When one brings up the subject of the greatest sequels ever made, it
seems that this film's name is always mentioned. Granted the ingredients
are there for something great to happen. You take the majority of the
cast from "The Godfather" and
add Robert Deniro ("Taxi Driver")
into the mix. One would think that only great things could come from
a collaboration such as this.
The only problem is that Al Pacino ("The
Insider") doesn't hold up his end of the show. This movie is
nearly three and a half hours long and as a result feels like two movies.
The beauty is that, that's the intention. You have Michael Corleone's
(Al Pacino) attempts to maintain control over the family's affairs and
assert himself as the new "Godfather" comprising one of the
film's threads. The other is a look back to Vito Corleone's (Robert
Deniro) rise from an orphaned childhood to a man known simply as "The
Godfather".
Michael's thread is easily the downfall of the film. It has some interesting
ideas behind it. I like the fact that you get to see what the Corleone
family's operations are like in Las Vegas, Miami and even Havana. I
like the idea that you see Michael having to deal with the concept of
betrayal by those closest to him. What I don't like is Pacino's performance
here. He didn't blow me away in "The Godfather"
either, but I thought he did a good job. Here he becomes incredibly
one-dimensional, as he seemingly attempts to become Brando's version
of the "Godfather" rather than his own. He doesn't even do
a good job of trying to be Brando. I'm not saying the man is horrible
here, but I've seen him do much better.
The other part of the movie, involving Vito Corleone, is riveting. You
first see him as a boy in a harrowing scene that leaves him orphaned.
He makes the exodus to New York and manages to meet a woman, have children
and lead a fairly normal life. Then he runs into some smug prick who
goes around the neighborhood collecting tributes from the local shopkeepers
to keep them out of trouble. Deniro takes care of this situation in
his own way. He opens his own store, which will become the front for
his underhanded dealings that lead to the life that we saw Marlon Brando
live in "The Godfather".
I don't think Deniro can deliver a poor performance. When I was younger
I never understood what all the fuss was about with him. Having since
seen him in a great deal of his work I now understand. This man is a
force of nature. He takes the role and treats it as if it is the life
he has always lived. He does with every role what Anthony Hopkins has
done in his two stints as Hannibal Lecter. He inhabits the character
and makes him come alive in ways that few actors have the ability to
do.
The difference between the two storylines is that Vito's is full of
interest, whereas Michael's is disturbingly non-compelling. Michael's
storyline does have some stirring scenes, such as the one when he has
an argument with his wife and she discloses a truth about their relationship
that must have been quite a jarring moment back in 1974 when this film
was released. The attempt on his life was pretty cool as well.
But you see. That's the problem. With Michael's story I have to pick
out the things I liked. With Vito's that is not the case. His story
paints a beautiful picture that fascinates every step of the way. It's
too bad the other story couldn't have held up as well as this one.
Director Francis Ford Coppola tries to rekindle some of the magic that
was present in the first film, but comes up empty-handed for the most
part. He constructs some of the most beautiful transitions when going
from Michael's story to Vito's. It never seemed that these great transitions
ever went the other way though. I can't remember anything spectacular,
in this respect, when going from Vito's story back to Michael's. Maybe
this tells us that even Coppola himself cared more about getting to
Vito's story than getting back to telling Michael's. I doubt it, but
I'd like to think that was the case.
This whole time travel concept in relation to the goings on of the mob
was done much better in Sergio Leone's "Once
Upon a Time in America" a decade after this film's release.
That film effortlessly glides between different periods of time with
an ease and grace that "The Godfather Part II" should have
had. Maybe it would have, had Sergio not turned down directing "The
Godfather", because he had plans of making his own mob epic, which
he eventually did with "Once
Upon a Time in America".
I started this review by talking about sequels that are considered to
be great. Despite Deniro's efforts this film will not be seen in any
sort of great sequels list coming from me.
I save that realm for films the likes of "The
Silence of the Lambs", "The
Empire Strikes Back" and "Back To The Future II".
