Everyone I speak to about The Godfather always rates the second part higher than the first and says the third is not even worth the effort. Then why is Part II below Part I in the Top 250? Personally both films don’t deserve to be present in the top 10 but you guys decided to place them there. Don’t get me wrong, the directing and acting is perfect. But I have the same gripes with Part II as Part Uno, it is too long. Three hours of crime capers within the Corleone family is a lot of time, especially if you’ve only recently watched the first part recently.

Many strands of the storyline seem unnecessary, wouldn’t it be better cinema if Mr Coppola had trimmed the fat and produced a leaner film. Acting talent still includes Al Pacino along with Diane Keaton, Robert Duvall and Robert De Niro, a list with high expectations. The storyline as a whole is fantastically written, it just feels like two films have collided and made an incredibly well gorged lovechild. Feel free to argue the case for longer cinema though. We’ve been raised in a generation of 90 minute shots to the arm instead of an IV style slow drip formula such as the epics Ben Hur and Cleopatra. Cleopatra itself has a director’s cut which lasts for five hours and 20 minutes; surely you’d need an interval to grab an ice cream? Many have even watched the beloved Lord of the Rings films back to back which will take you 709 minutes if you want to go for the extended cuts.

The Godfather: Part II is more of the same as Part I so if you loved the first few hours, get your teeth into this. I’ll just be here celebrating that Part III does not appear anywhere on the list.