Roger’s Original Rating :
Should be :
Roger only gave this great, great movie 3 stars in his original review (click here). Roger said,
There’s also some evidence in the film that Coppola never completely mastered the chaotic mass of material in his screenplay. 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 stunning text of ‘The Godfather’ is replaced in ‘Part II’ with prologues, epilogues, footnotes, and good intentions.”
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. Sometimes it is simply cited as proof of my worthlessness. I’ve been told by many that “Part II” is a rare sequel that is better than the original. Have I changed my mind? No. I have read my review of ‘Part II’ and would not change a word.”
What? “Some scenes seem oddly pointless”, “Coppola prevents our complete involvement by breaking the tension”, “Coppola never completely mastered the chaotic mass of material”. You don’t want to change any of those words?
If this is now one of your Great Movies then your first review was way, way off. 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. I think they all probably thought the narrative was pretty absorbing.