The Godfather: Part II (1974)

The Godfather: Part II (1974)
  • Time: 192 min
  • Genre: Crime | Drama
  • Director: Francis Ford Coppola
  • Cast: Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Robert Duvall


The continuing saga of the Corleone crime family tells the story of a young Vito Corleone growing up in Sicily and in 1910s New York; and follows Michael Corleone in the 1950s as he attempts to expand the family business into Las Vegas, Hollywood and Cuba.


  • Usually, a sequel is not as strong a film as the original. This one is every bit as good. “The Godfather Part II” keeps with the same strength as the first film, strong storytelling which brings you in and peeks your interest enough to keep you going. This a complex, well plotted film, with many aspects of Mafia life being looked at from a board time-period. It is well written, brilliantly directed, Francis Ford Coppala at his best, and some great acting. Al Pacino does a magnificent job of portraying the fading Michael Corleone, and cements the character into the memory of all. The whole concept of the movie is just perfect. While “The Godfather” has more memorable scenes and dialogue, this film is a masterpiece in its own right despite not having as much glitz as the original. This is one movie I believe will last till the end days of cinema. A classic in its own right!

  • Most people consider “The Godfather” the best film of its franchise, because in that movie Marlon Brando is the icon of the franchise (he does not appears in the sequels). Al Pacino has not the same presence of Brando (although Al Pacino is much better actor than Marlon Brando), so “The Gofather II” will always be in second place. Actually “The Godfather II” is a little more human than his predecessor (emerged from cynicism of Vietnam disaster), but in any case it’s about likes, although we should note that “The Godfather II” works more like a drama, lacks the sophistication of “Godfather I” about the world of the Mafia. People that really like the cold blood prefer the first part. The second part isn’t melodrama, but it’s a really tragedy, where humans are humans, even the evil and psychopath Pacino, even if can’t totally detached from Roman Stoicism (“Godfather 1”). Also this movie is more flexible in the theatrical style: there are no too many black dresses. Under these standards, the second part is too reliant on the tragedy. Isn’t a perfect film: undoubtely the rise to crime of Corleone is not totally justified (he can kill Fanucci without the need of become a gangster, after all Corleone just wanted justice and freedom), but Coppola adds drama to look that crime was the only alternative (Vito says his son he did for his sake); and the abortion explanation in Kay sounds ridiculous (too intelligent, historical explanation to be a excuse; stumble script). “The Godfather II” has not too much filler, unlike the first part (the romance of Apolonia and Michael, does not contribute to the main story; maybe to demonstrate the beginning of evil in Michael); plus DeNiro performance belongs to his best (We’re talking about a man who stayed too obsessed with “Taxi Driver” tricks), and soft references about Revolution Cuba. In narrative terms, this movie is more complex with the prologue and divisions of space-time, which slows effectiveness of the mafia genre (which is more expeditious and without too many frills). But, we repeat, “The Godfather: Part II” is too reliant on its tragedy: the suffered rise over Don Corleone, the murder of Michael’s brother and the guilt and thoughts of the new Godfather Michael, sitting on the lake Tahoe, conscious of his order… knowing that he can never change his order (a feeling that is more remarcable by the memories scene, Vito’s birthday)

  • We return to the new Corleone don, Michael, played by Al Pacino (Scarface), but in The Godfather: Part II, there is also flashback to the origins story of the rise of don Corleone, Vito, played by Robert De Niro (Grudge Match). It’s been classed as the third best film on IMDb (one place below The Godfather), however I have to disagree, I may be in the minority, but it was was too long and way too slow. It didn’t have the same intensity the first film brought to the table. If anything I would have separated these two stories and made them their own films, they both were good, interesting stories, but would have really thrived as their own stories, instead of cutting from one to another.

    Out of the two main stories, the back story was by far the more interesting, Vito’s rise in the community was great to watch, from just a young child to the brash young adult he becomes. It’s a story that really holds your attention and even though you know he becomes the don, it’s interesting to see how, but the swap in stories from time to time kills the momentum. If you are a fan of…
    To read the full review click here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *