brando head on all of the Godfather (I) packaging. For 25 years, someone thought Brando was 'the' godfather, and thus the packaging.

T

Duh.

Godfather has a more coherent story.

Both are great. I went with 2.

I voted for The Godfather. The first one. It was grand and more memorable than the second one (IMHO).

THE GODFATHER.

I love PART II as much as the next guy, but -- prepare to crucify me for this; I'm used to it -- I find some of the "Young Vito" material to be quite dull. Also, Michael's arc in the sequel is one of the greater tragedies we've ever seen in American film, but his transformation in the original is incredibly compelling, in part because of how impossible it seems to the characters (including Michael himself) and how inevitably it plays out to the audience.

Both films are worthy of every accolade they've ever received. The first one, though, is the better film.

The first one because it was the first one. After seeing all three more times than I can count, and all the various re-edits many, many times, the first one must get my vote because Parts 2 & 3 could be viewed as re-makes of the first. I say this with all possible awestruck admiration for both 2 & 3. A scene-by-scene comparison will show the remake concept I suggest, which I believe was Copolla's intention.
If anyone wants to fight over this near sacreligious idea, remember, I'm from Joisey and I know a guy who knows a guy.

*BUMP* as we go into the weekend, and the final days of voting.

Next week, a mere EIGHT films square off in the IMWAN Film vs. Film Challenge.