"The only sequel better than its predecessor." Come now, the ONLY sequel? How can you tell? I can think of several such examples - and this isn't one of them. The Godfather films (I presume we may ignore the third) are now a quarter of a century old, and if you haven't seen them, chances are that two snippets of information will leap into your mind when you think of them: they are about the Mafia, and the sequel is as good as the original. This latter line has been repeated so many times, always with the same air of surprise, that it has entered popular mythology. It is my sad duty to report that it's not true.

"The Godfather" was a story about the corruption of a soul. It was a good such story, since the person who suffered such corruption did so from the noblest of motives, or at any rate from motives it would have been hard to question. But, of course, once the process of corruption is complete, the story's over. "The Godfather Part II" is afflicted with the same blight that afflicts most of the other sequels we dislike. It's just more of the same doodling at the end of the script, prompted by a desire to know what happens next after the point has been reached where we don't need to know - and, worse, it childishly gives in to the impulse to tell the same story AGAIN rather than think of a new one. When the original story concerned itself with the corruption of a good man this is just impossible to pull off.

Stylishly made, plenty of good bits, but heavily over-valued.