One of the all time greats. Or probably the alone greatest thing ever made in the history of cinematography. This movie is both "prequel" and "sequel" of the first godfather movie. I have never watched anything like this in my entire life. This movie has explained the life of underworld people in a great way. It also shows how vengeance eradicates happiness from your life. People don't even care about their family in greed of power. It's a masterpiece that can never be written off even after centuries. Even if you are not into these kind of movies, I will suggest to watch it for atleast once in your life or you'll be deprived of one of the greatest things to watch that have been ever made.
1,074 Reviews
The Greatest Film Ever Made
DanB-47 May 1999
The original Godfather is a brilliant work. It is in a sense a voyeuristic delight, allowing us to see the mafia from the inside - we become part of the family. It single-handedly change the world's view of organized crime, and created a cast of sympathetic characters, none of whom have a shred of common morality. It was the highest grossing movie of its time and Brando created a cultural icon whose influence resonates as strong today as it did in 1972.
As extraordinary an achievement as this is, Part II is even better. It easily receives my nod as the best picture ever made. I have seen it at least 20 times, and each time its 200 minutes fly by.
The movie uses flashbacks to brilliantly weave two tales. The main story is the reign of Michael Corleone as the world's most powerful criminal. Now reaping the benefits of legalized gambling in Las Vegas, Michael is an evident billionaire with an iron fist on a world of treachery.
Behind this, Director Francis Ford Coppola spins the tale of the rise of Michael's father, Vito, to the center of the New York mafia. It is these scenes that make the film a work of art. Without spoiling, I will simply say the Robert DeNiro as the young Vito is the best acting performance of all time, a role for which he won a richly deserved Oscar.
The screenplay is full of delicious little underworld nuggets ("Keep your friends close .....", "I don't want to kill everyone, just my enemies"), while it blows a dense, twisted plot past you at a dizzying and merciless pace. The cinematography is depressing and atmospheric. The score continues in the eerie role of its predecessor, foretelling death and evil.
All of this makes the movie great and infinitely watchable. But it's what's deeper inside this film ... what it is really about ... that is its true genius.
The Godfather Part II is not really a movie about the mafia, it is a movie about a man's life long struggle. Michael controls a vast empire that is constantly slipping out of his hands. He grows increasingly distrustful and paranoid, and even shows signs that he hates his own life. Michael almost seems to resent the fact that he is a natural born crime lord, a man who puts the family business ahead of everything.
The great Don Michael Corleone can never come to terms with one simple fact.... his father's empire was built on love and respect, Michael's empire is built on fear and violent treachery.
See this movie. It's three-and-a-half hours very well spent.
As extraordinary an achievement as this is, Part II is even better. It easily receives my nod as the best picture ever made. I have seen it at least 20 times, and each time its 200 minutes fly by.
The movie uses flashbacks to brilliantly weave two tales. The main story is the reign of Michael Corleone as the world's most powerful criminal. Now reaping the benefits of legalized gambling in Las Vegas, Michael is an evident billionaire with an iron fist on a world of treachery.
Behind this, Director Francis Ford Coppola spins the tale of the rise of Michael's father, Vito, to the center of the New York mafia. It is these scenes that make the film a work of art. Without spoiling, I will simply say the Robert DeNiro as the young Vito is the best acting performance of all time, a role for which he won a richly deserved Oscar.
The screenplay is full of delicious little underworld nuggets ("Keep your friends close .....", "I don't want to kill everyone, just my enemies"), while it blows a dense, twisted plot past you at a dizzying and merciless pace. The cinematography is depressing and atmospheric. The score continues in the eerie role of its predecessor, foretelling death and evil.
All of this makes the movie great and infinitely watchable. But it's what's deeper inside this film ... what it is really about ... that is its true genius.
The Godfather Part II is not really a movie about the mafia, it is a movie about a man's life long struggle. Michael controls a vast empire that is constantly slipping out of his hands. He grows increasingly distrustful and paranoid, and even shows signs that he hates his own life. Michael almost seems to resent the fact that he is a natural born crime lord, a man who puts the family business ahead of everything.
The great Don Michael Corleone can never come to terms with one simple fact.... his father's empire was built on love and respect, Michael's empire is built on fear and violent treachery.
See this movie. It's three-and-a-half hours very well spent.
To call it a sequel is a travesty
taimur749 May 2001
This movie is way to be good to be labelled a sequel to The Godfather . Rather it is more of a companion piece to the original and the two perfectly compliment each other . IT is both a sequel and prequel showing the rise of the young vito and moral decline of Micheal . Both characters are brought to life with uncanny ability by Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino . To say that these two are good actors is like saying that a nuclear bomb makes a loud noise and in this movie they prove why they are at the top of their respective crafts .
Al Pacino is the standout in the ensemble cast and its amazing how his eyes have changed from the first part . They are now cold , ruthless and unemotional and betray the price which Micheal Corleone has paid for power .
Watch this movie and learn why it is the greatest gangster film of all time.
Al Pacino is the standout in the ensemble cast and its amazing how his eyes have changed from the first part . They are now cold , ruthless and unemotional and betray the price which Micheal Corleone has paid for power .
Watch this movie and learn why it is the greatest gangster film of all time.
One of the greatest films ever made.
AgustinCesaratti6 October 2019
To say that this film is a sequel is a sin.
Al Pacino and Robert de Niro win the Oscar for this film, Robert de Niro's performance as Vito Corleone is perfect, every scene in which this one is perfect. Al Pacino as always perfect and unlike the first film, he is much better.
PROS:
EVERYTHING. The script, the direction, the cast, the performance, everything in this film is perfect and its 3 hours are worth it.
CONS:
NOTHING. This movie is perfect.
PROS:
EVERYTHING. The script, the direction, the cast, the performance, everything in this film is perfect and its 3 hours are worth it.
CONS:
NOTHING. This movie is perfect.
Great ensemble acting, great story, greatest sequel ever made.
ballen81 February 2000
The Godfather Part 2 is the finest sequel ever made and is arguably a finer film than the original Godfather. The film is divided into two main parts - the story of a young Vito Corleone (flawlessly acted by Robert De Niro and a worthy Oscar winner) and the rise to power of Michael as the head of the family. Francis Coppola recollaborated with many of the crew members of the first film and again achieves a quite superb period piece thanks to the cinematography of Gordon Willis and set design of Dean Tavoularis. The acting performances are outstanding, hence three supporting oscar nominations for acting guru Lee Strasberg (Hyman Roth), Michael Gazzo (Frank Pentangeli) and Robert De Niro (young Vito Corleone). Duvall, Keaton, Cazale and Shire all provided first rate performances but it is the performance of Al Pacino which steals the show, expertly portraying Michael as a cool, calculating, suspicious Don Corleone. The film expands upon the original movie and brings us into the family's activities in Nevada, Florida and Havana. Arguably the finest movie of the 70s, a cinematic masterpiece with the greatest ensemble acting you will probably see.
"Michael, I Never Wanted This For You."
jzappa22 February 2009
Nino Rota's musical score plays an even greater role in this equal but different successor than it did in the predecessor. Yearning, lamenting, stimulating bygone ages, see how infectiously Nino Rota's music affects our sentiments for the savage events on screen. It is the pulse of the films. One cannot imagine them without their Nino Rota music. Against all our realistic deduction, it guides us to how to feel about the films, and condition us to understand the characters within their own world. Throughout the Corleone family's many criminal actions, we understand that one doesn't have to be a monster in order to live with having done them.
In what is both a dual expansion of its predecessor and a masterpiece of juxtaposition in itself, we see Michael Corleone forfeit his remaining shreds of morality and become an empty shell, insecure and merciless. As his father quietly knew in his latter days would be so, Michael has lost sight of those values that made Don Corleone better than he had to be and has become a new godfather every bit as evil as he has to be. The score, with its tonal harmony, its honeyed and emotional aesthetics, is sad, and music can often evoke emotion more surely and subtly than story. Consider several operas with ridiculous stories and lyrics yet contain arias that literally move us to tears.
The devolution of Michael Corleone is adjacent with flashbacks to the youth and young manhood of his father, Vito, played with paternal, home-loving subtlety by Robert De Niro. These scenes, in Sicily and old New York at the turn of the century, follow the conventional pattern of a young man on the rise and show the Mafia code being burned into the Corleone blood. No false romanticism conceals the necessity of murder to do business. We don't look at Vito as a victim of his environment, but a product of the depiction of the resorts to which the Italian culture had turned, initially to both protect their homeland and protect their livelihood as immigrants who came to America to be paid less than the blacks.
The film opens in 1901 Corleone, Sicily, at the funeral procession for young Vito's father, who had been killed by the local Mafia chieftain, Don Ciccio, over an insult. During the procession, Vito's older brother is also murdered because he swore to avenge his father. Vito's mother goes to Ciccio to beg for the life of young Vito. When he refuses, she sacrifices herself to allow Vito to escape. They scour the town for him, warning the sleeping townsfolk against harboring the boy. With the aid of a few of the townspeople, Vito finds his way by ship to Ellis Island, where an immigration agent, mishearing Vito's hometown of Corleone as his name, registers him as Vito Corleone. From this very opening, and the events that gradually follow, we see that Vito's damnable early experiences have enhanced his sense of family, and his experience of revenge as a necessity was passed on to Vito's sons.
The life of young Vito helps to explain the forming of the adult Don Corleone. As his unplanned successor Michael, his youngest child, transforms, we hark back to why, when his true desire is to make the Corleone family completely legitimate, he feels that he must play the game by its old rules. His wife says, "You once told me: 'In five years, the Corleone family will be completely legitimate.' That was seven years ago." What we have are two all-too-real narratives, two superb lead performances and lasting images. There is even a parallel between two elderly dons: Revenge must be had.
I admire the way Coppola and Puzo require us to think along with Michael as he feels out fragile deliberations involving Miami boss Hyman Roth, his older brother Fredo, and the death of Sonny in the previous film. Who is against him? Why? Michael drifts several explanations past several key players, misleading them all, or nearly. It's like a game of blindfolded chess. He has to envision the moves without seeing them. Coppola shows Michael breaking under the burden. We recall that he was a war hero, a successful college student, forging an honest life. Ultimately Michael has no one by whom to swear but his aging mother. Michael's desolation in that scene of dialogue informs the film's closing shot.
So this six-time Oscar-winning three-and-a-half-hour gangster epic is ultimately a dreary experience, a mourning for what could've been. It is a contrast with the earlier film, in which Don Corleone is seen defending old values against modern hungers. Young Vito was a murderer, too, as we more fully understand in the Sicily and New York scenes of Part II. But he was wise and diplomatic. Murder was personal. As Hyman Roth says, "It had nothing to do with business." The crucial difference between the father and son is that Vito is cognizant of and comprehending the needs, feelings, problems, and views of others, and Michael grows in the very opposite direction. Whereas the first movie was a taut ensemble piece, this second part is a more leisurely film that closely studies only these two characters, neither of whom share scenes with each other. Everyone else is periphery.
It must be seen as a piece with the consummate mastership of The Godfather. When the characters in a film truly take on a simulated environmental existence for us, it becomes a film that everyone who cherishes movies to any extent should see at least once.
In what is both a dual expansion of its predecessor and a masterpiece of juxtaposition in itself, we see Michael Corleone forfeit his remaining shreds of morality and become an empty shell, insecure and merciless. As his father quietly knew in his latter days would be so, Michael has lost sight of those values that made Don Corleone better than he had to be and has become a new godfather every bit as evil as he has to be. The score, with its tonal harmony, its honeyed and emotional aesthetics, is sad, and music can often evoke emotion more surely and subtly than story. Consider several operas with ridiculous stories and lyrics yet contain arias that literally move us to tears.
The devolution of Michael Corleone is adjacent with flashbacks to the youth and young manhood of his father, Vito, played with paternal, home-loving subtlety by Robert De Niro. These scenes, in Sicily and old New York at the turn of the century, follow the conventional pattern of a young man on the rise and show the Mafia code being burned into the Corleone blood. No false romanticism conceals the necessity of murder to do business. We don't look at Vito as a victim of his environment, but a product of the depiction of the resorts to which the Italian culture had turned, initially to both protect their homeland and protect their livelihood as immigrants who came to America to be paid less than the blacks.
The film opens in 1901 Corleone, Sicily, at the funeral procession for young Vito's father, who had been killed by the local Mafia chieftain, Don Ciccio, over an insult. During the procession, Vito's older brother is also murdered because he swore to avenge his father. Vito's mother goes to Ciccio to beg for the life of young Vito. When he refuses, she sacrifices herself to allow Vito to escape. They scour the town for him, warning the sleeping townsfolk against harboring the boy. With the aid of a few of the townspeople, Vito finds his way by ship to Ellis Island, where an immigration agent, mishearing Vito's hometown of Corleone as his name, registers him as Vito Corleone. From this very opening, and the events that gradually follow, we see that Vito's damnable early experiences have enhanced his sense of family, and his experience of revenge as a necessity was passed on to Vito's sons.
The life of young Vito helps to explain the forming of the adult Don Corleone. As his unplanned successor Michael, his youngest child, transforms, we hark back to why, when his true desire is to make the Corleone family completely legitimate, he feels that he must play the game by its old rules. His wife says, "You once told me: 'In five years, the Corleone family will be completely legitimate.' That was seven years ago." What we have are two all-too-real narratives, two superb lead performances and lasting images. There is even a parallel between two elderly dons: Revenge must be had.
I admire the way Coppola and Puzo require us to think along with Michael as he feels out fragile deliberations involving Miami boss Hyman Roth, his older brother Fredo, and the death of Sonny in the previous film. Who is against him? Why? Michael drifts several explanations past several key players, misleading them all, or nearly. It's like a game of blindfolded chess. He has to envision the moves without seeing them. Coppola shows Michael breaking under the burden. We recall that he was a war hero, a successful college student, forging an honest life. Ultimately Michael has no one by whom to swear but his aging mother. Michael's desolation in that scene of dialogue informs the film's closing shot.
So this six-time Oscar-winning three-and-a-half-hour gangster epic is ultimately a dreary experience, a mourning for what could've been. It is a contrast with the earlier film, in which Don Corleone is seen defending old values against modern hungers. Young Vito was a murderer, too, as we more fully understand in the Sicily and New York scenes of Part II. But he was wise and diplomatic. Murder was personal. As Hyman Roth says, "It had nothing to do with business." The crucial difference between the father and son is that Vito is cognizant of and comprehending the needs, feelings, problems, and views of others, and Michael grows in the very opposite direction. Whereas the first movie was a taut ensemble piece, this second part is a more leisurely film that closely studies only these two characters, neither of whom share scenes with each other. Everyone else is periphery.
It must be seen as a piece with the consummate mastership of The Godfather. When the characters in a film truly take on a simulated environmental existence for us, it becomes a film that everyone who cherishes movies to any extent should see at least once.
"The Godfather Part II is the greatest sequel ever made, one of the greatest films of all time and possibly finer than its superb predecessor *****"
galileo331 December 2005
The Godfather Part II (1974)
Number 1 - 1974
Top 3 - 1970s
"My father taught me many things. Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer"
"The Godfather Part II is truly a masterpiece. Timeless, Classic, Beautiful and endlessly watchable"
The second part of Francis Ford Coppola's Epic and violent Gangster Trilogy, follows the reign of Don Michael Corleone as the head of the Corleone family. As well the film shows us the early years of Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) played flawlessly by Academy Award Winner Robert De Niro, and how he created his empire of money, gambling and respect. Beautifully directed by Francis Ford Coppola, Godfather Part II exceeds every expectation with outstanding performances from Academy Award winners Al Pacino,Diane Keaton, Robert Duvall and Robert De Niro. The second part of this unforgettable trilogy is one of the finest films ever made.
This is cinematic art. A treasure of film history. The finest sequel ever made. A faultless, flawless gripping drama; Coppola's second part of his crime saga is in my opinion one of the top 5 films of all time and perhaps towering over the first part.
"As close to perfection as movies get"
"Pacino at his best"
-10/10-
Number 1 - 1974
Top 3 - 1970s
"My father taught me many things. Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer"
"The Godfather Part II is truly a masterpiece. Timeless, Classic, Beautiful and endlessly watchable"
The second part of Francis Ford Coppola's Epic and violent Gangster Trilogy, follows the reign of Don Michael Corleone as the head of the Corleone family. As well the film shows us the early years of Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) played flawlessly by Academy Award Winner Robert De Niro, and how he created his empire of money, gambling and respect. Beautifully directed by Francis Ford Coppola, Godfather Part II exceeds every expectation with outstanding performances from Academy Award winners Al Pacino,Diane Keaton, Robert Duvall and Robert De Niro. The second part of this unforgettable trilogy is one of the finest films ever made.
This is cinematic art. A treasure of film history. The finest sequel ever made. A faultless, flawless gripping drama; Coppola's second part of his crime saga is in my opinion one of the top 5 films of all time and perhaps towering over the first part.
"As close to perfection as movies get"
"Pacino at his best"
-10/10-
One of the greatest sequels ever made
OriginalMovieBuff2112 September 2004
After seeing The Godfather and improving it as one of my favorite films, I wanted to get more into The Godfather so I rented this. Words can't describe how great this sequel was. The acting once again was amazing and the story and how the movie went on just never got me bored. Everything in this movie was clearly beautiful. The ending by far was my favorite when there all sitting at the table talking. There were so many great scenes like Vito when he was younger, Fredo at the lake, and many many more. You have to see this movie because it's just brilliant filmaking. It's not better than it's first film but still an extremely worth sequel.
10/10
10/10
An Insult To Call It A Sequel
alexkolokotronis30 June 2008
To me and probably to many other people The Godfather Part II is more of a continuation than sequel to The Godfather. Just look at the IMDb rating and you'll see I'm not the only one who feels this way. To me it as good as the first.
The acting may have been better than the acting in the original. Robert De Niro gave a perfect subtle performance as Vito Corleone. His portrayal was powerful and breathtaking. When I think De Niro I definitely do not think subtle and smooth but that is exactly what he was in here. It is definitely one of his top three performances in his career. The depth in his portrayal was able to justify the Vito Corleone that Marlon Brando portrayed in the first. Al Pacino gave a very strong performance playing Michael Corleone. In here we get to see more of the tough decisions that have to be made and the consequences of certain actions. Al Pacino perfectly displayed the amount of thought and struggle that goes into and comes out of every action you make; the way it affects relationships, family, power and influence. Diane Keaton was not really given a lot of room to act in the first but in here she is very good. She did not play the stereotypical wife who always stands behind her husband but rather the woman with a mind of her own who is willing to go after what she feels she deserves. Robert Duvall again to me was the glue to the movie. Just having him in there kind of makes you feel safe. John Cazale also had more of an impact in here than in the first playing the half-witted brother always needing to be bailed out. A lot of these characters sound so familiar and stereotypical but in The Godfather Part II every character is played out with such extraordinary depth. Everyone from Talia Shire who gave a fine performance to Lee Strasberg all the way down to the kid who played young Vito Corleone were perfect. Part II seems to me to be more of a character study than the original.
The directing once again is perfect. Francis Ford Coppola know or at least knew how to make a movie. The first to Godfather movie are done so precisely and perfectly that nothing really sticks out because they are so perfect throughout. Coppola just lets his actors play everything out as he should with type of cast he has here. Not to many movies can maintain such a consistent flow over 3 hours let alone even an hour and 45 minutes.
The writing may not have been quite as good as the first in terms of quoting but the storyline was perfect. Seeing the decisions made by new mob boss Michael Corleone was common sense but flashing back on Vito Corleone's life was genius. The storyline to me could not have been better and Coppola and Puzo do a great job with it all the way.
Like the first the cinematography was amazing but it had a slightly different tone to it. The first had more of a majestic, mythical look to it. In Part II you feel the modern times creeping in and the Corleones having to adjust to it. Part II has more of a corrupt and evil twist to it but I guess the end signifies that. The music obviously the same as the first was perfect and just fit so greatly with the rest of the movie.
The first to movies of The Godfather series are really like the same movie. They are not the same though, they are actually very different but the greatness of them both and the continuation of the storyline from the first to the second really create a strong band between each other. To me it is only a sequel in that it was the second movie of a great series. No let downs, no disappointments just a continuation of of the greatness from the first one.
The acting may have been better than the acting in the original. Robert De Niro gave a perfect subtle performance as Vito Corleone. His portrayal was powerful and breathtaking. When I think De Niro I definitely do not think subtle and smooth but that is exactly what he was in here. It is definitely one of his top three performances in his career. The depth in his portrayal was able to justify the Vito Corleone that Marlon Brando portrayed in the first. Al Pacino gave a very strong performance playing Michael Corleone. In here we get to see more of the tough decisions that have to be made and the consequences of certain actions. Al Pacino perfectly displayed the amount of thought and struggle that goes into and comes out of every action you make; the way it affects relationships, family, power and influence. Diane Keaton was not really given a lot of room to act in the first but in here she is very good. She did not play the stereotypical wife who always stands behind her husband but rather the woman with a mind of her own who is willing to go after what she feels she deserves. Robert Duvall again to me was the glue to the movie. Just having him in there kind of makes you feel safe. John Cazale also had more of an impact in here than in the first playing the half-witted brother always needing to be bailed out. A lot of these characters sound so familiar and stereotypical but in The Godfather Part II every character is played out with such extraordinary depth. Everyone from Talia Shire who gave a fine performance to Lee Strasberg all the way down to the kid who played young Vito Corleone were perfect. Part II seems to me to be more of a character study than the original.
The directing once again is perfect. Francis Ford Coppola know or at least knew how to make a movie. The first to Godfather movie are done so precisely and perfectly that nothing really sticks out because they are so perfect throughout. Coppola just lets his actors play everything out as he should with type of cast he has here. Not to many movies can maintain such a consistent flow over 3 hours let alone even an hour and 45 minutes.
The writing may not have been quite as good as the first in terms of quoting but the storyline was perfect. Seeing the decisions made by new mob boss Michael Corleone was common sense but flashing back on Vito Corleone's life was genius. The storyline to me could not have been better and Coppola and Puzo do a great job with it all the way.
Like the first the cinematography was amazing but it had a slightly different tone to it. The first had more of a majestic, mythical look to it. In Part II you feel the modern times creeping in and the Corleones having to adjust to it. Part II has more of a corrupt and evil twist to it but I guess the end signifies that. The music obviously the same as the first was perfect and just fit so greatly with the rest of the movie.
The first to movies of The Godfather series are really like the same movie. They are not the same though, they are actually very different but the greatness of them both and the continuation of the storyline from the first to the second really create a strong band between each other. To me it is only a sequel in that it was the second movie of a great series. No let downs, no disappointments just a continuation of of the greatness from the first one.
I feel totally disconnected...
Soysoy2 November 2006
So this is something that ranks as #2 on IMDb... this time I think I have to face the fact that I'm totally disconnected from the vast majority of movie addicts. So take this review with a grain of salt: I'm an outsider, definitely.
I kinda liked the first Godfather, while not considering it as great cinema I found it engaging, well put together, with strong moments, all in all a good movie. Not so here. To me this was excruciatingly boring.
I actually liked the overture scenes very much. Then we leave Italy for the USA, and after 40 minutes I was still waiting for something to vaguely interest me. These endless contrived stories about the Italian Mafia (mob) have become such a cliché in movies that it's impossible for me to attend all this convoluted, ultra-codified stuff without getting successively amused, then annoyed, then plain bored. So when the cinematic and staging aspects are great, like in SCARFACE or ONCE UPON A TIME IN America, I just take that stuff for what it is, a genre film bound by rules, and enjoy it from the great acting, direction and purely cinematic elements (in De Palma's case -Scarface- the fabulous camera eye, in Leone's case -Once upon a time- the mindblowing psychological staging and the terrific cinematography).
Here the staging is mostly sloppy, long parts of the movie feels like it's been produced too fast, with poor cinematography and loose acting, some others are just as good as in the first movie but they're too scarce.
Pretty average, exploitative, complacent stuff for me. Sorry, I've seen so many movies that I need much more than that to be impressed. As far as classics goes, I'd rather watch "12 angry men" or "Le Procès" for the 30rd time than another of these cliché-ridden mob movies.
I kinda liked the first Godfather, while not considering it as great cinema I found it engaging, well put together, with strong moments, all in all a good movie. Not so here. To me this was excruciatingly boring.
I actually liked the overture scenes very much. Then we leave Italy for the USA, and after 40 minutes I was still waiting for something to vaguely interest me. These endless contrived stories about the Italian Mafia (mob) have become such a cliché in movies that it's impossible for me to attend all this convoluted, ultra-codified stuff without getting successively amused, then annoyed, then plain bored. So when the cinematic and staging aspects are great, like in SCARFACE or ONCE UPON A TIME IN America, I just take that stuff for what it is, a genre film bound by rules, and enjoy it from the great acting, direction and purely cinematic elements (in De Palma's case -Scarface- the fabulous camera eye, in Leone's case -Once upon a time- the mindblowing psychological staging and the terrific cinematography).
Here the staging is mostly sloppy, long parts of the movie feels like it's been produced too fast, with poor cinematography and loose acting, some others are just as good as in the first movie but they're too scarce.
Pretty average, exploitative, complacent stuff for me. Sorry, I've seen so many movies that I need much more than that to be impressed. As far as classics goes, I'd rather watch "12 angry men" or "Le Procès" for the 30rd time than another of these cliché-ridden mob movies.
Best gangster dramas of all time arguably
0U23 February 2020
"The Godfather: Part II" is a very suspenseful drama with a very exciting story, with great acting and great special effects. I would definitely recommend you watch this movie...but first watch the original classic from 1972 "The Godfather" . The movie may not be as good as the first movie but is still an amazing sequel.
One of the greatest movies ever made.
Sleepin_Dragon24 June 2023
The Godfather saga continues, telling The story of Vito, his childhood and journey to America, and the story of hia son Michael, who would become a immensely powerful criminal in the 1950's.
When someone tells you that sequels are never as good as the originals, give them this name, you can make a very strong case. I'd have to put this on par with the original, quite simply put, it's one of the greatest films ever made.
There isn't a single wasted frame, every decadent scene matters, every action has consequences, every twist, every turn, every moment, will have you captivated.
The original was a mammoth success, so commercially it was the right thing to do, but at no point does this film feel like a hollow, money making exercise, it merely serves to build on the brilliance of the first, serving as both a prequel and sequel.
Director Francis Ford Coppola truly delivers in every single front, the story is magnificent, but the way the two elements are clearly woven together, effortlessly, the viewer never struggles to keep up.
The visuals are sensational, it is one of the best looking films ever made, there's a huge cast, with a massive number of extras, cars, fashions and sets look tremendous.
De Niro was superb, Al Pacino's performance is arguably one of the greatest of all time, it's easy to see why for many he is one of the best ever.
What I wouldn't give for a solid gold telephone.
One of the best films ever made, I can only imagine how many great movies were influenced by this masterpiece.
10/10.
When someone tells you that sequels are never as good as the originals, give them this name, you can make a very strong case. I'd have to put this on par with the original, quite simply put, it's one of the greatest films ever made.
There isn't a single wasted frame, every decadent scene matters, every action has consequences, every twist, every turn, every moment, will have you captivated.
The original was a mammoth success, so commercially it was the right thing to do, but at no point does this film feel like a hollow, money making exercise, it merely serves to build on the brilliance of the first, serving as both a prequel and sequel.
Director Francis Ford Coppola truly delivers in every single front, the story is magnificent, but the way the two elements are clearly woven together, effortlessly, the viewer never struggles to keep up.
The visuals are sensational, it is one of the best looking films ever made, there's a huge cast, with a massive number of extras, cars, fashions and sets look tremendous.
De Niro was superb, Al Pacino's performance is arguably one of the greatest of all time, it's easy to see why for many he is one of the best ever.
What I wouldn't give for a solid gold telephone.
One of the best films ever made, I can only imagine how many great movies were influenced by this masterpiece.
10/10.
Poor Fredo! We still miss John Cazale!
Sylviastel14 October 2002
The Godfather Part II has excellent writing, plotting, editing is even brilliant, acting, and overall quality to watch over again and again. You can never get sick of watching this film. I miss John Cazale. He was truly a gifted actor and I miss him. He played my favorite Corleone brother. Sure Alfredo was never brilliant or vicious but he was sweet, gentle, and warm most of the time. He had a conscience and I despise Michael for killing his own brother. I think he killed him out of jealousy. Alfredo spent more time with Michael's son, Anthony, than he did and he resented him for it. Alfredo could have been spared. Four years after Godfather Part II, John Cazale died of cancer after filming the Deer Hunter. He never won an Oscar or made too many films but he made every role memorable. Rest in Peace, John. I miss you.
Masterpiece - best film ever
nqwpwfq4 October 2023
Truly a masterpiece!!!
Character development is perfected. Francis Ford Copolla takes us on Vito's journey to become "The Godfather". From an orphan Sicilian immigrant to a well respected, level headed and powerful figure in his community, Vito's evolution is beautiful.
Michael's story goes down a different route... the quiet, respectful boy at the start of the first film is no more.
The Godfather Part II shows how different their paths are. One whose family are connected and the other disjointed. This masterpiece gets you pondering about what ifs... can't help but wonder who Michael would have become if he had Vito's guidance for a little bit longer.
Timeless film - will never lose its magic. 10/10.
Character development is perfected. Francis Ford Copolla takes us on Vito's journey to become "The Godfather". From an orphan Sicilian immigrant to a well respected, level headed and powerful figure in his community, Vito's evolution is beautiful.
Michael's story goes down a different route... the quiet, respectful boy at the start of the first film is no more.
The Godfather Part II shows how different their paths are. One whose family are connected and the other disjointed. This masterpiece gets you pondering about what ifs... can't help but wonder who Michael would have become if he had Vito's guidance for a little bit longer.
Timeless film - will never lose its magic. 10/10.
A Masterpiece
JoshtheGiant15 October 2005
The Godfather Part Two is possibly the best film ever made, every part of this film is amazing, it is even better than the original, I was very surprised by this. The story is amazing, everything makes perfect sense. The Oscar winning screenplay is amazing, the dialogue is some of the most original, and realistic ever putt on screen, the characters are flawless, and it's in every way perfectly written. The acting is just as fantastic, I can't believe Al Pacino lost the Oscar, and for once Robert De Niro was even better, he was truly amazing, and interestingly he fails to say a single word in English. The direction is also amazing, Francis Ford Coppola even does a better job than he did in The Godfather, and Apocalypse Now. The visual effects are so much better than the amazing one's in the original Godfather. One of the best films ever, a must see. Flawless.
A must for everyone
sarabagi13 March 2019
It's-a not so good.
BA_Harrison7 March 2016
The Godfather Part II is one of those rare sequels that is regarded by many to be as good as, if not better than, the original. I'm guessing that much of its popularity lies in the fact that it is not just a sequel, following Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) as he continues to expand his family's 'business', but also a prequel, charting Vito Corleone's life from a child in Sicily at the turn of the 20th century to powerful New York mafia don. Two films for the price of one!
Unfortunately, as far as I'm concerned, only half of this 'double-bill' is really worth the time and effort. The flashbacks are great, with Robert De Niro superb as the young adult Vito, rising from shop assistant to mob boss; these parts reminded me of the excellent Once Upon A Time In America, which also charted the early lives of young gangsters (and which also starred De Niro). In contrast, the scenes featuring Michael's continuing underworld activities in the '50s are far too convoluted and slow for their own good, making keeping up with the Corleones more of a chore than a pleasure.
8/10 for the flashbacks; 4/10 for the rest. That's a disappointing average of 6/10.
Unfortunately, as far as I'm concerned, only half of this 'double-bill' is really worth the time and effort. The flashbacks are great, with Robert De Niro superb as the young adult Vito, rising from shop assistant to mob boss; these parts reminded me of the excellent Once Upon A Time In America, which also charted the early lives of young gangsters (and which also starred De Niro). In contrast, the scenes featuring Michael's continuing underworld activities in the '50s are far too convoluted and slow for their own good, making keeping up with the Corleones more of a chore than a pleasure.
8/10 for the flashbacks; 4/10 for the rest. That's a disappointing average of 6/10.
Over ambitious over long and over rated.
son_of_cheese_messiah12 June 2010
At the time of its release, many claimed this to be a finer film than the original. However, the passage of time has been less kind to this than that iconic movie.
Much of the problem stems from the decision to make this both the sequel and prequel to the first film at the same time. So we have the back story of Vito Corleone and the ongoing adventures of his son Michael inter-cut throughout. This adds to the films inordinate length, which would have been long enough if Michael's story alone was told, but here is stretched to almost 4 hours.
Details in both stories fail to convince, the Vito back story most of all. It is scarcely believable that a well meaning outsider could so easily take over the underworld in the manner portrayed. As played by De Niro, he is a Robin Hood 'feared by the bad, loved by the good' but why he is so universally feared not plausible. He could have easily been taken out. The real Vito Corleone would have had to have been much nastier and been prepared to deal with his opponents brutally. His character is whitewashed for Hollywood consumption. And there is some cack handed attempts at humour during, for instance, the slum landlord scene.
There is, of course much fine acting from all, especially in Michael's story arc. This differs from Vito's since while Vito's is very simple, Michael's is very very complex. Too complex perhap. Various well known events from the 50s merely are stuck together to form the backdrop. The Mafia involvement with pre-revolutionary Cuba; congressional hearings; plus a few subtle hints at the Kennedy assassination. The narrative is exceptionally loose and meandering. The writing is surprisingly unsubtle, with clinking plot points being underlined again and again.
The female characters are under-used but make the most of their meagre parts. Talia Shire's impassioned plea to her brother sticks in the mind, but elsewhere she barely speaks a word. Diane Keen has a better role and sinks her teeth into it with gusto.
The film belongs to Al Pacino who dominates this in the way that Hamlet does in Shakespeare's play. Its an accomplished performance as would be expected. There is certainly enough here to make it worth watching, but it could have been much better.
Much of the problem stems from the decision to make this both the sequel and prequel to the first film at the same time. So we have the back story of Vito Corleone and the ongoing adventures of his son Michael inter-cut throughout. This adds to the films inordinate length, which would have been long enough if Michael's story alone was told, but here is stretched to almost 4 hours.
Details in both stories fail to convince, the Vito back story most of all. It is scarcely believable that a well meaning outsider could so easily take over the underworld in the manner portrayed. As played by De Niro, he is a Robin Hood 'feared by the bad, loved by the good' but why he is so universally feared not plausible. He could have easily been taken out. The real Vito Corleone would have had to have been much nastier and been prepared to deal with his opponents brutally. His character is whitewashed for Hollywood consumption. And there is some cack handed attempts at humour during, for instance, the slum landlord scene.
There is, of course much fine acting from all, especially in Michael's story arc. This differs from Vito's since while Vito's is very simple, Michael's is very very complex. Too complex perhap. Various well known events from the 50s merely are stuck together to form the backdrop. The Mafia involvement with pre-revolutionary Cuba; congressional hearings; plus a few subtle hints at the Kennedy assassination. The narrative is exceptionally loose and meandering. The writing is surprisingly unsubtle, with clinking plot points being underlined again and again.
The female characters are under-used but make the most of their meagre parts. Talia Shire's impassioned plea to her brother sticks in the mind, but elsewhere she barely speaks a word. Diane Keen has a better role and sinks her teeth into it with gusto.
The film belongs to Al Pacino who dominates this in the way that Hamlet does in Shakespeare's play. Its an accomplished performance as would be expected. There is certainly enough here to make it worth watching, but it could have been much better.
A Hollywood Masterpiece!!!!
Bill-2476 December 1998
Francis Coppola and Mario Puzo continue their epic saga into the lives of the infamous Corleone family, which is headed by Michael Corleone (Al Pacino). It is a film which does better than its predessor, "The Godfather". The film flip-flops graciously and beautifully between Michael's struggle over the family business and the life of young Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro, in a brilliant, Oscar-winning performance) in his rise to power as well. Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, Lee Strassberg, and John Cazale give excellent supporting performances. Carmine Coppola's and Nino Rota's score is a masterpiece of music. The movie is expertly filmed and the cinematography is superb.
Truly a masterpiece
richarevans112 August 2003
Often seen as possibly a greater film than even "The Godfather" this film is truly remarkable. Part of the film is a pre-quel, with Robert De Nero playing a young Marlon Brando (is that a dream casting or not?) partly it's the story of Michael Corleone as he grows into the role of Godfather. Again brilliantly filmed, great acting, a great story of love revenge etc. but in some ways it's harder to sympathise with Michael as he slips further into a hell of revenge and murder. Like watching a car-crash.
A rare sequel
edmunddavies2118 September 2005
The Godfather part II is a fantastic sequel and a great follow up to the original. Most sequels are not as good as the original, some are plain rubbish. But The Godfather part II is rare because it is just as good as the original (some reviewers say it is better than the first but i don't think so). The performances are brilliant just like in the first. Robert de Niro plays a young Vito Corleone. showing the young life of Vito in the 1920's While Michael tries to extend the family business in the 1950's. The godfather part II is a must see for fans of the original,what a must buy for fans of the original. fans of the original will love 10/10 definitive crime film. Thanks for reading.
Excellent, but could be in the dictionary under "sprawl"
BrandtSponseller10 May 2005
Series note: It is almost unthinkable to watch this film without having seen The Godfather (1972) first. This is a direct continuation of that story.
The good news is that The Godfather Part II has many amazing qualities, including fantastic performances from a superb cast, sublime, unprecedented visuals that no one else has been able to capture since, and very engaging stories. The bad news is that this should have easily been a 10, but overall, it is so sprawling and unfocused that I can't possibly give it more than a 9, which it only earns because the assets transcend what's basically a mess overall. Because it should have been a 10, and most other reviews will tell you about the positive points at length, I may pick on more things in my review than you would think I would for a 9, but rest assured that even with the flaws, The Godfather Part II is still essential viewing.
Director/co-writer Francis Ford Coppola cleverly begins the film with parallels to The Godfather. We see Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) "in the role" of his father, Vito (Marlon Brando), from the first film, accepting prostrating guests while a party is going on outside. Like the first film, the party consumes a lot of time while we get to know some of the principal characters. Perhaps during this segment, perhaps a bit after, we realize that maybe the beginning wasn't so clever after all, because the structure of The Godfather Part II parallels The Godfather from a broad perspective, as if Coppola and co-writer Mario Puzo used the first film as something of a template to create this one.
After the party is over, there is an attempted hit on Michael, and we quickly learn that not everything is rosy in the Corleone's mafia world. Michael believes that someone on the "inside" was involved with the hit. This launches a complicated sequence of events that has Michael, who is now living in Nevada, traveling to Miami, Cuba, New York, and so on. He accuses different people of involvement in the attempted hit depending on whom he is talking to. This may have all been part of a grand scheme to set up the responsible parties, but one of the flaws of the film is that Coppola doesn't convey Michael's underlying thoughts about this very well, not even later, and not through his actions. Rather than feeling like a clever set-up, it starts to feel like slightly muddled writing.
During the middle section of the film, which goes on for hours, we also have a hint of a problem that plagued The Godfather--a bloated cast. There are bit too many characters who aren't well enough presented or explained. You may need to keep a scorecard.
Coppola and Puzo also treat us to many extended "flashback" segments, and I mean way back, to Vito as a boy and young man, played by Robert De Niro. For my money, these were the best scenes of the film, although maybe that's a bit of my bias creeping in, as I'm a huge De Niro fan.
But let's talk about the main plague of the film--sprawl. This is maybe first evident in the flashbacks. As good as they are, they go on far too long, and happen far too frequently, to sustain the momentum of either the Michael story or the Vito-as-a-youngster story. It begins to feel like we're toggling back and forth between two films, which is the track that should have been taken. The prequel, at least, would have been a solid 10.
There's also a lot of sprawl in the Michael Corleone segments. Coppola appears to have been suffering from what I'd now call "J.K. Rowling Syndrome". That happens when an artist becomes successful enough that they can fire or ignore their editor(s). Instead of taking good advice about where to trim fat, the artist decides to just leave much of it in, and they now have the clout to override any dissenting and more sensible opinions. The Michael Corleone story has a lot of fat, including much of the Cuba material (for example, sitting around the table with the President, laboriously passing around a solid gold telephone), the Senate hearings (which go on far too long to make and provide the dramatic points), and so on.
The film begins to feel more like a couple seasons of a television show that Coppola tried to cram into a 3 and a half hour film, or worse, a collection of deleted scenes. The scenes, except for the fat that needed to be trimmed, are excellent in isolation. But by the time the climax rolls around, the whole has more of an arbitrary feeling--this is especially clear in the dénouement, which seems to just end.
I've barely left myself room to talk about the good points. The first one, which most people mention, is the acting. There isn't a bad performance in the film, but Pacino, De Niro, and some relatively minor characters, like those played by Diane Keaton, Talia Shire and John Cazale, really stand out.
The second outstanding point, similar to the first film, is the beautiful visuals. Although all of the cinematography and production design is great, what really impressed me were some of the darkly lit scenes. Characters and features of sets emerge from pitch-blackness, and everything is rich, deep shades of burgundy, brown, and orange. Amazingly, nothing gets lost in these scenes. It must be incredibly difficult to achieve without making the shots too dark, because I can't remember another film since that has been able to capture the same look. The flashback scenes are also in similar, but lighter, colors, creating an appropriate sepia-tone feel.
Although the broad perspective problems are unfortunate, a closer focus on most segments of the film provides exemplary artistry. Given that, and the film's importance culturally, The Godfather Part II is a must-see.
The good news is that The Godfather Part II has many amazing qualities, including fantastic performances from a superb cast, sublime, unprecedented visuals that no one else has been able to capture since, and very engaging stories. The bad news is that this should have easily been a 10, but overall, it is so sprawling and unfocused that I can't possibly give it more than a 9, which it only earns because the assets transcend what's basically a mess overall. Because it should have been a 10, and most other reviews will tell you about the positive points at length, I may pick on more things in my review than you would think I would for a 9, but rest assured that even with the flaws, The Godfather Part II is still essential viewing.
Director/co-writer Francis Ford Coppola cleverly begins the film with parallels to The Godfather. We see Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) "in the role" of his father, Vito (Marlon Brando), from the first film, accepting prostrating guests while a party is going on outside. Like the first film, the party consumes a lot of time while we get to know some of the principal characters. Perhaps during this segment, perhaps a bit after, we realize that maybe the beginning wasn't so clever after all, because the structure of The Godfather Part II parallels The Godfather from a broad perspective, as if Coppola and co-writer Mario Puzo used the first film as something of a template to create this one.
After the party is over, there is an attempted hit on Michael, and we quickly learn that not everything is rosy in the Corleone's mafia world. Michael believes that someone on the "inside" was involved with the hit. This launches a complicated sequence of events that has Michael, who is now living in Nevada, traveling to Miami, Cuba, New York, and so on. He accuses different people of involvement in the attempted hit depending on whom he is talking to. This may have all been part of a grand scheme to set up the responsible parties, but one of the flaws of the film is that Coppola doesn't convey Michael's underlying thoughts about this very well, not even later, and not through his actions. Rather than feeling like a clever set-up, it starts to feel like slightly muddled writing.
During the middle section of the film, which goes on for hours, we also have a hint of a problem that plagued The Godfather--a bloated cast. There are bit too many characters who aren't well enough presented or explained. You may need to keep a scorecard.
Coppola and Puzo also treat us to many extended "flashback" segments, and I mean way back, to Vito as a boy and young man, played by Robert De Niro. For my money, these were the best scenes of the film, although maybe that's a bit of my bias creeping in, as I'm a huge De Niro fan.
But let's talk about the main plague of the film--sprawl. This is maybe first evident in the flashbacks. As good as they are, they go on far too long, and happen far too frequently, to sustain the momentum of either the Michael story or the Vito-as-a-youngster story. It begins to feel like we're toggling back and forth between two films, which is the track that should have been taken. The prequel, at least, would have been a solid 10.
There's also a lot of sprawl in the Michael Corleone segments. Coppola appears to have been suffering from what I'd now call "J.K. Rowling Syndrome". That happens when an artist becomes successful enough that they can fire or ignore their editor(s). Instead of taking good advice about where to trim fat, the artist decides to just leave much of it in, and they now have the clout to override any dissenting and more sensible opinions. The Michael Corleone story has a lot of fat, including much of the Cuba material (for example, sitting around the table with the President, laboriously passing around a solid gold telephone), the Senate hearings (which go on far too long to make and provide the dramatic points), and so on.
The film begins to feel more like a couple seasons of a television show that Coppola tried to cram into a 3 and a half hour film, or worse, a collection of deleted scenes. The scenes, except for the fat that needed to be trimmed, are excellent in isolation. But by the time the climax rolls around, the whole has more of an arbitrary feeling--this is especially clear in the dénouement, which seems to just end.
I've barely left myself room to talk about the good points. The first one, which most people mention, is the acting. There isn't a bad performance in the film, but Pacino, De Niro, and some relatively minor characters, like those played by Diane Keaton, Talia Shire and John Cazale, really stand out.
The second outstanding point, similar to the first film, is the beautiful visuals. Although all of the cinematography and production design is great, what really impressed me were some of the darkly lit scenes. Characters and features of sets emerge from pitch-blackness, and everything is rich, deep shades of burgundy, brown, and orange. Amazingly, nothing gets lost in these scenes. It must be incredibly difficult to achieve without making the shots too dark, because I can't remember another film since that has been able to capture the same look. The flashback scenes are also in similar, but lighter, colors, creating an appropriate sepia-tone feel.
Although the broad perspective problems are unfortunate, a closer focus on most segments of the film provides exemplary artistry. Given that, and the film's importance culturally, The Godfather Part II is a must-see.
I prefer the first film, but this compares well
mentalcritic8 May 2005
The Godfather, Part II is one of the most revered sequels of all time, if not the most. While I prefer the original for a few reasons, this sequel is not without more than its fair share of merits. However, it also has one or two flaws that, if I am going to be fair, I have to mention. Since they will take up the least amount of space in my comments, I'll get them out of the way first. The first flaw, in my opinion, is a jumping sense of focus. As the story goes from one part of America to Cuba to Sicily to another part of America, one can get a little giddy with the to and fro. The other problem is that when the screenplay doesn't follow Mario Puzo's original writings, it doesn't quite work. The big conspiracy with a Jewish smuggler and unnamed Italian rivals in the New York or Nevada underworlds doesn't quite seem to gel. Both stories, the historical story of Vito Corleone and the present-day story of Michael's decline, really needed three hours of their own. It is interesting to note that of all the deleted footage that went into the Godfather Legacy miniseries, the majority came from this film.
The acting from all concerned is top-notch, especially from Al Pacino, who sells himself beautifully as the dangerous head of a mafia family in spite of needing to be on platforms to appear at the same height as many of his castmates. Robert Duvall gives a workman-like performance, but he has little to do here other than act out the part of the ever-loyal brother. I think the fact that he was almost irrelevant to the storyline here has a lot to do with Duvall's refusal to join the cast of the third film. The real surprise here is John Cazale, who fleshes out Fredo Corleone far beyond anything in either the first film or the novel. It is unsurprising that all of the films Cazale has been in have been nominated for Best Picture. He portrays the rejected brother who just wants what he feels is his fair share with an uncanny grace. But these are just the highlights. The entire cast give top-notch performances, even the extras who appear for less than ten seconds.
The best thing about a Godfather film is how it builds a simple story of a family who, whether they wanted it or not, happen to be in the business of organised crime. The bloodshed of this film, much as was the case in the original, is secondary to the simple premise that these are ordinary people in an extraordinary position. Francis Ford Coppola has previously stated that he saw The Godfather as a (relatively) modern King Lear, and that style is kept up in the sequel. Michael is in essence the new King of the realm, but he learns the hard way that the more he tries to tighten his grip upon what is his, or what is loyal to him, the more it slips away. This is the film in which we learn why this is not what Vito Corleone wanted for his youngest son. Sadly, fate has a way of getting in the path of our best intentions, and nowhere is this more evident than in Diane Keaton's dialogue. Some of her speech to Al Pacino really sounds like it was either written at the last moment, or by someone who didn't have a whole lot of experience in writing films.
Like the other Godfather films, the most satisfying moments are when the opponents of the Corleone family get their hash settled in a big way. The montage shown in Part II is not as graphic as that of the original, but it brings the whole thing to a satisfying climax. Lee Strasberg's speech to the press after his character being deported from Israel is priceless, as is the manner in which it ends. Unfortunately, the etiquette that dictates I cannot reveal what happens at the end of the film means I cannot tell you anything about the most satisfying death in the film. Being one of the most debated and criticised scenes among Godfather fans, I am fairly certain that anyone with an interest in the film is going to hear about it elsewhere anyway. In spite of the fact that it, and the necessary lead-up, takes up most of the second half of Michael's plot segment, it will leave many a viewer stunned. But that is one of the things that detracts slightly from this cinematic tour de force. With the screen time so sharply divided between two stories, sometimes the linking between plot points seems to fall by the wayside.
I gave The Godfather, Part II a nine out of ten. In contrast to the original, I noticed the passage of time on a few occasions in its two hundred minutes. Still, if you're out to see a good drama, and you've already enjoyed the first Godfather, then this is worth a couple of viewings. If every director adaptating the writings of others into a film format took as much care as Francis Ford Coppola had here, then the world would be a better place.
The acting from all concerned is top-notch, especially from Al Pacino, who sells himself beautifully as the dangerous head of a mafia family in spite of needing to be on platforms to appear at the same height as many of his castmates. Robert Duvall gives a workman-like performance, but he has little to do here other than act out the part of the ever-loyal brother. I think the fact that he was almost irrelevant to the storyline here has a lot to do with Duvall's refusal to join the cast of the third film. The real surprise here is John Cazale, who fleshes out Fredo Corleone far beyond anything in either the first film or the novel. It is unsurprising that all of the films Cazale has been in have been nominated for Best Picture. He portrays the rejected brother who just wants what he feels is his fair share with an uncanny grace. But these are just the highlights. The entire cast give top-notch performances, even the extras who appear for less than ten seconds.
The best thing about a Godfather film is how it builds a simple story of a family who, whether they wanted it or not, happen to be in the business of organised crime. The bloodshed of this film, much as was the case in the original, is secondary to the simple premise that these are ordinary people in an extraordinary position. Francis Ford Coppola has previously stated that he saw The Godfather as a (relatively) modern King Lear, and that style is kept up in the sequel. Michael is in essence the new King of the realm, but he learns the hard way that the more he tries to tighten his grip upon what is his, or what is loyal to him, the more it slips away. This is the film in which we learn why this is not what Vito Corleone wanted for his youngest son. Sadly, fate has a way of getting in the path of our best intentions, and nowhere is this more evident than in Diane Keaton's dialogue. Some of her speech to Al Pacino really sounds like it was either written at the last moment, or by someone who didn't have a whole lot of experience in writing films.
Like the other Godfather films, the most satisfying moments are when the opponents of the Corleone family get their hash settled in a big way. The montage shown in Part II is not as graphic as that of the original, but it brings the whole thing to a satisfying climax. Lee Strasberg's speech to the press after his character being deported from Israel is priceless, as is the manner in which it ends. Unfortunately, the etiquette that dictates I cannot reveal what happens at the end of the film means I cannot tell you anything about the most satisfying death in the film. Being one of the most debated and criticised scenes among Godfather fans, I am fairly certain that anyone with an interest in the film is going to hear about it elsewhere anyway. In spite of the fact that it, and the necessary lead-up, takes up most of the second half of Michael's plot segment, it will leave many a viewer stunned. But that is one of the things that detracts slightly from this cinematic tour de force. With the screen time so sharply divided between two stories, sometimes the linking between plot points seems to fall by the wayside.
I gave The Godfather, Part II a nine out of ten. In contrast to the original, I noticed the passage of time on a few occasions in its two hundred minutes. Still, if you're out to see a good drama, and you've already enjoyed the first Godfather, then this is worth a couple of viewings. If every director adaptating the writings of others into a film format took as much care as Francis Ford Coppola had here, then the world would be a better place.
The Godfather Part 2
auuwws18 January 2021
The best sequel ever and one of the best films I have seen, a great story with great writing characters carefully written and masterfully illustrated by the actors. Robert De Niro embodies the ingenuity of Vito Corleone, Al Pacino played the role of Michael greatly and continued on the same level in the first film, the only negative that affected me the film was slightly less than the level of the first part is the length of the film was long and I felt some bored in some shots I am watching the film, the film is one of the 10 best films I have ever seen, and my rating for the film is 9.5 and I highly recommend watching it.
A decent follow-up but not great as far as I'm concerned
sme_no_densetsu6 October 2010
"The Godfather: Part II" hit theatres a couple of years after the first film and made history by becoming the first sequel to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. Today, it is routinely listed alongside the original as one of the best American films of all time.
The story picks up a few years after the end of the first film. Michael is firmly established as the head of the family and has moved to Nevada where he is edging the family towards legitimacy. However, when he is beset by betrayals he systematically sets about dealing with the betrayers mercilessly. There is also a second story thread (told in flashback) that traces the early years of Vito Corleone and his introduction to mob life.
The film clocks in at a hefty 200 minutes. Unlike the first film, though, I couldn't really get caught up in either of the parallel stories so the film seemed to drag quite a bit. I didn't find the Vito storyline particularly compelling and the Michael storyline is little more than a convoluted extension of part one. These stories were meant to be compared but I don't feel that the director or the editor really constructed the film optimally for this purpose. Nevertheless, the film still has a classic scene or two, though it's nowhere near as consistent as the first film.
Most of the actors whose characters survived the first film reprised their roles here. Returnees Al Pacino & Talia Shire each landed Oscar nominations and so did newcomers Michael V. Gazzo & Lee Strasberg. However, the only actor to take home an Oscar statuette was Robert De Niro for his portrayal of the young Vito Corleone. Personally, I think that Pacino gave the best performance of the film.
Francis Ford Coppola won an Oscar for his direction but I feel that the first film was a better effort. From a visual standpoint the film is attractive, though, and the Nino Rota score was justly rewarded with an Oscar.
Ultimately, I don't feel that "The Godfather: Part II" lives up to its pedigree. I've watched it a few times, so I'd say that I've given it a fair shake. That being said, I realize that I'm in the vast minority here so it must be a personal thing. As far as I'm concerned, "Chinatown" deserves the Best Picture Oscar that went to this film.
The story picks up a few years after the end of the first film. Michael is firmly established as the head of the family and has moved to Nevada where he is edging the family towards legitimacy. However, when he is beset by betrayals he systematically sets about dealing with the betrayers mercilessly. There is also a second story thread (told in flashback) that traces the early years of Vito Corleone and his introduction to mob life.
The film clocks in at a hefty 200 minutes. Unlike the first film, though, I couldn't really get caught up in either of the parallel stories so the film seemed to drag quite a bit. I didn't find the Vito storyline particularly compelling and the Michael storyline is little more than a convoluted extension of part one. These stories were meant to be compared but I don't feel that the director or the editor really constructed the film optimally for this purpose. Nevertheless, the film still has a classic scene or two, though it's nowhere near as consistent as the first film.
Most of the actors whose characters survived the first film reprised their roles here. Returnees Al Pacino & Talia Shire each landed Oscar nominations and so did newcomers Michael V. Gazzo & Lee Strasberg. However, the only actor to take home an Oscar statuette was Robert De Niro for his portrayal of the young Vito Corleone. Personally, I think that Pacino gave the best performance of the film.
Francis Ford Coppola won an Oscar for his direction but I feel that the first film was a better effort. From a visual standpoint the film is attractive, though, and the Nino Rota score was justly rewarded with an Oscar.
Ultimately, I don't feel that "The Godfather: Part II" lives up to its pedigree. I've watched it a few times, so I'd say that I've given it a fair shake. That being said, I realize that I'm in the vast minority here so it must be a personal thing. As far as I'm concerned, "Chinatown" deserves the Best Picture Oscar that went to this film.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
