Classic Watch: The Godfather Part II (1974)

Watched:  04/13/2025

Format:  4K disc that failed, and then streaming

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Francis Ford Coppola

Well.  What do you even really say about The Godfather Part II (1974)?  I mean, really.  If you're looking for insight into this movie, is The Signal Watch really going to crack the case on this one?

As we'd done with Godfather, we broke Part II into two nights of viewing.  Jamie hadn't actually seen this one (I have no idea how that happened, and neither did she), and it was a delight seeing her wrapped up in the movie.  She can weigh in down in the comments with her reaction, but it was very positive.  

We had plenty to say about the impact The Godfather had on us back when we were a youth watching movies aimed at adults circa 1990.  In an era when the common wisdom was that the sequel was always worse and a money grab, watching the then-16 year old The Godfather Part II was a revelation of what was possible when you have the ground work of a classic.  Honestly, one of my reactions watching the movie is anger that it doesn't seem like many filmmakers have even tried to take apart these two movies and see what makes them work and try to one up them.

It's hard to wrap my head around the scale of work needed for this movie, with the massive locations like the New York neighborhood where Vito Corleone becomes Don Vito, the Ellis Island scenes, the streets of Havana...  The scope and detail of this stuff is incredible.  Now it's CGI overlaid over a small set.  But here, we have hundreds in period clothing, in sets that look authentic (where the hell did they even film the New York neighborhood scenes?).  And all in service to the central story of Michael Corleone while moving through events adults in 1974 would have known as recent history.  And the luck to have Pacino who is on fire at this point, John Cazale's astounding work as Fredo, a baby-faced Bruno Kirby as young Clemenza, Talia Shire's arc as Connie making absolute sense in a few short scenes.  And, of course, De Niro as young Vito.

As a teen when Godfather Part III arrived, I was a bit confused.  But now I get why Coppola wanted to return to the scene of the crime.  The Michael we leave is still a father to young children, he's just ascending to massive power.  Why wouldn't you want to check in on him two decades later?  I mean, I finished this movie the day after I turned 50, and it's not like nothing happened in my life in the past twenty years.  I can see it.

But with Godfather Part II, we see the choices made along the way, and the real impact and aftermath of the first film, something most movies just leave an ellipses.  I think this is important.  There's a genuine story to tell here between the flashbacks and history of Vito Corleone and where Michael lands in the film's final shot as the two-thousand years of vendettas and enemies are cleared - and you realize that once you remove everyone who says no to you, who wants something for themselves, even if you won, what did you win?

People show their kids Star Wars and 80's favorites, but had there been kids, I would have wanted to be there showing my spawn the corruption and moral collapse of Michael Corleone.  And it's fascinating to see how Michael becomes almost a shadow in his own film, a force of nature more than a character, focused on his work while his personal relationships fall away and the notion of a family becomes business rather than what his father built for his family.

I do love how the movie doesn't seem to play by what we would be told are necessary elements in a script, refusing to tell and simply showing.  They do not explain the situation in Havana.  They barely explain immigration to the States.  They don't explain what Michael is doing or why.  The only one given an explanation is Fredo, really.  The things on screen simply happen, and we have to connect the dots.  Why are we seeing Vito Corleone's start in contrast to Michael's current struggles?   There is no narrator to tell us, we have to sort it out.  Now, would this be considered bad film making because it doesn't serve up the story with a spoon?  And yet, consistently, this movie is listed among the best.

Anyway, there's a book in what works in this movie, things that shouldn't have worked at all - like the final birthday party sequence flashback (I still remember inhaling sharply seeing all the siblings together when I first saw this).  The color palette, the damn oranges, the music...  and those books and reviews are out there.  It was just a pleasure to watch one of the greatest of great films again.  

is it wrong I find Talia Shire terribly foxy in these movies?