Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
The Godfather: Part II
User Score
8.9 out of 10

Universal acclaim- based on 124 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 116 out of 124
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 124
  3. Negative: 5 out of 124

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  1. ReviewCritic
    Dec 28, 2011
    10
    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
  2. roddersj04
    May 11, 2011
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Godfather is one of my favourite ever films, and i'm glad to say that The Godfather Part II manages to match the first chapter in the story of Corleone family. The best thing about this movie, for me, was the flashback sequences to Vito's early years, how he ended up living in America, how he got started in the mafia, how he made his first (I presume it was his first) kill, how he set up his most important element: Family. The absence of Marlon Brando is evident here, but its made up for as we have Robert De Niro playing the young Don Corleone. There is a vast difference between Michael and his deceased father, Vito. Vito immensly loved his family and it was evident that family was the most important thing to him. To Michael, that is not true. Note how he smacks Kay across the face, how he refuses to let her see his children, how he orders the execution of his brother Fredo. The final scene, where we got a flashback to the family at the table for Vitos surprise party, is quite a well executed scene, and it was interesting to see the familys reaction to Michael joining the Marines and that it was Sonny who introduced the despicable wife beater Carlo to Connie. Honestly, this film was pretty brilliant, but I, myself prefer the first film. This is definately one of the best sequels though… Expand
  3. CritiqueGirl
    Mar 4, 2011
    4
    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.
  4. RobertM.
    Mar 2, 2006
    10
    The best sequel to any movie. Pure Genius.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. EricF.
    May 6, 2006
    10
    Fantastic, every bit as great as the original. The plot and characters are interesting and complex, portrayed by an amazing cast. The dialogue sports so many quotable lines, and the whole thing is visually stunning with the set decoration, costume design and cinametography. Fantastic!.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. AmK
    Oct 18, 2006
    10
    It’s the kind of film that you expect . It’s the best one of the Godfather collection. Al Pacino is excellent, really.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  7. EddieM.
    Sep 26, 2007
    10
    Brilliant companion piece to the original. Quite stupendous stuff - proves that other worlds really do exist through the magic of cinema. Pacino & De Niro give to of the greatest performances ever committed to celluloid.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. MichaelM.
    Oct 23, 2004
    10
    "The Godfather Part II" is probably the best sequel ever made in the history and probably future of movies. In my opinion the second chapter of the extraordinary 1930's Mafia saga has better acting than the original "The Godfather", but it doesn't have as good as fluency as the original Godfather had. Probably the stand out performance in this movie is Robert DeNiro's breathtaking portrayal as young Vito Corleone (young Marlon Brando) and how he struggled in crime in America. Definetly more violent than the first, but sort of drags for a minute or two. Too bad James Caan isn't in this one, I liked his character! Marlon Brando is not in this one (because he died at the end of the first one). If you look very closely you will see the actor that plays Johnny Ola is none other than Dominic Chianse (the actor who portrays the role as the funny, bitter, and mean moboss Uncle Junior, in the hit television program on HBO "The Sopranos"). If you haven't already, watch this!!! Don't watch it untill you've seen the first one. (1/31/03)… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. PatC.
    May 10, 2004
    9
    The essential material for the trilogy is in this film. Part 1 showed gangsters who have lost their humanity. This Part portrays the causes and incidents which led to that loss. Does not stand alone as well as when viewed in the compilation trilogy.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. jefff.
    Jun 10, 2005
    10
    One of the best movies ever made a true masterpiece.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. GeraldN
    Jun 4, 2005
    10
    Godfather pts 1 & 2 are two of the best movies ever made. Don't watch pt 3 though, it's horrible and it only detracts from the series as a whole (much like The Matrix pt 2 & 3). The NY Times gave this a 40? A 40!?! He probably gave "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" a 100.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  12. RexG.
    May 13, 2006
    9
    Without Marlon Brando in the original I would have probably given it a 10 but he's just lacking in this movie. Al Pacino acts good but isn't as convincing as "his father". Robert De Niro however was a great choice for the young Don Vito. Not quite as good as the original for the reasons mentioned above but still an outstanding movie.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  13. JoyceC
    Oct 8, 2007
    0
    Confudling, a dull masterpiece with nothing.
    • 0 of 2 users said yes
  14. JaradC
    Oct 8, 2007
    0
    Rated R!!!!!! This movie isn't even bad, it is hard to follow crap!
    • 0 of 2 users said yes
  15. JCA
    Oct 8, 2007
    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.
    • 0 of 8 users said yes
  16. Riren
    Mar 5, 2007
    7
    More brazenly violent, even in its opening, and more sensational in the nature of the mafia's corruption, but hardly a superior film to the original. Where the original had horrible and bloody events, they were earned - here, they just happen. This one really is slow, and many times things just happen, rather than build on each other. Like any good sequel, it takes advantage of the existing plot, and most of the references and allusions are good. The cast isn't quite up to the par set by the original, for while it has all of the menace, it possesses little of the charm, and no one provides a "Brando quality" performance. Even Hagen isn't quite what he used to be. There's also no experience comparable to Pacino's character development in the first picture. It packs several very memorable moments, but it's not up to the task, and is too long to justify what it accomplishes.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. Pedro
    Jul 6, 2007
    10
    The REAL rating for this is 83, in case anyone really wants to know. So it DOES have universal acclaim. I don't know who's doing the math over there! Anyway, that critic who gave the movie a 40 obviously doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. MarvinT
    Aug 7, 2008
    9
    A masterpiece with a few flaws.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  19. LauraE.
    Jun 22, 2004
    10
    Perfecta, no necesita más comentarios.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  20. GerardM.
    Jul 23, 2004
    10
    How the critics rate this film at a 61 average is beyond me. Surely the only sequel to outshine the original, the Godfather part 2 is one of the most exceptional films ever made. The gradual canabalism of Michael is offset beautifully by the rise to fame (or infamy) of his father in old New York. The plot is intricate and masterful in its ability not only to tell a story but also to relay a message to the audience. De Niro and Pacino are superb, however the performance of Duval is a masterclass in understated acting. Another important aspect of the film is the incredible music that is powerful, dramatic and touching. Rota's original score rightfully winning an oscar. In essence this film wrapped up the Corleone story very well and a third installment was a mistake more driven by money than desire. … Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  21. MikeS.
    Aug 20, 2004
    10
    A 61? huh? its the best movies ever made.....?
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  22. DanD.
    Jan 4, 2006
    10
    To me it is more interesting and esier to follow than the original godfather.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  23. StewartB.
    Feb 21, 2007
    10
    For that reviewer to rate a movie highly considered as one of the greatest of all time a 40, is just an absolute travesty. I did however, like the film, love it. The best sequel to date in my opinion, and a fantastic ending. If only the third movie were left on the cutting room floor, or was just a bonus epilogue movie than the real thing....but otherwise I loved the Godfather series, and every bit of this movie as well as the first one.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  24. AnaK.
    Mar 17, 2007
    10
    The fact that any reviewer could give this movie a 40 is lost on me. This movie was put together with a superb plot and superb acting. Al Pacino continues to excel at his role as Michael Corleone. Marlon Brando's absence is made up for marvelously by Robert De Niro, who recreates the voice of the godfather perfectly. It is the best sequel i have ever seen. It doesn't match the incredible perfection of the original, but it comes as close as any movie could. The two parallel storylines make the story of the godfather complete. This is an amazing movie… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  25. ErikH.
    May 3, 2007
    9
    How does a movie not garner "Universal Acclaim" when half the reviews are perfect? This isn't as outstanding as the film that precedes it (but what could be?), but it is still an outstanding film and near-essential viewing for anyone interested in great direction and acting.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  26. LexingtonD.
    Jul 28, 2007
    10
    This movie is, in fact, better than the Godfather I, but there's a caveat: it does not function without its predecessor. On its own, the movie is without flaw, but the story is simply not enough without the presumption of its being a sequel; having said that, being as Part I is a perfect film that must be seen this should not be an issue for any viewers. Perhaps my critical opinion of it being better simply reflects a flawless continuation of a flawless film, but I do generally feel Part II is equal to, if not superior to, Part I. It's hard to outdo perfection.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  27. NickT
    Jan 21, 2009
    9
    a very good film buy it still is a little too long and a little confusing but overall its a great film. Not as good as the first but its still a great classic SECOND BEST FILM EVER!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  28. MudassarB.
    Feb 27, 2004
    10
    The Greatest Movie of all time bar none. Al Pacino gives the greatest performance I have ever seen on film.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  29. RonD.
    Dec 13, 2005
    6
    Good movie, a bit too choppy to be considered great. not even close to the original but very good.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  30. Epixsavior
    Feb 26, 2005
    8
    the only reason it got a 61 or anything less than a metacritic score of 100 is because they only post 6 reviews, and probably couldn't find or legally obtain the rest of the nations critical reviews for that time period. besides, i don't think that many people who have access to the 30+ years of research archives actually want to look through 30+ years of archives for one review to help a website that isn't directly tied to thier compnay/magazine/newspaper,etc.... I only give this movie an 8 because it went on a bit too long for me, and i only saw it once so i am scoring on how well i was origianlly impressed… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  31. JoeJ.
    May 25, 2005
    10
    What was Vincent Camby drinking when he wrote his review of Godfather Part II. I've seen it dozens of times and I can't turn it off once I start watching. Every bit as good as The Godfather, which is the greatest movie of all time.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  32. matta.
    May 27, 2005
    10
    Is anyone else besides me shocked and appalled that this only has a 71?! The first two Godfather films are two of the best ever made, and this film might even be better than the first one. Al Pacino and DE Niro have really never been better.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  33. DonaldE
    Jan 16, 2008
    10
    I have viewed this amazing picture no less than three dozen times and have yet to grown tired of it. It is a captivating, moving, and gripping piece, brilliantly directed and exquisitely written. The cast is nothing less than awesome. An epic story that pulls you in and you can't let go! Intrigue, drama, and sparkling action. Not one dull moment. I am no movie critic but this film, and it's predecessor, Godfather I, rank in my book as the greatest films ever made.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  34. AndrewR
    Mar 22, 2008
    4
    Vastly overrated. The plot is identical to both other movies in the series (there's a party, someone tries to kill the Don, the Don tricks the real culprit into revealing himself, a short interlude for some random marital melodrama, and then the Don has all the bad guys simultaneously murdered. Fin.), the themes are shallow and largely inapplicable to anybody not involved in organized crime (violence begets violence, huh? YOU DON'T SAY.), the characters are flat (Michael is the grim Zen hardass, Fredo is the blubbering idiot, Kay is the shrill square, etc.), the two "halves" of the movie don't inform each other at all, so that the entire production is ultimately just remaindered bits of the book that they couldn't fit into the first film, and ultimately none of the characters do anything worthy of praise or emulation, and none of the conflicts are worth caring about. The plot meanders wildly over the punishing 200-minute running time, and when it comes time to wrap up they just have Michael give a little speech where he says "oh, by the way, we can just kill all those people who've been bothering us," and then they go do that. I will never understand why they had to make 10 hours worth of movies just to point out that organized crime is not a suitable environment in which to raise and preserve a well-adjusted family, let alone why that's considered a rare and notable achievement.… Expand
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  35. wallacef
    Jun 21, 2008
    10
    Brilliant sequel, a matchto the original.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  36. andrewd
    Jun 21, 2008
    10
    Nearly equal to original, but more lengthy and detailed. violence attributes to the effect the mafia has on society, even today.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  37. MikeP.
    Oct 17, 2009
    10
    To put it simply: The Godfather Part II is one of the finest pieces of cinema to ever be crafted. How anyone can rate this film below an 8 is just totally beyond me. The cinematography is brilliant. The characters are highly textured. The dual story lines being parallel throughout the film is an excellent device in which to tell the stories of Vito and Michael Corleone. Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola have created a masterpiece.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  38. ShaneB
    Jun 17, 2009
    10
    Personally, this gets my vote for 'The Greatest Film Ever Made'. I felt that the only flaw with the original Godfather was that it dragged out a bit towards the end. However, dispite The Godfather: Part II being 25 minutes longer then the original Godfather, this doesn't happen in The Godfather: Part II. In fact, if anything, I wanted this film to go on for longer. The main reason it doesn't drag out dispite it's lenght is because of the transitional two storylines. The main story dealing with Micheal Corleones reign as the Don of the powerful Corleone family. Micheal is clearly a changed man since he took over the family after the death of his father, Vito Corleone, three years earlier. Becoming more and more ruthless, his wife Kay has realised that Micheal has become a vicous, cold and calcuative criminal. Towards the end, she also realises that there is no way back for Micheal and that even though he has gained the world, he has ultimately lost his soul. The other storyline deals with Vito Corleones rise to power(who is protrayed in an Academy-Award winning performance by Robert De Niro). After his family are slaughtered by a local mob boss in Sicily, he flees to America to start a new life. There, he befriends a young man named Genco, who gets Vito a job as a baker with his father. He later becomes friends with two other thugs, Peter Clemenza and Salvatore Tessio, who introduce him to a life of crime. However, they are being squeezed by a local mob boss, Don Fanuci, who orders them to pay protection. Instead of paying however, Vito kills Fanuci, and Vito himself starts his own family. The Godfather: Part II is a stunning film with fantastic performances from Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Robert Duvell, Diane Keaton, John Cazale, Lee Strasberg and Micheal V. Gazzo, beautiful Cinematography and very well directed by Francis Ford Copella.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  39. joseap84
    Nov 25, 2011
    9
    A true masterpiece. Unlike the original, there are no dull moments. The present story is wonderful, but it's the flashbacks that I found to be brilliant. Excellent movie.
  40. tonyGreen
    Jun 25, 2011
    9
    One of those movies you are supposed to see but never get around to. I got around to it. Do beleive the hype - It's great. Great story, great cast, great film
  41. deltapatrick
    Sep 8, 2010
    10
    I loved this movie i liked the orginal better but this was just amazing its the only movie i have seen that serves as a sequil and a prequil the only thing i did not like about this movie is micheal corleano being the godfather he is great as a godfather dont get me wrong but i just liked him when he was entering the family
  42. asylumspadez
    Nov 26, 2011
    9
    Its easily the greatest sequel of all time, The Godfather 2 does a good job at living up to the previous film. Despite its greatness, It doesnt have as much originality that the first film had but its still great.
  43. TClunaticdavid
    Nov 16, 2010
    10
    This movie is SPECTACULAR! I can't decide if it's better than the first one. Everyone gives exceptional performances and the dialogue is so well written it almost seems real. The plot is so interesting and totally sucks you in, you can't even tell it's over 3 hours. Robert De Niro's, Vito Corleone, I almost (not quite though) is as good as Marlon Brando's. Which I think was an amazing achievement. It is possibly the greatest movie ever made.… Expand
  44. Moviebuffreview
    Apr 24, 2011
    10
    Seriously? Only a "Generally favorable reviews" from critics? Really? The Godfather Part II is an absolute masterpiece. It keeps all of the great elements from the first movie (the drama, fantastic cast, great script, and unforgettable quotes), and also adds new elements that are great (a new story with Michael that is fantastic, tragic moments, and plenty of twists). I really am not doing this movie justice, just go see it!… Expand
  45. aaronpaul121
    May 25, 2012
    8
    The first movie is way better than this one. It is still a great movie. Al Pacino's performance was still amazing. The plot is still great. Everything is still great, but maybe the first movie is an incredibly difficult act for it to follow.....
  46. CRO-BRO
    Jul 31, 2011
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I am sorry but how can you give to this movie a scone seventy one? :O I'm think that is the most shameful thing I have ever saw when it comes about movies reviews. Godfather Part II is a piece of art... maybe it's not excellent as Godfather Part I but it's not far away from it. The score for Part II should be around Ninety, and it would be if you have any common sen-ce. I really respected this page when it comes about movie critics, I respected it TILL NOW. Now I see that you have your mistakes, and you made A BIG ONE. I just cannot accept the "fact" that some childish harry potter have scored more than godfather part II, I mean that's just ridiculous... and when I saw this, I decided to never come on this page again. CIAO… Expand
  47. Trantor
    Mar 2, 2012
    10
    This film its as good as Godfather :Part 1. I dont understant how a man who is working in the New York Times gives Godfather 40/100. If i was NTW director i would lay off him.
  48. spadenx
    Nov 29, 2011
    9
    Easily the greatest sequel of all time. While it is a little too similar to the first film, The built in prequel and the overall growth of Michael in the film shows just how great it really is.
  49. vishal8492
    Jan 6, 2012
    10
    Well I gotta say I always liked Godfather II better than part I.It's amazing how characters are portrayed in this part really perfect.I loved I'st part too it was 3'rd that was dissapointing.
  50. SamM
    Jan 7, 2012
    5
    After hearing all the hype surrounding this film, many labelling it as a classic, I was disappointed when I finally watched it. The acting was very good and the rise of Vito Corleone was very interesting to watch. However, the plot regarding Michael is fairly dull and overall far too little happens to spread the film over three hours. I am a fan of longer films in general, however I think the same story could have been told in 2 hours. The important parts of the plot are given far too little attention, while the film dedicates far longer periods of time to dull scenes. Worst of all was the ending, which was a non-event. Although it is far from the worst film I have seen, it is definitely overrated.… Expand
  51. RegOz
    Jan 19, 2012
    8
    Did I enjoy it? Yes I did...but for some reason it didn't fulfill my expectations. It doesn't have anything to do with Marlon Brando's absence (for that was logical...) but with the way the plot develops. I would have love to seen more of Robert Duval's character. T here are parts that are unclear, and towards the end it becomes evident that Michael doesn't trust the famous consigliere but that is not totally justified, so there is a need for clarification. I am not sure if the length of the movie justifies its quality...it was at times slow...so I believe with that length it could have been better. I did still enjoy it...but no more than what I enjoy The Godfather I and definitely less than The Godfather III (which greatly surprised me!)… Expand
  52. imthenoob
    Jan 29, 2012
    8
    I liked it and though it was a good sequel that did well enough to at least live up slightly to the first film. However the parts with Michael are rather boring and dont do enough to keep you interested through out the film. Vito's flashback sequences are amazing though and provide great backstory to his character. Acting is amazing as well. The plot is good too.
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
71 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 7 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 7
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 7
  3. Negative: 0 out of 7
  1. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Roger Ebert
    Aug 14, 2011
    75
    Coppola is unable to draw all this together and make it work on the level of simple, absorbing narrative. The stunning text of "The Godfather" is replaced in Part II with prologues, epilogues, footnotes, and good intentions.
    Read full review
  2. Chicago Reader
    Reviewed by: Don Drucker
    70
    Three hours and 20 minutes of Al Pacino suffering openly, Robert Duvall suffering silently, Diane Keaton suffering noisily, and (every so often) Robert De Niro suffering good-naturedly is almost too much, but Francis Ford Coppola pulls it off in grand style.
    Read full review
  3. Empire
    Reviewed by: Kim Newman
    100
    And with supporting roles from the likes of Diane Keaton, Robert Duvall and Lee Strasberg, to say nothing of Roger Corman and Harry Dean Stanton in bit parts, this is nothing short of magisterial.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »