All these years, here’s what I’ve heard about Francis Ford Coppola’s Godfather films (Anthology? Trilogy? Trilogy.)

1. The first film is fantastic (and highly quotable.)

2. The sequel The Godfather Part II is supposed to be even better.

3. The third film is terrible, and Sofia Coppola’s acting allegedly didn’t help matters.

I recently watched (2nd attempt) the original film – The Godfather (1972), and yeah, it’s pretty good. An interesting story about characters within the fictional Corleone Mafia family during the late 1940s and early 1950s. And the original film featured some famous (and young) actors and actresses, such as Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, etc.

So…. Part II. I don’t quite the big hub bub. I thought the film was too divided between multiple plots. The story takes place between two timelines:

1. The early 1950s where Al Pacino’s Michael has continued to reign as the head (or “Don”) of the Corleone crime family. This is despite promising his wife Kay that he would make the family’s business completely legitimate. While the family still appears to have some business in NY, they’ve relocated to a large estate on Lake Tahoe, Nevada, as much of their income comes from their casinos and some other dealings with Hyman Roth, a Jewish mobster. Michael is also working to expand the business through some dealings in Cuba (prior to Fidel Castro taking power.)

2. A flashback to Vito Corleone’s life as a young boy immigrating from Italy to America in the early 20th century (after his family is murdered) and building a new life in Little Italy around the 1920s. The older Vito (aged somewhere in his 20s or 30s) is played by a young Robert De Niro, if you can believe it. Here we also meet a young Clemenza… played by Bruno Kirby!

Among all this, Michael is trying to figure who is trying to kill him. And dealing with his wife Kay. And deciding if he should be involved in this Cuba deal. There’s multiple story elements all rotating into focus during the film.

By the time the film concluded, we both sat during the end-credits trying to digest what we watched. What we agreed on was Vito was a better head of the family. During the course of the flashbacks, the audience leaves with the impression that Vito is respected by the Italian immigrant community.

Meanwhile, Michael is in quite a different situation. He is struggling to keep the family together, surrounded by enemies, and isolated. What he does as the Don doesn’t engender respect, and his world is crumbling around him.

Overall, I found the flashbacks scenes to Vito’s early life the most interesting aspects. There was nothing wrong at all with Al Pacino’s performance, but I was not engaged in that story as it developed, especially with the multiple plot elements that make the story drag for me.The Godfather Part II