but to shut out Pacino as you seem to be doing is absurd.
Pacino was excellent in the first film, but in the second, his histrionics, which would become his stock and trade for the next three decades, comes to the forefront. The betrayal scene in particular. I find now, that I fast forward through all of his scenes, unless Cazale is in the scene. I've always wondered how Cazale would have played the betrayal scene if he had been given the role of Michael, which he should have gotten in the first place. I thought the screenplay for the young Vito portion was brilliant, and I've said on many occasions, that Coppola should have made the entire film about him. The Michael Corleone segment was pretty much a rehash of the first film, especially the finale.
But if he had just made a film about young Vito, the ambition and point of the narrative would have been lost. We can all the more appreciate that Michael becomes drunk on power and even evil, because we see the honour with which his father conducted himself in parallel. He built his fortune on a violent heritage, but never lost focus and the way Coppola balances the two very different plots and twists them together to form a central theme is sublime. To lose one thread would be detrimental and render the film pointless and predictable. Pacino's portrayal of Michael across both films is one of my favourite performances and I recognise the excess in part II, but it was necessary.
It was also necessary in Scarface for similar reasons and again, the film could bear the weight. If you don't like Scarface because its garish, vulgar and loud, well, it's supposed to be! Pacino matched it. However, when you put those two films together, I have to wonder if it tipped the balance for Pacino and he lost the subtlety for ever.
