DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise? (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/656059-godfather-ii-why-film-given-so-much-praise.html)

Rival11 08-18-22 12:49 PM

The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
At the age of 46, I just recently watched all three Godfather films (for part III, I watched the CODA version).

Part 1 was outstanding (never knew the Corleone family got attacked like that) and as much hate as Part III gets, I loved it (not sure what the incest was all about but whatever). That leaves us with Part II. Of course it's well made but.....It was way too long and just felt unnecessary as a whole.
The running parallel of the rise of Vito and the fall of Michael was cool but.....overall just flat. Even with how hard Coppola/Puzo tried to flesh things out....there were still many missing pieces in Vito's story.

Surprisingly, if you leave out the scene where Vito carves the old leader, you may have a PG/PG-13 film - I'm not saying I needed more blood but I was definitely surprised by the lack action in this as well.

I myself can't see the reason for all the praise, I'm not talking about people just saying it's their favorite film either, a ton of people say it was better than the first and is one of the greatest films ever made. Maybe I need to re-watch? I don't know.

Decker 08-18-22 12:56 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
Oh wow. Man I love Part II so much. As you say the Vito origin stuff is so cool. But the Michael stuff is chilling. He's so different from the young post-War Michael. He's lost all his humanity. The stuff with Fredo is just brutal. The pain between them, the betrayal. I just love all that Cuba stuff, the look on Michael's face when Fredo lets it slip about knowing Hyman Roth. All the stuff with Frankie Pentangelo (except for the bandstand, which I never really believed), especially the final scene with Tom at the Prison.
And the flashback at the end is just wonderful. I think it's close to a perfect movie.

ViewAskewbian 08-18-22 01:01 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
Because it's a great film. :scratch2:

GoldenJCJ 08-18-22 01:20 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
I don’t hate Part III as much as others but Robert Duvall was desperately needed.

Part I is a classic with so many classic lines.

Part II is just as good as Part I, if not better. It’s just a great movie all around.

Ash Ketchum 08-18-22 01:44 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
I saw it when it was released and then I saw the re-edited "Godfather Saga" when it aired on TV with both parts integrated into one movie, told chronologically. I didn't see it again until 2019. I had an even more negative reaction than the OP. Here are my notes from the 2019 viewing:


Too long, too ponderous. Too excessive in the scenes in Cuba and the Little Italy flashbacks. Michael’s corrupt, unlikeable, uninteresting. One-note performance, one-note character. He doesn’t change. We don’t care what happens to him the way we did with all the characters in Part I. No human foils for Michael, other than Fredo. He doesn’t have Sonny, Tessio, Clemenza, Don Vito to play off of. Tom has too little to do here. Pentangeli and Hyman Roth are the only really interesting characters, yet we don’t see enough of them. They would have been great foils for Michael if they were around more. And Michael having Roth killed is ridiculous. Meyer Lansky outlived all of them. That was the REAL story here. Also, big continuity error. Willy Cicci (Spinell) seems to get killed early on, shooting it out with the Rosato brothers (Carmine Caridi and Danny Aiello) in the Bronx. But then he turns up testifying before the Senate committee. No indication of what happened with him. If he was still alive, why did he disappear from the movie? Why was he allowed to testify about the mafia? Makes no sense. Kay Adams really drags this movie down. No way Michael would have married someone so outside the culture.

inri222 08-18-22 01:53 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
For me Part II is a masterpiece and the best of all three films.
Here are some of my reasons why:

Robert De Niro as young Vito Corleone delivers the goods. His performance and mannerisms are so similar to Marlon Brando.
The contrast between Vito and Michael and how they handle certain situations.
The battle of wits between Michael and his father's old friend Hyman Roth.
How Michael loses his humanity as he consolidates his power through violence and becomes a tragic character straight out of a Shakespearean play.


Decker 08-18-22 02:13 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum (Post 14150165)
I saw it when it was released and then I saw the re-edited "Godfather Saga" when it aired on TV with both parts integrated into one movie, told chronologically. I didn't see it again until 2019. I had an even more negative reaction than the OP. Here are my notes from the 2019 viewing:

Your biggest complaint is that Michael had Roth killed when Lansky wasn't ever killed? rotfl
Roth was a fictional character inspired (heavily) by Lansky. Michael was an entirely fictional character. The fact that an Oscar winning screenwriter could envision a difficult but not entirely impossible situation where one fictional mob boss arranges the assassination of another fictional powerful mobster in exile is hardly something to get too wound up about. It's a story. And the motivations and complications are all plausible.

Count Dooku 08-18-22 02:13 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
Why don't you go to Rotten Tomatoes and read the reviews from when the movie was released, before it had been canonized?



Rival11 08-18-22 02:14 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum (Post 14150165)
I saw it when it was released and then I saw the re-edited "Godfather Saga" when it aired on TV with both parts integrated into one movie, told chronologically. I didn't see it again until 2019. I had an even more negative reaction than the OP. Here are my notes from the 2019 viewing:

YES!! I forgot about Spinell's character!!! When it gets to the court scene, I literally said, wait a minute...he got messed up, how the hell is there is not a scratch on him? I thought he died.

I agree with everything you wrote as well.

Rival11 08-18-22 02:15 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 

Originally Posted by ViewAskewbian (Post 14150142)
Because it's a great film. :scratch2:

And that's fine, I just don't get all the "masterpiece" and "greatest of all time" praise.

Rival11 08-18-22 02:16 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 

Originally Posted by GoldenJCJ (Post 14150152)
I don’t hate Part III as much as others but Robert Duvall was desperately needed.

Part I is a classic with so many classic lines.

Part II is just as good as Part I, if not better. It’s just a great movie all around.

For sure, I was actually a little pissed off that Duvall wasn't in it.

Decker 08-18-22 02:20 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
I thought it was pretty obvious that Cicci got shot, got hung out to dry, but recovered and was upset enough to turn state's evidence on Michael.
We don't see that part because his appearance at the Senate hearing is supposed to be as much of a surprise to us as it is to Michael.

Decker 08-18-22 02:23 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
Great summation of the behind-the-scenes machinations in Godfather Part II here :


In Godfather 2, why did Willi Cicci testify against Michael? Is he also intimidated by Roth like Frank Pentangeli did? What happened to him?

First of all, Frank Pentangeli did not testify because of any alliance or fear of Hyman Roth. Pentangeli hated Roth, And his Sicilian messanger boy Johnny Ola. Pentangeli testified against Michael because Roth set him up to believe Michael had turned on him.

This is a very complicated series of events that led up to the Senate hearings of Michael Corleone.

Going back to what started the feud between Roth and Michael, it was Michael's ordering the hit on Moe Greene that sparked this whole thing. In the original Godfather film it was Greene who would not sell his share of the hotel to Michael who was planning a hostile takeover of the Las Vegas hotels and casinos. Greene also let Michael know he had formed an alliance with the Barzzini family in order to keep his hotel. Michael would have nothing of it and whacked Greene along with the heads of the five families. Greene was a protege of Roth's and was like a son to Roth.

Now getting to Frank Pentangeli. At Michael's home in Tahoe, Pentangeli wanted to eliminate the Rozzotto Brothers who were taking over the territories in New York he had aquired from Michael and Clemenza. Upon Clemenza's death, Frank took over all the New York territory with Willie Cicci as his consigliere.

Michael refused to allow Pentangeli permission to eliminate the Rozzotto's as it would have interfered with his plans with Roth. This infuriated Pentangeli and he left Tahoe on bad terms with Michael.

Pentangeli met with the Rozzotto's in New York when the Rozzotto's tried to kill Frankie telling him it was from Michael. When in reality it was the beginning of Roth's plan to take Michael down.

The reason Cicci testified against the Corleone's was simple. Cicci was wounded and captured during the shootout with the Rozzotto Brothers. At that point he had no reason not to testify. He probably had no knowledge that Frankie was still alive so Cicci testified against Michael out of revenge, but there was always a buffer between Cicci and Michael. That's​ why the Senate needed Pentangeli to testify as he got his orders straight from Michael himself.

Once Cicci testified, it was probably part of a plea deal with the feds and Cicci goes and does his time. They already had him on several class A felonies such as murder, conspiracy, racketeering and a lot more. Testifying was basically a no-brainer. That's the end of his involvement with the movie plot. It is assumed he did what ever time he was sentenced to and he lived out his life.

Pentangeli testified out of​ revenge thinking it was Michael who tried to have him killed in New York.

This was proven in Havana in Roth's hotel room when Michael asks him who had Frank Pentangeli killed. That's when Roth gives that famous speech about what a great man Moe Greene was and that there wasn't even a plaque or a statue in Vegas to remember him. Basically the town Moe Greene had created.

Michael's only recourse to the Roth's Senate plans was ​to bring Frankie's brother to the court room and persuade Frank not to go through with it.

Once Michael got the best of Roth, he turned his attention to poor Fredo who was duped into helping Roth and the Rozzotto's attempt the hit on Michael in his home in Tahoe. Fredo was always resentful of Michael stepping over him to become the head of the family. That's when Michael basically disowned Fredo. Waiting until the death of his mother, that's when Michael had Al Neri kill Fredo in the motor boat on the lake.

Rival11 08-18-22 02:25 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 

Originally Posted by Decker (Post 14150192)
I thought it was pretty obvious that Cicci got shot, got hung out to dry, but recovered and was upset enough to turn state's evidence on Michael.
We don't see that part because his appearance at the Senate hearing is supposed to be as much of a surprise to us as it is to Michael.

I know but, it just didn't match with what happened to him - no lingering effects from what he went through? He just came off/looked like a fresh character.

Rival11 08-18-22 02:27 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
Another issue with this film for me is that some of the primary players like Pentangeli just didn't resonate with me. He reminded me of a throwaway character. I there was just too much that didn't resonate enough with me.

rocket1312 08-18-22 02:31 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
I personally prefer part I, but only because I find part II narratively superfluous. We learn everything we need to know about Michael the moment the door closes on him at the end of part I.

That said, part II is probably better made, with a richer narrative. Coppola had much more freedom, therefore it's a more personal film. Part I is more of a trashy potboiler, elevated by Coppola and the cast. I don't mean that as a prejorative, btw, it's actually what I like about it.

OldBoy 08-18-22 02:34 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
The Godfather Part II is simply a breathtaking and stunningly great follow up to an amazing original. these movies are what all other gangster movies are compared to now. it is just a marvel in movie-making, acting, directing, etc.

Decker 08-18-22 02:42 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 

Originally Posted by Rival11 (Post 14150198)
Another issue with this film for me is that some of the primary players like Pentangeli just didn't resonate with me. He reminded me of a throwaway character. I there was just too much that didn't resonate enough with me.

I can't argue that the whole storyline would have felt more resonant if it were Clemenza's story as originally intended. But when Castellano bailed at almost the last minute, FFC had to scramble. The fact that he managed to replace him with an iconic Oscar-nominated performance is one of the most impressive examples of making the most of a bad situation. But yes, given a choice I would have preferred Clemenza in that part.

Crocker Jarmen 08-18-22 03:44 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
Yeah, Part I is a fun movie, where the viewer can be made to think of the Corleones as righteous for the most part. Part II is ominous, and unsettling, and doesn't flinch from presenting these characters without any grace or excuses for their evil.

Pentangeli is my favorite supporting character in the whole movie, and is nearly the sole provider of any laughs. "They told me, 'Michael Corleone did this', and 'Michael Corleone did that', and I said...'Ah, sure!" Such a wonderful voice Michael V Gazzo had.

Toddarino 08-18-22 04:32 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
I prefer the first Godfather, but I think Godfather II is probably the better film.
Even after watching Coda, part III is still not good. Like others have stated, Duvall was sorely missed. Hamilton was a piss poor replacement.

Sonic 08-18-22 05:31 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 

The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
It's cinematic art. It's captivating and powerful. The perfect sequel.

Part III is the bastard child made from wedlock. It's not horrible by any means but totally unnecessary as well. It's a huge miss more than victory, compared to part II.

JeffTheAlpaca 08-18-22 07:57 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
It is a great movie and not a generic comic book movie that gets universal praise since it made a lot of money at the box office.

rexinnih 08-18-22 11:24 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 

Originally Posted by ViewAskewbian (Post 14150142)
Because it's a great film. :scratch2:

Thread closed?

Rival11 08-19-22 12:04 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 

Originally Posted by OldBoy (Post 14150202)
The Godfather Part II is simply a breathtaking and stunningly great follow up to an amazing original. these movies are what all other gangster movies are compared to now. it is just a marvel in movie-making, acting, directing, etc.

Scott, CALM THE F DOWN.

rennervision 08-19-22 08:21 PM

Re: The Godfather II - why is this film given so much praise?
 
I had pretty much the same reaction to Part II as the OP when I first saw it decades ago. This was shortly after watching Part I. (And my reaction to the first was I just watched one of the greatest movies of all time.) I maintain Part II works best as the middle part of a trilogy, but it was a loooong wait until Part III (and expectations were certainly not met with that one). I will say for me Part II became a bit of an acquired taste. While I still prefer the first one, I've grown to love Part II's flashbacks which I still feel is the high point of the movie. (I really view it as a kind of prequel/sequel, with two movies edited into one double-length feature.) And for the "present-day" stuff I've come to appreciate every little line of dialogue and notice something new every time I watch it. My feeling is you will probably have the same experience as me if you watch these multiple times, but I whole heartedly understand your first impression. I think Michael's transition was just more interesting in the first movie; in the second one it didn't seem to be as much of a character arc story wise.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:30 PM.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.