The Godfather, part II.

Fucking Spoof De Niro and his shitty acting in this non-story boring timefuck. Image via Wikipedia Well, you all wrote to me demanding more Godfathery goodness, so here you are, you ungrateful bunch of bastards.

Amazon.com:

I found myself falling asleep watching this movie(Well, I hope you didn't. Else you're not really qualified to review it...). I don't know why anyone would think this movie is the best sequal of all time(They don't. They consider it the best film of all time). it was too boring, although the actors were preety good. (Pretty good? Mr. Pacino, Mr. De Niro, you've finally received the accolade you deserve!)

Amazon.co.uk:

I re-watched this film last night, after watching the first Godfather with my Son on Thursday evening,which he enjoyed greatly.

MASSIVE DISAPPOINTMENT ! (Oh no!)

What a pathetic excuse for a sequel. (Yea. It was pathetic, wasn't it? I hope someone killed themselves over it)

First - it is VERY CONFUSING. (Perhaps I have a gigantic brain, but I don't remember being very confused. But please, do explain how it confused you, my good fellow)
To attempt to interweave 2 different stories has the negative effect of Destroying(Why's there a capital letter there?) the Narrative (Again. Do you know when you're meant to use capitals?) of the main story-line about Michael etc (No it didn't. You just got two stories. Could you not deal with that?)

Secondly - the filming of the older events,looks cheap and comedic.
A bit like a spoof - ' Harry and Paul do the CodFather ' etc (Yes. I was laughing all the way through. It was riotous.

WHATEVER POSSESSED (Demons. Probably demons.) F. F. Coppolla (Good Ol' F.F.) to RUIN the saga in this manner ?¿ (Why an upsides-down question-mark thing?)
IF he intended to show more of Vito Corleone's rise to power, then he should have included it in the first Godfather epic. (Or here. Here was good. I don't think anyone else got so confused)
In the end, this is one Confused Mess (This isn't How you Use capital Letters) of a movie,limping along with a weak story-line, devoid of decent, well-formed and comvincing Characters (Could have fooled me...) like the first film,amd fragmented by the all-too-frequent interruptionsof an earlier story-line, which has the effect of totally confusing viewers over chronology, events and time- scales. (How? How did you get confused between the two stories? You mock Vito's sections, likening them to a cheap spoof, but now say you get confused between the scenes? Also, the story with the young Vito is IN ITALIAN! How could you get confused? Are you that bilingual you don't recognise the difference. You could at least be consistently wrong...)

DON'T BELIEVE those who will try to deceive you that this sequel is better than the first!! (Oh. Ok then. That's me convinced)

Nothing - could be further from the TRUTH. (Truth? You can't handle the truth)
IT PLAINLY - FOR ME(Yes. This is a subjective review. If you realise that, why are you trying to force your opinions on us so harshly? Asks a man re-writing someone's review to reflect his own views...)- DOES NOT WORK, and both distracts, dilutes and cheapens the main plot-line of the sequel.

The Godfather.

Cover of The Godfather (Widescreen Edition) I've decided to stick reviews for The Godfather, parts I and II together. Mainly because I'm far too lazy to do anything else. In fact, I'll probably get distracted and talk about puppies. Delicious, edible puppies. So here we go. In fact, I got so distracted, I've just written about part I. And I'm too lazy to go back and edit the earlier stuff what I wrote. Here we go again:
  The Godfather, part I

Amazon.com:

Godfather Haiku (1 Star)
choke on an orange,
tape a gun to the crapper
that's not a whole horse! (Nice enough. I just don't understand why you would do this.)

Amazon.com

When's an editor when you need one?(I don't know. I'm not the right person to ask really. I'm sorry) This movie is so long that I played it on my TV, drove across the state, and when I came back, it was still playing(Really? I'm interested to know where you live. Not so I can kill you, of course. But seriously, did you drive really fast?). Since when is a movie this long(I don't know. There's not a time limit)? Movies are supposed to be 1:30-2:00 hours long (Erm. No. They're just usually that long. It's not the law or anything. Really? You're complaining because the movie doesn't meet your mental film-Nazi length laws?). Plus this movie is as boring as a trip to the doctor's(I've never had a boring trip to the doctor. I go when there's something wrong with me. I don't find medical problems boring...). No good violence (I agree. This movie lacked good violence. That is, without a doubt, the worst crime imaginable. Let's start a petition to have everyone involved fed to clowns), no hot sex scenes (You're confusing films with porn), and furthermore, it stereotypes Italians (Not really. Do you assume, having seen this, that every Italian is a member of a crime family then?). The only decent movie in this series is The Godfather III. (<sigh>)

For a good crime movie, get Gigli instead. (Ok, now I know you're not being serious. If this was a spoof review, I credit your convincing idiot-review technique. If you actually believe these things, I may have to change my stance on eugenics.)

Amazon.com:

This movie was so violent I couldn't believe it! On a scale of 1 to 10 on the violence in this movie I would give it a 9! For this system to make sense, you must have seen a more violent film - a "10" on your scale. I'm interested to know what it was. I'm more interested to know how you got this without realising it - an 18-rated film about the mafia - would contain violence. And why, knowing this, you rated the film one-star? The acting? The music? The story? These are nothing besides a horse's head and an old man eating an orange. (Yes. Eating oranges is violent)

Amazon.co.uk:

I know everyone is gonna disagree with me (Sadly not. Don't you read this site?) but I think this is the most overrated movie ever made. The fact that it gets good full marks EVERYWHERE(Indoor voice please) and its hailed as the best movie ever made really confuses me(Yea. I'm not surprised). There's nothing special about this film (Really? Nothing? Oh, ok then. I'll sell my copy to the homeless). Its so dull and I was really bored watching this.

WHY!!!!! (!!!!!!!) Does everyone praise this movie?(So, so many reasons) It HASNT got the exciting feel of Pulp Fiction (Was it meant to?), it HASNT got the sylish scenes and great music of the Warriors(No. Because that was an entirely different film. The Godfather does have it's own stylish scenes though, and it's own great music.), it CERTENLY HASNT got the powerful feel of the Shawshank Redemption(It wasn't set in a prison either. Why don't you shout about that?) and Braveheart (Powerful feel? Braveheart wasn't powerful, it was historically inaccurate and shitty) and it HASNT got the excellent written story of Reservoir Dogs (The story for Reservoir Dogs was that some guys robbed a jewellery store, then hid. What was interesting was the dialogue, the characters and their interactions, the acting, the ear-cutting) . All it has is a very basic (Well, I don't think it is any less detailed than the other 'classics' you've named, but what do I know?) story, boring characters (Oh, for fuck's sake), very dated looking(It is old, you know) and such boring dialogue(You must be riveting to talk to then) which makes it very hard to get into. As to why people love this film so much will always be an unexplained mystery. (Only to you though. And I could probably explain it, or you could read reviews by people with actual talent. They'd explain why the loved the film better than me.)

I know its harsh but I give it a 1 out of 5(It is harsh, yes. Well done, you got something right). Its the most boring movie I have ever seen and I am really shocked how most people list this as their favorite film. I couldnt stand 20 mins of this. Well, boo hoo. Francis Ford Coppola will never get over this, you know...