Sometimes works of art (paintings, music, film, sculpture, architecture, literature, doesn't matter) are so profoundly influential as to become a part of the fabric of that medium. I think the Godfather is one of those films that inspired an entire generation of filmmakers to weave the special bits into everything they created since.

The problem with watching it now is that the craft of filmmaking has spawned from it and molded around it, and the things that made it special are now mundane. Try to watch Citizen Kane, or 2001 A Space Odyssey, or Seven Samurai, and you'll see every trope and flaw because their impact is no longer unique. But that's not because they weren't amazing films, it's because they have all be copied and modernized and lampooned to death.

With the Godfather, a film buff could talk for hours about the lighting, the symbolism, the mise en scene, the music, and how it was all seminal to half the movies made since. Watching it with virgin eyes, though, and you'll see reflections of Goodfellas and Casino and Scarface and Once Upon a Time in America and The Irishman and A Bronx Tale and Donnie Brasco and New Jack City and Road to Perdition and We Own the Night and The Departed and The Untouchables and probably 50 other movies I can't think of off the top of my head.

You can't help but see it as a relic, a source of inspiration for the movies you saw before and loved. That's why you don't see it the way they did, and why it seems over hyped.

This could be a case of the Sienfeld is not funny trope

A movie or other work of media is quite revolutionary when it is released, it gets copied so much that many of its features become common in later projects. Then someone goes back to the original and thinks, Why was everyone so impressed with this?

Citizen Cane is another example.

Or:

It could be that you personally don't like the movie. Taste is not universal and not everyone likes everything.

Did you find that it insists upon itself?

It's a masterclass in acting, cinematography, and soundtracking. Not only that, but Mario Puzo's novel which came out shortly before the movie was produced was a smash hit.

In the 70s, movies didn't look like The Godfather. They looked like weird objective cameras put on a tripod and just filming actors, with not as much thought put into the "feel" of the film. FFC (as well as other directors such as Hitchcock and Kubrick) essentially invented modern cinematography. Remember watching Avatar for the first time? It was kind of like that for movie going audiences.

It was always hailed as an "epic drama" so you have to kind of temper your expectations based off that. It's not a "murder a minute" gangster flick like a Scorsese picture.

If you don't get it, you don't get it, and that's fine.

From someone who's went through film school:

It's a great movie. I wouldn't call it second ever, but it's up there. The cinematography is some of the best put to film, the writing is excellent, and the acting is phenomenal. I love the music as well, personally. Mafia stories are/were big hits for film in general, dating back even to the black and white era.

In simple terms: basically everything about it is made better than your average film, and if there's something you specifically like about films (music, cinematography, etc.) It's usually an easy example to point to for a quality example of said thing

But yeah, there are too many movies in existence to put any real stock on "x best movie of all time" things

My theory is that The Godfather suffers from pioneer syndrome. It was incredibly modern at the time of its release, with ultra-naturalistic acting and new techniques of cinematography. Which everyone proceeded to copy. So that now it looks like just a decent film, maybe from the 80s. But at the time it was a breakthrough. That's what it's getting the credit for.

It's better if you watch other movies from the same time and a bit earlier so you can appreciate the direction and cinematography. Comparing it to modern films is akin to comparing modern games to Half Life 1. You lose something without the context of the contemporaries of the time.

Honestly, I think time hurts the movie. Coppola is excellent at his craft. It's cinematically pretty (though aged) Pacino and Brando nailed it, but the content is no longer relevant. The movie is over 50 years old, it's not paced for the appetite of this decade. It's a big, complicated, dark, slow burning movie as a lot of the stuff from the 70's and 80's was. At the time the subject matter was fresh-ish, There was still a lot of interest in the Mafia and almost nothing of quality on the topic had been published since the 30's. If was absolutely the best, for it's time.

You're not alone in your feelings on the flick. As some have said, Part II was better, but if you really didn't care much for Part I, you shouldn't expect to love part II.

Please read John Truby's book "The Anatomy of Genres", and have your mind BLOWN by all the psychology in the different 14 Genres of story, dominating our cultures throughout the world, now...

It will make fiction in book AND movie form sooo much richer for you, and it will make other-people much-more-understandable, as well...

I'm autistic, am NOT likely to ever watch another movie in my life ( waaay too overwhelming ), but now I understand story so much better...

Truby's got a special place in his heart for both Godfather I & II.

With reason, his explanations show.

There are an amazing number of awesome stories identified in that book, as examples demonstrating this, or that, aspect of story...

Please read it from beginning to end, so the explanations ( which build on each-other ) weave into the whole, properly ( instead of just hitting 2 chapters & not getting why it doesn't make as much sense as I'm suggesting it does ).

The only significant error in the book worth noting, is the misunderstanding of Comedy:

Improbably-violated-expectations is the PROPER definition of it, and there is no requirement for any "drop", which seems an American subset of humour.

Salut, Namaste, & Kaizen, eh?

( :

While we're at it: why is part 3 so weird?

Try part 2.