A stand alone masterpiece that is, deliberately, slow and epic

Rating: 9/10 (6 May 2011)

The Godfather Part II (1974)
Is this well made? Dramatic? Epic? Beautiful? Impressive?
Of course.
Is this better than the original Godfather? In some ways, yes. It lacks the originality of the whole world novelist Mario Puzo (and co-screenwriter Coppola) created, but it fills in background in Italy and adds wonderful new elements about immigration and the revolution in Cuba. It lacks Marlon Brando, who is a force of his own, but the presence of Robert DeNiro in the many long flashbacks is moving (and he has more presence than Pacino, frankly, who is intentionally stoic, but to the point of expressionless).
Is it a great movie? Why not? What is a great movie supposed to do that this one doesn't? Well, for one thing, I don't think it surprises at all. It doesn't reveal anything too deeply, despite all its deeply felt and emotionally turbulent scenes, and despite the apparent inner probing of the main character (who is last seen thinking very hard, staring into space). It doesn't suggest how to feel about any of this violence, this cold duplicity.
And maybe it shouldn't do any of these things. It is an oddly "confirming" experience. It shows what we have come to think we already know, more or less, about the mafia world with its combination of loyalty and bloody revenge, its attachment to business and its selfishness, its emphasis on family even as it kills those in its own family.
What Coppola does do, as director, is suck you in. You get wrapped up in the world of these men (mostly men, of course, though with a great small role by Talia Shire and a famously troubled larger role by Diane Keaton, who makes a better Annie Hall by far). You are easily and gladly transported from New York to Las Vegas to Miami to Italy back and forth, across time and space, in warm colors and sweeping scenes, inside and out. The pieces of this rather complex story are put together with "artful" deliberation--it's a work of art, surely, despite its relatively straight forward intentions.
It is also filmed, that is lit and photographed, with sensitivity, without becoming virtuosic for its own sake, by Gordon Willis. Part of the immersion happens because of how everything is depicted, and it's easier said than done to make it all cohere and remain beautiful.
So yes, it's surely a terrific movie. It might not be one of your favorite movies, and it really isn't one of mine. I've resisted watching it a second time for two decades, and finally have, and found my mind wandering sometimes. This might partly be a testament to the imprint the Godfather movies have made on American culture and on the movies, because part of my distraction was that it's all so familiar. But it's familiar partly because it's so influential and convincing.
But it's also partly true that there isn't a huge range of events here. I mean, a lot happens, but it falls mostly into a small diversity of power plays, deceptions, waiting games, and ruthless murders. It's all fascinating and terrifying on some level, but it all wraps around itself over and over again. You will find yourself understanding and even identifying with some of the characters, but you might not find yourself sympathizing with any of them, not the major ones, who are all (all) out for themselves in the end, or a pathetic followers yes men. In short, if you like this world and are fascinated by the male power aura, every second is filled with drama. But if like me this isn't really sufficient for over three hours of absorption, your mind might wander a bit, too.
Cosi sia.