The Godfather: Part II Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1904x1072 | 12432.19 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x720 | 8128.97 MiB | 720p | |
|
640x352 | 1392.84 MiB | divx | |
|
320x176 | 800.03 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
The continuing saga of the Corleone crime family tells the story of a young Vito Corleone growing up in Sicily and in 1910s New York; and follows Michael Corleone in the 1950s as he attempts to expand the family business into Las Vegas, Hollywood and Cuba.
| Al Pacino | Don Michael Corleone |
| Robert Duvall | Tom Hagen |
| Diane Keaton | Kay Corleone |
| Robert De Niro | Vito Corleone |
| John Cazale | Fredo Corleone |
| Talia Shire | Connie Corleone |
| Lee Strasberg | Hyman Roth |
| Michael V. Gazzo | Frankie Pentangeli |
| G.D. Spradlin | Sen. Pat Geary |
| Richard Bright | Al Neri |
| Gastone Moschin | Don Fanucci |
| Tom Rosqui | Rocco Lampone |
| Bruno Kirby | Young Clemenza (Peter) |
| Frank Sivero | Genco Abbandando |
| Francesca De Sapio | Young Mama Corleone |
| Francis Ford Coppola |
9.00 out of 10 (141221 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Two split, and very compelling, stories of men going through their own emotional grinders told amidst a backdrop of honor, family ties and trust.
posted on 27 Aug 2009The second Godfather film kicks off in a similar fashion to the first; with a large and overwhelming gathering of friends and family on a sunny day within the confines of the Corleone family grounds. The event is the Holy Communion for Michael Corleone's (Pacino) son, and much like the wedding with which the first film began, it represents the beginning of a new venture; of a new tale, or of a new chapter in life or in the franchise that is the Godfather films, a new addition to the lives of this collection of Mafia based individuals whom are forever being deconstructed on screen. And what a tale the piece eventually branches out into, giving us the next chapter in the lives of those in the 'present' tense, as well as seamlessly incorporating an interesting mesh of the rising of one gangster twinned with his lust for revenge.This second strand is, of course, the tale of Vito Corleone (De Niro); an Italian immigrant of the Andolini family based on Scicily and his coming of age in early 20th Century New York. The Godfather Part II is an extremely assured film; a film that is mostly everything a crime film can be, complete with a patient and mature aesthetic which helps in the distinct placing of it in the annuals of contemporary American cinema. The film is split into two equilibriums, one occurring from the late 1950's onwards while predominantly focusing on Michael and his family and friends, where as the other initially unfolds in the very early years of the 20th Century before branching out into the 1920s. This segment sees Vito marry; get involved in petty crime; come up against a local crime kingpin as well as have a son but always retain an eye on a certain larger goal which awaits him back in Scicily.Each of the two equilibriums offer very different studies of the human condition. The equilibrium in the 'present' tense takes on a certain amount of substance to do with honour and trust; as well as incorporating the notion of expansion and moving on, which ties in with the idea of modernity and branching out in an attempt to keep up with the times. These are ideas Michael brings up in the first Godfather film, mainly through fear of his family's safety that they need to 'go straight' but additionally because he feels real estate and so forth acts as a healthy means, money-wise, to sustain the family for the years to come. The other equilibrium sees a much more simplistic and routine chain of events; a tale of revenge and a certain degree of ruthlessness brought about within one man as this study of this character evolves him from an innocent and frightened child; to a young man who is very much observant of this new world he's in; to cold-blooded killer.The installation of Vito's story here is simplistic but very well done in both a story telling and character driven sense. Vito becomes aware of the notion of crime in New York and learns of the rules of hierarchy. He observes his initial, more local, nemeses in Don Fanucci (Moschin) in a close to voyeuristic manner; not necessarily gazing at the individual but at what the individual is: feared but additionally respected. Vito is not afraid of Fanucci, but the study of Vito's involvement in crime, which begins with the stealing of someone's rug and the temporary holding of a neighbour's illegal firearms, act as lures into a world within the historically proclaimed 'new world' he has already arrived in. You might view Vito's tale as a tragedy, since it is Vito's entry into this line of work that will propel him into the mindset of a criminal and, ultimately, it is this line of work that develops the attribute of a cold blooded killer which enables him to fulfil his goal of revenge.The passage of film looking at Vito sees the film revisit one of Vito's ideation from the first edition; the notion of always killing for business and that there is nothing personal behind 'hits' - it is strictly business. Vito and his goal as a young man in New York exist before these rules are drawn up; Vito's hatred of Don Ciccio for the death of his father during the prologue is not business, but very much personal. It might be this that makes Vito's strand of The Godfather Part II the better of the two, and it may well be the reason people have more of a reaction to this edition of the trilogy; in the sense it is a piece establishing ideals and ideation's; before having, what is arguably its strongest character, confront what we already know he believes in and threaten its integrity.Michael's segment of the film covers broader, more personal issues such as life and family ties and marital relationships. It is about expanding an empire on the outside just as much as it is the narrowing down of an empire on the inside: finding out who is actually who and where they stand. There is one such brilliant scene in which Michael and Fredo (Cazale) confront one another and they fall out of favour. It is an establishing of power as Michael, standing, towers over Fredo who up to this point has become more and more of a loose cannon. Michael's segment of The Godfather Part II isn't so much about the mafia or crime as much as it is the human condition; it uses said setting as a means to explore these conditions within a criminal world, as death and increased pressure to make moves dominate person's lives. Its dedicated and calm approach to psychologically chaotic and unnerving subject matter allows the film to retain a certain juxtaposed sense of dread throughout. Perhaps undoubtedly, The Godfather Part II will remain a somewhat timeless study of emotion, angst and so much more.
A Classic in its own right
posted on 27 Aug 2009This is one of the few movies where the sequel is better than the original. Cinematography is better than the original, and story line tighter. The story is about change of guard from the old Corlione (Vito) to the new God father (Michael), and I thought acting by both Marlon Brando and Al Pachino was notch above the original. The unlikely son who went to college and had no interest in the family business now takes over the family as the new Don. Al Pachino shows his maturity as an actor by playing the role of the new Don masterfully, and his transition from his first role to that of the new God father is portrayed naturally.This is one movie I believe will last till the end days of cinema. A classic in its own right.
Possibly better than its flawless predesscesor
posted on 12 Aug 2009The Godfather (1972) was a hit and is today a cult classic and regarded as one of the greatest films ever made. It still holds its ground today. And then in 1974 came it's sequel/prequel The Godfather Part II which is EQUALLY as good, possibly better, than The Godfather itself. It scooped 6 Oscars including Best Picture, Director, and Supporting Actor (Robert DeNiro).Opening again with its mesmerising score by Nino Rota comes Michael Corleone taking a kiss on his hand, then revealing the throne, while Pacino plays it perfectly in one of films greatest performances. Then we are introduced to a marvel of sheer brilliance, flashbacks to the young Don Vito Corleone's time (played in Part I by Marlon Brando), involving brilliance after brilliance. The film continuously switches between the Vito flashbacks and the current time of Michael Corleone, before and after the time of the original film, and in each has a gripping and powerful story that pulls you in and doesn't allow you to escape. From brilliant storylines as traitors, break-ups and of course killings, The Godfather Part II is arguably better than Part I.Al Pacino is absolutely brilliant as Michael, this is possibly his best performance. And while Pacino plays his character like a God, Robert DeNiro plays young Vito uncannily similar to Brando's original Vito. Both give two of films greatest performances. Like many have said this must've taken a pact with the devil because I don't know HOW they could do something like this, something equally, maybe better, than the greatest movie ever made (in my opinion), and in itself possibly the greatest. And when the tragic end comes, you can't help but feel that you have witnessed more than just a movie.You have witnessed raw brilliance rarely acheived as great as it was here.
Cast-Iron classic - greatest film ever made
posted on 09 Aug 2009I first saw this movie when it was shown on the TV late one night. I hadn't seen the first one, but thought I'd give the movie a try anyway. I wasn't disappointed. From the nail-biting first scene, where the boy escapes from his family's murder, I was hooked and had to sit through the next three hours to find out what happened. The movie kept me gripped with further classic moments, such as DeNiro's chase over the rooftops and the assasination attempt in the hospital. The movie is full of violence and suspense, and has an engrossing, complex storyline that draws you in as you watch more. DeNiro and Pacino deliver awesome performances as a father and son at the same age at different points in time. In short, one of the greatest movies I have ever seen, and comes highly recommended.
Was this sequel really necessary?
posted on 04 Jul 2009Yes, it was.Coppola recently stated that part II and III shouldn't be made. I can agree with the latter. But part II is good. The thing impressing me most is how Coppola manages to make it look like the 50's/60's. Like a time machine! I owned this film on VHS and have seen it several times. The intertwined time line is genius. All actors do a good job and particularly de Niro.This film is slow. Very slow. 200 minutes in a steady pace. Thus, many viewers will fall out from time to time. This makes it difficult to follow the complex story. Unlike part I it's sequel also suffers from not having any dramatic highs and lows. The film balance on the edge between unmatched drama and boredom.But it's production, acting and realistic presentation of the period is more than enough to give it a good rating. The film will get better the second and third time you watch it.
One of the greatest films of all time
posted on 28 Jun 2009I can think of a few "sequels" that can be considered great films. Two which I can think of are Aliens and Terminator 2...but I still liked the original to those films more. I can remember watching the Godfather for the first time. I was young, and although I liked it, it would be years until I really came to realize just how great it is. After actually seeing the Godfather II, I was amazed. An incessant battle insued inside my soul which continues to rage today, over which is the better movie...and I have to say I generally lean towards the Godfather II. It is the only sequel to win an academy award for best picture, and rightfully so. Many consider the Godfather to be the greatest film of all time, and it's sequel is just as, if not better than its predecessor.This film could've been broken into two movies, as a prequel to the Godfather, and as a sequel...my favorite aspect of the movie is when it shows how "the Godfather", portrayed by Robert De Niro came to be so powerful.
Weak Soap-Operaish Followup to much better Original
posted on 19 Jun 2009Godfather Part 2 is so hailed as the greatest film of all time it's time someone burst that overblown bubble and I've got the needle right here. So let's take a closer look at what should be considered a mediocre sequel to the classic film, The Godfather. First of all Marlon Brando is nowhere to be seen here. Instead we get random flashbacks to Robert Deniro as the young Vito. We get some good scenes of old Little Italy though there's a Keystone-cops feel to some of it, especially the comic relief of the slumlord scene.Part 2 has a much bigger budget but a script with weakened plot lines and dialogue, basically trying to followup everything from Part 1 logically becoming formulaic and soap-operaish, and ending up falling flat.The film begins with another celebration of some kind. A brother's betrayal aspires to be that of Hamlet, but without the depth or wit (or brevity). It's now the 1950s and Mike is in Nevada and is trying to buy a corrupt Senator. The Senator is I suppose the film producer element of the first, but with nothing creative like a horse head...just crass dialogue that doesn't ring true. We also get a Mafia hearing in Congress which should have ended up on the cutting room floor. We also get (the great?) Lee Strasberg as some old shirtless and feeble mobster. He may be a great teacher, but someone tell me why this is an Academy Award winning acting performance! Am I just dumb? Al Pacino is great as always, this performance following Serpico, but his dialogue doesn't ring true. When he begins, "If history has taught us anything.." I expect some deep wisdom to follow...needless to say it doesn't. Talia Shire's character is also weakened compared to the original's Connie. Here she just "needs money" and wants Mike to forgive Fredo because "he's so sweet". This mess of a sequel ends with a literal bloodbath, but following the formula of the first, and a final scene with the original cast (sans Brando) the actors of which were paid more than all their good work in the original. I'm not saying it isn't worth seeing, just that it's inferior to the original in many ways. But of course it isn't near as bad as Part 3. My final criticism is that all these mob films intentionally or not glorify criminals. Okay, now you can click "no".
In Some Ways Even Better Than the First One...
posted on 16 Jun 2009Seven years after the first film, Michael Corelone (Al Pacino) continues his family's quest to become legitimate. Also, more on his father's growing up in Sicily and coming to America. With Vito being played not by Marlon Brando, but Robert DeNiro.) If you liked the first film, you will like this film. If you didn't, you won't. It's really that simple, since you have all the same great people coming together for this film with just as solid a script and acting as you did the first time. You lose Marlon Brando, but you get Robert DeNiro. I consider that a fair trade.This film has two things going for it: it has the early years of Don Corleone, which really fills in the missing mythos around the family. Without this, the film would appear to show the Corelones were always powerful, which is far from the truth. It does not explain how Don Corelone grew to talk in such a mumbled voice, though.Also, I really enjoyed the entire Cuba sequence, because it put the film in a historical time frame (and I like Cuba). I was never fully sure when the first film was taking place, but this one made sure I knew the years when Don Coreleone was growing up and that the present day was not 1974, but rather in roughly 1958-1959. That changed my perspective on things completely.If you have invested three hours in the first film, invest three more in this one. Why only get half the story of Vito Corleone? I cannot make any suggestions for part three, though, one way or the other.
One of the best sequels ever made
posted on 04 Jun 2009The Godfather part 2 gets very close to the title for best sequel ever made, but not quite. Even so, I would rank this among the superior films to follow up on another and still be as strong and appealing and dramatically satisfying as the former. The structure of the film is also very important as it jumps back and forth between two stories of Corleone's without any disconnected feelings for the audience. Both could work as perfect single films on their own; together it's like a double album of the dark side of crime and the perilous nature of rising up in America as an immigrant. It's spectacular in many ways, masterpiece in fact, and has become as important as the first one (it is the only sequel to win an Oscar for best picture in those terms) and the acting all around is well-knit (even the pioneer himself Lee Strasberg is on hand as Roth), the score is possibly better in some ways to the first film, and most of the scene work is fantastic. One thing that attracted me to this film is also what I believe is one of the all-time great breakthrough performances in any film, as Robert De Niro as Vito Corleone has all of that confidence as an actor without channeling too much Brando. If there would be one reason to see the film and recommend it it would be because of him, as he gives one of his tour de force career turns in that streak of one after another in the 70s. Pacino is practically as good with enough lines that are realistically grounded but also highly quotable at times (the "in my home" bit is priceless). John Cazale, by the way, is also an element to make the film work as one of two performances that he'll be remembered for twenty years down the line (the other being Dog Day Afternoon). In short, it's just a very well done picture.
watch this beacon of an epos in the landscape of normal "mafia-films"!
posted on 29 May 2009nearly a milestone as the first part of the-godfather-trilogy. The lack of OUTSTANDING Marlon Brando is too huge to get compensed by the (extraordinary) appearance of Pacino, Garcia et al. Want to see a breathtaking movie which impresses by the directors courage of "taking all the time the story needs" but do not want to see Godfather#1 again? then choose this masterpiece and spend yourself app 3h of real artwork!
Excellent continuation of the classic saga
posted on 29 May 2009I do not like The Godfather Part II as well as the original, if only because the shift in focus from the subtle machinery of the Corleone family business to the historically inspired (Kefauver hearings, collapse of the Batista regime in Cuba) episodes shortchanges the elegant simplicity of the first film. We have already witnessed Michael's incredible transformation from "civilian" war hero into hard-as-steel overboss in the original, and this makes his character less interesting to me. I do not wish to suggest that Part II is not a good film. On the contrary, the intercutting of the Vito Corleone story with Michael's trials, troubles, and challenges gorgeously punctuates the importance of family tradition so crucial to the film's thematic fabric.
An extraordinary Piece of work
posted on 26 May 2009This Film is in second place in my top ten movies of all time just behind Pulp fICTION.The acting is flawless especially by De Niro portraying the young Don Vito Corleone.I saw this film on video this year and as soon as it finished i watched it all over again.It is so much better than the first film for many reasons,but most of all the story of Vito Corleone's rise in power. I strongly suggest you see this movie
Ummmmmmmmmmm-wah!!! Brilliance!!!!
posted on 14 May 2009STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs This companion piece to the original Godfather film charts the rise of a young Don Vito (Robert De Niro) as well as the ascension of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) in the 1950s.Whereas the original just told a straight-out story, this one juxtaposes (brilliantly) two extraordinary tales of the mafia together, from Vito's struggle to over-come an arsehole Don to cement his own position of influence in his Italian-American neighbourhood he occupies to Michael's ascension to power, the personal sacrifices power requires and his testimony before a grand jury of unlawful conduct.People often mention how it was a shock that De Niro and Pacino would have to wait many years before they worked directly together again in Heat, but it's like they're controlling two completely separate movies here (it certainly makes the time fly by quicker if you think of it that way.) Nino Rota's powerful score flies over as absorbingly as it did in the original.Overall,this is even more an accomplished piece of film-making than the original and a must-see if you want to see the ultimate conclusion to that.*****
Maybe not as good as the first, but still one of the finest films ever crafted.
posted on 14 May 2009When the first came out, jaws hit the floor from how amazing it was. Jaws continue to hit the floor. So this had a tough act to follow, and, it did just amazing. My jaw 'almost hit the floor. Nothing could amaze folks like "The Godfather", but too say this is anything else but flawless, is crazy. Roger Ebert (who has my respect despite making crazy reviews) said it was really good, but not as good as the first so he only gave it three out of four. Now, it's not as good, but everything about this film works flawlessly. Al Pacino who was great in the first, is even better here as the now established Mafia leader. And Rober De Niro is a young Vito, and gives another great performance. And the rest of the cast is superb, and the script is flawless, and the music is amazing. In short, one of the greatest movies ever made.
The Godfather part II is the best of all.
posted on 14 May 2009The first time I saw this movie, it made me up! although I saw the Godfather series not in the order because first I saw part 2 then the last one and after all the first one "THE GODFATHER". But when I think, among them part two was something else! The Godfather is a violent movie which is about a mafia family and their story and it is really a good one! Specially because it is from a perfect director and writer "Francois Ford Capello". I really recommend you to see all parts. This movie has a very slow theme and if you liked this director's film I recommend you to watch "Apocalypse Now" too 'cause that is a good movie as well.
A sequel which is as good as the original, if not better
posted on 11 May 2009The Godfather was a hard act to follow. It had an enthralling plot and the acting was second to none. So, when part two was released, you could be forgiven for being sceptical back in the seventies. But this film was and still is pure class. With the death of Don Vito Corleone, Michael had to inherit the title, and he did it well. It covers everything you could think of and Robert De Niro is brilliance as the young Vito. Excellent.
Didn't get it
posted on 05 May 2009I was compelled by the storyline & performances therein but at the end of the movie I just didn't get it. It was to much a misch-masch of stuff & I just didn't get much out of it.Godfather 1 is the definition of a film, a true classic. This is a sequel with mixed-bag emotions. I think it's something of a let-down. Not a huge one, but yeah. It is a let-down.
Best movie I have ever seen
posted on 05 May 2009I got the privilege to watch this film for the first last a few days ago. This has to be my favorite film of all time, along with one of the best films that I have ever seen.The movie does very well in shown two different two stories in one movie. You have Michael's story of which shows his struggle in controlling one of the most powerful crime families in the United States. The second story is Vito Corleone's struggle as young boy in Sicily growing up and coming to America, and his start of the Corleone crime family.This is a long film to watch, it took me a few days to watch it, as I watched about 30 to 40 minutes at a time.All of the actor and actresses preformed there roles very well, and the actors and actresses who got Oscars for their roles in this movie were VERY WELL deserved. Robert De Niro does one of the best acting jobs I have ever seen in film, in my opinion one of the best actor's in 1974.The script is well written and for the most part is easy to follow.If you seen the first film, which is a must to understand this film, then you will like the second one, which is one of the best films of
Arguably the Best
posted on 29 Apr 2009Now you see, I am a lover of all movie genre's, but for some reason The Godfather Trilogy stays close to my heart because of it's sheer brilliance and cinematic excellence. Part Two is probably the most intriguing of all three, basically because it tells the story of a young Vito Corleone is told and is mixed in with the continuation of the first installment.Im not going to talk about all the interesting plot points and review it, but i want to talk about how a travesty on this site has occurred by allowing a mindless film like Lord of the Rings infest this top ten and even put the latest installment ahead of one of the greatest films of all time.LOTR is nothing but fantasy, computer enhanced graphics, a couple of midgets and some insignificant ring in a world that is hardly believeable to ever have existed.Godfather is NOT fantasy, but a harsh look at the rise and fall of a great empire... not about some stupid hobbit that turns into a turncoat and throws his best friend away cause some ugly deformed rat tells him so.This is my plea to everyone to vote godfather back on top and get this filthy propaganda off the top ten..... other movies, not just godfather need to get the respect they deserve.
Does It Get Any Better Than This? FUGGEDDABOUDIT!!!
posted on 30 Aug 2009You could make a list that would reach Saturn and back, of all the films you could watch, that serve as on-screen primers on how NOT to make a movie. The list of those films that are the perfect examples of HOW to do it is lamentably shorter; those that instruct how to make a perfect sequel even more brief. At the top of that particular list stands THE GODFATHER, PART II. People are often quick and harsh in their assessment of all the things that were wrong with the third sequel, and they are especially hard on Sofia Coppola. But even if she had turned in an Oscar-worthy performance, think about it...did Francis have a snowball's chance in hell of topping the Perfect Sequel?First of all, we get a two-fer: not only do we get the magnificent performance from Al Pacino as Michael, the reluctant new Don Corleone, who has come full circle and has assumed the very mantle he had always hoped to avoid, as well as everything that goes with it, but we get Robert De Niro's breakout portrayal as young Vito in the old country. We get to see how the Family got started, and that the spiritual, moral and financial dilemmas that father and son had to face, spanning nearly a century, were not as different as either one of them might have thought. The continuation of a story that deepens the situations and our insight into the characters; Gordon Willis' peerless photography; Dean Tavoularis' amazing sets and Theodora Van Runkle's costumes; the Nino Rota/Carmine Coppola themes that are so familiar to us now that they're almost subliminal, and that note-perfect casting of all the supporting players, even the appearance of some faces you may have forgotten were associated with the series, especially people like THE SOPRANO'S Dominic Chianese and CITY SLICKERS' Bruno Kirby. Part Three never stood a chance.