![the godfather 2 review the godfather 2 review](https://a.ltrbxd.com/resized/sm/upload/rw/q1/s4/xy/the-godfather-part-ii-1200-1200-675-675-crop-000000.jpg)
Lawand In 1983, Puzo's literary sequel to The Godfather was published. The seduction of power, the pitfalls of greed, and the allegiance to family-these are the themes that have resonated with millions of readers around the world and made The Godfather the definitive novel of the violent subculture that, steeped in intrigue and controversy, remains indelibly etched in our collective consciousness. A searing portrayal of the Mafia underworld, The Godfather introduced readers to the first family of American crime fiction, the Corleones, and their powerful legacy of tradition, blood, and honor. The seduction of power, the pitfalls of greed, and The Godfather-the epic tale of crime and betrayal that became a global phenomenon.Īlmost fifty years ago, a classic was born. Almost fifty years ago, a classic was born. I think they all probably thought the narrative was pretty absorbing.The Godfather-the epic tale of crime and betrayal that became a global phenomenon. By the way, fourteen critics and fifteen directors included The Godfather, Part Two in their list of the greatest movies of all time in the Sight and Sound Poll. If this is now one of your Great Movies, then your first review was way, way off. You don't want to change any of those words? What? "Some scenes seem oddly pointless", "Coppola prevents our complete involvement by breaking the tension", "Coppola never completely mastered the chaotic mass of material". I have read my review of 'Part II' and would not change a word." I've been told by many that "Part II" is a rare sequel that is better than the original. Sometimes it is simply cited as proof of my worthlessness. Roger later added this to his Great Movies series, but in that review ( click here) said, "Of all of the reviews I have ever written, my three-star review of 'Part II' has stirred the most disagreement. The stunning text of 'The Godfather' is replaced in 'Part II' with prologues, epilogues, footnotes, and good intentions." Some scenes seem oddly pointless (why do we get almost no sense of Michael's actual dealings in Cuba, but lots of expensive footage about the night of Castro's takeover?), and others seem not completely explained (I am still not quite sure who really did order that attempted garroting in the Brooklyn saloon)."He finishes by saying, "But Coppola is unable to draw all this together and make it work on the level of simple, absorbing narrative.
![the godfather 2 review the godfather 2 review](https://oceanoffgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/The-Godfather-II-Free.jpg)
There's also some evidence in the film that Coppola never completely mastered the chaotic mass of material in his screenplay. Coppola was reportedly advised by friends to forget the Don Vito material and stick with Michael, and that was good advice. The flashbacks to New York in the early 1900s have a different, a nostalgic tone, and the audience has to keep shifting gears. The story of Michael, told chronologically and without the other material, would have had really substantial impact, but Coppola prevents our complete involvement by breaking the tension. "The flashbacks give Coppola the greatest difficulty in maintaining his pace and narrative force.