GF - 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. #2 on IMDB (9.8)
GF 2 - 96% on Rotten Tomatoes. #4 on IMDB (9.6)
My personal preference is the original.
I just watched both recently and I’ll have to admit that they both feel very dated now. Having said that, I find the original to be a solid A- all the way through. The 2nd covers the origin story with De Niro playing Vito, which I give a solid A+. The problem is it’s balanced out with a sequel to Michael’s story, which I found to be just very weak and uninteresting. I give that maybe a C+.
Having said that, considering how bad sequels and especially prequels are, #2 was pretty good.
Neither. The Godfather is one of those things that people say is good just because other people say it’s good. There are far better mafia/underworld movies.
I recently rewatched all three Godfather movies, with the third being Coppola’s recut version that came out in 2020.
The first two are really works of art. I don’t feel like they’re dated at all. They were period pieces to begin with. It’s not like the movies were set in 1972 and 1974.
I think the first movie flows better, not only because of a singular timeline but it doesn’t jump around geographically (with exception to Michael’s exile to Italy). The acting is better in the second movie. DeNiro was perfect and Pacino was on a different level than Godfather 1. The second movie is also much darker and emotional. You just get virtually punched in the gut when Fredo inadvertently reveals himself to be the traitor. Knowing that Michael isn’t going to let that go. You’re just watching a man’s complete descent into power at all costs and he pushes away EVERYONE. Pacino is scary as hell in that movie.
I know the third movie gets a real bad rap but it’s not that bad. It’s just “bad” in comparison to the ungodly high bar set by the first two movies. The recut version is even better than the original release. The plot was a bit convoluted at times but not as bad as people think. My biggest issue with that movie was always his daughter’s casting and acting. She’s terrible. Coppola got put in a tough spot when Winona Ryder bowed out. Still shouldn’t have cast his daughter. She turned out to be a fine director and screenwriter and has an Academy Award herself. She just can’t act.
This one is highly rated. Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t get past that kid’s horrible acting.
I also feel that TG Maverick is overrated. I enjoyed it, but it was essentially a reboot with a lot of campy winks playing on our nostalgia. It didn’t exactly break any new ground.
Otherwise, Aliens, Empire Strikes Back, Wrath of Khan all jump out as great sequels.
When I say dated, I don’t mean that it was set in the past. I mean the standards for making a good movie have improved since then. It’s just a small number of scenes, but I can’t not notice them. A theater actor who’s clearly never held a gun in his life getting down on his knee to shoot over his limp wrist. Over dramatic death scenes when actors get shot. Sonny beating up Carlo was goofy choreography. Connie manically throwing dishes on the floor was too over dramatic. Moe Green’s scene was corny. Jack Wolz’s monologue is horribly overacted. etc. etc. etc.
None of this would have stood out at the time, and it’s not necessarily bad. It’s dated. It’s an old style that we don’t see anymore. There’s a reason why no one acts like John Wayne or Jimmy Stewart anymore.
Something else I find interesting. Old people sometimes think modern movies suck compared to what they grew up with. A lot of older movies tend to be more dialogue driven than today.
