It's rare, almost impossible, but it can happen, and when it does, it puts a smile on our face. Yes, the "Godfather, part II" is better than the first one. ANd since the first part of the trilogy is probably the best American movie ever made, this one is nominated as one of the best movies ever made. Am I exaggerating? Check out my arguments please, and then make up your mind.

It's a long and slowly evoking film. I must say that I almost understand the people who say they're bored from it. But to the people who know a thing or two about cinematography, it's an absolute masterpiece.

The plot is great. While we see Pacino's life sinking into a nightmare of uncertainty and solitude -by the end of the movie, he's lost his wife, his mother and his brothers, we are brought in parallel to an early-20th century New York, where young and poor immigrant, Vito Corleone -Pacino's father- makes his first steps into the world of blood and domination. The two figures don't appear ever at the same time on the screen. In that way we can compare the major difference between them: Vito is poor but going up. Michael is rich and powerful, but he's losing each one of the people he loves. Thus, whereas the first movie deals with power, this one's dealing with relationships and feelings.

The acting is outstanding. DeNiro symbolizes the Corleone character, by avoiding showing too much on his face -Brando did the opposite in the first part. Pacino is also splendid. He isn't a young and ambitious man anymore. In this movie he is a man who has lost control.

The cinematography is also magnificent. Starting from where the fist movie ended, Coppola avoids too much general plans and gives weight to the gros plans. The photography is very nice and the music, once more, over the top.

It's OK if you don't like it. It's very long -more than three hours, slow and difficult. But I won't change my mind: It's really one of the very-very best ever made. Humangousely recommended. Cheers.