Whenever the subject of film sequels comes up, someone will inevitably say that they are never as good as their originals. And, equally inevitably, someone else will respond with "But there are always exceptions. What about The Godfather Part II?"

"The Godfather Part II" is essentially two films, both a prequel and a sequel to "The Godfather". 'The two stories are intercut with one another. The prequel, set during the 1900s, 1910s and 1920s, tells the story of the rise to power of Vito Corleone, the character played by Marlon Brando in the original. He was born in Sicily but was forced to flee to America as a child after the rest of his family were murdered by Don Ciccio, a local Mafia boss. As he grows up, the young Vito becomes involved in criminal activities, but becomes a well-respected figure among the Italian-American community of New York because of his ability to do favours for his neighbours. Eventually he feels powerful enough to return to Sicily to take revenge on Don Ciccio.

The sequel part of the film, set during the late fifties and early sixties, follows the career of Michael Corleone, now the head of the Corleone crime family. The family's main source of income appears to derive from their control of the gambling industry in Las Vegas and pre-revolutionary Cuba. Michael is at pains to appear to the outside world as a legitimate businessman, but he faces threats from rival gangsters, who unsuccessfully attempt to kill him, and from a Senate committee on organised crime. Michael's home life also suffers, as his marriage to Kay breaks down because she can no longer cope with being the wife of a crime boss. Michael also discovers that his older brother Fredo, who resents being forced to play a minor role in his younger brother's empire, is secretly in league with his enemies.

Besides the prequel and the sequel, there is also a short flashback near the end to Don Vito's 50th birthday party on December 7, 1941. James Caan returned to reprise his role as Sonny Corleone; apparently Marlon Brando should also have returned, but failed to turn up, and the filmmakers decided to proceed without him.

So what about "The Godfather Part II?" Is it better than its predecessor? Well, both films contain some very powerful material, and both contain some excellent acting performances. Al Pacino as Michael is as good here as he was in Part I, which means that he is very good indeed, and there is a tour de force from Robert De Niro as the younger Vito. Much of his character's dialogue is in Italian- and not standard Italian, but the Sicilian dialect, which De Niro specially learned for the film. His "Best Supporting Actor" Academy Award was well deserved. For me, the other acting performance which stood out came from Robert Duvall as Michael's trusted friend and lieutenant Tom Hagen, who is much more a brother to him than the faithless Fredo.

I would, however, have two criticisms of the film. The first is on account of a fault which it shares with Part I. It tends to take the characters' world view too much at face value. Like his father, Michael may be a dictator, but he is in his own eyes a benevolent dictator, a man of honour who lives by his own moral code. As Roger Ebert said of Part I, this is a film which views a closed society from the inside. This is not to say that it is a film which actively condones gangsterism, but it never really actively condemns it either, and we do not get to see the damage that organised crime does to the fabric of society. The Mafia's own view of itself is never openly challenged. There are sixteen killings in the film, but nearly all of them are of gangsters by other gangsters.

Other crime epics made since 1974 have tended to avoid this problem. Scorsese's "Goodfellas" is an essential corrective to Hollywood's tendency to glamourise or mythologise gangsterdom. HIs characters are not "men of respect", still less men of honour, but amoral thugs who will happily take another human life on little more than a whim. Sam Mendes's "Road to Perdition" likewise emphasises the futility and sterility of the criminal lifestyle. It may be a significant reference to "The Godfather" that the central character of that film also has the Christian name Michael, but whereas Michael Corleone allows himself to be drawn into his father's empire of crime, Tom Hanks's Michael Sullivan comes to realise that there is another way. Even the main villain of the film, Rooney, retains enough moral awareness to realise that his false system of values has blighted his life and the lives of others.

My other criticism would be that the film is overlong, more so than Part I, and that it does not flow easily. I would blame this on Francis Ford Coppola's decision to combine the sequel and the prequel into a single film; there is enough material here for two standard-length films, and I felt that it would have been better if the story of Vito's early life had been released as Part II in 1974, with Michael's story following as Part III a year or two later. (Or perhaps vice versa).

Like Part I, Part II won the "Best Picture" Oscar. Unlike Part I, it brought Coppola "Best Director". (He had lost in 1972 to Bob Fosse for "Cabaret"). Unfortunately, I would disagree with the Academy here, as I would have given "Best Picture" to "Chinatown" with Polanski as "Best Director". Yes, "The Godfather Part II" is a very good film, probably an excellent one, but it falls just short of greatness. 8/10.