I read Ebert's review of GF I and III. He gave a glowing review for one, of course and a great review for GF III, but he didn't have anything for GF II, now I searched for it on the net and found it:

http://www.davideschmidt.com/movies/Godfather__Part_2,_The.htm

Now, this is a BS review. Ebert seems to be very schizophrenic in his reviews or emotionally unbalanced. He will give a totally retarded movie (no pun intend, a total piece of garbage) a great review, but a very original movie with a different premise and some originality and artistic expression a scathing one. I was just wondering what you guys and gals thought about it.

Ebert is sure entitled to his own opinion, but in this case, I think he is being a little lazy when it comes to this film.

When talking about why Michael ends up lonely he says,

That is correct - Ebert answers his own question. For Michael it was all about business. He kept telling himself that, and that he needed to do what he did to keep his family safe.

And it didn't really matter what kind of life he took up for himself. If he would have been a legit business man, a CEO,, perhaps he would have let business interfere in his life too, and still he would have alienated everyone he loved because he was a shrewd businessman. It happens all the time.

Yeah and if he would have stuck with that advice, FFC probably wouldn’t have won the best picture and best director award and De Niro definitely wouldn’t have won the best supporting actor award. And the movie would have been half as ambitious as it was.

Here is where I strongly disagree. While only Michael’s part of the story would have been fine and well, the flashbacks add to the structure of the film, and definitely don’t take away from it. if anything, they add another dimension to Michael's struggles in the present. If Ebert could understand and appreciate the juxstaposition that FFC used in the baptism scene in Part I, why can't he understand and appreciate the same themes in Part II? I think Ebert is being lazy here. In his review of 21 Grams he also says that if the movie were in chronological order, it would have worked much better. I thought it worked great as it was.

Perhaps Ebert would enjoy the Epic. That way there would be no flipping back and forth between past and present.

I just find at times Ebert seems to give reviews to movies that are based on an ideal or principle, the chronological thing is one issue. I agree that GF II does have a jumpy structure, but it adds so much to the movie by contrast and comparison.

Personally it seems to me that he saw a movie, that was in his opinion not done as well as the GF and commented on it.

It's just his opinion too. Plus - check out his LOTR reviews, although he seems to pretty much enjoy them, he never fully endorses them because they aren't what he thought they should be like.

I mean, GF2 is thought of as the best sequel of all time and was even the best movie ever according to TV Guide! Plenty of other people think otherwise!

Ebert may have changed his mind since then anyways.

No your right, it is his opinion and there is validity to it, I respect it.

You said it, UB. GFII is, if anything, even greater than GF. The many turns and complexities of the plot are unmatched in movie history. Complicated? Yes! Absorbing? Even more so! The Cuba sequence is so brilliant, so authentic, that serious scholars of Cuba tell their students to watch GFII to get a real feeling for what Havana was like on the eve of Castro's takeover. Possibly the greates film ever made.
Another thing: he says nothing about Michae V. Gazzo, whose character and performance made the movie.

Ya, at times as I mentioned Ebert rates movies that are bad really well, because he thinks the kids will love it or whatever, it's a decent action movie, but on the other hand he will not like one or two aspects of something that is a really well received respected movie and give it a negative rating.

One of the main reasons that I like the GF series is because every movie in the trilogy is actually intelligently made, most movies are made for people with a grade 6 education in terms of complexity and intellectualism and that's unfortunate, otherwise we can have more intelligent piece like the GF.

also, godfather II was a very well received movie by fans. sometimes these big time movie critics will intentionally look for some possible flaw they can point out just so they look smarter than the average movie-goer.

Wow, this makes me question Roger Ebert's opinions. After I see a new movie, I almost always read his review. Now I don't know if I'll still be doing that. I can't believe he gave Part III a better review than Part II.

Exactly, Jimmy! That's how they earn the big bucks. If they were simply fans, like you and me, they wouldn't qualify as "critics."

I agree with Jimmy and TB. Ebert seems to be wishing to look like the only one who saw a flaw in GF2, so he is the smart one. I'm pretty sure he would give GF2 a muuch better review nowadays.

The film not being in chronological order seems to be the aspect that makes Ebert a little iffy on GFII. Yet, here's a man who gave rave reviews to both Kill Bill films, which, as we all know, constantly jump back forth from past to present. Oh well, everyone's a critic, it just so happens this man is paid to have an opinion.

It just seems to me, that he didnt' like GF II as much as the GF and found some reasons to back up his point. His scathing criticism isn't even in the least balanced out by the technical, literal, metaphoric, dramatic or cinematic qualities of the film, which I would imagine would be the function of a good critic. Not saying he isn't a good critic; he just seems to me at times have some pretty peculiar and idiosyncratic ways of criticizing films, that were recieved better by fans and his peers alike.

But, as was said before everyone is a critic.