First let me make it clear I believe I is also superior to II. But if you're asking me to make a case for why II is better.
I'd have to say it's mainly due to De Niro. He absolutely knocked young Vito out of the park. Those flashback scenes could be pasted together to make a 1 hour mini movie, and it would still blow my mind away. I honestly thought I was living in 1940 New York. It's so beautifully done, with the direction, art design, cinematography, and the acting with the accents.
I mean come on, how bad ass is De Niro when he tells the black hand to stick it and only pays him half his protection money? And then muffles his gun with a towel, the light bulb flickers in the hallway, and Vito just blasts him in the head. Just amazing.
And I always credited the over acting of Pacino in part II as from the direction of Coppola. I'm pretty sure FFC wanted to create that contrast between how Vito did work, and how Michael did work. The contrast of passive vs agressive. The ending of part II stands to be one of the best ending in film history. Feeling sorrow for michael can only occur by witnessing his brutality, and then his eventual loniness.
So yeah, I still think part I is better. But you can't discount part II like that. Saying it's an amazing film would be an understatment.
I'm gonna have to write a blog about the Godfather one day. It's literally gonna be a discertation...
~Venom
PS. BAM!
