Godfather Part 2 is so hailed as the greatest film of all time it's time someone burst that overblown bubble and I've got the needle right here. So let's take a closer look at what should be considered a mediocre sequel to the classic film, The Godfather. First of all Marlon Brando is nowhere to be seen here. Instead we get random flashbacks to Robert Deniro as the young Vito. We get some good scenes of old Little Italy though there's a Keystone-cops feel to some of it, especially the comic relief of the slumlord scene.
Part 2 has a much bigger budget but a script with weakened plot lines and dialogue, basically trying to followup everything from Part 1 logically becoming formulaic and soap-operaish, and ending up falling flat.
The film begins with another celebration of some kind. A brother's betrayal aspires to be that of Hamlet, but without the depth or wit (or brevity). It's now the 1950s and Mike is in Nevada and is trying to buy a corrupt Senator. The Senator is I suppose the film producer element of the first, but with nothing creative like a horse head...just crass dialogue that doesn't ring true. We also get a Mafia hearing in Congress which should have ended up on the cutting room floor. We also get (the great?) Lee Strasberg as some old shirtless and feeble mobster. He may be a great teacher, but someone tell me why this is an Academy Award winning acting performance! Am I just dumb? Al Pacino is great as always, this performance following Serpico, but his dialogue doesn't ring true. When he begins, "If history has taught us anything.." I expect some deep wisdom to follow...needless to say it doesn't. Talia Shire's character is also weakened compared to the original's Connie. Here she just "needs money" and wants Mike to forgive Fredo because "he's so sweet". This mess of a sequel ends with a literal bloodbath, but following the formula of the first, and a final scene with the original cast (sans Brando) the actors of which were paid more than all their good work in the original. I'm not saying it isn't worth seeing, just that it's inferior to the original in many ways. But of course it isn't near as bad as Part 3. My final criticism is that all these mob films intentionally or not glorify criminals. Okay, now you can click "no".
Part 2 has a much bigger budget but a script with weakened plot lines and dialogue, basically trying to followup everything from Part 1 logically becoming formulaic and soap-operaish, and ending up falling flat.
The film begins with another celebration of some kind. A brother's betrayal aspires to be that of Hamlet, but without the depth or wit (or brevity). It's now the 1950s and Mike is in Nevada and is trying to buy a corrupt Senator. The Senator is I suppose the film producer element of the first, but with nothing creative like a horse head...just crass dialogue that doesn't ring true. We also get a Mafia hearing in Congress which should have ended up on the cutting room floor. We also get (the great?) Lee Strasberg as some old shirtless and feeble mobster. He may be a great teacher, but someone tell me why this is an Academy Award winning acting performance! Am I just dumb? Al Pacino is great as always, this performance following Serpico, but his dialogue doesn't ring true. When he begins, "If history has taught us anything.." I expect some deep wisdom to follow...needless to say it doesn't. Talia Shire's character is also weakened compared to the original's Connie. Here she just "needs money" and wants Mike to forgive Fredo because "he's so sweet". This mess of a sequel ends with a literal bloodbath, but following the formula of the first, and a final scene with the original cast (sans Brando) the actors of which were paid more than all their good work in the original. I'm not saying it isn't worth seeing, just that it's inferior to the original in many ways. But of course it isn't near as bad as Part 3. My final criticism is that all these mob films intentionally or not glorify criminals. Okay, now you can click "no".