The Godfather Part II
Year: 1974
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Robert De Niro & Al Pacino
Runtime: 202 mins
BBFC: 15
Published: 11/04/24
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Robert De Niro & Al Pacino
Runtime: 202 mins
BBFC: 15
Published: 11/04/24
I’m sure this review is being published posthumously because following my middling and generally indifferent review of The Godfather I was promptly hunted down by a mob of angry film bro’s and never seen again. So, whilst the search for my body continues, I hope you can enjoy my marginally more positive review of The Godfather Part II.
In the early 1900’s a young Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro) comes to America and establishes himself as a businessman, gradually gaining popularity and notoriety in the neighbourhood for his ability to solve problems.
In 1958, Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) has been running the family business without his father’s guidance for three years. Following a failed assassination attempt organised by someone within the family, Michael must use every resource he has to weed out the traitor and anyone that allies with them.
In the early 1900’s a young Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro) comes to America and establishes himself as a businessman, gradually gaining popularity and notoriety in the neighbourhood for his ability to solve problems.
In 1958, Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) has been running the family business without his father’s guidance for three years. Following a failed assassination attempt organised by someone within the family, Michael must use every resource he has to weed out the traitor and anyone that allies with them.
The reception that The Godfather Part II initially received upon its release in 1974 was divisive, with many seeing it as inferior to the original film. But as time went on critical appraisal of the film changed when looking at the film as an extension of the original as opposed to its own entity. The ‘Part II’ in the title should really indicate this, it’s not a sequel as such, but the second half of the story.
The Godfather Part II is as bold as it is epic, boasting a nearly three-and-a-half-hour runtime, whilst commanding the respect of its audience with its similarly slow pace to its predecessor. Does the film need to be this long? Absolutely not, in fact I can understand criticisms that were levelled at the film around release of wondering why the film needed to split its runtime between two narratives, rather than just presenting Michael’s story. But I must say, Vito’s story was, at least to me, the more engaging of the two. Could things be cut back and tightened up a bit? Absolutely, but I still think we’d be looking at a film that pushed three hours just because of how much it needs to cover.
Though the film cuts between Vito’s and Michael’s story, I’ll talk about them each separately, starting with Vito’s.
I really liked the way that we got to see Vito’s backstory in this film. Seeing him exiled from Italy following his father’s death at the hands of the mob. Watching him build a life for himself in America and grow his fledgling business ventures into an organised crime racket that earned him his fortunes and respect amongst the local community.
De Niro is excellent in his portrayal as Vito. Perhaps not quite at the same calibre as Marlon Brando delivered in the first film as an older Vito, but De Niro lets us in to see a whole new side to the character. He may be younger, but he’s not naive. He’s determined to make the best life for himself and his family that he can, and De Niro delivers that with such passion and commitment.
The Godfather Part II is as bold as it is epic, boasting a nearly three-and-a-half-hour runtime, whilst commanding the respect of its audience with its similarly slow pace to its predecessor. Does the film need to be this long? Absolutely not, in fact I can understand criticisms that were levelled at the film around release of wondering why the film needed to split its runtime between two narratives, rather than just presenting Michael’s story. But I must say, Vito’s story was, at least to me, the more engaging of the two. Could things be cut back and tightened up a bit? Absolutely, but I still think we’d be looking at a film that pushed three hours just because of how much it needs to cover.
Though the film cuts between Vito’s and Michael’s story, I’ll talk about them each separately, starting with Vito’s.
I really liked the way that we got to see Vito’s backstory in this film. Seeing him exiled from Italy following his father’s death at the hands of the mob. Watching him build a life for himself in America and grow his fledgling business ventures into an organised crime racket that earned him his fortunes and respect amongst the local community.
De Niro is excellent in his portrayal as Vito. Perhaps not quite at the same calibre as Marlon Brando delivered in the first film as an older Vito, but De Niro lets us in to see a whole new side to the character. He may be younger, but he’s not naive. He’s determined to make the best life for himself and his family that he can, and De Niro delivers that with such passion and commitment.
Michael’s story then makes up the bulk of the film. I also like the premise of it, and I do feel that when compared to the first film this does keep the momentum going a bit better. Michael is constantly being forced to assess who his allies are, as well as coming under scrutiny from the judicial system enquiring into the legitimacy of the family business. But I do feel that the film often focuses on the wrong aspects of this story.
I’d loved to have seen a greater emphasis on the decline of Michael’s marriage to Kay (Diane Keaton) and how that affects his children. Instead, the story often seems to want to focus on Michael’s investments in casinos and the courtroom proceedings.
But the real crux of the story is finding out who organised the hit on Michael, and it surprised me that you get the answer less than halfway into the film. Much of the back end of Michael’s story is all this courtroom stuff, so I think that from a pacing perspective it would have been better to weave these elements together a bit more and keep the mystery going for longer.
Pacino does get to shine a bit more in Part II now that he’s not stood in Brando’s shadow. He doesn’t need to take Michael on such a large arc in this film, so to make Michael continue to be as compelling a character Pacino works on the small details the same way Brando did with Vito in the first film. Michael is much more of a domineering presence in this film as a result, and it just much be the best performance Pacino has ever given in a film.
Nino Rota returns to compose the score and much like the first film it’s really beautiful to listen to. Whilst a lot of sounds are reused to give it that unmistakable Godfather identity, each portion of the story (Vito’s or Michael’s) has a distinct sound to it, and neither of them are the same as what was in the original. The music plays such an important part in defining where their characters are in life, telling the story in just as much detail as the dialogue.
I enjoyed The Godfather Part II more than the original film, but it doesn’t really function as a standalone film. Whilst you could watch it without having seen the first and understand what’s happening, the film really only truly succeeds when viewed as the second half of a whole story that started with the first film. They’re much stronger together than they are apart.
It’s too long and it still suffers from pacing issues, but with to excellent performances from Pacino and De Niro and an intriguing mystery at the heart of one of the storylines, I feel like The Godfather Part II is the superior film, if only by a small margin.
I’d loved to have seen a greater emphasis on the decline of Michael’s marriage to Kay (Diane Keaton) and how that affects his children. Instead, the story often seems to want to focus on Michael’s investments in casinos and the courtroom proceedings.
But the real crux of the story is finding out who organised the hit on Michael, and it surprised me that you get the answer less than halfway into the film. Much of the back end of Michael’s story is all this courtroom stuff, so I think that from a pacing perspective it would have been better to weave these elements together a bit more and keep the mystery going for longer.
Pacino does get to shine a bit more in Part II now that he’s not stood in Brando’s shadow. He doesn’t need to take Michael on such a large arc in this film, so to make Michael continue to be as compelling a character Pacino works on the small details the same way Brando did with Vito in the first film. Michael is much more of a domineering presence in this film as a result, and it just much be the best performance Pacino has ever given in a film.
Nino Rota returns to compose the score and much like the first film it’s really beautiful to listen to. Whilst a lot of sounds are reused to give it that unmistakable Godfather identity, each portion of the story (Vito’s or Michael’s) has a distinct sound to it, and neither of them are the same as what was in the original. The music plays such an important part in defining where their characters are in life, telling the story in just as much detail as the dialogue.
I enjoyed The Godfather Part II more than the original film, but it doesn’t really function as a standalone film. Whilst you could watch it without having seen the first and understand what’s happening, the film really only truly succeeds when viewed as the second half of a whole story that started with the first film. They’re much stronger together than they are apart.
It’s too long and it still suffers from pacing issues, but with to excellent performances from Pacino and De Niro and an intriguing mystery at the heart of one of the storylines, I feel like The Godfather Part II is the superior film, if only by a small margin.