The Godfather: Part II came out in 1974 with incredible hype, but when it first was released it was labeled a disappointment. Only a few months later, however, it could be heard among many a debate that this movie was superior to the original.

The plot is arguably even more intense and chilling and, unlike its predecessor, it tells two tales: one of how Michael Corleone tightens his grip on the criminal underworld in the late 1950s and another of the beginnings of his father, Vito, this time played by Robert De Niro to outstanding effect, and his business empire. It is this near-seamless change that propels The Godfather: Part II into the discussion of the greatest movies ever, where it belongs right there with the first.

Al Pacino returns as Michael Corleone and this time plays him even better. On top of that, De Niro, in the role that made him famous, is sublime as Vito. While De Niro's performance is not as memorable as Marlon Brando's and his character not quite as endearing, it is still one of the highlights in the history of acting in the cinema. It's sad that when most people today think of De Niro it is for his performances in Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas, or, God forbid, 21st century comedies like Showtime or Analyze This. It's simply amazing that the Holy Trinity of modern American actors- Brando, Pacino, and De Niro, in that order- all were stars in the first two Godfather pictures, and the first two's careers are still highlighted by it.

However, I do not find this film to be on the exact same level as the original for a variety of reasons. Make no mistake, this is an outstanding film in its own right, the best sequel ever, and the praise I could give it is very similar to the praise I give The Godfather for it's consistent brilliance and masterful direction. Never before have I seen a pair of films that are so beautifully orchestrated. But unlike its predecessor this movie has a couple flaws.

The biggest one is with the Vito Corleone section. In the book, this part is detailed from Vito's birth right up to the events in the Godfather. However, here it only goes to about a Roosevelt administration away from the start of the events detailed in The Godfather. For someone who has only watched the movies this is a huge chunk of backstory that is missing. While Coppola chose to focus on the Don Fanucci part of Vito's epic tale, there is so much more of this brilliant story that is left untold. If an entire movie was centered around this, then the pace this story takes would be perfect. But this is but a part of The Godfather: Part II. You cannot tell two epics in one movie, and there is simply not enough time at this pace to cap off the story satisfyingly. The current model speaks nothing of the war that brought Don Corleone to power.

Not only that, but literally EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this tale is Italian and speaks Italian. I understand how large Little Italy was at this time but are you telling me that Vito in his time does not meet one pure American? Is his life that secluded? Once again, I understand the message that Coppola is getting across just fine, the sense of unity and family the Italians have, much like the first one, but it's done less believably here. It's also a bit harder to relate to Italian dialect.

The majority of my complaints lie on the Vito tale. The tale involving Michael Corleone is absolutely compelling. Emphasize that as much as possible. It's arguably more thought-provoking than its predecessor, and I would say it is more chilling, with a few parts that will absolutely make your jaw drop. That's one thing about the original, it did not have too many of those moments, but this movie has them in abundance. And not to mention Al Pacino makes these scenes come alive, he is just so fearsome and intimidating when provoked. However, surprisingly, many important plot mechanics of this movie are things you might not pick up your first time through. The major plot dynamic of the original was the transition between Vito Corleone as the Don of the Corleone family to Michael Corleone. In this movie the major mechanic is Michael's relationship with Fredo. It is this that represents the film's greatest intellectual stimulation and chill. Especially the ending, which is among the most haunting and memorable scenes you shall ever see, up there with the original's baptism. It has a bit more closure than that of its predecessor. Still, when I think of The Godfather, I think of Marlon Brando rasping out memorable lines, of Don Barzini falling down the steps, of Michael Corleone shooting Virgil Solozzo in a restaurant. It is only after this that I remember the famous aspects of The Godfather: Part II. The most likely reason for this is that it is a sequel, and we always remember what we saw first. Still, something about this movie is not quite as memorable. It lacks that extra something that made The Godfather so unique. Don't get me wrong, I love this movie. It certainly has better cinematography than the original, some of the best I've seen. But it is less than it's original: just barely, but still less. Somehow the plot is just not as large or alive, the scenes not as enjoyable. Don't take this out of context: this movie still has the magic. It has moral considerations and character depth just like the original, this time mostly about the damnation of Michael. Do not let comparisons distract you from the spectacle. 9.4.

"If one thing in life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it's that you can kill anybody."