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.
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.