Customer Reviews

The Godfather Part II - The Coppola Restoration

5 star:		(148)
4 star:		(25)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Although not quite as powerful or as unified as the original, THE GODFATHER II lays claim to possibly being the greatest sequel ever made. The film focuses on the twin stories of Michael Corleone's attempt to consolidate his power as Godfather of the Corleone family by, as he puts it, killing all his enemies. The latter primarily include a Jewish gangster who was a former associate of his father as a young man, a former associate who turns government witness, and his brother Fredo, who betrays Michael because he felt passed over and because in betraying Michael there would be "something in it for me." The other story told is that of the youth and young manhood of Vito Corleone, magnificently portrayed by Robert De Niro in one of his greatest performances, performing his role in Italian and doing a masterful job of mimicking Marlon Brando's intonations from the previous film. The story takes him from his earlier childhood, with the death of all the members of his family in Sicily, to his immigration to the United States, and eventual involvement in a life of organized crime.

Much of the power of the second film comes from the contrast between the two stories. As Vito Corleone grows in power, he also grows as a family man, in both the sense of a father with children and a wife and in the extended sense in his role as Godfather. He becomes the center of a community, drawing others around him. But the other story, of the decay of all that Vito had built up through the leadership of Michael, betrays all the realities undergirding the delusions riddling Vito Corleone's Family. The rot and decay that characterizes Michael's reign are shown as the natural and inescapable result of the greed that drove the lives of those in the crime organization. Nonetheless, the contrast between Vito, surrounded by friends and family and associates, and Michael, killing friends and associates and even family members, alienating even his most loyal friends, sitting inside his armed compound alone couldn't be starker. There is a reverse symmetry between the two stories: Vito starts off alone and ends surrounded by family and friends, while Michael starts off surrounded with family and friends, and ends up alone. This is symbolized perfectly in the final scene in the film, in a flashback to December 7, 1941, when Michael reveals to his brothers that he has enlisted in the Army. They hear their father arrive elsewhere in the house and rush off to meet him, only Michael sitting at the table alone as the film ends.

As with the first film, the acting is beyond reproach. As great as Al Pacino has been in his career, Michael Corleone has been his greatest achievement. He and Robert De Niro excel in the two key roles in the film. Lee Strasberg came out of retirement to play Hyman Roth, and he was extraordinarily effective in the role. The late, great John Cazale was marvelously timid as the dim, confused, and indecisive Fredo, who both adored and resented his brother Michael. Michael Gazzo is unforgettable as Frank Pentangeli, who thinks he has been betrayed by Michael and turns government witness, and received a well-deserved Oscar nomination for his performance (he was beaten out by Robert De Niro), as was Lee Strasberg. Robert Duvall returns as Tom Hagen, who is more loyal to Michael than anyone else but who Michael distrusts nonetheless. Bizarrely, Al Pacino lost out to Art Carney, who was excellent in the rather minor film HARRY AND TONTO. It is hard today to understand how Pacino failed to win.

Director Francis Ford Coppola continues his Shakespearean prose opera of the Will to Power in 1974's THE GODFATHER, PART II. Universally considered one of the greatest films ever crafted along with its twin, the original THE GODFATHER (1972), THE GODFATHER, PART II continues the tragic tale of kingship and kinship begun in the earlier film.

Coppola creates a fascinating film study of Father and Son, as he compares and contrasts the middle-aged Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) and the young Vito Corleone (Robert DeNiro) as the former falls from authority into corruption and decline and the latter rises from obscurity to strength and power.

In two brilliantly crafted parallel period tales spanning the twentieth century, we watch the Father create a self-contained universe centered around Family, while the Son slowly destroys what his Father hath wrought.

DeNiro's Vito Corleone begins life as a frightened immigrant child fleeing a vendetta in Sicily; at his apotheosis, in an act of filial piety he kills Don Ciccio, the man responsible for his own father's, mother's and brother's deaths. Pacino's Michael Corleone begins the film at the height of his powers, then falls deeper and deeper into his own internal darkness. At his nadir, in an act of complete abnegation, he kills his own misguided brother, Fredo (John Cazale).

The difference between them is manifest in that while Don Vito kills only two men (the aforementioned Don Ciccio, and Don Fanucci, a neighborhood predator who takes away Vito's job as a grocery clerk, leaving him unable to feed his Family and driving him into a life of crime), Don Michael is drenched in the blood of other men. Where Don Vito uses his own inherent self-respect and the finespun fear others' feel to serve the essentially unselfish ends of protecting the defenseless in his world, Michael uses the brute force of his personality and unrestrained violence to maintain his own personal wealth and power, ultimately squandering both, and in the end, sacrificing both respect and Family.

The organized crime elements of this film are a dramatic backdrop to the biographical elements. They propel the story but are not the core of it.

Robert DeNiro's Oscar-winning performance as Don Vito Corleone marked the only time that two actors won Academy Awards for the same role (along with Marlon Brando as Don Vito in THE GODFATHER). Pacino's parallel performance as Don Michael is a bleak study in genius, well-deserving its own Oscar.

A gifted film, THE GODFATHER, PART II remains one of the few sequels to match or outmatch it's predecessor film.

There are few films in cinematic history that are as revered as "The Godfather". There are so many memorable performances and so many memorable scenes that there's no dispute over it sitting in the #1 All-Time position on the Internet Movie Database's (IMDB) Top 250 list. Normally, trying to follow up such a cinematic masterpiece with a sequel is a foolhardy endeavor. The performances and brilliant storytelling tend to falter in the next movie. Seldom does a drama produce a worthy sequel. In the case of "The Godfather", it easily produced the 'sequel that is equal' with "...Part II".

Listed in the #3 slot in the IMDB Top 250 All-Time, "The Godfather, Part II" is an even more ambitious film than the original. So ambitious, in fact, that many fans of the "Godfather" films feel it may actually be superior to the original. I do not share that opinion. At best, I feel it is just as good as the original. At worst, it is just a tiny bit less of a film than "...Part I". I feel that, while "...Part II" is more ambitious, it lacks the grand scale of the original, especially in the scenes involving Michael Corleone's (Al Pacino) control of the family 'business' in the late 1950's. This is hardly a criticism, though. In fact, the lack of grand scale of this 'family' is symbolic of how Michael's chilling rule has wrecked was the family once was, instead of being indicative of lackluster filmmaking.

Director Francis Ford Coppola took a risky, but ultimately reward, approach to the story of "The Godfather, Part II". He wanted to tell the story of a young Vito Corleone's (played by Robert DeNiro here) rise to power simultaneously with his son Michael's fall from grace some 40 years apart. The two parallel stories have a marvelous interplay with one another. At no point, when film shifts from one time period to the other, does it feel forced or jarring. There is always some sort of connection, however subtle, between the end of a scene in one time period and the beginning of one in the other. The story of the young Vito Corleone begins in 1901 in Sicily at the funeral for his father who murdered for an insult to local Mafia chieftain. His mother, who lost her other son when he was killed trying to avenge his father, visits the chieftain, Don Ciccio, in an attempt to spare the life of her youngest, 'dumb-witted' son, Vito. When Ciccio refuses, she attempts to murder him and winds up being killed herself. Vito runs away and, with the help of friends of the family, avoids capture by Ciccio's men and is placed on a ship to America. A leap forward to 1958 shows Vito's grandson, Anthony receiving his first Communion and the subsequent reception afterwards at Michael Corleone's Lake Tahoe compound, where Michael receives visitors and requests for favors much the same way Vito did on his daughter's wedding at the beginning of the original "Godfather".

Each story, on it's own, is quite fascinating. Weaved together, they are magnificent. The tale of Vito Corleone shows his rise from being just another Italian immigrant to becoming one of the most powerful underworld figures in New York and the strengthening of the Corleone family. In contrast, the tale of Michael Corleone shows the disintegration of his family and his 'family' as a result of his cold, iron-fisted leadership and paranoia over any betrayals, either real or perceived. The very end of Michael Corleone story shows the depressingly haunting image of Michael sitting amongst the fallen leaves of fall with only the 'button' men around him in the compound, as he has pushed away every single person who was close to him. It's a tragic ending of Shakespearean proportions in direct contrast to the seemingly boundless future that seems to await the Corleone's at the end of the Vito Corleone story.

As with the original "Godfather", the performances in "...Part II" are nothing short of spectacular. Pacino chillingly portrays Michael Corleone's continued decent into evil. The progression of his character from the war hero who wanted nothing to do with the family business (in "...Part I") to the most ruthless of mafia leaders (in "...Part II") is truly disturbing. Pacino makes Michael the embodiment of pure evil. Not even his wife or his children (or even his brother) are safe from his wrath. The fact that he didn't win a Best Actor Oscar for this performance is almost as criminal as the Corleone family business. Robert DeNiro gives an equally accomplished performance as a young Vito Corleone (who was played by Marlon Brando in the original movie). The mannerisms and demeanor that DeNiro brings to his portrayal of a young Vito leave the audience completely convinced that this is how Vito looked and acted at this age. Unlike Pacino, though, DeNiro was not overlooked for his performance and won an Oscar for Best Support Actor. There are other remarkable performances throughout the film. Among them are Robert Duvall reprising his role as the loyal, but wary, 'adopted brother' Tom Hagen; Lee Strasberg (the creator of "method acting") as Michael's nefarious business partner, Hyman Roth (and target of Michael's famous phrase, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer"); and John Cazale as the weak, easily-manipulated Fredo Corleone who gets himself into trouble way over his head.

Few sequels are able to match the acclaim and accomplishment of their predecessor, but "The Godfather, Part II" manages to achieve this in epic fashion. While I still hold to my claim that the original "Godfather" was the better of the two films, there is no doubt in my mind that this exists as one of the 10 best films of all-time.

The Godfather, Part II is arguably the greatest film of all time. It is the only sequel to win Best Picture and, in my opinion, is better than the first movie. Al Pacino gives an unforgettable performance in this movie as does Robert De Niro. Francis Ford Coppola's use of the two story lines going at the same time is wonderful.

The Robert De Niro (Young Vito Corleone) story line is the only part of the Godfather novel that was left out of the first film and it shows the rise of the Godfather. The Al Pacino (Michael Corleone) story line shows how Michael continues the family business after the first film. Both story lines are incredible and when they are put together it makes one of the greatest films of all time.

There is some very powerful cinematography in this film. The scenes are wonderfully shot on location in Nevada, New York, Sicily, and Cuba. I praise Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola for the best sequel ever!!

Even better than the original - because it probes deeper into the personalities, especially of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) and his obsession with family and loyalty and snubbing out his enemies. He is quiet, educated, and coldly calculating. The movie traces his dealings in the 1950s-60s, set mainly in Nevada. Interspersed with these developments is the story of the rise of his father Don Vito Corleone in Little Italy in NYC in the 1920s, with Robert De Niro doing a brilliant job in that role. Both stories are excellently told. Despite my never quite understanding America's obsession with the mafia and its ilk, it's not hard to conclude that this is a major movie achievement.

I love Godfather II even more than Part I, because I love the way you can see Michael's character disintegrating over the course of the story. You watch him strip away all human connections in order to protect the "family." He finally asks his mother "Can you lose your family?" She doesn't understand the question, but of course Michael has lost his family, as well as his own soul. The paradox in this--killing your family in order to protect the "family"--is wonderful. As in Part I, Diane Keaton is kind of a weak link--just not a credible Mafia wife. De Niro gives one of the greatest performances ever--channeling Brando. I also love the young versions of Don Corleone's sidekicks when they first go into business doing things like stealing rugs. And Robert Duvall has had to work very hard ever since to equal this performance.

The acting is classy, silent, not overdone. Robert DeNiro won an oscar for his portrayal of young Vito Corleone. Francis Ford Coppola won Best Director for the movie. There were several rivetting scenes in the movie. But for me, the best one was the one in which Vito Corleone kills Don Fanucci. There are several simliarities with this movie and the original (Godfather Part I). For instance, in both movies, one of the parents dies, and after that, a treacherous family member is killed. All the other gang leaders too are executed at the same time. Yet, both have been done very differently. The movie is educational in it's own way, and is definitely a must see. It truly is a class act.

This has to be, hands down, the best sequel ever made in motion picture history, possibly even the best film ever made. Without a doubt, it beats any modern-day new release. I would venture to say that this film surpasses the original, but this is my opinion. This film is more dramatic than the first, and perhaps that is what appeals to my sensibilities (and others').

This movie may be a little bit harder to follow than the first, but this is not a disappointment. This is something that grabs you and pulls you in (don't even think of getting out). A few viewings will solidify its classic status in your heart. The Vito/Michael Corleone trade-off scenes show parallels and contrasts between the two Dons' rise to power. The formations and unravelling of loyalty and power are revealed as the scenes trade off. This is magical.

Hopefully, I won't give too much away by mentioning the most memorable elements of the most memorable scenes. Who can forget when the Corleone family shamed Frankie "Five Angels" Pentangeli back into loyalty and omerta at the senate hearing by bringing his brother in from Sicily? Who can forget when Senator Pat Geary, while with a favorite prostitute, was framed for murder, ensuring his cooperation with "the family" lest political scandal? Who can forget the Sicilian affection shared by Michael and Fredo at the New Year's Eve ball in Havana, Cuba (i.e. kiss of death, followed by the unforgettable line, "I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!")? Who can forget Al Pacino's incomparable performance in, among other scenes, his argument scene with Diane Keaton (note: his trembling face deserved at least two Oscars!)? Who can forget the closing scene of Michael's dispair in realization of his own destiny?

The musical score is unforgettable, no doubt about it. You may even catch yourself walking around, humming some of these haunting melodies. The acting is unparalleled. Kudos to Gazzo, Shire, Strasberg, DeNiro, and others. This is Pacino's finest acting, in my opinion. At the expense of conciseness, I have to give credit to the late John Cazale for his talent as well. I don't think anyone could reproduce the guilt in Fredo's eyes as he sits in the Cuban cafe with his brother, Michael (watch it, and you'll know what I mean).

Clearly by the end of the film, Michael is consumed by empire, power, etc. as he confides to Tom Hagen the necessity of killing all enemies. The process of decline takes its toll on the Don, revealing the drama that is The Godfather Part II (note: this is why Michael, with twinges of paranoia, treats Tom Hagen like crap towards the end--- because he anticipates Hagen's betrayal). This movie shows what happens when Michael begins to lose all that he loves and has built up by legitimate or illegitimate means as a consequence of his illegitimacy. All lines between personal and business are blurred by the close of the film.

In closing, it is probably inappropriate, as I've read in one review posted here, to refer to The Godfather Part II as a sequel or even a prequel/sequel. It can be said that it is two movies within a movie. Nonetheless, as one of the best movies ever made, it holds its own. Beware, though: the final scenes will "break your heart," as the Corleone family's powerful "Sicilian thing" falls apart in more ways than one. But do yourself a favor and buy this, and don't worry about having to return anything to the Don. Capice paesano? Enjoy!

In my opinion, Godfather II is THE greatest film of all time, yes, even greater than the first one. Before labeling what I've just said as heresy, hear me out. While this film depends a lot on it's predecessor, it not only manages to match it's level, but bring to a higher plateau. After Francis Ford Coppola establishes the background and characters in episode I, he brings us deeper into these characters and their pasts. Pacino, who in my opinion gave the most OUTSTANDING performance of anyone in episode I (yes, including Brando) does the impossible and gives one that is even greater. It is an absolute TRAVESTY that he was not awarded for his performance (Art Carney received it that year for "Harry and Tonto"...who knew!!??) and Deniro was. What Deniro has basically done in his portrayal of the young Vito Corleone is mimmick every move that Brando made in the prequel down to the most miniscule detail (notice the scene where Deniro is shown buying fruit at a small stand...look familiar?). But while his performance is not original, it is still excellent. The film is filled with numerous great scenes. In most films, the viewer is given one or perhaps two memorable scenes (ie taxi scene for "On the Waterfront" or the mirror scene in "Taxi Driver"). But in this, there is the Senator Geary scene with Michael during the party, the scene where Vito stalks Fanucci, the heartbreaking (in my opinion greatest scene of film history) betrayal scene with Michael and Fredo, the argument between Michael and Kay, and countless other's which i won't give away to spoil it for first-time viewers. At the heart of all the violence, betrayals, and plotting, I believe Coppola wants us to really concentrate on this one man Michael Corleone who thinks he is doing the right thing with all his cold-hearted acts because he firmly believes it is for the good of his family. The most tragic aspect of the film, is that in attempt to protect his family through a life of violence, we see that Michael ultimately loses them due to the it. The scenes with Pacino, Strasberg, and Deniro are ESPECIALLY well acted out. The music is stirring and the settings and backgrounds beautiful. The film garnered 6 academy awards and was nominated for many more. To put it into words, i would describe this film as having the visual and musical beauty of "Lawrence of Arabia", the characteristic intellect of "Citizen Kane", the seriousness of a film like "Taxi Driver", the memorability of "On the Waterfront", and a high standard of excellency in acting that is unmatched by any other film.

The Godfather Part II has the rare distinction of being arguably the best sequel ever made, and one of the very few that is every bit on par with its corresponding original film in the franchise. The two films compliment each other by having a little something the other does not. For classic scenes and an inspired storyline, something that comes to someone in a dream perhaps once in a lifetime, the original rightly excels as an iconic masterpiece; for a dark political web of intrigue, a distinct, duplicitous villain and acting from Al Pacino that positively drips with subtext, Godfather II sticks in the craw in the best possible way.

The young Al Pacino was often exemplary, and his performance here should be required viewing in acting school. Pacino's take on Michael's muted mental and emotional turmoil and the subtle power of his projection of this on to the screen is a special magic rarely achieved by others. One can't help but suspect that the presence of Pacino's mentor, Lee Strasberg - of The Actor's Studio - had somehow fueled his protégé to greater heights than he had thus far reached. Indeed, the final confrontation between Michael and a lecturing Hyman Roth illustrates this beautifully, and is perhaps one of the greatest examples of an actor really performing while saying nothing.

Great performances abound: Robert De Niro is of course perfectly cast as a young Don Vito, and the supporting roles are all so well played that it's difficult to find one that shines above another. Character acting abounds in a locomotive of a plot that gorgeously showcases some of the darker side of human nature, as Godfather II might, just might, be a smidge more noir than the original.

To call "Godfather 2" a great sequel is both a complement and an insult; it's a magnficent follow-up to one of the ten best American films ever made, but as a stand-alone movie, it's almost better than its predecessor. Moving so artfully back and forth between 1910 and 1955 that we are hardly aware of the seams between the time shifs, "Godfather 2" shows us the forces that shaped the persona of the Godfather and the characters of the men who filled that role during the first half of the 20th century. Probably no other film has so vividly brought to life Lower Manhattan in 1910; we are right there in the middle of it soaking up the sights, sounds and smells. And helping us to become one with this era is the magnificent performance of Robert DeNiro as the young Vito Corleone. DeNiro's acting is a tour de force. We see him as a young immigrant struggling to support a family, deploring the corruption that threatens his existence; fighting that corruption with a corruption of his own until it emerges as the sinister character of the Godfather; and we sense the growing obsession with power, domination and control that finally morphs into the evil persona of the younger Godfather, shown in Al Pacino's dazzling performance, obsessed with total loyalty, suspicion ranging on paranoia, and finally, consumed with the need to wipe out all of his enemies at any cost, no matter how close those enemies are to him personally.

The debate on who is the most convincing Godfather -- DeNiro, Brando, or Pacino -- will probably rage for another 50 years, and all of it is beside the point. Each of them gives the performance of a lifetime showing different aspects of the Godfather: DeNiro building the Godfather's power and empire, Brando consolidating it, and Pacino consumed by it until he finds himself at the pinnacle he always wanted to occupy, but isolated, alone, eaten up by suspicion and revenge.

Much of the excellent cast from the first film is back, including Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen, Diane Keaton as Michael's long-suffering wife who finally decides she can no longer live as a crime-boss's consort, Morgana King, giving a moving performance as Michael's mother, deploring while forgiving all, and Talia Shire as Michael's younger sister, cutting off her nose to spite her face as she bounces from one affair to the next to harm the brother who had her abusive former husband executed. There are also a number of fascinating new characters, especially Lee Strasberg in the character of the old gangster Hyman Roth; in his confrontation with Michael over who ordered a gang slaying, we see all the menace and evil in the dying old man; he's a wounded snake who still packs a helluva bite. But by far the most compelling secondary character, and one of the film's most awesome performances, is John Cazale as the middle brother Fredo; despised as a hapless failure, seeking solace in booze and women; humiliated by his subjugation to his younger brother ("You're my kid brother", he screams at Michael, "and you take care of me?!"), and trying to recoup some of his pride in the only way he can, by turning on the brother who is keeping him down. But he's no match for Michael, we know it and he knows it, and watching his steady path to destruction is as painful as it is inevitable.

So what to say of this movie? It's a sequel, granted, but far more than that, it goes in directions the sequel never intimated; it's an original that stands on its own, beholden to nothing, and shares an equal, if not a greater, place than its predecessor as one of the ten best movies in the the history of American film making.