1974 / 200 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

When one brings up the subject of the greatest sequels ever made, it seems that this film’s name is always mentioned. Granted the ingredients are there for something great to happen. You take the majority of the cast from “The Godfather” and add Robert Deniro (”Taxi Driver”) into the mix. One would think that only great things could come from a collaboration such as this.

The only problem is that Al Pacino (”The Insider”) doesn’t hold up his end of the show. This movie is nearly three and a half hours long and as a result feels like two movies. The beauty is that, that’s the intention. You have Michael Corleone’s (Al Pacino) attempts to maintain control over the family’s affairs and assert himself as the new “Godfather” comprising one of the film’s threads. The other is a look back to Vito Corleone’s (Robert Deniro) rise from an orphaned childhood to a man known simply as “The Godfather”.

Michael’s thread is easily the downfall of the film. It has some interesting ideas behind it. I like the fact that you get to see what the Corleone family’s operations are like in Las Vegas, Miami and even Havana. I like the idea that you see Michael having to deal with the concept of betrayal by those closest to him. What I don’t like is Pacino’s performance here. He didn’t blow me away in “The Godfather” either, but I thought he did a good job. Here he becomes incredibly one-dimensional, as he seemingly attempts to become Brando’s version of the “Godfather” rather than his own. He doesn’t even do a good job of trying to be Brando. I’m not saying the man is horrible here, but I’ve seen him do much better.

The other part of the movie, involving Vito Corleone, is riveting. You first see him as a boy in a harrowing scene that leaves him orphaned. He makes the exodus to New York and manages to meet a woman, have children and lead a fairly normal life. Then he runs into some smug prick who goes around the neighborhood collecting tributes from the local shopkeepers to keep them out of trouble. Deniro takes care of this situation in his own way. He opens his own store, which will become the front for his underhanded dealings that lead to the life that we saw Marlon Brando live in “The Godfather”.

I don’t think Deniro can deliver a poor performance. When I was younger I never understood what all the fuss was about with him. Having since seen him in a great deal of his work I now understand. This man is a force of nature. He takes the role and treats it as if it is the life he has always lived. He does with every role what Anthony Hopkins has done in his two stints as Hannibal Lecter. He inhabits the character and makes him come alive in ways that few actors have the ability to do.

The difference between the two storylines is that Vito’s is full of interest, whereas Michael’s is disturbingly non-compelling. Michael’s storyline does have some stirring scenes, such as the one when he has an argument with his wife and she discloses a truth about their relationship that must have been quite a jarring moment back in 1974 when this film was released. The attempt on his life was pretty cool as well.

But you see. That’s the problem. With Michael’s story I have to pick out the things I liked. With Vito’s that is not the case. His story paints a beautiful picture that fascinates every step of the way. It’s too bad the other story couldn’t have held up as well as this one.

Director Francis Ford Coppola tries to rekindle some of the magic that was present in the first film, but comes up empty-handed for the most part. He constructs some of the most beautiful transitions when going from Michael’s story to Vito’s. It never seemed that these great transitions ever went the other way though. I can’t remember anything spectacular, in this respect, when going from Vito’s story back to Michael’s. Maybe this tells us that even Coppola himself cared more about getting to Vito’s story than getting back to telling Michael’s. I doubt it, but I’d like to think that was the case.

This whole time travel concept in relation to the goings on of the mob was done much better in Sergio Leone’s “Once Upon a Time in America” a decade after this film’s release. That film effortlessly glides between different periods of time with an ease and grace that “The Godfather Part II” should have had. Maybe it would have, had Sergio not turned down directing “The Godfather”, because he had plans of making his own mob epic, which he eventually did with “Once Upon a Time in America”.

I started this review by talking about sequels that are considered to be great. Despite Deniro’s efforts this film will not be seen in any sort of great sequels list coming from me.

I save that realm for films the likes of “The Silence of the Lambs”, “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Back To The Future II”.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 10th, 2001 at 8:19 pm and is filed under Jason's Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.