Not so great

Rating: 5/10 (22 September 2001)

The Godfather II is not nearly as good as Godfather I, even tho some intelligence and good acting went in. After the Godfather I, and Michael's evolution is complete, who needs a sequel about unsavory characters so much? The Godfather I, led by Vito and Sonny, had elements that provided for great entertainment and made you less bothered by the evil and sleaze (temporarily). Michael pales as an imposing figure next to Vito, and altho Al Pacino is a good actor, I just get tired of watching Michael too much--I was even getting a little tired of him at the end of Godfather I. In other words, I think the disadvantage sequels have of becoming-tiresome subject matter are more present, not less, here. The end of Godfather II, with Michael staring out morosely into the water from a chair, symbolizes the decadence of the story and the corrupt characters, especially Michael himself. I think more toward a pathetic character than a tragic one, despite some of the events he had to endure. And what is the point of Kay's back and forth moral concerns if she is staying with him? And wasn't that "abortion" blowup scene (natch, male child) so moving? Not to me.
The main story here is somewhat convoluted and disorganized, so when the flashbacks are inserted the confusion gets worse. We have sordid characters (Hyman Roth etc.) who do not particularly entertain me on a movie screen, and the depressing figures of Fredo (geez, isn't he such a compelling character) and Connie. This is a precursor to a lot of post mid-70s movies in which the plot is overcomplicated and not crisp and the characters sleazy and unappealing--in movies like this, I would like the characters to be less dwelled on and the action to rule.
On the other hand, there is reason to be somewhat interested in the development of Vito and the flashbacks of the family. Robert DeNiro does a good job as Vito, and the screenplay is thoughtful, but ultimately the main story dominates. Yes, it is true, modern movies are less uplifting than ones preceding the mid-60s, but in spite of the many elements that some people complain about--violence, corruption, sex, pomposity, ridiculously overdone and confusing special effects--there are often some redeeming or uplifting features. Certainly none here, and this film is depressing and sometimes boring, in spite of some good individual scenes and substance here and there to the story and characters. To each his own--I can see why some people like this movie more than I do, but I really do not think it belongs on a pedestal either.