The Godfather Part II is said by many to be the best sequel ever. I personally think that is arguable, since it arguably surpasses its proceeder and checking out the Lord of the Rings sequels and the Empire Strikes Back. Say this is the best sequel ever and I will not disagree. Say this is better than the first and I will agree. Honestly, I keep changing my mind about which instalment is better every time I watch them. This last time I watched them, the first one seemed better to me. The time before, this one was the superior picture. I don't care which is better, as long as I have 200 minutes of no interruptions while watching this.
With the success of The Godfather in 1972, it was only natural for there to be a sequel. The Godfather Part II acts as both a sequel and a prequel, with the sequel being written by Coppola and Puzo and the prequel being taken from the novel. When Pacino broke out in the first movie, he topped it one year later with Serpico. His performance in this tops Serpico and everything else he's ever done. Unfortunately, he lost his sure Oscar win to Art Carney. Yes, Carney was worthy, but put him in the same category as Al Pacino for perhaps the best role ever and he becomes very unworthy. The people at the Academy probably thought Pacino would just get better and they could give him an award later. That would not come until 1993 when he won for a role in Scent of a Woman that was inferior to all that he did in the 70s. At least the Academy got the Best Picture win right. That was a given. Pacino's rival/friend/co- star, Robert De Niro took home the win for Best Supporting Actor, beating out their acting teacher, Lee Strasberg. De Niro became the first Oscar winner to not say a word of English. I don't know what it was about his portrayal, but there was some sort of magic contained with utter brilliance. Strasberg and Michael Gazzo where also fantastic, but both did not possess an unknown magic that few can bring to the table.
The prequel follows a child Vito Corleone who's family is poor. He witnesses his family begin murdered by Corleone's most powerful mob boss. He heads to America and grows up on the streets there too. Years later, an adult Vito (De Niro) rises to the top of New York's underworld and is determined to avenge his family's death. Revenge stories like this have been done to death, but almost none have been executed this good. The sequel takes place a few years after the first with Michael (Pacino) as the Don. After he successfully dodges an assassination attempt, ordered by Hyman Roth (Strasberg), Michael's fears about loyalty, betrayal and murder lead him to a severe paranoid state making him a deadly madman.
If there was one flaw this had, it would be that the antagonist in the sequel isn't much of a threat; we know Michael can destroy him and all he has. One reason the first one worked so well was because the family was losing and audience did not know how the family would regain power. That masterstroke isn't quite achieved in this. So maybe the first one is better.
Both stories are less complex than the original, but both together make one hefty team. Al Pacino outdoes Marlon Brando and himself in one of the top five greatest roles of the screen. He leads an all-star cast in what is arguably better acting than the first. With most of this being arguably better than the first, Coppola's direction surpasses the first. The cinematography, sets and camera tricks beat out all the first had, which were great.
4/4
With the success of The Godfather in 1972, it was only natural for there to be a sequel. The Godfather Part II acts as both a sequel and a prequel, with the sequel being written by Coppola and Puzo and the prequel being taken from the novel. When Pacino broke out in the first movie, he topped it one year later with Serpico. His performance in this tops Serpico and everything else he's ever done. Unfortunately, he lost his sure Oscar win to Art Carney. Yes, Carney was worthy, but put him in the same category as Al Pacino for perhaps the best role ever and he becomes very unworthy. The people at the Academy probably thought Pacino would just get better and they could give him an award later. That would not come until 1993 when he won for a role in Scent of a Woman that was inferior to all that he did in the 70s. At least the Academy got the Best Picture win right. That was a given. Pacino's rival/friend/co- star, Robert De Niro took home the win for Best Supporting Actor, beating out their acting teacher, Lee Strasberg. De Niro became the first Oscar winner to not say a word of English. I don't know what it was about his portrayal, but there was some sort of magic contained with utter brilliance. Strasberg and Michael Gazzo where also fantastic, but both did not possess an unknown magic that few can bring to the table.
The prequel follows a child Vito Corleone who's family is poor. He witnesses his family begin murdered by Corleone's most powerful mob boss. He heads to America and grows up on the streets there too. Years later, an adult Vito (De Niro) rises to the top of New York's underworld and is determined to avenge his family's death. Revenge stories like this have been done to death, but almost none have been executed this good. The sequel takes place a few years after the first with Michael (Pacino) as the Don. After he successfully dodges an assassination attempt, ordered by Hyman Roth (Strasberg), Michael's fears about loyalty, betrayal and murder lead him to a severe paranoid state making him a deadly madman.
If there was one flaw this had, it would be that the antagonist in the sequel isn't much of a threat; we know Michael can destroy him and all he has. One reason the first one worked so well was because the family was losing and audience did not know how the family would regain power. That masterstroke isn't quite achieved in this. So maybe the first one is better.
Both stories are less complex than the original, but both together make one hefty team. Al Pacino outdoes Marlon Brando and himself in one of the top five greatest roles of the screen. He leads an all-star cast in what is arguably better acting than the first. With most of this being arguably better than the first, Coppola's direction surpasses the first. The cinematography, sets and camera tricks beat out all the first had, which were great.
4/4