You first are presented with young Vito, who is part of a small Sicilian village. His father has been murdered by the local don, Ciccio (yes, the same one from Snoop Dogg/JD "We Just Wanna Party With You" song). His brother has sworn revenge, and as they are carrying the body to its final resting place, gunshots ring out. The brother is killed. Distraught, the mother takes young Vito to the Don to plead for his life; she is killed, but he escapes with the aid of some other villagers who are sympathetic. This is a key moment in the movie; it's unfortunate that this goes by so fast with so little character development. It's well done overall in terms of impact, but fails in terms of memorable characters or filming style. Vito comes to America, where he is taken in by a store owner and raised as if he were a son. The Don in this area, Fanucci, exploits the stores and shops for money and mistreats some of the locals. Without spoiling events, there are moments here where you can tell that some of Vito's Part 1 tendencies come directly from his interactions with Fanucci.
Where this all breaks down is the fact that it goes way too fast, yet again. At one point he's a poor young man working at a store; the next they're calling him "Don Vito" with no real backstory or translation as to why they all of a sudden respect him. I can't spoil the preceding moment of the film that leads to this, but it would make logical sense that he would have been targeted by some of Fanucci's men if they knew what he'd done; if they didn't know, then the people should not be treating him with any more respect than they did before. It simply doesn't make sense in the grand scheme. Now, it's possible Fanucci didn't have any men, but if that were the case, it begs the question why Vito took so long to act on his impulses. You don't get much of Vito's personality; you can't tell if he's a hero, or simply ambitious and wants to take over the role. Perhaps that's a strength of this part of the movie - the unpredictability of the primary character. I found it distracting, because I spent too much time trying to figure out the character rather than focusing on what the character brought to the film.
After this, we're jarred back to the reality that is Michael Corleone. We see that he is trying to build a family and legitimize the Corleone legacy, taking a turn from his father. Unfortunately, there is a wrench thrown in his plans, courtesy of an assassination attempt while he's in his bedroom talking to Kay. There are numerous issues with this scene, and I suppose the writers and defenders would chalk it up to simple sloppiness on the part of those involved; but it stands to reason that if they were good enough to manage to shoot inside of an exposed window, that they should not be missing anyone inside, and that they would make sure that they are close enough to get the hit. The other issue I had was with the fact that it was easily assumed that someone inside was responsible; having those same people comb the grounds for the assassins seemed short-sighted; what's to stop one of them from putting a bullet in Michael's head when he wasn't looking? Yet Michael is perfectly composed and calm during what simply must be a hair-raising evening.
After this Michael decides to go discuss the matter with Hyman Roth. He's convinced that a Corleone family member is responsible for setting things up. This is where the movie starts to take a bizarre and confusing turn. First, he says that the Corleone family member is responsible. Then he tells the Corleone family member that Roth is responsible. There are other family brothers who are named but never shown, and he even tries to say that they're responsible. This entire time, it's never clear what he's basing any of this on. He throws out random theory after theory, and the movie never really shows what his logic is based on. In any event, it's not long before we're jarred back to Vito's storyline, where he has now gained the respect of the town. We even see him picking fruit, similar to the iconic scene in Part I where he gets gunned down in the street shortly after picking fruit.
Once all of this dust settles we're then brought back to the present, and we see snippets from what appears to be a grand jury, and one of the Corleone family members testifying against Michael and the family. Michael himself later testifies, denying that he's any sort of Don, and also denying the murder of the cop from Part I. My issue with the scene is not the scene itself, but the fact that it feels thrown in there with, again, no real backstory. It's understood that something like this would inevitably happen sooner or later, but it bugs me that there is no buildup to this sort of trial. No arrest, no reporters, nothing. It goes from Michael talking at the mansion to him testifying in front of senators at risk of perjury and jail time.
In a sure-to-be iconic scene, Michael is confronted by Kay with the truth: his life and what he says are lies. He hasn't transformed the family, he's doing the same things his father did to get results, and the family is just as dirty as it had been under his father's direction. Where Michael sees them as necessary means to an end and strength to protect the family and its members, Kay sees him as someone who would do whatever he had to do in order to avoid taking responsibility for his actions - it's clear she knows about the people he's killed and the deaths that have happened under Michael's direction, and when he explains to her that he just invited someone to come to court (that someone being essentially an intimidator to a damaging witness against him), it's obvious in his eyes that there's no problem and that he didn't do anything wrong. She wants to leave with the kids and he won't allow it, escalating into a shouting match between the two. It is then that he tries to apologize for her miscarriage, and she makes a startling (but not totally unexpected) revelation to him that sends him into a violent rage. The relationship between these two is never quite the same for the rest of the movie. If I had to pick the best acting of what I've seen, it's these two. Al Pacino comes off with an energy that's difficult to explain, yet understandable at the same time.
Michael has interactions with his brother Fredo that set the undertone of the whole movie, from the very beginning all the way until the very last scene. I can't say much negative here, except that there are obvious issues with the Fredo character as it seems they didn't know how best to create the controversy that ensues. Without spoiling things, Michael says in an early scene that Fredo is "...weak and stupid", at one point unable to control his consort who is falling down drunk. The Fredo character definitely exhibits these traits; to hear him talk, you would think that he isn't really weak or stupid, but rather introverted and just not able to properly "lead" anything like his younger brother. He flies off into a minor rage about the fact that he's been overlooked in favor of Michael, who reminds him gently that it was Vito who made the selection, not him. Vito clearly had an eye for the characters of his children. It reminded me a lot of Cao Cao and his struggle in selecting a successor.
Speaking of, Vito is now up to bat. We're shown him leaving his small village and branching out into the olive oil business. From a small storefront in the village to greater distribution, he ends up back in the same place where Don Ciccio gunned his mother down in front of him. The scene is predictable, but the Don is so old he doesn't remember the name nor Vito's face. You can't help but feel a sense of justice when this scene concludes, even though it's a bit gruesome. Definitely not for the faint of heart - but if you recall from the first movie, Vito Corleone's empire started with the olive oil distribution and expanded into what it became with other ventures. It's nice to see that evolution, though a bit haphazard.
After reconciling with Connie (his sister), who agrees to come live with the family, she convinces him to forgive Fredo for his sins. There is a loving embrace that takes place at their mother's funeral, and it seems all is well in the family, except for a statement Michael had made earlier to Tom: that he would not rest until he had disposed of all of "...his enemies". This meant Roth, who had just returned to the states, the Corleone family members that had conspired to assassinate Michael, and one other - who I won't reveal. Suffice it to say that the picture above is telling of what was going through Michael's mind, and the way he executes each of these people is rapid, at times unpredictable, and cold. It's the last killing that is a bit surprising. I won't spoil it, but if you ever watched "New Jack City" and saw the scene between Nino and G-Money near the end, it felt almost the same. You're left wondering: did Michael do it because he felt he had to? Or was it out of anger that he acted? The final scene (depicted above) hides this emotion perfectly.
The message of the movie is simple: they show a contrast between Vito's rise and Michael's, yet similarities in approach. It's also obvious that Michael is bothered at what he ends up doing at each stage, yet he justifies it to himself constantly by saying he's being strong for the family. In an earlier scene with his mother, he makes clear the distinction between "the family" (meaning Corleone) and his wife/kids. He doesn't refer to them as part of the family. It's easy to miss that small note, but clearly his priorities are split between the two. I felt it was a good - though TOO long - movie. Better than the first? I don't agree with that necessarily. If this were a standalone non-Godfather movie I'd feel it were one of Al Pacino's best. I think that as good of an actor as he is, there's just no comparison to the Vito Corleone character, whether old as part of Part I or young as part of Part II, there is a magnetism that Vito has where he stands out; Michael lacks this, and perhaps that's intentional.
