DeNiro vs. Brando: Who Was The Better Don Corleone?

[Antonio]

Although both men were excellent, and both won Oscars for their roles as Vito Corleone, I'm going with DeNiro's focused performance as the younger version of the Don in THE GODFATHER, PART II.

THE GODFATHER, PART II made Oscar history by becoming the only movie sequel (thus far) to win a Best Picture Oscar, and DeNiro made history by winning an Oscar for a role previously won by another actor.



[This message has been edited by Antonio (edited 04-29-2002).]

[Scarface98.9]

I'll bite the bullet and say Brando. he was always captivating as Brando, and I always forget I'm watching Brando when watching him.

[EBastard]

Wow.This maybe one of the greatest questions in cinema.Brando for me.

[Professor Falk]

It's difficult to tell that it was two different guys, and not actual film of the same man at different times. If I'm forced, DeNiro had a meatier role, so I'll go with him. Outstanding question. Ask me next week, and you'll likely get a different answer.

[sanshodayu]

For me,De Niro is much the better actor,and is superb in the role,but the great mumbler is more memorable in the earlier film;so i'll have to sit on the fence,sorry.

[chartered streets]

De Niro is great but I always love BRANDO more, in fact I think the first Godfather is marginally better thanks to him.

[James Logan]

DeNiro kicked ass, but I got with Brando. He's the guy who created Vito Corleone on the screen, and I've always preferred the older version of the character.

[Nate6]

Marlon Brando simply is Don Corleone. De Niro was great, nowhere near Brando.

[This message has been edited by Nate6 (edited 04-28-2002).]

[ColinM]

Obviously, both were great, but I'd say Marlon Brando. In fact, Brando gave one of my favorite performances of all time as Don Vito Corlenoe in The Godfather. I really loved him in that movie.

[max]

Brando was simply sensational. But De Niro had the more difficult task and he more than lived up to the challenge. I also thought GODFATHER II was a better movie. So, De Niro for me.

[Antonio]

Bump for the Dons

[Strider]

De Niro was superb as Don Corleone, but Brando was much better. So, I'm going with Brando...

Strider

[MickeyKnox]

Both were excellent in the role of Vito Corleone!

[Jerk Shapiro]

Gotta go with DeNiro. Great topic, Antonio, my man.

[zeppelin]

De Niro is my favorite actor, and his performance in The Godfather Part II is not only amazing, but I think it's one of the best supporting male performances of all-time, BUT....how many times in your life have you seen someone impersonate Vito Corleone? For me, it's a lot. Now, how many times have you seen them impersonate him the way De Niro played him? For me, none, sadly. It's always the mumbly puffy-cheeked Vito that Brando played. So Brando's performance was certainly more memorable and famous. I was down-right amazed at how well De Niro lived up to the role though. He had some big shoes to fill, and he certainly did. But Brando is just the classic Vito. So sorry, Bobby, but I'm going with Marlon as the better Vito.

[bankholdup]

Tough question, but I'm going with Marlon Brando, in one of the finest performances of all time.

[Cosimo]

Two of the greatest performances of all time so i really cant prioritise one over the other.

[ColinM]

Originally posted by ColinM
Obviously, both were great, but I'd say Marlon Brando. In fact, Brando gave one of my favorite performances of all time as Don Vito Corlenoe in The Godfather. I really loved him in that movie.

Yep, I'm still going with Brando. ;)

[Nate6]

Originally posted by Nate6
Marlon Brando simply is Don Corleone. De Niro was great, nowhere near Brando.

I also maintain that Brando is better, though I take back the comment about De Niro not being close.

[The Other]

I hate to burst the "Godfather Part II is the ONLY sequel to win Best Picture" bubble, but The Silence of the Lambs is, technically, a sequel as well.

It IS, however, the first and only sequel to win Best Picture when it's predecessor won as well. That's an argument you could make and it would be true.

[bob]

I can't choose. They both gave commanding, and very different, performances.

[ColinM]

Originally posted by The Other
I hate to burst the "Godfather Part II is the ONLY sequel to win Best Picture" bubble, but The Silence of the Lambs is, technically, a sequel as well.

I really don't think The Silence of the Lambs is considered a sequel to Manhunter. There aren't any actors, directors, writers, anything in common between the two except, of course, the author of the books. I really think they are considered two seperate films.

[blankpage]

OoOoh! Touch choice.

I guess I would choose Brando. But De Niro was superb as well.

[Nate6]

I don't consider The Silence of the Lambs to be a sequel either...just because the two share a character and the books were written by the same person doesn't make it a sequel, IMO. Nothing else in the two films are even remotely similiar, but that's just my opinion. It's all in how you look at it.

[Hannibal21]

I loved both as Vito.

De Niro was magnificent. However, Brando was flawless.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by ColinM
I really don't think The Silence of the Lambs is considered a sequel to Manhunter. There aren't any actors, directors, writers, anything in common between the two except, of course, the author of the books. I really think they are considered two seperate films.

I don't understand how anyone can say Silence isn't a sequel to Manhunter, I've seen that recently on the boards and in my opinion it's beyond logic. A film having the same crew does not make it a sequel, otherwise all the films Woody Allen has made would be sequels. What makes a film a sequel is that it tells the continuation of a character or characters from a previous film, which is what Silence of The Lambs does, it's a continuation of the tale of Hannibal Lecter. I know some who even consider Red Dragon a prequel to Silence, but not Manhunter, which I think is hilarious since it's just a remake of Manhunter. Friday The 13th Part 8 and Friday the 13th Part 3 have nothing in common crew-wise, or writers or anything of that ilk, but it's a sequel because it's a continuation of the Jason Vorhees stories. Same goes for Manhunter, Silence, and Hannibal. Basically, I say continuation of a connected plot or character is a sequel.

BTW as for the topic, I feel DeNiro is the better actor, but Brando's Corleone is simply incredible, he takes the cake and eats it too.

[Andrew Tom]

This is a tough one. I think De Niro's performance is his best, beating Taxi Driver's Travis and Raging Bull(though I haven't seen this in a while). But Marlon Brando was a tad better I'd say. Argh! I'll go with Brando now, but ask me in a week and it could be De Niro...

[Bullet Tooth Tony]

I couldnt possibly choose. Although they played the same character their roles are so different...if you catch my meaning? :confused:

Both excellent.

[Nate6]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
I don't understand how anyone can say Silence isn't a sequel to Manhunter, I've seen that recently on the boards and in my opinion it's beyond logic. A film having the same crew does not make it a sequel, otherwise all the films Woody Allen has made would be sequels. What makes a film a sequel is that it tells the continuation of a character or characters from a previous film, which is what Silence of The Lambs does, it's a continuation of the tale of Hannibal Lecter. I know some who even consider Red Dragon a prequel to Silence, but not Manhunter, which I think is hilarious since it's just a remake of Manhunter. Friday The 13th Part 8 and Friday the 13th Part 3 have nothing in common crew-wise, or writers or anything of that ilk, but it's a sequel because it's a continuation of the Jason Vorhees stories. Same goes for Manhunter, Silence, and Hannibal. Basically, I say continuation of a connected plot or character is a sequel.

I disagree but it's all in the eye of the beholder. In my definition, a sequel is a film that directly follows another film having several things in common with the first film, more than just one character. Law and Order: SVU has a character who was also on Homicide: Life on the Street. Does that make it a sequel series? No, it doesn't. Furthermore, and I'm not sure about this, but I don't think SOTL was intended to be a sequel, but a stand-alone film and thus, shouldn't be considered a sequel. It's slightly different in that the Friday the 13th films were intended to be sequels. But that's just my opinion

[DaMovieMan]

Even though DeNiro is my favorite actor, Brando really is Don Vito Corleone and there could be no better.

DMM

[ColinM]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
I don't understand how anyone can say Silence isn't a sequel to Manhunter, I've seen that recently on the boards and in my opinion it's beyond logic. A film having the same crew does not make it a sequel, otherwise all the films Woody Allen has made would be sequels. What makes a film a sequel is that it tells the continuation of a character or characters from a previous film, which is what Silence of The Lambs does, it's a continuation of the tale of Hannibal Lecter. I know some who even consider Red Dragon a prequel to Silence, but not Manhunter, which I think is hilarious since it's just a remake of Manhunter. Friday The 13th Part 8 and Friday the 13th Part 3 have nothing in common crew-wise, or writers or anything of that ilk, but it's a sequel because it's a continuation of the Jason Vorhees stories. Same goes for Manhunter, Silence, and Hannibal. Basically, I say continuation of a connected plot or character is a sequel.

Sorry I haven't replied sooner, I only just found this.

I assure you QUENTIN that I do, in fact, know what a sequel is and I do know that all the Woody Allen movies aren't sequels of each other. ;) I know that a sequel is the continuation of a story from the previous movie and that it doesn't require the same crew, but in the case of the Friday the 13th movies, they are clearly considering themselves sequels (it's in the title), whereas The Silence of the Lambs is clearly (at least I thought it was clear) is trying to be a stand-alone film seperate from Manhunter. Both are movies based off the Hannibal Lector novels by Thomas Harris, but the mood and overall feel of the movies are totally different, and just look at the Hannibals. Brian Cox's Hannibal is WAAAAAAAAY different from The Silence of the Lambs. I guess since you consider The Silence of the Lambs a sequel to Manhunter, you consider the fact that Hannibal is so different a major flaw in the film. But for me, the explanation is simply that the movies are two stand-alone films.

[robk]

This is a tough one!
Both Brando & De Niro won well-deserved Oscars for the role, but that image of Brando holding the cat is inescapable.