REVIEW: The Godfather Part II (1974)
Rated R • 3 hours, 6 minutes • The bottom line: Filled with solid performances, but severely hampered by undisciplined editing and storytelling choices
Synopsis
The sequel to The Godfather (1972), the film follows parallel lives of two Corleone men: Vito (Robert De Niro), upon his immigration to the U.S. and life in 1917 New York; and his son, Michael, in the late 1950s as he settles into the role of the family’s patriarch.
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Writers: Screenplay by Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzzo; based on The Godfather novel by Mario Puzzo
Key Cast: Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Robert De Niro, Talia Shire, John Cazale and Diane Keaton
Producer: Francis Ford Coppola
Music: Nino Rota
What worked
The performances are top-shelf, particularly from De Niro, Pacino and Keaton
The street shots and general cinematography choices were beautiful
What didn’t work
The overall story felt bloated and convoluted
It has hints of greatness, but those are overpowered by the meandering story
Throughout The Godfather Part II, there’s a lot going on—too much, really. You encounter dovetailing stories of father and son, Vito (De Niro) and Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), and the creation (and expansion) of their empire. You get lots of tremendous visuals, interesting conversations and cold betrayals from family and friends alike. And—or the whipped cream and cherry on top—you get … *checks notes* … a Senate hearing? A Cuban revolution? An unnecessary (or at least out-of-place) dinner scene?
Really, what you get is a convoluted mess.
Don’t get me wrong: I understand what they were going for, and the message of the story. And for many viewers it worked great—I’m genuinely happy for those who love this movie, I just wish I was one of them. But to me, the glimpses of greatness throughout this nearly three-and-a-half-hour spectacle are mostly fleeting. That’s largely because the film’s most dramatic and damning moments are outweighed by a meandering and exposition-heavy tale that, much like Michael Corleone himself, has a strong notion of what it wants to be, but no interest of informing onlookers of the full picture.
The performances turned in by Pacino and De Niro, to be clear, are top-shelf, with each showcasing their dramatic chops in a film chock full of strong characters and story arcs. I especially love the way Pacino played Michael as coy and calculating—it was on many levels more menacing than what Brando brought to the more brute Vito in the first film as the patriarch.
Throughout the film, at no point are the characters or the performances the problem—I loved every bit of John Cazale’s performance as Fredo, Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen and Talia Shire as Connie. And don’t even get me started on Diane Keaton’s masterful performance as Michael’s wife, Kay (who I would argue should have played a much larger role in the film than she did). Likewise, the dialogue of the movie is strong, thoughtful and well-articulated, from most every actor.
However, the performances and dialogue are both overshadowed by a poorly outlined story that feels off when it’s brought to life on the screen. The story structure itself, too, was unimpressive—albeit briefly intriguing; jumping between time periods got old after a while. The editing (if there was any) also wasn’t to the betterment of the film, as it dragged out scenes that didn’t deserve it and cut short some of those that did. The film leans too heavily into the exposition and not enough into the relationships, preventing the characters from driving the story and instead letting the fascinating prospect of bloodshed to take center stage. And as far as the younger Vito goes, I never feel fully immersed in his motivations for his actions, nor do I really understand the amount of respect he garners by the end of the movie, given his actions. It felt unearned, despite De Niro’s strong showing. In a film about how The Godfather got his title, there’s little explanation of how that actually happens and instead a lot of tiptoeing around the periphery.
And then there’s the Senate hearings and the rise and fall of the antagonist Hyman Roth, both of which are never fully delved into and instead left open to audience interpretation. The Senate hearings really feel like they come out of nowhere, and their inclusion in the film felt like a messy afterthought. Likewise, the venture in Cuba had a lot of unnecessary moments that could have been trimmed, or excised altogether.
That’s not to say I think the film is all bad. As I mentioned, I loved the performances and many of the individual parts of the movie; the musical score was excellent, and so were many of the decisions made behind the camera, particularly regarding the street scenes in New York’s Hell’s Kitchen. But at the end of the day, it felt less like a continuation of the incredibly well-done first film and more like a poor attempt to expand the lore by an outsider (all the more disappointing, because both Mario Puzzo and Francis Ford Coppola were, of course, integral in the first film).
I don’t regret watching this film, but I’m sincerely disappointed with my experience with it—particularly after all the hype.
Bottom line: Filled with solid performances, but severely hampered by undisciplined editing and storytelling choices. It felt bloated and meandering.
Score: 4.5/10