# The Godfather parts I,II & III



## Brian G Turner (Oct 30, 2005)

Watched the first part of the Godfather II last night.

Hm...

So far it's been a great exploration of set design: very lush, very slow, very indulgent. But the story seems stifled. We've been a part of 4 or 5 huge parties so far, and though the camera has been very happy to show us these things, the lack of pace for me is killing the film.

Also - the flashbacks to see Vito Corleone (the young Marlon Brando part played by Robert DeNiro) make it watch like two different movies slapped togther, so far without great justification. 

It's great to see DeNiro and Pacino on screen, but the first two-hours seem generally vacuous of plot in order to show us great production sets.

My bad?


----------



## ravenus (Oct 30, 2005)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*

Your bad. The story parallels Vito's getting into the crime world to Michael's trying to get out  of it.
But there are those who would say...what is this topic doing in an SF/Fant forum?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 30, 2005)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*

It's good to cover wider film genres on a film board. 

I'll probably watch part two tonight - hope it lifts a little.


----------



## Shoegaze99 (Oct 30, 2005)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*



			
				I said:
			
		

> I'll probably watch part two tonight - hope it lifts a little.


There's part of your mistake. Why are you watching it in two parts? You're sapping much of the slow-building power from the story arc, robbing each respective climax of its power.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 30, 2005)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*

I know that the critical consensus is that _Godfather 2_ is a better film than _The Godfather_.  But I've never been able to warm up to it.  I love _The Godfather_.  It is one of my favorite films (and was the first R-rated film I ever saw when I was a teenager).  And I've seen and tried to like the second film, but it just doesn't have...well, whatever it is that turns me on about the first film.

Speaking of Coppola, I read somewhere that he is returning to directing after a period of time off.  Be interesting to see what he comes up with.  I've always admired that he once made a film because a group of schoolkids asked him to.  And when the film (_The Outsiders_) was finished, he put the names of all the kids who signed the letter asking him to make it in the closing credits.  That's a very classy thing to do.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 30, 2005)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*



			
				Shoegaze99 said:
			
		

> There's part of your mistake. Why are you watching it in two parts? You're sapping much of the slow-building power from the story arc, robbing each respective climax of its power.



Well...because the DVD set is in two parts. 

And the first half alone seems to be about 120-150 minutes, which is a movie in it's own right - or else takes me up to bedtime after a long day. 

Watching the second half tonight...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 1, 2005)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*

Finished Godfather 2 - felt very underwhelmed, but felt like awarding prizes for the gratuitous party scenes. Didn't feel like a good sequel to Godfather - overcomplicating an undercomplicating storyline with lavish sets intended to remind the viewer that there is little actual plot development. The juxtaposition between Pacino and De Niro didn't seem strong - great, we see the different approaches of the two characters, but there was little other message, and the whole experience felt like padding. I don't think they could have padded the film length any more even if they'd tried.

Watched Godfather 3 straight after. Hm...Pacino, who ended Godfather 2 as an introspective deadly force, has now become a lovable affable man with no illegitimate buisiness interests, but the mob want him back in... It was just like watching a parody of "Analyze This".

Also, your nephew is vicious thug who bites men's ears. Sure, now there's a person to place under your wing and sacrifice your reputation upon. 

Again the film seemed somewhat padded out, luckily not so much. Still, it had parties, was lavish at every opportunity, but otherwise seemed weak on plot. 

I really enjoyed the first Godfather film, but it was difficult to feel engaged by the two sequels - Godfather 2 felt like little more than an exercise in stage management, and Godfather 3 seemed to suffer from being a sequel for sequel's sake.

I guess I'm just a blasphemer, though.


----------



## manuel (Nov 8, 2005)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*

I always thought of Godfather and Godfather II as pretty much the same film.   Being far too young to watch them originally, I watched them on the BBC maybe fifteen years ago and then bought the video box set of all three parts a few years later.  That box set re-arranged the running chronologically, so you start off with the young Vito in Sicily and make your way to what is the Godfather and then the remainder of Godfather Part II.  I think that order was more interesting in terms of plot and character development.   

However, of the three the first one for me is the strongest.  Brando was awesome in it ; even in the scenes where he didn't do anything he still acted everyone else off the stage!


----------



## Eldo (Nov 11, 2005)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*

Personally I prefer Godfather II to the first film.  One Robert De Niro is electric, my favourite actor, and two the whole story, the birth of Vito's power from poor worker, to the killing of the blackhand and then his effentual rise to prominance.  Fascinating.  The present part is also great, Al Pacino rules the scene and has his brother killed which foreshadows his desperate, suffering and emotion in the third Godfather which I actually also liked even though most people say it is not as good as the other two.


----------



## Shoegaze99 (Nov 11, 2005)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*



			
				manuel said:
			
		

> I always thought of Godfather and Godfather II as pretty much the same film.   Being far too young to watch them originally, I watched them on the BBC maybe fifteen years ago and then bought the video box set of all three parts a few years later.  That box set re-arranged the running chronologically, so you start off with the young Vito in Sicily and make your way to what is the Godfather and then the remainder of Godfather Part II.


That's the *Godfather Saga* cut, which sadly has never been released on DVD. It not only strings the first two films together chronologically, it adds a TON of deleted scenes to the mix that really flesh out the story and characters. Pretty much every deleted scene on the bonus disc of the DVD boxed set is inserted into the *Godfather Saga* cut. That was my introduction to these films, too, and in many ways it's my preferred way to see these.

Incidentally, put me in the camp of those who think *The Godfather Part II* is a better film that the first. It's the rare sequel that exceeds the quality of the original, and in my opinion it does so on many levels. Truly epic in every way, it's a landmark for a reason.


----------



## rck_svg (Nov 11, 2005)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*

whilst a damn good film i never really understood the clamour around godfather 2. i always preferred the godfather. the story , the acting and the build to the almost inevitable conclusion far outway those of gf2. each to their own tho i suppose. i think goodfellas is better than either slightly but thats a whole other argument entirely


----------



## moviefan (Nov 11, 2005)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*

Its abit like watching LOTR in two halfs I brain. You enjoy it more if you see it from start to finish


----------



## unclejack (Nov 3, 2007)

*The Godfather: Part 2 (1974)*

Okay here's the deal. I have a serious compulsive problem when it comes to the Godfather, especially the first one. Anytime it's on tv I have to watch it. A perfect world for me would be me sittin in a room watchin the Godfather trilogy over and over again. Well, maybe that's a bit dramatic, but you get the point, I love those movies and can't get enough of them. But as many times as I've seen all three of them there is one thing I never really understood about the second one. I never understood the politics behind the Johny Oloff, Hymen Roth, and Frankie Pentangeli characters. I guess I just didn't catch the whole thing that was happenin in cuba with the rebels and refugees and what Pentangeli wanted to happen versus what Hymen Roth was doin. I know that Hymen Roth ordered the hit on Michael Corleone, but I don't know why. The whole time they had this front goin on like they were about to be business partners and I don't get what the benefit was for Roth to have Corleone killed. I also don't know who ordered the attempted hit on Pentangeli and why he thought that it was Michael Corleone. I know that Fredo betrayed Michael and played a part in them bein able to plan the hit on Michael even though he didn't know it was gonna be a hit, but I don't know why Johnny Oloff and Hymen Roth wanted him dead. I'm sure it's alot more complicated than just wanting to consolidate their power like in the ending of the first Godfather. Anyway, any fello Godfather fans are welcome to help me understand. Thanks.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 3, 2007)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*

Roth ordered the hit on Pentangeli cause he wanted to screw Michael creating problems for him.  He first made him think Pantangeli was trying to kill Michael but Michael knew it was Roth.   He wanted to kill Michael cause he thought he would live for many more years and didnt want to let Corleone have around as a powerful player.


Just rewatch the movie and listen to Michael, he knew all the time what Roth wanted.  He even knew there was a traitor in his family before he got proof there was one.

I saw it only days ago and its easy to understand cause its a great movie.  IMO better than part one cause Pacino was amazing The Godfather really he should won the oscar for it.  His best role in his career.

Have you read the book by the way?  Its amazing cause the flashback to Vito's life is much longer than in this movie.


----------



## unclejack (Nov 3, 2007)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*

I probably shoud read the book since I love the movie so much. I kinda understand why the hit on Pantegeli was ordered because I know that the movie opens with him complaining about Roths' tactics and leaves unsatisfied because Michael won't do anything about it. I guess I can accept the fact that Roth ordered the hit on Michael simply because he wanted Michael out of the way after he was gone knowing he was too powerful. And for the record I knew from the getgo that Michael knew that Roth ordered the hit. The scene where Michael goes to Roth's house and accuses Pantegeli of orderin the hit and the scene where he goes to Pantegeli's house and says he knows it was Roth are back to back and that is explained very well. Mainly I was expecting Roth's reasons to be more political and business oriented than simply wanting Michael out of the way and I never did understand what was happenin in Cuba w/ the rebels and what Pantegeli's contention about it was.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 4, 2007)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*

Roth's reason was both personal and buisness.  He thought like many men of power that he would live forever.  Didnt want Michael around as an enemy.  Take out Michael and he gets a bigger share of the profit.

Roth,Michael and co had nothing to do with the rebels.  Roth thought the rebels would fail while Michael thought they would win and that was it cause it would change thier buisness plans.  Like he said, A rebel isnt paid to fight, he fights to the death unlike the soldiers.


----------



## unclejack (Nov 4, 2007)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*

Yeah, that makes sense, thanks for clearin that up for me. I was just expecting a more sinister motive than the consolidation of power. Great movie though, I've always loved it. I have to admit I still don't understand Pentangeli's contention with Roth at the very beginning of the movie though. From a business perspective I never did pick up on what their differences were and what he was asking for from Michael.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 4, 2007)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*

The difference was that Roth was backing up Pentangeli's maffia rival in NYC.  He wanted Michael's help to fix Roth or the guys he was backing.  That was Pentangeli's problem with Roth.  He wanted quick fix of Roth and his guys and Michael wanted to use Roth's buisness power before killing him off.


----------



## Dave (Jun 12, 2012)

*re: The Godfather parts 1,2 & 3*



I said:


> Finished Godfather 2 - felt very underwhelmed, but felt like awarding prizes for the gratuitous party scenes. Didn't feel like a good sequel to Godfather - overcomplicating an undercomplicating storyline with lavish sets intended to remind the viewer that there is little actual plot development. The juxtaposition between Pacino and De Niro didn't seem strong - great, we see the different approaches of the two characters, but there was little other message, and the whole experience felt like padding. I don't think they could have padded the film length any more even if they'd tried.
> 
> Watched Godfather 3 straight after. Hm...Pacino, who ended Godfather 2 as an introspective deadly force, has now become a lovable affable man with no illegitimate buisiness interests, but the mob want him back in... It was just like watching a parody of "Analyze This".
> 
> ...


I'm a bit late to this party, but having just watched the boxed set in much the same way as Brian, and for the very same reasons, I have to agree with him almost totally. I did like the parallel stories in Godfather 2 but it made it too long to watch in one sitting. Godfather 1 was long enough itself and Godfather 3 was a sequel too far.


----------



## HanaBi (Dec 31, 2016)

I'm very late this party, but I am of the opinion that The Godfather is superior to Godfather II. And both Dave and Brian share my own thoughts regarding Godfather II. It's nice to have some backstory, but I think the sequel embellished far too much at the expense of the here-and-now. And only from that point did the film slip out of first gear!

On its own G2 is an excellent film. But up against the original, it doesn't quite live up to expectation.



<You'll notice I haven't mentioned the "other film" in the trilogy. And I would prefer to keep it that way>


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 2, 2017)

Godfather I and II were great films . Godfather III was godawful.


----------



## anno (Jan 3, 2017)

I think that three will gain in popularity,its good,in places (apart from never giving your daughter a big part...)


----------



## HanaBi (Jan 3, 2017)

To be fair, G3 gets some pretty decent review scores - 7/10 on average, based on IMDb and RT. Even Roger Ebert gives it a rather generous 3.5/4.

But I think for the Godfather die-hards it will always remain a bitter disappointment, not helped with an unhealthy dose of nepotism, and a rather uneven story involving the Vatican.

It's had almost 30 years to mature, but personally it still feels rather flat and a little bitter.


----------



## Frost Giant (Jan 6, 2017)

In my opinion the best way to view it is The Godfather Saga. The Godfather Saga - Wikipedia
I liked the fact that it was in chronological order, the story flows much better that way. The version I saw went from 1902-1959. I was especially pleased that they included a lot of deleted scenes that should never have been cut in the first place. The version I watched was over 7 hours long, but it was worth it.


----------



## svalbard (Jan 6, 2017)

I am one of the few who loved the Godfather 3. Unfortuantely it seemed to have killed off Andy Garcia's career, a phenomanal actor in my opinion. I would have loved to have seen a Part 4 with Garcia in the lead.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jan 7, 2017)

svalbard said:


> I am one of the few who loved the Godfather 3. Unfortuantely it seemed to have killed off Andy Garcia's career, a phenomanal actor in my opinion. I would have loved to have seen a Part 4 with Garcia in the lead.


I feel that Terry Benedict in Ocean's 11 is a continuation of the Godfather 3 character, if he had matured and gone legitimate.


----------



## Frost Giant (Jan 9, 2017)

Vladd67 said:


> I feel that Terry Benedict in Ocean's 11 is a continuation of the Godfather 3 character


I always felt the same way. He seems like a calmed down, more mature version of Vincent.


----------

