I was not very impressed with Godfather 2

Cafe Society
1

Wait, let me explain.

I did love the novel Godfather. And I liked the first movie. The second movie, the only part I really liked was the sub-plot of the flashbacks of Vito Corleone.

In comparison, Michael Corleone’s plot seemed almost fluffy, and rather wedged in there. It did not have the emotional punch of any of the rest of it and instead seemed to rely on the Mob stereotypes established by the first movie.

Oh, there were a few good moments: “Senator, my offer is this. Nothing.” But mostly Michael came off as really flat.

Yet many people say this is the better of the movies. Why?

2

Would you say it insists upon itself?

But I agree (sort of). The second one doesn’t measure up to the first and the young Vito parts are the highlight of the movie.

3

I like it

4

Hmm. I prefer the 1st to the 2nd – but it’s almost a tie.

The 3rd is proof that evil exists.

5

I like all three, but GF3 is only a very good movie, not a great movie. Of 1 and 2, I prefer 2 because it has a number of great performances and scenes and a great story arc, and I think that the performance of Pacino as Michael, described here as “flat” by others, is only of the most stunning performances ever put on film. If I could put my finger on why, I could bottle it and sell it to other actors, but I cannot. Pacino’s performance leaves me stunned. I’ve never cared for the flashback sequences with DiNero, but his passionate character is a nice contrast to Mike’s dispassionate further decline into evil.

6

I thought there were some pretty awesome performances, like John Cazale as Fredo.

7

I thought it was a terrfic movie as a work of fiction. The problem with the trilogy though is that it glorifies thugs and scum bags and gives them a nobility and honour that do not deserve and certainly didn’t exist in the real world.

8

I prefer the second, just because of Michael. He’s so menacing while trying to portray that he’s just a businessman. If he fixed me with a few of the stares he uses in the movie, I’d turn into a puddle of goo right there. I honestly think he only smiles in the movie maybe once or twice.

And add in the great flashbacks, the stuff with Cuba, and it’s just a classic.

9

You are mistaking The Godfather as a realistic portrayal of Mafia life. In fact, while that is somewhat true of the novel it is derived from, the film is actually a Greek tragedy wrapped in the trappings of a Sicilian Mafia film. Michael is supposed to be noble and doing all the wrong things for the right reasons (such as assassinating the Turk and the police captain to prevent a coalition of families against the Corleones in the coming war), so that he can be the central figure in an inescapable tragedy.

Note that the Vito does not reveal in criminality the way Jimmy Conway and Henry Hill do in Goodfellas, or is he comfortably angsty like Tony Soprano; he has accepted the burden of running a crime family so that he can provide his children–specifically Michael–the opportunity to become respectably successful: I knew Santino was going to have to go through all this and Fredo… well, Fredo was… But I, I never wanted this for you. I work my whole life, I don’t apologize, to take care of my family. And I refused to be a fool dancing on the strings held by all of those big shots. That’s my life, I don’t apologize for that. But I always thought that when it was your time, that you would be the one to hold the strings. Senator Corleone, Governor Corleone, something.

However, the Don’s near murder and later murder of Sonny led to Michael having to take over the running of the Family, and at the end of the first film, become the man that he told Kay in the beginning of the film, “That’s my family Kay, that’s not me.”
At the beginning of Part II, Michael is trying valiantly to liquidate the Family’s illegal business and legitimize the Corleones in the casino business, e.g. carrying on the plan that his father intended. (The wisdom of this is somewhat questionable, given how Las Vegas came to be run by Mafia figures, but it was largely a matter of being able to leverage off of existing enterprises and relationships, such as that with the duplicitous Hyman Roth.) He again ultimately fails, not because of his own desires, but because of the previously mentioned deception and the weakness within his own family (i.e. Fredo). Michael is not an evil man (though he is a Machiavellian one) but he does some very evil things in order to protect, and yet ultimately lose, his family…which ironically is the one thing that his father tells him can make him a “real man”. The strength of Part II is the ironic tragedy; that by trying to be legitimate, Michael weakens himself and loses everything, lowering to the point of murdering his brother for being weak. Part II is one of the few sequels that essentially follows the same general plot as the original film but improves upon it.

Perhaps curiously, I find the scenes of the Vito in Sicily and later Brooklyn to be the weakest in the film. The backstory they provide isn’t particularly necessary, and many of them are humorous and almost cartoonish in nature (such as stealing the carpet, or convincing the landlord to not evict the widow). I guess the idea is to show how Vito came to run the gang including Clemenza, but as Clemenza doesn’t appear in the contemporary scenes (due to a contract dispute with the actor who played him in the first film) the impact is lessened. The last scene of the film is the most critical of the series; Michael, having enlisted in the Marines to fight in WWII (and therefore start on the path of *earning *the legitimate success so hoped for by his father) is alienated by the rest of the family. It is clear from that point (which happens chronologically before any other scene in the film save for the Vito flashbacks) that Michael never stand a chance against Fate.

I think the film is one that that you have to contemplate, and perhaps watch several times in order to gain the full impact. I would encourage the o.p. to watch the films again after a suitable period and see if they don’t gel together better with a second viewing.

Stranger

10

The scene where he hugs Fredo, then over Fredo’s shoulder gives Al Neri that cold stare, and Neri realizes what he means…brutal.

11

Actually, the ending is more subtle than that. Michael alienates his family, with the exception of Fredo, who congratulates Michael. Fredo was the one member of his family who supported Michael’s decision to run his own life… the very brother whom Michael eventually killed for wanting the same thing.

12

To me, the most confusing thing of GF2 was the nature of the deal between Michael and Roth… I couldn’t really figure out what was happening until I realized that Roth was conning Michael by selling a $2 million share in casinos that (as Roth realized) were about to be nationalized.

I must have viewed the film no fewer than 5 times before I understood that. :smack:

13

I was very confused the first time I watched both 1 and 2. “Who are all these people? I can’t keep track of so many characters” "What’s this deal going on? “Why is there suddenly a Senate hearing?” But I thought it all made sense by the end.

14

You are not alone. I did not care for the second one, either. I thought it was too disjointed. I actually liked GF #3 better than #2. It at least told a cohesive story.

Number Uno, of course, is still unmatched.

15

To be fair, Fredo is looking for validation from anyone; it just happens that Michael (and presumably Mother Corleone) were the only ones to give that to him. But yes, Michael ends up alienating, and later commissioning the execution, of the one person who would unconditionally support him (despite betraying him). Fredo was a weakness that Michael eliminated. But the most disheartening thing is how Fredo knows, that he’s going to be killed, and goes anyway.

Stranger

16

GF2 featured two geeky hunks destined to be making movies for the next 40 years. GF1 featured one of the last really good actors.

if you didn’t like GF2 then what can you say about GF3? is was basically a reunion movie wherein some uncredited actors in GF1 finally got their names in the credit.

17

I didn’t think Fredo knew he was gonna be killed. He is dumb

18

This is the true tragedy of GFII and the flaw that keeps it from being the great film it is purported to be. Clemenza is not just part of the Corleone mafia family he is a major part of Vito’s life and real family. Quick: who was Michael’s godfather? They don’t say, but I think it was Clemenza. When they kill Carlo in GFI, Clemenza does the job - to prove his loyalty? Or to have the honor of taking revenge against Sonnie’s traitor.

If Clemenza had betrayed Michael at the end instead of Frankie Pentangeli, and had to slit his wrists in prison, the family tragedy would have been complete, and totally heartbreaking.

19

Fredo’s reaction in Havana is such that he knows Michael is capable of killing him Later on he needs to believe otherwise.

20

it didn’t say but it may have been don thomasino. clemenza was sonny’s godfather that’s why clemenza relished killing carlo.