3. The Godfather Part II

The Godfather Part 2 is a poorly executed film which does not complement the first instalment. We see the return of a Al Pacino, Robert Duvall and Diane Keaton as the story alternates between the young life and early work of Vito Coleone in New York in the 1920s; while in 1958-60 Michael Corleone grows the dominance of his family crime syndicate and affirms his role as a don. Francis Coppola did not want to direct the second instalment of the film when Paramount approached him, instead suggesting up and coming director Martin Scorsese take up the role. In jest, Coppola said he would direct the Godfather Part 2 for $1m ($5m in todays money), somewhat surprisingly Paramount agreed. The large sum clearly had an adverse impact on the quality of the work the director was able to create. Contrary to the belief of other IMDb users, as it has been ranked 3rd on the list.#

My dislike of the film is partly due to a dull performance from Robert De Niro, who initially auditioned to play sonny and was clearly not invested in his casted role as the young Vito Corleone. De Niro does not give the role justice as Marlon Brando did in the Godfather. Contrasted with his excellent performance as mafia boss Don Lino in Shark Tale. Despite this, De Niro and Brando became the first duo to win Academy Awards, including 2 Oscars, for playing the same fictional character. The closest to this type of Academy Award victory were John Wayne and Jeff Bridges who had both been nominated for playing the same character, Rooster Cogburn, for 2 versions of True Grit.

The film also had an intense casting process, Luca Brasi turned down a role for the first film and when he auditioned for a part in the second film had a pastry box from which he took out a gun and fired blanks at Coppola. Coppola apparently thoroughly enjoyed the performance. The casting director less so, as he did not get the part.

I gave this film, using 168 Film’s judging criteria, a drab 49/100, scoring particularly low on scriptural integration which I awarded 8/20 because it was less quotable than the first film. Overall, I found that the film was not enjoyable, particularly because at 3h22m, it went well over the respectable length of time a film should last (90 minutes). Even though the film sticks to the conventions of the gangster film genre (see Godfather review), the story line remains too complex for a pleasurable movie experience. It continues to baffle my why this film has been ranked so high, scoring 9/10 from Metacritic and IMDb users.