The Godfather vs. The Godfather Part II

[Desperado]

I'll have to say part II just because it was more fun to watch and that's because I knew scen for scen what was going to happen in the first one even before I whatched it.

If I see them both again I maybe can appreciate the first one more but both are fantastic movies.

[dalsh327]

The only "good" character in the Godfather trilogy was Kay.

[Georgy Zhukov]

The only "good" character in the Godfather trilogy was Kay.

And she is the least likable.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I don't think any of them are meant to be "bad" as such. It's all in that speech where Michael explains to Kay when he comes back from Sicily...and also in the speech that Brando gives to Pacino about big shots and how he hoped one day they'd be the ones pulling the strings.

If anything they have wonderful qualities of like, loyalty, family, propriety, duty, stuff like that.

[Lithium]

The only "good" character in the Godfather trilogy was Kay.

And she is the least likable.

That's a good point.

[bran]

the original beats out the sequel but both are 10/10 movies

[GivenToFly]

The only "good" character in the Godfather trilogy was Kay.

And she is the least likable.

That's a good point.

Whenever I see your sig, I read it in his voice. Such an awesome character and acting performance!

[Lithium]

Yeah, me too. In the top 3 characters on the show, defs.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Lithium

[GivenToFly]

One of the greatest ever.

all went downhill fast after he was gone

[ZoSoRose]

my 2 favorite movies... i dont know what i like better lol

[Lithium]

One of the greatest ever.

all went downhill fast after he was gone

Agreed.

[Georgy Zhukov]

A lot of people don't understand why the film cuts between Vito and Michael. It is basically a comparison. Michael looks to his father for guidance, what he would have done. His father had a perfect balance of heart and mind. Michael towards the end of Part II seemed to have lost heart.

[Guest Len B'stard]

A lot of people don't understand why the film cuts between Vito and Michael. It is basically a comparison. Michael looks to his father for guidance, what he would have done. His father had a perfect balance of heart and mind. Michael towards the end of Part II seemed to have lost heart.

It always struck me as a psuedo Freudian thing too, showing a father and sons life running in parrallel and the similarities in their intent juxtapositioned with how the shit actually irons out.

It's like a story of a king and his three sons, they are all aspects of his nature, Sonny is his quick to angerness (YOU CAN ACT LIKE A MAN!!! WHATS THE MATTER WITH YOU?!?! IS THIS HOW YOU TURNED OUT, A BIG HOLLYWOOD HERO THAT CRIES LIKE A WOMAN?!?!) and Fredo is his childish playful aspect, his heart (playing with the kid with the oranges) and Michael is his cold and calculating aspect, the one that deals with issues calmly and rationally as De Niros character does in the scene where he's fired or in how he deals with Fannucci.

[Georgy Zhukov]

A lot of people don't understand why the film cuts between Vito and Michael. It is basically a comparison. Michael looks to his father for guidance, what he would have done. His father had a perfect balance of heart and mind. Michael towards the end of Part II seemed to have lost heart.

It always struck me as a psuedo Freudian thing too, showing a father and sons life running in parrallel and the similarities in their intent juxtapositioned with how the shit actually irons out.

It's like a story of a king and his three sons, they are all aspects of his nature, Sonny is his quick to angerness (YOU CAN ACT LIKE A MAN!!! WHATS THE MATTER WITH YOU?!?! IS THIS HOW YOU TURNED OUT, A BIG HOLLYWOOD HERO THAT CRIES LIKE A WOMAN?!?!) and Fredo is his childish playful aspect, his heart (playing with the kid with the oranges) and Michael is his cold and calculating aspect, the one that deals with issues calmly and rationally as De Niros character does in the scene where he's fired or in how he deals with Fannucci.

Also, Coppola wanted to represent why the American Mafia formed on those crowded streets of New York. The Cops won't go into the neighborhoods so you have Scam artists like Fanucci who just bullies business and landowners for "protection" money. There is a deleted scene where Vito followed Fanucci out in the street where he gets mugged and cut up by kids. He realizes Fanucci was alone. Vito kills him and establishes himself in Fanucci's place this time with friends. It is not really a Mafia, that doesn't come until several years later but it is the origins of the Mafia.

[bran]

A lot of people don't understand why the film cuts between Vito and Michael. It is basically a comparison. Michael looks to his father for guidance, what he would have done. His father had a perfect balance of heart and mind. Michael towards the end of Part II seemed to have lost heart.

very true

vito was michaels counterbalance. michael was kept in check since he always had his dad their to advise him,once vito passed he lost the balance he needed. you could see him become more cold blooded and heartless in parts of the first movie, but at the end of part 2 he took it to another level IMO

[Georgy Zhukov]

I wish they would have made a Part IV. The downfall of the New York Mafia in contrast to the formation of the Five Families. The birth and death of the American Mafia. It won't happen unfortunately. Unless someone buys the rights to the story.

[Nosaj Thing]

Original of course.

[classicrawker]

I wish they would have made a Part IV. The downfall of the New York Mafia in contrast to the formation of the Five Families. The birth and death of the American Mafia. It won't happen unfortunately. Unless someone buys the rights to the story.

Other authors are still writing Godfather books so anything is possible but I would hate to see it as it could never live up to the originals...better to do seperate Mafia movies like "Goodfellas" not under the Godfather umbrella IMHO..

That being said back on topic ...........films I & II are both amazing but for me the first is the best as it was based on Mario Puzo's 1969 book and establishes the story and it could stand on its own while GF II needs the first for context...I also think GF III is very underrated and suffers due to how good I & II are....

If you like the first movie you should read the book as it gives some nice details on the characters not in the movie..especially Luca Brasi. it lets you understand how he became involved with the Cordeleone family and why The Don did not want to grant him an audience at his daughters wedding........

Edited September 6, 2012 by classicrawker

[Georgy Zhukov]

Luca Brasi was a total psycho but he is insanely loyal to the Don. Al Neri was a younger and possibly more psychotic version of him.

I believe films like The Godfather helped the FBI track these guys down because they would start to imitate the characters in the movie. Like if someone says he did something similar to what Michael did in Godfather I on tape he is busted. The Sopranos did that with the real New Jersey crime family The Devalcante family. The Sopranos are portrayed as more successful and competent of course. The Corleones seem to be based on the Genovese Family which was/is the most powerful of the Five Families.

[classicrawker]

Luca Brasi was a total psycho but he is insanely loyal to the Don. Al Neri was a younger and possibly more psychotic version of him.

I believe films like The Godfather helped the FBI track these guys down because they would start to imitate the characters in the movie. Like if someone says he did something similar to what Michael did in Godfather I on tape he is busted. The Sopranos did that with the real New Jersey crime family The Devalcante family. The Sopranos are portrayed as more successful and competent of course. The Corleones seem to be based on the Genovese Family which was/is the most powerful of the Five Families.

If you think Luca Brasi was a psycho in the movie you need to read Puzo's book as it really explains why he was so loyal to the Don but also why the Don had such distaste for him...the movie follows the book to a point but there are some interesting twists which did not make it into the Godfather I movie..

Any fan of the movie would really enjoy the book and it is a quick read

Edited September 6, 2012 by classicrawker

[Guest Len B'stard]

Apparently Marlon Brando never paid for nothing in Little Italy after making The Godfather? He had an on-going situation with a certain Mobster, a really famous one whoose name i can't remember, i think John Gotti who kept trying to befriend Marlon but he didn't really wanna be his mate cuz of where that kind of association leads and he had a great dilemma in that he wanted to let him down gently lest he offend him and find himself looking for a surgeon to remove an aluminum cannolli from his arse.

[PappyTron]

Luca Brasi was a total psycho but he is insanely loyal to the Don. Al Neri was a younger and possibly more psychotic version of him.

I believe films like The Godfather helped the FBI track these guys down because they would start to imitate the characters in the movie. Like if someone says he did something similar to what Michael did in Godfather I on tape he is busted. The Sopranos did that with the real New Jersey crime family The Devalcante family. The Sopranos are portrayed as more successful and competent of course. The Corleones seem to be based on the Genovese Family which was/is the most powerful of the Five Families.

If you think Luca Brasi was a psycho in the movie you need to read Puzo's book as it really explains why he was so loyal to the Don but also why the Don had such distaste for him...the movie follows the book to a point but there are some interesting twists which did not make it into the Godfather I movie..

Any fan of the movie would really enjoy the book and it is a quick read

Yeah, Brasi was one of the only men that the Don feared.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Vito was the only man who could control Brasi. The guy would go on a killing spree and no one can stop him except Vito.

Anyone ever watch the deleted scenes? They edited together parts I and II in chronological order for television. It was interesting seeing it all unfold in order. Though it hurt the Michael scenes because you just see him become this cruel bastard.