🎦 The Godfather: Part II full movie HD download (Francis Ford Coppola) - Crime, Drama, Thriller. 🎬
The Godfather: Part II
Year:
1974
Country:
USA
Genre:
Crime, Drama, Thriller
IMDB rating:
9.0
Director:
Francis Ford Coppola
Al Pacino as Don Michael Corleone
Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen
Diane Keaton as Kay Adams Michelson
Robert De Niro as Vito Corleone
John Cazale as Fredo Corleone
Talia Shire as Connie Corleone Rizzi
Lee Strasberg as Hyman Roth
Michael V. Gazzo as Frankie Pentangeli
G.D. Spradlin as Senator Pat Geary
Richard Bright as Al Neri
Gastone Moschin as Don Fanucci
Tom Rosqui as Rocco Lampone
Bruno Kirby as Young Peter Clemenza
Frank Sivero as Genco Abbandando
Storyline: The continuing saga of the Corleone crime family tells the story of a young Vito Corleone growing up in Sicily and in 1910s New York; and follows Michael Corleone in the 1950s as he attempts to expand the family business into Las Vegas, Hollywood and Cuba.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x1080 px 20591 Mb h264 128 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 852x480 px 2378 Mb h.264 1500 Kbps flv Download
Reviews
Not as captivating as The Godfather
As far as sequels go this isn't awful. A lot of money went into this and the acting is excellent by everyone.

The sparkle and grit and realism that appears in almost every frame of The Godfather just isn't here. Some of this seemed forced and contrived and overall the story is quite grim and depressing. Even in The Godfather there were a few scenes here and there that were light and slightly amusing. You get none of that here. Everything here is black.

I also think that this a little bit too long. I think it could have moved faster.

All in all it isn't something I would watch a second time. Not like the original, which is a product of it's time.
2012-05-06
A Second Offer Is Harder To Refuse
Usually, a sequel is not as strong a film as the original. This one is every bit as good. I am thankful to have just viewed the Coppola 2007 restoration of this film.

At well over 3 hours, it is longer than the original. What is does is deftly fill in 2 stories that we saw small parts of in the first film. We find out how the Don, Vito Cordleone got his name, what his real name is, and the history that made him who he was in the first film.

The second story fills in more about his kids, particularly Michael, and how he took over in the late 1950's and his battles with one of his dads enemies. The back drop moves from Nevada to Sicily, and then to Havana. Michael faces down a series of folks including a Congressional Hearing about his life.

While this has no Brando, it has an excellent cast from the first film with some additional folks added. James Caan makes a brief cameo at the end of the movie. Talia Shire & Diane Keaton head up to female cast though these films seems to have a cast of 100's because there are so many parties & events.

The film keeps with the same strength as the first film, strong storytelling which brings you in and peeks your interest enough to keep you going. When you watch this, your always wondering what is going to happen next and who will get theirs.
2009-02-21
A unique experience
I had already seen this movie 2 times, but last weekend I could watch it in a cinema, and it was awesome. The movie is perfect in all subjects, with incredible performances and a catching story.

It's nice to see how Coppola make us hate Michael for all the things he does, mainly the situation with Fredo. In this aspect, it's a opposite situation if we compare with The Godfather: Part I. In the first movie we love and respect Michael, and of course Vito, but in this film we can't. It's sad to see how Michael forgot what was the most important thing for Vito, the family.

It's a masterpiece even without the first part. In fact, it's a movie that make you feel a lot, even more than the first.

If in a strange moment of your life, you can have the opportunity of watch it in a cinema, don't doubt.

PD: Sorry for my English, it's not my native language.
2015-04-18
Best Supporting Actor - Robert De Niro
After the success of 'The Godfather' and having been turned down for a part in the first film, Robert De Niro follows hot on the heels of Al Pacino by being cast as the younger version of Vito (Marlon Brando). In it, we see a 30 year old Robert De Niro being taken from being a clean cut young man, probably not as striking as Pacino with his large brown eyes and dark hair, but interesting to look at none the less. Although not innocent looking, De Niro goes from being clean cut to being the gangster that we have come to know and love in the 80's and 90's at the guiding hand of Francis Ford Coppola. No wonder he won the award for 'Best Supporting Actor' to Pacino's leading role. As a whole, the film wasn't as cinematic as the first one, the range of characters that dominated the predecessor was not there is this follow up. However, the film was dominated by Robert De Niro, and it's almost a pity that De Niro and Pacino didn't meet. They would have to wait until 22 years later when they would team up in 'Heat'.
2001-10-29
As overrated and boring as the first...if not more!
Well I watched the first Godfather film and wasn't impressed what so ever, completely overrated. However Part II is one of those films that people always go on about being a better sequel than the first...unfortunately it is even more boring and slow than the first.

Again its incredibly long, and literally nothing happens in this film! Only one 'big' event happens (Michael's home being shot up), which isn't that exciting, and the whole film slowly develops around this. There is also the De Niro 'becoming' Don Vito side story which I don't think adds anything to the story at all. He goes from being a normal guy to then shooting the main boss in the town then instantly somehow becomes The Don..with no retaliation what so ever, and it doesn't even show you him becoming The Don. The next time it cuts to his story he is already The Don. Maybe I missed a part (which is possible as I ended up messing around on the internet while watching as it was that boring)
2016-05-15
Not Far Behind The First Film
This isn't quite as powerful as the first Godfather, done two years earlier, but it isn't far behind. It's another magnificently filmed effort, wonderfully acted and a hard film to stop once you've put it in your tape or DVD player.

What makes this a notch below the first Godfather is the absence of Marlon Brando and a little too much disjointedness with flashbacks. Also missing from this film was the volatile James Caan. He was shown in a flashback scene near the end, and that was it.

One thing was just as good if not better than the first film, and that was the cinematography. The browns, blacks, greens and yellows are just great treats for the eyes. I especially love the Italian houses and scenery. Why this was not even nominated for an Academy Award in cinematography is mind-boggling.

The story centers around the brutal vengeance of youngest brother Michael (Al Pacino). It also gives a good demonstration of how the gangster lifestyle may look attractive on the outside but really is an unhappy one despite the wealth.

There are some excellent supporting performances in this film, too. I especially would cite the roles played by Michael Gazzo and Lee Strassburg.
2006-04-03
Excellent, but could be in the dictionary under "sprawl"
Series note: It is almost unthinkable to watch this film without having seen The Godfather (1972) first. This is a direct continuation of that story.

The good news is that The Godfather Part II has many amazing qualities, including fantastic performances from a superb cast, sublime, unprecedented visuals that no one else has been able to capture since, and very engaging stories. The bad news is that this should have easily been a 10, but overall, it is so sprawling and unfocused that I can't possibly give it more than a 9, which it only earns because the assets transcend what's basically a mess overall. Because it should have been a 10, and most other reviews will tell you about the positive points at length, I may pick on more things in my review than you would think I would for a 9, but rest assured that even with the flaws, The Godfather Part II is still essential viewing.

Director/co-writer Francis Ford Coppola cleverly begins the film with parallels to The Godfather. We see Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) "in the role" of his father, Vito (Marlon Brando), from the first film, accepting prostrating guests while a party is going on outside. Like the first film, the party consumes a lot of time while we get to know some of the principal characters. Perhaps during this segment, perhaps a bit after, we realize that maybe the beginning wasn't so clever after all, because the structure of The Godfather Part II parallels The Godfather from a broad perspective, as if Coppola and co-writer Mario Puzo used the first film as something of a template to create this one.

After the party is over, there is an attempted hit on Michael, and we quickly learn that not everything is rosy in the Corleone's mafia world. Michael believes that someone on the "inside" was involved with the hit. This launches a complicated sequence of events that has Michael, who is now living in Nevada, traveling to Miami, Cuba, New York, and so on. He accuses different people of involvement in the attempted hit depending on whom he is talking to. This may have all been part of a grand scheme to set up the responsible parties, but one of the flaws of the film is that Coppola doesn't convey Michael's underlying thoughts about this very well, not even later, and not through his actions. Rather than feeling like a clever set-up, it starts to feel like slightly muddled writing.

During the middle section of the film, which goes on for hours, we also have a hint of a problem that plagued The Godfather--a bloated cast. There are bit too many characters who aren't well enough presented or explained. You may need to keep a scorecard.

Coppola and Puzo also treat us to many extended "flashback" segments, and I mean way back, to Vito as a boy and young man, played by Robert De Niro. For my money, these were the best scenes of the film, although maybe that's a bit of my bias creeping in, as I'm a huge De Niro fan.

But let's talk about the main plague of the film--sprawl. This is maybe first evident in the flashbacks. As good as they are, they go on far too long, and happen far too frequently, to sustain the momentum of either the Michael story or the Vito-as-a-youngster story. It begins to feel like we're toggling back and forth between two films, which is the track that should have been taken. The prequel, at least, would have been a solid 10.

There's also a lot of sprawl in the Michael Corleone segments. Coppola appears to have been suffering from what I'd now call "J.K. Rowling Syndrome". That happens when an artist becomes successful enough that they can fire or ignore their editor(s). Instead of taking good advice about where to trim fat, the artist decides to just leave much of it in, and they now have the clout to override any dissenting and more sensible opinions. The Michael Corleone story has a lot of fat, including much of the Cuba material (for example, sitting around the table with the President, laboriously passing around a solid gold telephone), the Senate hearings (which go on far too long to make and provide the dramatic points), and so on.

The film begins to feel more like a couple seasons of a television show that Coppola tried to cram into a 3 and a half hour film, or worse, a collection of deleted scenes. The scenes, except for the fat that needed to be trimmed, are excellent in isolation. But by the time the climax rolls around, the whole has more of an arbitrary feeling--this is especially clear in the dénouement, which seems to just end.

I've barely left myself room to talk about the good points. The first one, which most people mention, is the acting. There isn't a bad performance in the film, but Pacino, De Niro, and some relatively minor characters, like those played by Diane Keaton, Talia Shire and John Cazale, really stand out.

The second outstanding point, similar to the first film, is the beautiful visuals. Although all of the cinematography and production design is great, what really impressed me were some of the darkly lit scenes. Characters and features of sets emerge from pitch-blackness, and everything is rich, deep shades of burgundy, brown, and orange. Amazingly, nothing gets lost in these scenes. It must be incredibly difficult to achieve without making the shots too dark, because I can't remember another film since that has been able to capture the same look. The flashback scenes are also in similar, but lighter, colors, creating an appropriate sepia-tone feel.

Although the broad perspective problems are unfortunate, a closer focus on most segments of the film provides exemplary artistry. Given that, and the film's importance culturally, The Godfather Part II is a must-see.
2005-05-10
One of the finest sequels ever made,Beats the Original...
The Godfather is one of the best films of all time,it is a dark story and is brilliantly acted and told.It excelled in character development,directing,and acting.You'd kind of find it hard to believe that a sequel could be better,but Godfather II is the superior movie.Godfather II has the stories of the Rise of young Don Vito Corleone in the 1910's/1920's and the moral fall of his son Michael Corleone in the late 1950's.By the end of the original Godfather you thought Michael sank to the lowest he could be.Here he was a good hearted guy,he just returned from World War II,and he had plans to marry his girlfriend Kay,but through the film he declines into a monster worse than his father.Don Vito was an interesting character,he was no doubt evil,but you could tell he had a big heart.Coppola introduced a really great way to tell a story on film,you see Michael and Don Vito at the same ages in their lives,you see how the two Corleone generations differed,how one failed,and the other prevailed.Don Vito is played excellently by Robert DeNiro.This is definitely one of DeNiro's best performances.Don Vito speaks in Italian most of the film with subtitles,so DeNiro had to do a lot of work with his face,look,and posture.Its one thing to excel at giving lines,but DeNiro excels at both verbal acting and non-verbal acting.DeNiro's Vito isn't like the Brando one at all,he's quieter,and sadder,but really you don't want them to be clones all good prequels set-up their character to become the character they are in the sequel movie.The best acting of the film though has to be that of Al Pacino as Don Michael Corleone,he has changed for the worst between movies,in the first movie he ordered killings to get more business,in Part II he orders them to get even.His wife Kay who stood by him through out all of his evil deeds in the original is loosing faith that Michael is sane.Even Michael's good friend Tom Hagen(Played brilliantly again by Robert Duval) tells Michael he's won,and its over.Michael even gets to the point where he kills his own brother Fredo.

Coppola makes Godfather II a lot darker than the original.The film feels more evil.Pacino gives arguably the finest performance of his career,his Michael is downright evil.Pacino has been able to create a character you know is dark,evil,and sinister.He's established a look for Michael.When Pacino's Michael has eyes of fire you know he's angry.For those who thought the original Godfather glamorized the mafia,you have to take a look at Godfather II,you cringe at what happens.Better than the original and arguably one of the best films ever made. (Personal Note)I don't really think a 3rd Godfather film was necessary,you didn't need to see Michael physically die,he was dead mentally by the end of II.

A Very Very High 10/10
2005-04-10
"It had nothing to do with business"
In the movies, sequels have always been difficult. The franchise pictures of the twenties and thirties were always careful to repeat cast and basic formula without reopening story lines that had already run their course. While the following decades saw the rise of the TV series, the screen sequel became almost unknown. Today the fad of numbered sequels, ubiquitous in the eighties, has now become synonymous with unspeakable badness. That tradition was started, quite innocently, by this 1974 follow-up to The Godfather.

Being a drama, The Godfather Part II's biggest asset is probably in retaining the sublime cast that made the original so powerful. Al Pacino picks up exactly where he left off a few years previously, retreating further into passive steeliness, suppressing all emotions except the occasional burst of anger. John Cazale has a somewhat expanded role, getting to show off a more impressive acting range and making Fredo seem sympathetic in his weakness. Welcome returns are also made by Diane Keaton, Robert Duvall and Talia Shire. However the greatest turn is that of newcomer Robert De Niro. De Niro gives a credible presentation of an up-and-coming mobster and proud family man, whilst cleverly working in mannerisms of Marlon Brando's middle-aged Don in The Godfather. It's still only a small demonstration of De Niro's talents however.

Perhaps an even more important factor is the return of producer-director Francis Ford Coppola. Coppola demonstrates again his ability to focus drama, going to lengths to show us only what is important. Take, as one example out of many, the scene where Pacino and Lee Strasberg first meet. Roth's wife greets Pacino, and bustles in and out of the scene once or twice to utter a few lines, but watch the way Coppola keeps her fluttering about in the foreground, often with her back to us, framed from the shoulder down so we never see her face. Coppola allows her to appear for reasons of logic, but as she's not a character we need to remember, he doesn't allow us to connect with her visually. This is really intelligent filmmaking.

But The Godfather Part II is more than ever about stunning imagery. With a bigger budget, vaster sets and hordes of extras, Coppola shows an impressive ability to create thriving tableaux of crowds and street scenes, repeatedly using horizontal scans to move us through an environment, showing off a hundred tiny instances of real life that really make us believe in the recreation of a bygone era. This is especially true in the young Vito flashbacks, which thanks to the cinematography of Gordon Willis and the production design team lead by Dean Tavoularis, have a wonderful sepia-toned look to them. It's intriguing how Coppola also tends to keep his camera further back from the action in the those scenes, giving us the impression of something we are looking in on rather than something we are in the midst of.

And yet this concentration on the visual has perhaps been taken a little too far. There are too many rather blatant bits of symbolism, such as the business of the dividing up of the Cuba-cake, which reminds me of some kind of twee history textbook illustration. This inconsequential prop gets several amount of close-ups, and even several references in the dialogue, everything but a flashing subtitle saying "They're carving up Cuba – geddit?" But instead of looking clever it just seems silly to have Hyman Roth going on about his stupid cake. And what's more, there are too many references to the best ideas in The Godfather – the dark Lake Tahoe office where Michael does his dealings: the murderous little montage at the end – all of which serve little purpose other than sly winks to those who are familiar with the earlier picture. None of these motifs is executed as effectively as they were first time round, and so really they look almost like poor copycats by some lesser filmmakers. The Godfather Part II is in many ways a decent work, but compared to its illustrious predecessor it is lukewarm; a flawed attempt to rekindle some of the old magic. In fact, it is just what we have come to associate with the movie sequel.
2010-07-31
Not just a sequel, but another masterpiece of a continuing story.
The Godfather Part II, is just as good as the first film. Al Pacino was absolutely awesome in this film. His performance in this film is one of my personal favorites, and probably one of his best performances of all time. This film was so good because it continues the story of Don Michael Corleone's rise to the top, and then slowly to the bottom at the end. Plus another cool thing about the movie, is that it has several flash backs on the life of younge Vito Corleone, played by Robert DeNiro (who also gave a great performance). Again the directing, and story telling, and the acting were great in this movie. It is truly the greatest sequel of all time.
2005-09-15
📹 The Godfather: Part II full movie HD download 1974 - Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, Robert De Niro, John Cazale, Talia Shire, Lee Strasberg, Michael V. Gazzo, G.D. Spradlin, Richard Bright, Gastone Moschin, Tom Rosqui, Bruno Kirby, Frank Sivero, Francesca De Sapio - USA. 📀
×