It's hard to give an objective review when you are dealing with favourite movies. Having just watched this for the first time in years I was delighted to see it was as magnificent as I remembered it. Francis Ford Coppola would have been sensible to be wary of doing a sequel when he'd just made a film as acclaimed as The Godfather. How do you follow that? Amazingly he managed to broaden the themes of the original, producing a study of power and corruption that may be unequalled in Hollywood history. And whereas some critics found the first film questionable in its moral compass (is Michael supposed to be a hero?) the sequel leaves us in no doubt that he has passed on into something else and as his wife Kay shrewdly notices, there is no coming back. Judge the film on its own merits and ignore the continuation of the saga in Part III. This is the final Michael as we should always remember him.

The scope of Part II is extraordinary (as if the first film wasn't bold enough!) with the story of father Vito in 1920s New York cross- cut with son Michael's rivalry with ageing mobster Hymen Roth, a respected, though never trusted, business partner of his father. These later sequences may not make sense on first viewing but there are some remarkable set pieces from revolutionary Cuba to a Senate committee in Washington. This is a no holds barred portrait of American society corrupt and hypocritical from top to bottom. How often has Hollywood been so daring

The film invites a contrast between father and son, with young family man Vito embracing criminality out of necessity and using his status to become a 'Godfather' in the Italian American community. Meanwhile in his middle age Michael has become a Don hooked on vengeance with all business now personal. The inevitable conclusion of which is a violent crescendo with him not just wiping out his enemies (again) but committing the far worse sin of betraying his own family.

Few films can have gathered such a fine cast. Al Pacino's Michael is the symbol of idealism turned sour in extremis. More than anything this is what elevates The Godfather over so many other gangster films. He's not just some Goodfella or ordinary guy, he once aspired to be a great man but somewhere something went wrong. Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen is the great constant across the two films, always at the side, never changing, but in his reaction to the transformation of Michael we get confirmation of his moral decline. Diane Keaton as Kay has a meatier role this time and as the voice of 'respectable' America shows the futility of Michael's actions. If he can't keep his family together, what's it all for? John Cazale's Fredo is a tragedy of his own. Secretly resentful of his younger brother, their mutual betrayal becomes one of the emotional cores of the saga. Replacing the character of Clemenza proved relatively easy as even if the story loses something, Michael V. Gazzo was memorable whilst the legendary Lee Strasborg is a suitably cast as rival/partner and pretend Uncle to Michael Hymen Roth, delivering one of the movies' great speeches.

So often artists seem burdened by great achievements, but not here. One can only assume that the young Coppola was so exulted by the critical and commercial phenomenon of The Godfather, he felt capable of anything and judging by this, he near enough was. One only wonders why he's largely struggled to reach similar heights ever since.