Which Godfather Is the Best?

"The Godfather" or "The Godfather: Part II"? Which one is the greater movie? Let's examine each movie's screenplay and direction to find out!
It's not a clash between Vito Corleone and Michael Corleone, or about Marlon Brando and Al Pacino, but between these two great masterpieces of cinema. Which is your favorite?
Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo wrote a masterpiece of an airtight script when they made the first film. Did they pull off the same feat the second time around?
Coppola was a master director in full force on Part 2. Did he have the same powerful creative vision when he made the original film? What about cinematographer Gordon Willis?

[@olivierdouheret5898]

😚. I knew you would choose the second one, Moviewise. You broke my heart.

[@Moviewise]

*Panics and runs away through the crowd in Havana*

[@DaBaronSamedi]

It was the smart move, and Moviewise was always smarter.

[@carlosaguilar9091]

This whole chat is freaking hilarious 😂 . I love you all.

[@DeadpoolCR13]

Mine too. Always part 1 for me..

[@johnathanstruble1064]

😂

[@fernandoaldado]

I do agree that on technicality aspects, Part II is as great as the first one. But, I always though the plot of the Part I is more intriguing and I was more invested in it. Also, as some other user commented here, G1 has more iconic scenes: the opening, the baptism montage, Michael and Enzo in front of the hospital, Michael commiting murder.

[@September2004]

I agree with everything you said. I will also add that Brandi’s version of Vito is so hypnotic.

[@Rhubba]

There's one shot in Godfather II which has stayed with me because it illustrates how wonderful the detail is in that movie. It's in one of the Vito 1917 segments where young Clemenza is standing next to a door with a pistol raised to shoot whoever enters the room. Everything about that one shot recreates that time perfectly: The way Clemenza is dressed in a hat and long coat, the way he stands and how the shot is framed is like from a silent movie from that era. The desaturated colour palette and effect that resembles a gum bichromate photograph. from that era. The 1917 scenes are so wonderfully shot it contrasts well with the gaudier colour palette and sharp detail of the late 1950s scenes.

[@matibraun2023]

It was a nice touch to mention Part 3. That movie existed.

[@jerryschramm4399]

There was a single movie made from both Godfather I and II, which included extra scenes. It was long, shown over two nights (I believe), and was quite simply a brilliant piece of cinema. It is not available on any kind of media (I've looked diligently). Since it was being shown on TV, there were some small edits in language, nudity and violence, but it still was outstanding. As an addition, when Michael embraces Fredo, and Fredo ends up sobbing in his arms, Michael looks at Albert Neri, with no expression on his face. Neri looks at Michael, then bows his head, since he knows what that look means. And even that hardened killer can't stand the knowledge. Yes, Michael also bows his head when he hears the gunshot that kills Fredo, but he also had felt it necessary to have his own brother assassinated. The man who grew up with family ends up with.... nobody.

[@Moviewise]

That exchange of looks between Michael and Neri is in the theatrical version as well. A great moment of non-dialogue speaking a lot. I just found the presence of Neri in the background in the wider shot more discreet, therefore worth mentioning by itself. I've always wanted to watch the "mini-series" version you mentioned. I read it's in chronological order, from Vito's youth to the first film to the Michael section of the second film. The effect must be quite different.

[@jonisilk]

"The Epic", shown over two nights, was how I first experienced the film on TV (in the UK), when I was about 12. It really confused me years later when I sat down to watch the Godfather again, and realised that half the film I remembered was missing. (I'd also read the novel by this point). And for the record, I think Part II is on a par with the first. For me, they're still the same film. Also, I want a "Rise of Luca Brasi" movie or tv series.

[@hughblanc2105]

I think one thing people fail to consider when comparing movie sequels is that the original always bears the burden of establishing the world - for this reason the sequels tend to be allowed to hit the ground running (giving them an unfair advantage of sorts over their original). The fact that Part I bears that burden, sets the template and still has the tighter story, to me outweighs other considerations. That said, it's splitting hairs between Great and Great. (PS Love the Channel!)

[@jpiccone1]

I largely agree, but with a few exceptions. The music is more effective in G1. Besides that almost all the major themes except the immigrant therme are introduced here, the baptism scene has the best use of music in cinematic history. To be fair, all of it is Bach (played very slowly), but still. As for directing, OK, yes, the G2 is more expansive, but did you ever feel what you felt in the Michael's dinner with Solozzo scene in G2? Or the baptism scene, or G1's best ending of all time? There are brilliant subtleties like Enzo trying to light his cigarette - and Michael noticing how steady his own hand is - the turning point for him. As for the lighting, did you see it on a movie screen, or a TV or laptop? The darkness doesn't obscure as much detail on the big screen, and the underworldly quality to it is powerful. Still with all of G2's superior qualities, it's hard to overlook the disparity in script quality. G2 is too convoluted to the point of being tiresome, and if it weren't for the Vito storyline would we feel the same way about the film? Having had to replace Clemenza with Pentangeli was an unfortunate weakening of the story (but not as catastrophic as losing Robert Duvall for G3), but I really had a hard time understanding what was going on. Also, Marlon Brando. Altough John Cazale's expanded role was a decent compensation. So I give it to G1, but not by a mile. I recognize G2 is technically better, but it didn't have the huge impact on me that G1 did.

[@BigBlobProductions]

THANK YOU!!! G1 pulled you into it's story the way G2 never could. G2 is so layered behind it's technical prowess and attempted cleverness that by the time you actually get the story you feel nothing

[@AudieHolland]

Bach is often played at twice the speed it was supposed to be played. Slow Bach is good Bach.

[@PoopaPapaPalpatine]

I love Part II for its story structure with the dual parallel narratives, expertly switching between the two when thematically relevant, but in all the years of watching that film, it has never become less convoluted story-wise upon repeat viewing. I love Part II's ambition, its scope, its visual and technical prowess; but The Godfather is still my go-to between the two films. It's smaller, concise, air-tight, and endlessly watchable. It lacks Part II's scope and size, and there are a few moments that I think (especially) towards the end where it loses steam, but The Godfather remains my preferred because of its more intimate nature and despite being "rougher" by comparison to the second film, its precision wins out more for me than the succeeding film does.

[@guyr3618]

Part 2 also has Al Pacino delivering the greatest performance of his entire career, probably. Which is saying a ton.

[@DeadpoolCR13]

Dog day afternoon. Can't help it, it's just something special. Agree to disagree.

[@BugRib]

Can't overlook _Scarface!_

[@zacnewford]

one day you’ll get the recognition you deserve

[@of1300]

Part 1. the others are jumps revamps of the script of Part 1 with other characters. Part 2 even twice the same script retold with other characters

[@Shah-of-the-Shinebox]

Such a wonderful breakdown. Both films are Incredible. Choosing which is the best is impossible, just my opinion.

[@andreasesser4641]

I+II and are both amazing. II is more epic, but one should not forget that it also had twice the budget. For me Godfather I takes the slight edge, mostly because of Brando's all-time great performance, and it somehow managing to create an entirely believable microcosm on a 6 Million Dollar budget, which II expands beautifully on. But that is really just personal preference, given how great both movies are.

[@BubblegumCrash332]

Who killed the assassins in Godfather 2 drives me crazy. The only things that make sense are fan fiction. There are absolutely no clues in the film.

[@Matthewcmiel]

I broadly agree with you, but I think that nothing in Godfather 2 hits as hard as the baptism scene in 1. That scene is just such an elegant and perfect and meaningful culmination of the film in a way that 2 doesn't touch.

[@alexrellos4065]

I have to say I am a bit conflicted about which one I prefer. I agree that Part I has a much more concrete script and it would be unfair to not acknowledge the huge obstacles Coppola overcame shooting the first film. So in that regard, Part II should only be more aptly made in all aspects. Having said that, I could never oversee the hideous accent of DeNiro.

[@artirony410]

10:30 as someone who lives near Lake Tahoe, I don't know why more movies aren't shot there

[@EricMoore1000]

"The Godfather Part I" stands as a monumental achievement in cinema due to its compelling storytelling, profound character development, thematic richness, and historical impact. While "The Godfather Part II" is visually appealing and complex, the clarity, focus, and cinematic brilliance of the first film make it superior in a holistic assessment. Arguing that it has visual movement is like saying the horse drawn carriage is slower than a car. That is because technology changed, and yes, as the Moviewise narrator adroitly pointed out: more money!

[@JohnJohnson-du7vc]

Great analysis as usual! I think Geary intentionally mispronounced "Corleone", he emphatically pronounces it correctly in the private meeting later. I disagree with your conclusion, though. Coppola admits on commentary that the sequel section of Pt II was essentially a rewrite of Pt I. It lowers my estimation of part 2, plus Pentangeli & Risotto Bros are shoe-horned in because the Clemenza actor wasn't in it. Absolutely great at any rate.

[@Moviewise]

I always wonder how differently the film would have been with Clemenza. It would’ve been nice to see him in the flashbacks and the present.

[@badinfluence3814]

​@@Moviewise My understanding is that the Pentangeli character was more or less a straight swap for Clemenza - same story arc. The script is thematically more tight that way as well and ultimately that was how it was originally conceived.

[@GregJamesMusic]

@@badinfluence3814 That's what I've heard, too. In fact, one of the reasons Clemenza's actor didn't come back was that he didn't think Clemenza would ever betray the family, implying that he would have played a very similar, if not identical, role to Pentangeli's.

[@danielbuneta]

The wedding in G1 is more authentic Italian, as well as the amazing Sicily sequence with the extras casting. The G1 script is more tight. Best art should indeed be effective and compact. Family conflicts in G2 drag out, and the tense relationship between Michael and Tom Hagen feels forced. I'm glad G2 exists, it's detailed smartly and lavishly, sometimes too subtle even - remember the red dress Kate is sewing, preparing to wear color again as she's determined to leave Michael? The Cuban cake scene alone is worth more than most movies today. FYI, Coppola when asked will there ever be a 4, apparently replied - There should've been only one.

[@paulmonahawk4921]

I would love to see your analysis of part 3

[@liltick102]

1:45 City of God does this very very well too

[@jothishprabu8]

The camerawork in 1 is kinda too dark in many places. I definitely agree with that.

[@AudieHolland]

Re: best shootout The first film has an excellent, well choreographed ambush scene at the toll gate. It's fantasy of course, for the time. That type of shooting would have been more in its place during the gangster wars of the Prohibition Era. The second film also has a standout shooting. It's directly after the attempt on Pentangeli, with the gangsters running from the police while firing at the other gangsters, Pentangeli's bodyguards. It's over in a flash but the 'ordered chaos' is just fantastic, giving it an incredibly realistic touch. Re: Fredo getting it I never even saw the gun untill having watched the second film multiple times. Could be that the local censors cut it out when it was shown on Dutch television (where I first saw the film). But in hindsight it never needed to be shown.

[@TwoBs]

“Tell me why it’s your favorite and *not* part three” lol III is one of those movies that you only feel compelled to watch simply because it’s the third movie. You can watch the first two just fine and be content - end it there and be done, but it’s there to simply taunt completionists for just merely knowing there’s another one. I will admit that III isn’t outright terrible, especially on its own away from the first two (the Coda cut), but yeah. I usually just watch the first two and leave it at that with Part I being my favorite. Largely because my mom and dad used to watch it a lot during the 90s. I specifically remember a couple of Thanksgivings where we had an early dinner, and the rest of the evening was spent with the family gathered in my mamaw’s entertainment room watching Part I and Part II on her big screen TV at the time (the big fat-back floor model). I decided to look up some stuff about Part III and laughed at this: “Coppola was initially reluctant to return for _The Godfather Part II_ and after it was finished, felt that Michael's story was complete. Paramount still pursued the third movie in the 1980s, which at one point Sylvester Stallone was linked to star in and direct, with John Travolta and Eddie Murphy possibly co-starring.” dear lord lol

[@gordonmacdowell8117]

The camera work in both films is amazing. I loved the use of dark and light. A lot of modern movies use the dark lighting without any reason at all, except maybe because of how successful the Godfather movies were, and they can't figure out when it falls flat. One of the greatest fears of the Cinema World should be JJ Abrams directing Godfather IV.

[@memonk11]

I totally disagree about I's lighting. Things in the real world used be lighted badly. Rooms had few electric sockets, and therefore few lights, and dimmer lights. When I first saw The Godfather I was struck by how realistic the lighting was. It was like visiting my grandmother's apartment in Manhattan. The Immigration era scenes in Godfather II reminded me of it as well. But II as a whole seemed more movie lit, I seemed completely natural. AND Godfather I is about as perfect as a film can be. Godfather II has some obvious flaws. Godfather I wins, by a furlong!

[@raylast3873]

It‘s not supposed to be realistic, it‘s supposed to be cinematic. The lighting should have an effect on the audience, if that audience can no longer see the set, that‘s a problem.

[@memonk11]

@@raylast3873 The realism of the lighting is cinematic. Coppola created a very realistic looking cinematic work.

[@Carlos_________]

@@memonk11 You're absolutely right but that look was created by Gordon Willis, not Coppola

[@memonk11]

@@Carlos_________ Yes, of course.

[@MaxAbramson3]

I would love to see an edit in theaters that shows the many deleted scenes put back together in story form. Even if they had to do this as a Godfather Part 0, as a fan service film, I would definitely see it twice.

[@niceshoespitcher]

There is a scene in Part two that stays with me. After Clemenza and Vito steal the rug in the mansion and bring it back to Vito's apartment, Vito's Wife tries to put infant Sonny onto the carpet but he cries his eyes out and refuses to put his legs down. It's sort of an unholy baptism, with Sonny and the family being brought into this new life of crime by Vito and the baby can intuitively sense what the rug will bring. I prefer Part 1 to 2 plot wise , but the flashback scenes in Part 2 are my favorite.

[@andydufresnefromshawshank5866]

I personally say the Godfather two is better. I love your videos man keep up the great work you’re one of my favorites

[@Moviewise]

Thank you!

[@GaudiaCertaminisGaming]

The Godfather is three hours long? I never noticed.

[@ginghamt.c.5973]

You keep Godfather Part One close - and Part Two... Closer !

[@Zed-fq3lj]

Great analysis, agree on everything with you! Part III is a very good movie though, regardless of what short-sighted haters think, but not on par with these two masterpieces, not in the same category. Part II definitely takes the cake, literally hehe! With T2, Aliens and The Dark Knight it is the best sequel of all times. Part II is unbelievably exalted and perfect! Really good channel dude - subscribed!

[@bobbyjosson4663]

Not everyone is enoumoured of those sequels. I found 'The Dark Knight' was absolutely awful - a long-winded, coldly nihilistic and mechanical piece - without humour or any other saving graces, whose whole purpose was to justify the intelligence agencies desire to torture those that it caught. 'T2', thrilling action and superb effects but a ghastly Hollywood piece of kitschy sci-fi, with a good robot, a boy and machine bonding, a thumbs up; whereas the original was independent cinema, guerilla-film-making, its story based on literature and one of television's finest works - 'The Outer Limits'. 'Aliens' was an exiciting copy of 'Them!' (1954), but the original is better as a piece of SF and its slow build and world building. For the best sequels of all time to worthy classics; 'the Bride of Frankenstein (1935), James Whale's follow-up to classic 'Frankenstein' (1931) and 'The Empire Strikes Back' (1980) to 'Star Wars', are the only ones that worked for me. That's excluding 'The Apu Trilogy' and others from World Cinema.

[@Zed-fq3lj]

I appreciate your points made concerning 'The Dark Knight' and 'Aliens'; however T2 is undeniably a far superior movie than T1 in every respect, except for the music love theme maybe😏. ' The Bride of Frankenstein' and 'The Empire' - absolute favourites of course. It is very hard and ungratifying to make a good sequel, let alone a masterpiece the likes of The Godfather II or Mad Max: The Road Warrior (unrightfully forgotten) as another example of a sequel far superior than the original movie, better sequel than 'The Bride of Frankenstein btw, so we shouldn't be too judgemental to sequels; if we discard fairly good or passable sequels we'll get more crappy ones. Worthy mentions of great, less mentioned squeals: Toy Story 2, 2010:The Year We Make Contact, Naked Gun 2, Hot Shots 2, The Addams Family 2, Star Trek the Wrath of Khan, as said before without mentioning Antonioni, Bergam, Noriko Trilogy, The Human Condition etc... @@bobbyjosson4663

[@bobbyjosson4663]

@@Zed-fq3lj Good points, even though we may differ here and there. Though there are a handful of classics great sequels, I hate them over all. I think that TV has made them acceptable for several generations and they are comfort food, doing variations on a story. With them and remakes, re-boots, franchises, prequels, re-imaginings, etc, etc, cinema and TV have stultified. Unlike a short story, the huge expense and limited number of film slots means that film have lost the spirit of adventure (as has the audience), always a risky move for studio to try something new. As Coppola himself said, they wouldn't make The Godfather today.

[@aubrey2431]

Part 1: better story It's that simple

[@Sairo414]

The way you should watch the three godfather films is first godfather part 1 , then part 2 and then part 1 again and skip the third completely and imagine it never existed

[@animaniacsrule]

I believe in America

[@steverlfs]

The oranges! What about the oranges?

[@liltick102]

1:20 song name?

[@ginoongboyong]

Still the Part 1. Hahahahaha! I enjoyed them both but I can still remember the events on the part 1 compare to part 2. Also, Godfather Vito is so intimidating! Hahahaha!

[@luchogallardoleon]

¿There was a Part III?

[@enman009]

We all know what the correct answer is: not Part 3. That was trash. But the 1st one feels more cohesive and with better pacing IMO.

[@dattebenforcer]

What about Godfather 3?

[@dimitriostarsky5845]

Part III

[@WatchMaga]

The Godfather Part III could have been the best of all. It’s story was phenomenal. But everyone involved appears to have just phoned it in. Why?!?!

[@padmnabhgoswami7157]

have you seen raw(grave) 2016 french film ? do you like it

[@Moviewise]

I haven't seen that film and I remember very well why. I was at a film festival that screened it and the synopsis in the guide said it was the story of a young vegetarian whose life changed when she was forced to eat meat in college. It sounded like a stupid little drama with the silliest premise so I passed. It was a year later when I found out it was a horror movie and the protagonist became a cannibal. Talk about catering to the wrong crowd.

[@flanderleisen]

​@@Moviewise 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@raylast3873]

@@Moviewisethat description for that kind of movie is next level trolling 😂

[@postmodernrecycler]

Part II is for the enthusiast. Part I is for the layman. I think Part III is a not-guilty pleasure. Connie with the poison cannoli and Sofia Coppola faking death on the opera steps is one of cinema's greatest howlers.

[@LittlePhizDorrit]

I prefer Godfather part I. Cinematography may be superior in the second, but the story is just too big, I struggle to remember it. Part 1 allows for more investment in the characters and studies the tragedy of all of them clearly. Part 2 is so expansive we never really get to see the characters as much. Michael Corleone destroys his entire family, while his father built it up, also something about expanding to Cuba. It's really two movies at least. Yes, the comparison is interesting, and it's amazingly done, but not as meaningful because we don't see the families interacting very much. Family is front and center throughout part 1, and a side character in part 2. Still love both though. Part 3 is just a complete disaster on every level, but the reason I dislike it the most is because it is just plain boring. Following the beats of a Godfather film, without being as interesting of well made as one should be.

[@ManuTheGreat79]

Why it's not part 3? Half the story should involve Tom Hagen. Reusing to pay him what he asked ruined the movie.

[@bobbyjosson4663]

Had they hired him, it would still have failed. The script was poor.

[@davidcunningham2074]

G2 was only made so robert de niro could be in the godfather.

[@DimKen]

the 1st : masterpiece the 2nd : lame, especially the flashback sequences (even if the rest of the movie is already bad) The 3rd : they say don't shoot an ambulance, I won't waste my time shooting a hearse.

[@daniellabra4186]

There was a part III?

[@WinnipegTouristDept]

If I had time or money, I'd edit or commision and edit of G1 and G2 into one movie without any De Niro flashbacks

[@2ndavenuesw481]

Godfather II feels completely artificial. Godfather I gets you to suspend disbelief (if you haven't watched it too many times). What's the point of a pretty location on the lake in Nevada if the dialogue and story are so contrived? Story and acting have to come first. Only then can the rest matter. Ben Hur is a great movie because of the story, the Chariot race, by itself, can accomplish nothing.

[@bobbyjosson4663]

The Nevada dialogue I found superb, all the rest of the movie elements came from actual incidents in Mafia history. Unlike Part 3, which left all reality aside. A bastard of the family inheriting the throne, the sister as a poisoner - grand opera stuff but removed from life.

[@benjaminsente7430]

WTF happened to the 3rd movie? ImO it´s better than the 2nd . . . From Best to not best its: No. 1, No. 3, No. 2

[@WinnipegTouristDept]

The only good movies Coppola ever made. Interesting, because he didn't want to do it, didn't like the story, compared to his other more oersonal projects

[@bobbyjosson4663]

Balderdash! 'The Conversion' is a classic. 'Tucker: The Man and the Machine' is superb, whilst 'Peggy Sue Got Married' - a 'Back to the Future' for adults - forms a triumphate of the three best time travel films all made within a 8 year span, the others being 'Somewhere in Time' (1980), and 'The Terminator (1984). And 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' is one long expressionistic flourish and in the mix with the BBC 1977 'Dracula' and Hammer's 1958 Lee-Cushing effort.

[@acriticwithoutacause8983]

thank you for saying this out loud that The Godfather 2 is better than 1

[@robbush6822]

Disagree.

[@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat]

Anthony Quinn would have been better than Marlon Brando. Armand Assante would have been better than Robert DeNiro. Marissa Tomei would have been worlds better than Sofia Coppola.

[@GregJamesMusic]

I never pictured Anthony Quinn as Don Vito, but that's actually a pretty great idea.