Deep dive into Michael Corleone's psyche

Rating: Null/10 (11 July 2017)

The original Godfather was more about Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) than it was about Michael (Al Pacino), his son. Michael was the other main character certainly, but it was Vito's movie all around. In this sequel the roles are switched and while it's still about Vito, specifically about his youth, it's much more about Michael and his struggle with power, responsibility, pride and greed.
The movie dances between two timelines, following both young Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro), and Michael as the new head of the Corleone family. The roles are also switched in that in the original film we followed the fall of an aging crime boss and the rise of a cunning mind in Vito and Michael, respectively. This time it's Vito that's rising to become the most feared and respected man in New York, whereas Michael is the one to suffer and watch as his life is torn down all around him.
Superb storytelling from Francis Ford Coppola, and the main reason why this is such a beloved movie. In lesser hands all these separate strings, characters and plot points would have become a convoluted mess, but in Coppola's hands they weave a tapestry of corruption, personal glory and ruthless ambition. And while it is a requirement to have seen the original film, it in no way takes away from the saga. In truth these films should be regarded as one long experience.
The secondary reason why these films work so well are of course the actors. Al Pacino once again gives us the performance of a century. He has moved from young man plagued by naivety, responsibility and obligation to a man burdened by expectations beyond any reason, inner struggles of family and endless ambition to prove himself worthy of his father's legacy. Robert De Niro as young Vito proves himself Pacino's equal. In him we get a character that's eerily similar to young Michael in intelligence, charisma and willingness to do what's necessary, but unlike his eventual son, this man isn't burdened by the expectations of larger society. He isn't an unreasonable man, but neither does he expect anything to be given to him if he isn't willing to take it by himself. Fantastic roles, both of them.
The only flaw I can name in this film in comparison to the original is the multitude of plot point and story lines. I mentioned that in Coppola's hands they are not the disaster they would otherwise be, but that doesn't mean that the original movie isn't a purer, more streamlined experience. Though only in comparison. This film is still a masterpiece by any standards.