The Godfather Part II (1974) User Reviews (1,373)

Breathtaking in its scope and tragic grandeur...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 10/10 · 10 March 2001]

Coppola's masterpiece is rivaled only by "The Godfather, Part II" in which the 1940s setting of the first movie is extended backwards and forwards to reveal the corrupting effect of power...The film, breathtaking in its scope and tragic grandeur, shows two parallel stories extending two different time periods: the early career of young Vito Corleone seen first around the turn of the 20th century in Sicily, and then in 1917, building his criminal underworld in the Italian ghettos of New York City, post World War I, plus that of his son, Michael (Al Pacino) desperately trying to keep his family together...

Al Pacino's performance is quiet and solemn... He is cold and ruthless, with a whole contrast from the idealistic innocent war hero we initially met at the beginning of the first film... Here he's a calculating and frightening force, seeking to expand casinos into Pre-Revolutionary Cuba and consolidating an empire surrounded by perfidy and treason, maintaining total confidence in his ability to control the situation whether testifying before enraging Senators or trying to outface his worst enemies...

The film's haunting final shot of a lonely, isolated paranoid Michael in his empty compound, is an unforgettable movie scene, a tragic portrait of a lonely and fully damned person, emotionally empty and finished, far from a waspish wife, more distant from a faithful lawyer...

De Niro's rise, from an orphan child by a family feud back in Italy to a hood in New York and his position as a respected Don, provides a welcome break from Pacino's relentless attitude... Since the people he kills seem to deserve it, Vito comes off better than Michael does, and it was wise of Coppola to shuffle the two stories together despite lengthy flashbacks and the disturbance of continuity...

The entire cast contributes greatly to the success of the film: Lee Strasberg, a fascinating mixture of lust and ruthlessness; G. D. Spradlin, absolutely right as the sinister and corrupt Nevada Senator; Michael V. Gazzo, unforgettable as the troubled gray-haired informer; Gastone Moschin, excellent as the blackmailer in white suit; John Cazale, marvelously timid as the vague, confused, and hesitant Fredo; Diane Keaton, clearly irrational as the long-suffering wife Kay; Talia Shire, too extravagant as the lousy mother; Troy Donahue too ambitious as the fortune-hunting suitor; and Robert Duvall excels as the confidant, and retainer to the all-powerful Corleone family...

Coppola's motion picture is not just a mere supply with new characters and events from the original, it's a far more complex and intimate movie than its predecessor... It is not really a sequel... It's just more... It cleverly shifts in time between two distinct narratives with extreme realistic violence and criminal mentality of gangsters...

A masterpiece that can never be beaten...

[umunir-36959 · 10/10 · 9 August 2019]

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.

The Greatest Film Ever Made

[DanB-4 · 10/10 · 7 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.

To call it a sequel is a travesty

[taimur74 · 10/10 · 9 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.

One of the greatest films ever made.

[AgustinCesaratti · 10/10 · 6 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.

The Greatest Sequel During the Cinema's History

[tfrizzell · 13 October 2001]

"The Godfather, Part II" is excellent just like its predecessor. While the first is arguably the greatest film ever made, the second installment is easily the best sequel produced hands down. The film is split between the stories of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino, Oscar-nominated) and a young Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro, in his star-making, first Oscar-winning performance). In the 1950s, Michael is trying to expand his crime empire to locales such as Las Vegas, Hollywood, and even turbulent Cuba. However, there are numerous problems as older brother Fredo (John Cazale) may have double-crossed the family. Also two prominent crime bosses pose a considerable threat as well (Lee Strasberg and Michael V. Gazzo, both Oscar-nominated). Younger sister Connie (Oscar nominee Talia Shire) is still reeling from her husband's murder and her father's death at the conclusion of the original film. Michael is also distancing himself from his wife (Diane Keaton) and some of his most trusted friends (Robert Duvall). While all this is occurring we get glimpses into the early life of Michael's father (De Niro). We learn that his parents and older brother have been killed in early-1900s Sicily and that he has immigrated to New York. Vito pays his dues and learns the tricks of the trade, buying his time, before deciding to create his own small empire which would of course grow and become what we saw in the original. It would seem that the film would be confusing by jumping back and forth between Michael and his father, but that is not so. Coppola gives you just enough information to keep the audience intrigued through each segment. The film is very well-made and runs very smoothly even though it lasts over 200 minutes. Many think that this installment is the best of the series. Even though I still think that the original is the best, I cannot totally disagree with this assertion as this is the definitive sequel. 5 stars out of 5.

Great ensemble acting, great story, greatest sequel ever made.

[ballen8 · 10/10 · 1 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.

Terrific continuation of the "Godfather" series; to call it a "sequel" almost seems insulting...

[MovieAddict2016 · 10/10 · 23 August 2003]

This sequel is just as terrific as the first film, if not more so. I hesitate to call it a sequel, as "sequel" is quite simply the wrong word I am looking for. A film like "The Matrix Reloaded" is a sequel - "The Godfather Part II" is something more. It's just too good to be called a sequel.

The film won six Oscars in 1974, including Best Picture and Best Supporting Actor (Robert De Niro). It deserved every one. It involves the viewer from the start and never lets up. Particular aspects I enjoy in this film are the flashbacks to Don Vito Corleone as a child immigrating to New York City after social problems in his homeland, Sicily. I like the intertwining of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), his son, in present day, dealing with his crime inheritance, and Vito (Robert De Niro), his father, years ago. I like how, as Michael comes to terms with his family legacy, the film shows us Vito coming to terms with his future. The day he shoots that man in a gritty apartment complex is a turning point in his life.

Every actor is in top form here. Al Pacino has gradually made the move from a man who denies his future to a man who is accepting it. His character is the spotlight of this film, much more so than in the first film (though both center around his decisions).

Robert De Niro is particularly wonderful and convincing as a young Vito Corleone, who was of course played by the constantly-spoofed Marlon Brando in the original. De Niro takes an iron grip on his character and completely engulfs himself; this was, in 1974, the sign of an actor who would go places. Indeed, he did.

Coppola's magical sense of direction is at work here, as is the script by Coppola and Mario Puzo (whose novels the series is based upon). The original was a wonderful film, but the sequel presents more of a challenge. Flashbacks are often intercut in the middle of other films are awkward times, but in "The Godfather Part II," Coppola uses them at precisely the right moments, managing to careen in and out of scenes and time periods with free abandon.

It takes a great kind of skill to master something like this, much less a sequel to one of the most beloved films of all time. "The Godfather" was an instant classic upon its release in 1972. Coppola had two years to plan for his continuation of the film. People told him it wouldn't work, he would never beat the original, and he would never pull it off. But he showed them all. "The Godfather Part II" may well be the best sequel I have ever seen in my entire lifetime. I wish they were all this good. To call it a "sequel" almost seems insulting.

"Michael, I Never Wanted This For You."

[jzappa · 10/10 · 22 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.

"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 *****"

[galileo3 · 10/10 · 31 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-

I prefer the first film, but this compares well

[mentalcritic · 9/10 · 8 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.

One of the greatest sequels ever made

[OriginalMovieBuff21 · 10/10 · 12 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

Sorry, but it just didn't deliver

[RichardKleiner · 7/10 · 17 November 2007]

OK. Let's get real. The Godfather is beyond excellent in every single way. I'm not giving comments on The Godfather, because it would be almost blasphemy. Nevertheless, I expected much more on part II. Personally, I didn't like it. Here's the deal: the story was way too slow paced. Nothing really happened. Only the hit on Michael's house, and the build up for young Vito's story was what makes you interested. The rest is just anti-climatic and dull. The dialogs weren't as quotable or stand alone as in the first. I thought as a sad imitation of the real thing.

Al Pacino's performance was absolutely superb. The problem wasn't that. The whole character was what failed. In the first, we get the glimpse of a warm man, but gets cold when is needed. A man who thinks before he talks. In this one, we see a man who is cold and heartless every single time you see him. He no longer has the eminence that Vito Corleone once had. The previous Don was eminent and even though he could scare the hell out of you with his stare, you respected and looked up to him. Now, his son is just pure evil. And that doesn't make sense. In the book, it's clear that Michael is the living image of his father. So, what happened? Him killing Fredo was completely useless. Even if he did betray him, there was no need to have him whacked. A Don just doesn't kill anyone from his own family (not "the Family", the real one). I know, Michael did kill Carlo, but let's remember he was not really family, just an in-law, and he did deserve what was coming. Another thing I personally hated was what happened to Connie. As you will see in the third, she radically changes from the naive Don's daughter to... Sorry, wrong movie. Anyway, all the other aspects, (filmmaking, score, performances, photography)were indeed flawless.

It's interesting. You can perfectly notice Coppola's anatomy for each "Godfather". You start with a prologue, then a religious ceremony and/or a party afterward, the plot then starts and a pivotal point is a hit on the Don. The rest is a slow, yet properly thought vengeance that ends with a gigantic and operatic blood bath. However, for part II, it wasn't's that operatic or with the same effect than part I. It was anti-climatic, and pretty disappointing.

Another flaw I found was that the story doesn't really stick to the book. One key aspect in the film didn't even appear in Mario Puzo's novel: Vito Corleone never returned to Sicily. The name of the Don who had his family killed doesn't even matter. Still, the scene prominently explains Don Tomassino's condition from the first.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a die hard fan of "The Godfather". I consider it to be the best movie ever (and the best novel ever, too). But part II just doesn't do it for me.

I feel totally disconnected...

[Soysoy · 5/10 · 2 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.

Best gangster dramas of all time arguably

[0U · 23 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.

An Insult To Call It A Sequel

[alexkolokotronis · 10/10 · 30 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 best movie ever made?

[nripeshdhungana-43780 · 10/10 · 11 January 2019]

Honestly I didn't like The Godfather very much in my first watching. I thought what was it doing it on 2nd highest rated movie on IMDb. Then after some days it started to grow on me. I couldn't help but watch The Godfather again. But i chose to watch The Godfather part 2 instead and boy I loved it. Perfect acting by everyone specially by the trio Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and John Cazale. These people gave the performance of their life. This is De Niro best performance after Raging bull and taxi driver and Al pacino's best after Scarface. The way this movie plays with your emotion is indescribable. The best part is when Michael hugs Fredo during their mother's funeral and they seem to have forgotten what had happened but the look Michael gives to Al Neri we know that Michael is going to kill Fredo. This part shows us the true haunting nature of Michael. And the part when Anthony is called by Connie and Fredo says to him that he will catch a fish for Anthony and Al Neri smiles at the back making it feel normal but we knowing what is behind the smile is haunting. Everything about this movie is perfect! For me this, The Godfather and Raging Bull are the best movies ever made

One of the greatest movies ever made.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 10/10 · 24 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.

Poor Fredo! We still miss John Cazale!

[Sylviastel · 10/10 · 14 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.

Better Than The Original? Maybe. Unbelievable Ride? HELL YEAH!!

[Movie-ManDan · 10/10 · 4 December 2014]

The Godfather Part II is said by many to be the best sequel ever. I personally think that is arguable, since it arguably surpasses its proceeder and checking out the Lord of the Rings sequels and the Empire Strikes Back. Say this is the best sequel ever and I will not disagree. Say this is better than the first and I will agree. Honestly, I keep changing my mind about which instalment is better every time I watch them. This last time I watched them, the first one seemed better to me. The time before, this one was the superior picture. I don't care which is better, as long as I have 200 minutes of no interruptions while watching this.

With the success of The Godfather in 1972, it was only natural for there to be a sequel. The Godfather Part II acts as both a sequel and a prequel, with the sequel being written by Coppola and Puzo and the prequel being taken from the novel. When Pacino broke out in the first movie, he topped it one year later with Serpico. His performance in this tops Serpico and everything else he's ever done. Unfortunately, he lost his sure Oscar win to Art Carney. Yes, Carney was worthy, but put him in the same category as Al Pacino for perhaps the best role ever and he becomes very unworthy. The people at the Academy probably thought Pacino would just get better and they could give him an award later. That would not come until 1993 when he won for a role in Scent of a Woman that was inferior to all that he did in the 70s. At least the Academy got the Best Picture win right. That was a given. Pacino's rival/friend/co- star, Robert De Niro took home the win for Best Supporting Actor, beating out their acting teacher, Lee Strasberg. De Niro became the first Oscar winner to not say a word of English. I don't know what it was about his portrayal, but there was some sort of magic contained with utter brilliance. Strasberg and Michael Gazzo where also fantastic, but both did not possess an unknown magic that few can bring to the table.

The prequel follows a child Vito Corleone who's family is poor. He witnesses his family begin murdered by Corleone's most powerful mob boss. He heads to America and grows up on the streets there too. Years later, an adult Vito (De Niro) rises to the top of New York's underworld and is determined to avenge his family's death. Revenge stories like this have been done to death, but almost none have been executed this good. The sequel takes place a few years after the first with Michael (Pacino) as the Don. After he successfully dodges an assassination attempt, ordered by Hyman Roth (Strasberg), Michael's fears about loyalty, betrayal and murder lead him to a severe paranoid state making him a deadly madman.

If there was one flaw this had, it would be that the antagonist in the sequel isn't much of a threat; we know Michael can destroy him and all he has. One reason the first one worked so well was because the family was losing and audience did not know how the family would regain power. That masterstroke isn't quite achieved in this. So maybe the first one is better.

Both stories are less complex than the original, but both together make one hefty team. Al Pacino outdoes Marlon Brando and himself in one of the top five greatest roles of the screen. He leads an all-star cast in what is arguably better acting than the first. With most of this being arguably better than the first, Coppola's direction surpasses the first. The cinematography, sets and camera tricks beat out all the first had, which were great.

4/4

"They're saps, because they risk their lives for strangers."

[Danimal-7 · 10/10 · 2 September 1999]

I am one of the minority who like THE GODFATHER: PART II better than the original. In the first GODFATHER, we saw Michael give up his dream of an honest life to save his family and lead it back to greatness. Here, we see he sacrifices everything for his family, and in the end loses even that.

At the same time, we see how Michael's father Vito became the great Don. Starting out by doing his family and his fellow immigrants a great favor by eliminating the brutish, terroristic Don Fannucci, Vito ends up merely replacing one tyrant with another in ANIMAL-FARM-like style.

As we see Michael and Vito maneuver for power against their enemies (including Hyman Roth, excellently played by Lee Strasberg), we begin to wonder how much worse the mafiosi are than the government officials who surround them. Their dishonesty and their violence would hardly be out of place in many "legitimate" governments throughout history, and in some cases even today. As Michael tells a corrupt Senator played by G.D. Spradlin, "we're both part of the same hypocrisy."

(Spoilers below).

The ending of THE GODFATHER: PART II is one of the most poignant in history, as Michael's memory flashes back to a party before he joined the military. The scene contains four men besides himself: Santino, Fredo, Tessio, and Carlo. All are dead now - three of them by Michael's own order. As Tessio mentions that thousands of young men are enlisting to fight the Japanese after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Santino comments, "They're saps, because they risk their lives for strangers." Now Michael, having risked his life for his family for years, finds they are strangers to him who fear and loathe him. The third part notwithstanding, the tragedy is complete.

Rating: **** out of ****.

Masterpiece - best film ever

[nqwpwfq · 10/10 · 4 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.

A Masterpiece

[JoshtheGiant · 10/10 · 15 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.

It's-a not so good.

[BA_Harrison · 6/10 · 7 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.

Maybe I Just Wasn't in the Mood

[jordyntsmith · 3/10 · 22 August 2022]

The ongoing story of Michael, and the origin story of Vito.

There are some highlights here, but I overall just couldn't get into it. I relatively enjoyed the parts with Vito, but not the Michael arch. I thought at first that my main issue was the slow pacing, but I had no problem with the Irishman, or the first movie. I don't know, maybe I wasn't in the right mood, or maybe this movie was overhyped for me. Either way, I just didn't really care for it like I expected to.