Counter-Currents
Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather Part II appeared in 1974, two years after the original, with much of the same cast: Al Pacino as Michael Corleone, Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen, Diane Keaton as Michael’s wife Kay, John Cazale as Fredo Corleone, and Talia Shire as Connie Corleone, plus Robert De Niro as the younger Vito Corleone, Lee Strasberg as Hyman Roth, and Michael V. Gazzo as Frank Pentangeli (“Frankie Five Angels”). Also returning were Mario Puzo, who co-wrote the screenplay with Coppola; Nino Rota, who composed the radiant music; and Gordon Willis, the cinematographer.
Subscribe here to keep reading
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
19 comments
Excellent review. In my opinion the best of the three movies.
An off topic question, where has Jim Goad been?
Jim is settling in to a new state. He’ll be back. He’ll be glad to know he is missed.
Recent weeks have been so good that there’s been no need for his “The Worst Week Yet” column. But fear not, the honeymoon will soon be over…
At least Carlo got his comeuppance. His and Don Fanucci’s deaths were very satisfying. There was no need to arrange for Pentangeli’s death. He thought Michael had put a contract out on him and agreed to testify at the Senate subcommittee hearings. Then, when Michael produced the brother, Pentangeli recanted and perjured himself. He went to prison and was out of the way. I suppose this, together with Fredo’s killing, serves to underscore Michael’s ruthlessness and cold-heartedness. He was tying up loose ends. But Mr. Lynch’s review shows that the script is where the most loose ends can be found.
I agree that Pentangeli was the least necessary death. He was a likeable old man. Michael Gazzo’s performance was memorable.
Al Pacino’s performances never cease to amaze me though I’m not a fan of mafia movies. Same elite acting tier as Gary Oldman, Jack, and Meryl. And I believe all of John Cazale’s movies was nominated for an oscar in his short career. De niro I’ve written off, James Gandolfini had one of the greatest performances in tv history, Paul Giamatti who should have won best actor for Sideways is a very underrated talent, and fellow NY guinea Joe Pesci can either be the funniest (Leo Getz) or the scariest character on screen.
Al Pacino’s performances never cease to amaze me though I’m not a fan of mafia movies.
Uncle Semantic: I do not know if you have ever seen the movie “Mafioso” but it may cause you to conclude that not all mafia movies are bad. I can’t get enough of it, even though I have a hatred for mafiosi and generally speaking, after a while, immorality and violence in films are tiresome. But there is much in this film which has nothing to do with the mafia as such – it has been described as black comedy. Alberto Sordi is the star, so that should tell you something.
I have found only 7 or 8 films worth my time and trouble, and this is one of them. JMO. I’m hardly an expert.
Yes, I agree GF 2 is long trudge. I mark this film for the point I hit mafioso fatigue. That said, it is a very good movie and miles ahead of the trash Hollywood cranks out today. The John Cazale scene when Fredo melts down is one of the cinema classics. But my favorite of 1974 was Chinatown. I still like to watch Chinatown every couple years, yet have never re-watched GF2.
1974 was peak FF Coppola – GF2 best motion picture Oscar. Writer and director for The Conversation, and best screenplay Oscar for The Great Gatsby. To participate, at a high level, in 3 first class films in one year is indeed a noble achievement. Also one hellava Lucky Streak.
Thanks for the excellent movie review!
Thanks for this review. I’ve watched Part II a few times, and I’m glad to know that I wasn’t the only one who had trouble following some aspects of the story! Some classic movies are notorious for complex or unintelligible plots, such as The Big Sleep, but they can still be enjoyed if the viewer just rides along. Here, those script flaws distracted me more.
I agree that Part II has greatness. For me, the best elements are Pentangeli, and the moodiness–leaves blowing as Rota’s music plays, etc. Cazale, Duvall, and a lot of the minor players impressed me. I almost always find Diane Keaton very annoying, but I suppose here it’s intentional. And while Pacino is impressive, he doesn’t evoke much sympathy in me.
I can appreciate and even enjoy a few movies that are relentlessly grim and dark, such as The Night Porter and Danton, and I think the moodiness and craftsmanship of Part II is what kept me watching, but it wasn’t enough to inspire a love for the movie in me.
The review contains a laundry list of flaws and maybe that’s fair. (I haven’t seen the movie in decades.) But unlike part one with its philosophical musings, this seemed to be “just” a movie review. Perhaps in this respect the reviews will mirror the films…
So many flaws and yet the third movie is considered to be even worse. But you’ve said that it’s your favorite. I’ll be interested to read the next installment!
All the big issues are set out in the first film, so it makes sense to discuss them there.
An important new theme in the third movie is broached in the second: Rome, specifically pagan Rome.
“Ancient Rome” never existed, nor did most of the rest of the so-called “ancient civilizations”.
Most history before the Middle Ages is made up.
In any case, civilization started in the North and then spread South, East and West.
Sources?
CC has yet to post my first article.
Baby steps…
Have you written an article?
Sources?
The articles by First Millenium Revisionist and Laurent Guyenot on unz.com make the case that much of Roman history is in reality Byzantine history. Many other authors and historians have written similarly and the articles on unz.com are an excellent primer to this topic.
(Reply to Greg Johnson) January 29, 2025 at 1:27 pm Have you written an article?
Yes, if one wants to follow the white rabbit…
GF II definitely had some editing mistakes that make it harder to follow then the first, and yes, I agree, not all of the casting choices make sense. I believe this was Deniro’s first big role (he was in Scorsese’s Mean Streets a year earlier, but that one is nowhere near as well known), but he was somewhat miscast in this. Also, I thought Bruno Kirby came off kinda clownish as a young (and skinny) Clemenza.
Some of the editing actually makes a huge difference to the viewer’s understanding of the film. The best example of that is the character of Fanucci. It never made sense to me that Vito would kill Fanucci, but never suffer any consequences as a result. Fanucci was, supposedly, a mid-level enforcer at best. Any action taken against him would have at the very least resulted in him being replaced by another thug, if not certain revenge against Vito for causing the big boss to lose face. But, at least as far as we are told, nothing ever happened to Vito. He just sort of became the boss himself. Well, recently, I saw a Youtube video which shows some previously cut footage which basically reveals that Fanucci was a fraud and not involved with the mafia at all and THAT’s why Vito knew he could kill him and get away with it. Vito figures this out when he sees some kids beating Fanucci in the streets and Fanucci doing nothing about it. I’m not sure what the rules are at cc about linking Youtube videos so I won’t do it, but by all means, if you’re a fan of the series, do a search for this video and see for yourself.
I will say, I somewhat disagree with the notion that the end of II is overly dark. I think the main story of this series is a once bright-eyed and promising young man losing his soul to violence and treachery. The “Godfather” of the title refers to Michael, not to Vito. You really see this more in GF III, especially the alternate ending released a few years ago (which I definitely prefer over the original ending), but the first dead give away of it is the scene referenced in this article, where Michael orders the cold-blooded murder of a prostitute for the purpose of framing his WASPy enemy Senator Geary.
Great essay, I really look forward to reading Trevor Lynch’s thoughts on the most underrated film in the trilogy.
Sure would like to read the review of GF II but I don’t have $120. In any case, that film irritated me this way and that (tho it’s hardly a dud; it is a good story). GF I + GF III are better, though the ending of #1 has a hurried, where-do-we-go-from-here feeling. It’s like they knew a Godfather II could not help but be much anticipated and financially successful.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.