Over ambitious over long and over rated.
At the time of its release, many claimed this to be a finer film than the original. However, the passage of time has been less kind to this than that iconic movie.
Much of the problem stems from the decision to make this both the sequel and prequel to the first film at the same time. So we have the back story of Vito Corleone and the ongoing adventures of his son Michael inter-cut throughout. This adds to the films inordinate length, which would have been long enough if Michael's story alone was told, but here is stretched to almost 4 hours.
Details in both stories fail to convince, the Vito back story most of all. It is scarcely believable that a well meaning outsider could so easily take over the underworld in the manner portrayed. As played by De Niro, he is a Robin Hood 'feared by the bad, loved by the good' but why he is so universally feared not plausible. He could have easily been taken out. The real Vito Corleone would have had to have been much nastier and been prepared to deal with his opponents brutally. His character is whitewashed for Hollywood consumption. And there is some cack handed attempts at humour during, for instance, the slum landlord scene.
There is, of course much fine acting from all, especially in Michael's story arc. This differs from Vito's since while Vito's is very simple, Michael's is very very complex. Too complex perhap. Various well known events from the 50s merely are stuck together to form the backdrop. The Mafia involvement with pre-revolutionary Cuba; congressional hearings; plus a few subtle hints at the Kennedy assassination. The narrative is exceptionally loose and meandering. The writing is surprisingly unsubtle, with clinking plot points being underlined again and again.
The female characters are under-used but make the most of their meagre parts. Talia Shire's impassioned plea to her brother sticks in the mind, but elsewhere she barely speaks a word. Diane Keen has a better role and sinks her teeth into it with gusto.
The film belongs to Al Pacino who dominates this in the way that Hamlet does in Shakespeare's play. Its an accomplished performance as would be expected. There is certainly enough here to make it worth watching, but it could have been much better.
Much of the problem stems from the decision to make this both the sequel and prequel to the first film at the same time. So we have the back story of Vito Corleone and the ongoing adventures of his son Michael inter-cut throughout. This adds to the films inordinate length, which would have been long enough if Michael's story alone was told, but here is stretched to almost 4 hours.
Details in both stories fail to convince, the Vito back story most of all. It is scarcely believable that a well meaning outsider could so easily take over the underworld in the manner portrayed. As played by De Niro, he is a Robin Hood 'feared by the bad, loved by the good' but why he is so universally feared not plausible. He could have easily been taken out. The real Vito Corleone would have had to have been much nastier and been prepared to deal with his opponents brutally. His character is whitewashed for Hollywood consumption. And there is some cack handed attempts at humour during, for instance, the slum landlord scene.
There is, of course much fine acting from all, especially in Michael's story arc. This differs from Vito's since while Vito's is very simple, Michael's is very very complex. Too complex perhap. Various well known events from the 50s merely are stuck together to form the backdrop. The Mafia involvement with pre-revolutionary Cuba; congressional hearings; plus a few subtle hints at the Kennedy assassination. The narrative is exceptionally loose and meandering. The writing is surprisingly unsubtle, with clinking plot points being underlined again and again.
The female characters are under-used but make the most of their meagre parts. Talia Shire's impassioned plea to her brother sticks in the mind, but elsewhere she barely speaks a word. Diane Keen has a better role and sinks her teeth into it with gusto.
The film belongs to Al Pacino who dominates this in the way that Hamlet does in Shakespeare's play. Its an accomplished performance as would be expected. There is certainly enough here to make it worth watching, but it could have been much better.
- son_of_cheese_messiah
- Jun 11, 2010