The Godfather: Part II is NOT better than The Godfather

It really, really bugs me when this conversation comes up (which it does surprisingly often):

John: Sequels are rarely, if ever, better than the original.
Jane: What about The Godfather?
John: No.

The only sequels that I would say are better than the original are: Terminator 2, Army of Darkness (or, Evil Dead 2), Star Wars ep. V, A Shot in the Dark (sort of a sequel to The Pink Panther), The Bourne Ultimatum, Spider-man 2, X2, a couple of the Harry Potters, and the third Lord of the Rings.

Intentionally not on that list: The Dark Knight, and hundreds of other movies

I have yet to find a convincing argument for Part II's superiority. The interweaving of Vito's coming to America and his rise is well put together, well acted, and well scripted. The 'modern' story with Michael is just as good. The problem is that when the story goes from one period of time to the other, not only do the jumps completely take us out of the story we're in, we are cut off and forced to wait for something that would have benefited from happening right then.

Now, this is not uncommon in films, and can work, but here is my issue: The two halves do not relate to each other. Vito's rise in power relates to The Godfather, and would almost have worked better being spliced into that film (please do not, it would ruin it--I'm just saying it would be better). What we see Vito doing in the past, as I said, is captivating, but ultimately unnecessary to what is going on in the present. When I first watched the film, I enjoyed De Niro's performance immensely. Now, it's a great performance, but 90% of the backtracking bores me. The present story, with Michael, Fredo, and Kay, is superb and superior. I would have rather had just that as one film. These two halves do not add up to a complete whole. They could, but the tape that would hold them together is absent.

This is all in contrast to the perfection of the first film, which I could watch over and over into infinity and never tire of. It's easy to jump around in time to tell a story, and while many great stories have been written that way, now it is almost gimmicky. To write something so strong and have it be in chronological order takes mountains of talent. There is such a strong connection to each and every character in the first film: When the Don is shot, it almost feels like an attack on our own family. When Michael lies to Kay at the end of the film, we feel just as conflicted as her. We know Michael is lying, but we know why, and we wonder: Would we have lied as well?

This is the short version of why The Godfather is a 10/10, whereas Part II is about a 9.5, maybe even a 9. I can't take anyone who considers the sequel better seriously.