• Starring: Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Robert De Niro, Robert Duvall
  • Summary: The sequel to "The Godfather" continues the saga of two generations of successive power within the Corleone family. Coppola tells two stories in Part II: the roots and rise of a young Don Vito, played with uncanny ability by Robert De Niro, and the ascension of Michael (Al Pacino) as the new Don. (Paramount) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 7
  2. Negative: 0 out of 7
  1. 100
    As the beginning of Part II echoes the opening of "The Godfather," so too does the end. Because of the manner in which circumstances are handled and considering the people involved, the impact here is more forceful. The tragic flaw has accomplished its poisonous, inevitable designs. Coppola punctuates both movies with a gut-twisting exclamation point.
  2. Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    100
    Cinematographer Willis superbly captures the turn-of-the-century period, applying a seriographic tint to flashback scenes for a softer, richer look than the sharp image of the ongoing contemporary story.
  3. The only remarkable thing about Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather, Part II is the insistent manner in which it recalls how much better his original film was...Even if Part II were a lot more cohesive, revealing, and exciting than it is, it probably would have run the risk of appearing to be the self-parody it now seems.

See all 7 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 46 out of 52
  2. Negative: 3 out of 52
  1. O.K., my first response to this is that it is immensely underrated. As The Godfather's Metascore was a perfect 100, The Godfather Part II deserved at least an 85. It's the Godfather Part III that's the bad one, not II! The acting was about 2/3 as good as the original. Al Pacino took the leading role and made it shine, though not nearly like Marlon Brando did. The supporting cast was very good, although it was Robert DeNiro who swept the movie, winning him his first Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Expand
    • 7 of 7 users said yes
  2. I saw it on TV so it was not as violent. They should have never made II and III but they didn't know when to leave well enough alone and I am sure Al Pacino thought he was that good that the story didn't matter. And he wasn't very good in this one. I never bothered to watch III. Expand
    • 1 of 6 users said yes
  3. JCA
    0
    Holy crap this movie sucked. I made a totally different impression of the reviews here, I had watched it in the theatres all those years ago and I did not like it, the most very very disappointing movie ever. It is boring and really hard to follow. I never new what the reviews would say till now. i am astonished: 0 is its match. Expand
    • 0 of 8 users said yes

See all 52 User Reviews

Trailers