Gannett’s review published on Letterboxd:
Francis Ford Coppola certainly has a different way of telling a story. He makes it seem more like a life than a plot. The stuff that happens isn't meant to please the audience, or to prove a point, it just happens. It's business. The same thing happens with the first movie, the three hour long epic shows an entire collaboration of multiple plots that are very well put together and displayed.
The movie was good. Not as good as the first, really I don't think it comes close to the first one, but it still is good. Like I mentioned, Coppola does a great job, and I thought that the addition on a subplot was interesting and overall very nice. It was nice to see Robert De Niro again (I watched Raging Bull recently) and I must say he looks and acts like a much different person, which I think is a great quality for an actor; the ability to seem completely different as a character when needed. Al Pacino again does a great job of representing a truly sad man that easily shows the treacheries of his past. Talia Shire was alright, but she got an Oscar nomination? She had like 15 minutes of screen time!
Anyway, yes the movie is good, yes it is a very interesting watch, but I can't say I love it. Certainly not as much as the first one. I like it, but I am not in awe in it as much as I was with the first. I have been wanting to rewatch the first one even after the day I watched it, and I definitely want to revisit this one in the future. I don't know, maybe I'll see it differently on second viewing.