The Godfather: Part 2 (1974)

In this article, we will be looking at 2019’s book “1001 Movies to See Before You Die” and going through each film in a random order that I have chosen. We will be looking at what constitutes this film to be on the list and whether I think this film deserves to be here at all. I want to make perfectly clear that I won’t be revealing details from this book such as analyses by film reporters who have written about the film in question, so if you want the book itself you’ll have to buy it. But I will be covering the book’s suggestions on which films should be your top priority. I wouldn’t doubt for a second that everyone reading this article has probably watched many of these movies anyway. But we are just here to have a bit of fun. We’re going to not just look at whether it should be on this list but we’re also going to look at why the film has such a legacy at all. Remember, this is the 2019 version of the book and so, films like “Joker” will not be featured in this book and any film that came out in 2020 (and if we get there, in 2021). So strap in and if you have your own suggestions then don’t hesitate to email me using the address in my bio. Let’s get on with it then.

The Godfather: Part 2 (1974) dir. by Francis Ford Coppola

When I first watched this film, I did think that it was brilliant but I also thought that I personally liked the first part better. However, I understand the sentiment that many have towards the fact that the second part is a better-made film. Roger Ebert did not share my opinions towards the first film and commented on the second film’s superiority:

“The Godfather, Part II moves both forward and backward in time from the events in “The Godfather,” in an attempt to resolve our feelings about the Corleones. In doing so, it provides for itself a structural weakness from which the film never recovers, but it does something even more disappointing: It reveals a certain simplicity in Coppola’s notions of motivation and characterisation that wasn’t there in the elegant masterpiece of his earlier film.”

He speaks about the way in which Michael’s arc is truly realised in Part II and how we are both empathetic and enraged by his story, narratives and decisions:

“Simply as a story, the Michael scenes in “The Godfather: Part II” engage our emotions. I admire the way Coppola and his co-writer Mario Puzo require us to think along with Michael as he handles delicate decisions involving Hyman Roth (Strasberg), the boss of Miami; Fredo (Cazale), his older brother, and the shooting of Sonny (James Caan). Who has done what? Why? Michael floats various narratives past various principals, misleading them all, or nearly. It’s like a game of blindfolded chess; he has to envision the moves without seeing them.”

The New York Times review though, was not so impressed with the film’s relation to the first, though they were impressed with the arc of the film on its own. Here is what veteran film critic Vincent Canby stated:

"Part II," also written by Mr. Coppola and Mario Puzo, is not a sequel in any engaging way. It's not really much of anything that can be easily defined.It's a second movie made largely out of the bits and pieces of Mr. Puzo's novel that didn't fit into the first. It's a Frankenstein's monster stitched together from leftover parts. It talks. It moves in fits and starts but it has no mind of its own.”

I agree with the sentiment that it continues as a forwards and backwards of the original story, but I do not like the statement that it ‘does not fit’ and ‘has no mind of its own’. I think that the second part did just as well, if not better, than the first and is now respected by many as one of the greatest films in all of world cinema history. Being interred in the Library of Congress’s National Film Registry seems to be one small accolade for this absolutely stunning movie.

Here is the first review by Roger Ebert that was quoted in the article

Here is the second review by Roger Ebert that was quoted in the article

Here is the review by Vincent Canby that was quoted in the article