The Godfather vs. The Godfather: Part II (1 Viewer)

[Thunderlips]

After rewatching III, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't bad as a whole....it just can't live up to I and II. Plus, there are several small problems...

1) Sofia Coppola - She just doesn't work. Not very good acting chops, no spark between her and Andy Garcia.

2) No Duvall - Didn't they learn their lesson with not paying Fat Clemenza? Didn't they realize that II would have been THAT much more better if it were Clemenza, not Pantangalini? They needed Duvall.

3) The whole Immobilari thing is weird and unneccesary. They could have just as easily had Michael be legitimate and struggle between his past and where he wants the future of his family. No need for the Pope, Rome, The Vatican....all that jazz.

4) They don't need to trot out every jabroni from I and II...OHHH THERE'S ENZO AT THE PARTY!....HERE COMES LUCY MANICNI!....WATCH OUT!....JOHNNY FONTAINES SINGING AGAIN!.....those are desparate attempts to tie it to I and II....

on second though...it was kind of bad.

 

[GOB]

Freaking Fredo.

 

[Insein]

After rewatching III, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't bad as a whole....it just can't live up to I and II. Plus, there are several small problems...

1) Sofia Coppola - She just doesn't work. Not very good acting chops, no spark between her and Andy Garcia.

2) No Duvall - Didn't they learn their lesson with not paying Fat Clemenza? Didn't they realize that II would have been THAT much more better if it were Clemenza, not Pantangalini? They needed Duvall.

3) The whole Immobilari thing is weird and unneccesary. They could have just as easily had Michael be legitimate and struggle between his past and where he wants the future of his family. No need for the Pope, Rome, The Vatican....all that jazz.

4) They don't need to trot out every jabroni from I and II...OHHH THERE'S ENZO AT THE PARTY!....HERE COMES LUCY MANICNI!....WATCH OUT!....JOHNNY FONTAINES SINGING AGAIN!.....those are desparate attempts to tie it to I and II....

on second though...it was kind of bad.

It's not so much bad as it is lazily approached with the weight of greatness already on top of it. On it's own, it's not a bad film. I said 7/10 earlier. Definitely watchable. Compared to two of the all time greatest films ever made, it pales in comparison.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

After rewatching III, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't bad as a whole....it just can't live up to I and II. Plus, there are several small problems...

1) Sofia Coppola - She just doesn't work. Not very good acting chops, no spark between her and Andy Garcia.

2) No Duvall - Didn't they learn their lesson with not paying Fat Clemenza? Didn't they realize that II would have been THAT much more better if it were Clemenza, not Pantangalini? They needed Duvall.

3) The whole Immobilari thing is weird and unneccesary. They could have just as easily had Michael be legitimate and struggle between his past and where he wants the future of his family. No need for the Pope, Rome, The Vatican....all that jazz.

4) They don't need to trot out every jabroni from I and II...OHHH THERE'S ENZO AT THE PARTY!....HERE COMES LUCY MANICNI!....WATCH OUT!....JOHNNY FONTAINES SINGING AGAIN!.....those are desparate attempts to tie it to I and II....

on second though...it was kind of bad.

It's not so much bad as it is lazily approached with the weight of greatness already on top of it. On it's own, it's not a bad film. I said 7/10 earlier. Definitely watchable. Compared to two of the all time greatest films ever made, it pales in comparison.

The incest angle wasn't necessary at all. Vincent Mancini is seemingly unknown to Michael, then suddenly is his right hand. The sheer dollar figures Michael is throwing around seemed very unrealistic. A lot of the strategy seemed nonsensical. There's a good movie/story in there, but it never fully surfaces.

 

[Insein]

After rewatching III, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't bad as a whole....it just can't live up to I and II. Plus, there are several small problems...

1) Sofia Coppola - She just doesn't work. Not very good acting chops, no spark between her and Andy Garcia.

2) No Duvall - Didn't they learn their lesson with not paying Fat Clemenza? Didn't they realize that II would have been THAT much more better if it were Clemenza, not Pantangalini? They needed Duvall.

3) The whole Immobilari thing is weird and unneccesary. They could have just as easily had Michael be legitimate and struggle between his past and where he wants the future of his family. No need for the Pope, Rome, The Vatican....all that jazz.

4) They don't need to trot out every jabroni from I and II...OHHH THERE'S ENZO AT THE PARTY!....HERE COMES LUCY MANICNI!....WATCH OUT!....JOHNNY FONTAINES SINGING AGAIN!.....those are desparate attempts to tie it to I and II....

on second though...it was kind of bad.

It's not so much bad as it is lazily approached with the weight of greatness already on top of it. On it's own, it's not a bad film. I said 7/10 earlier. Definitely watchable. Compared to two of the all time greatest films ever made, it pales in comparison.

The incest angle wasn't necessary at all. Vincent Mancini is seemingly unknown to Michael, then suddenly is his right hand. The sheer dollar figures Michael is throwing around seemed very unrealistic. A lot of the strategy seemed nonsensical. There's a good movie/story in there, but it never fully surfaces.

I can agree with that. It seemed like they tried to do too much to justify its existence.

 

[Raider Nation]

After rewatching III, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't bad as a whole....it just can't live up to I and II. Plus, there are several small problems...

1) Sofia Coppola - She just doesn't work. Not very good acting chops, no spark between her and Andy Garcia.

2) No Duvall - Didn't they learn their lesson with not paying Fat Clemenza? Didn't they realize that II would have been THAT much more better if it were Clemenza, not Pantangalini? They needed Duvall.

3) The whole Immobilari thing is weird and unneccesary. They could have just as easily had Michael be legitimate and struggle between his past and where he wants the future of his family. No need for the Pope, Rome, The Vatican....all that jazz.

4) They don't need to trot out every jabroni from I and II...OHHH THERE'S ENZO AT THE PARTY!....HERE COMES LUCY MANICNI!....WATCH OUT!....JOHNNY FONTAINES SINGING AGAIN!.....those are desparate attempts to tie it to I and II....

on second though...it was kind of bad.

#1 is generally the first reason people cite for hating this film. She got the role due to nepotism -- plain and simple. And she completely sucked. That said, those who put it all on her are being unfair. GF III would have been a disappointment no matter who got that role.

 

[RBM]

After rewatching III, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't bad as a whole....it just can't live up to I and II. Plus, there are several small problems...

1) Sofia Coppola - She just doesn't work. Not very good acting chops, no spark between her and Andy Garcia.

2) No Duvall - Didn't they learn their lesson with not paying Fat Clemenza? Didn't they realize that II would have been THAT much more better if it were Clemenza, not Pantangalini? They needed Duvall.

3) The whole Immobilari thing is weird and unneccesary. They could have just as easily had Michael be legitimate and struggle between his past and where he wants the future of his family. No need for the Pope, Rome, The Vatican....all that jazz.

4) They don't need to trot out every jabroni from I and II...OHHH THERE'S ENZO AT THE PARTY!....HERE COMES LUCY MANICNI!....WATCH OUT!....JOHNNY FONTAINES SINGING AGAIN!.....those are desparate attempts to tie it to I and II....

on second though...it was kind of bad.

#1 is generally the first reason people cite for hating this film. She got the role due to nepotism -- plain and simple. And she completely sucked. That said, those who put it all on her are being unfair. GF III would have been a disappointment no matter who got that role.

Winona Ryder was locked into that role but got sick right before filming. Sofia was the last minute replacement.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm trying to like Godfather 3 for the 100th time. Fools errand.

I think it's an entertaining movie with a disastrous acting job by Sophia Coppola.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I can do without Part III. It's not awful, but it's not that good either.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Plus, I hate the way Michael's death, from years later, is just tacked on at the end.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Plus, I hate the way Michael's death, from years later, is just tacked on at the end.

He dies alone. He did everything for his family, and he ended up losing them. Walter White suffered the same fate. They implied the same thing at the end of GF2 with him sitting alone. That's probably how FFC wanted it all to end, so he just reset that scene later in a more final way for GF3.

 

[bostonfred]

Plus, I hate the way Michael's death, from years later, is just tacked on at the end.

He dies alone. He did everything for his family, and he ended up losing them. Walter White suffered the same fate. They implied the same thing at the end of GF2 with him sitting alone. That's probably how FFC wanted it all to end, so he just reset that scene later in a more final way for GF3.

GFIV has him talking to Kate in the kitchen, years later, saying, I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. And I was really... I was alive.

 

[Rick James]

Pacino is Pacino in GFIII. It's impossible for me to see michael corleone in that performance.

 

[Raider Nation]

Pacino is Pacino in GFIII. It's impossible for me to see michael corleone in that performance.

Excellent point.

 

[chet]

How do the book(s) compare to the movies?

 

[Raider Nation]

How do the book(s) compare to the movies?

They are each classics. The books paint such a picture, especially involving Sonny and Lucy.

 

[Raider Nation]

Minor book & Sonny's Dong spoilers:

For the most part, Francis Ford Coppola made a faithful adaptation of Mario Puzo's novel. Every important element was there: the wedding, the murders, Michael's exile, the themes of family and destiny, Sonny's comically oversized schlong ...

Wait, What?

Sonny Corleone (James Caan) is the aggressive, hot-tempered older brother of Michael and, in the novel, has a massive ****. And his penis isn't just casually thrown in there -- it's violently thrust into every nook and cranny of the book over and over again, like a big, invasive, impossible-to-ignore ... giant **** in a book. Frankly, that's better than any analogy we could come up with. Puzo never missed an opportunity to mention it in the least-mature terms possible ("Did you hear, Sonny's **** is so big that hookers charge him double! Did you know, Sonny's tool is so huge that his wife thanks God he's having affairs!"). And so on. Sonny Corleone had a huge ****, and Mario Puzo believed it was important for you to know, in this story about family and power and corruption.

Remember how early in the film you see Sonny hooking up with some nameless bridesmaid? It's OK if you've forgotten; it was just a quick, throwaway scene that happens within the first 10 minutes. A quick, throwaway scene that, incidentally, was a major subplot of the novel, thanks to Sonny's elephantine member. It is this monstrous schlong that leads Sonny to hook up with the bridesmaid (Lucy Mancini). They're a good fit, Sonny and Lucy, but mostly because Lucy happens to have an impossibly huge ######, making her a perfect muse for Sonny's angry flesh python. Puzo's treatment of their romance is both subtle and tender:

"... she couldn't help reaching out to touch his naked body, hold him, make love to him as if those special parts of his body were a plaything, a specially constructed, intricate but innocent toy revealing its known, but still surprising ecstasies. At first she had been ashamed of these excesses but soon realized that they pleased her lover, that her complete sensual enslavement to his body flattered him."

When Sonny dies, the book continues to follow Lucy, who, remember, only existed because her closet-size ###### could accommodate Sonny. Her association with Sonny's junk upgraded her from nonexistent to supporting. Puzo was really invested in Lucy Mancini and her abnormal genitals, and he wanted to give them both a happy ending. So the second half of the book follows a heartbroken Lucy to Las Vegas, where she falls in love with a charming blond doctor (who, of course, can't compete with the memory of Sonny's world-destroying ****).

Keep in mind, this subplot involves no major characters in the story whatsoever. Michael is still in Sicily, Don Corleone is back in New York ... it's just Lucy and Jules the doctor, living out the most uncomfortable Harlequin romance novel ever written. The closest connection to a living member of the Corleone family is when Jules casually mentions that Fredo keeps catching syphilis. By the end of the novel (about greed, a family of gangsters and the American Dream), Jules performs reconstructive surgery on Lucy's ###### to take it from ultra-freak-giant to standard-######-size. With Sonny's dong gone, so goes the only chapel worthy enough to accept it.

 

[Rick James]

haha, what website is that taken from?

 

[Thunderlips]

Minor book & Sonny's Dong spoilers:

For the most part, Francis Ford Coppola made a faithful adaptation of Mario Puzo's novel. Every important element was there: the wedding, the murders, Michael's exile, the themes of family and destiny, Sonny's comically oversized schlong ...

Wait, What?

Sonny Corleone (James Caan) is the aggressive, hot-tempered older brother of Michael and, in the novel, has a massive ****. And his penis isn't just casually thrown in there -- it's violently thrust into every nook and cranny of the book over and over again, like a big, invasive, impossible-to-ignore ... giant **** in a book. Frankly, that's better than any analogy we could come up with. Puzo never missed an opportunity to mention it in the least-mature terms possible ("Did you hear, Sonny's **** is so big that hookers charge him double! Did you know, Sonny's tool is so huge that his wife thanks God he's having affairs!"). And so on. Sonny Corleone had a huge ****, and Mario Puzo believed it was important for you to know, in this story about family and power and corruption.

Remember how early in the film you see Sonny hooking up with some nameless bridesmaid? It's OK if you've forgotten; it was just a quick, throwaway scene that happens within the first 10 minutes. A quick, throwaway scene that, incidentally, was a major subplot of the novel, thanks to Sonny's elephantine member. It is this monstrous schlong that leads Sonny to hook up with the bridesmaid (Lucy Mancini). They're a good fit, Sonny and Lucy, but mostly because Lucy happens to have an impossibly huge ######, making her a perfect muse for Sonny's angry flesh python. Puzo's treatment of their romance is both subtle and tender:

"... she couldn't help reaching out to touch his naked body, hold him, make love to him as if those special parts of his body were a plaything, a specially constructed, intricate but innocent toy revealing its known, but still surprising ecstasies. At first she had been ashamed of these excesses but soon realized that they pleased her lover, that her complete sensual enslavement to his body flattered him."

When Sonny dies, the book continues to follow Lucy, who, remember, only existed because her closet-size ###### could accommodate Sonny. Her association with Sonny's junk upgraded her from nonexistent to supporting. Puzo was really invested in Lucy Mancini and her abnormal genitals, and he wanted to give them both a happy ending. So the second half of the book follows a heartbroken Lucy to Las Vegas, where she falls in love with a charming blond doctor (who, of course, can't compete with the memory of Sonny's world-destroying ****).

Keep in mind, this subplot involves no major characters in the story whatsoever. Michael is still in Sicily, Don Corleone is back in New York ... it's just Lucy and Jules the doctor, living out the most uncomfortable Harlequin romance novel ever written. The closest connection to a living member of the Corleone family is when Jules casually mentions that Fredo keeps catching syphilis. By the end of the novel (about greed, a family of gangsters and the American Dream), Jules performs reconstructive surgery on Lucy's ###### to take it from ultra-freak-giant to standard-######-size. With Sonny's dong gone, so goes the only chapel worthy enough to accept it.

LOL!

Yeah....there's the scene in the movie at the wedding where Sonny's wife is showing all the girls how long Sonny's "manhood" is. Kind of a passing moment if you didn't read the book.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Minor book & Sonny's Dong spoilers:

For the most part, Francis Ford Coppola made a faithful adaptation of Mario Puzo's novel. Every important element was there: the wedding, the murders, Michael's exile, the themes of family and destiny, Sonny's comically oversized schlong ...

Wait, What?

Sonny Corleone (James Caan) is the aggressive, hot-tempered older brother of Michael and, in the novel, has a massive ****. And his penis isn't just casually thrown in there -- it's violently thrust into every nook and cranny of the book over and over again, like a big, invasive, impossible-to-ignore ... giant **** in a book. Frankly, that's better than any analogy we could come up with. Puzo never missed an opportunity to mention it in the least-mature terms possible ("Did you hear, Sonny's **** is so big that hookers charge him double! Did you know, Sonny's tool is so huge that his wife thanks God he's having affairs!"). And so on. Sonny Corleone had a huge ****, and Mario Puzo believed it was important for you to know, in this story about family and power and corruption.

Remember how early in the film you see Sonny hooking up with some nameless bridesmaid? It's OK if you've forgotten; it was just a quick, throwaway scene that happens within the first 10 minutes. A quick, throwaway scene that, incidentally, was a major subplot of the novel, thanks to Sonny's elephantine member. It is this monstrous schlong that leads Sonny to hook up with the bridesmaid (Lucy Mancini). They're a good fit, Sonny and Lucy, but mostly because Lucy happens to have an impossibly huge ######, making her a perfect muse for Sonny's angry flesh python. Puzo's treatment of their romance is both subtle and tender:

"... she couldn't help reaching out to touch his naked body, hold him, make love to him as if those special parts of his body were a plaything, a specially constructed, intricate but innocent toy revealing its known, but still surprising ecstasies. At first she had been ashamed of these excesses but soon realized that they pleased her lover, that her complete sensual enslavement to his body flattered him."

When Sonny dies, the book continues to follow Lucy, who, remember, only existed because her closet-size ###### could accommodate Sonny. Her association with Sonny's junk upgraded her from nonexistent to supporting. Puzo was really invested in Lucy Mancini and her abnormal genitals, and he wanted to give them both a happy ending. So the second half of the book follows a heartbroken Lucy to Las Vegas, where she falls in love with a charming blond doctor (who, of course, can't compete with the memory of Sonny's world-destroying ****).

Keep in mind, this subplot involves no major characters in the story whatsoever. Michael is still in Sicily, Don Corleone is back in New York ... it's just Lucy and Jules the doctor, living out the most uncomfortable Harlequin romance novel ever written. The closest connection to a living member of the Corleone family is when Jules casually mentions that Fredo keeps catching syphilis. By the end of the novel (about greed, a family of gangsters and the American Dream), Jules performs reconstructive surgery on Lucy's ###### to take it from ultra-freak-giant to standard-######-size. With Sonny's dong gone, so goes the only chapel worthy enough to accept it.

LOL!

Yeah....there's the scene in the movie at the wedding where Sonny's wife is showing all the girls how long Sonny's "manhood" is. Kind of a passing moment if you didn't read the book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mufTJiGlonE#t=22

 

[packersfan]

Plus, I hate the way Michael's death, from years later, is just tacked on at the end.

He dies alone. He did everything for his family, and he ended up losing them. Walter White suffered the same fate.

White died happily though. In his element. Where he always wanted to be. In the one place where he was truly happy.

Michael died a sad figure all alone which is where he was headed from the moment the first film ended. I think the ending was one of the few things about the third film that worked. It was perfectly in character and stayed true to the path his story was taking from the moment he assumed control of the family.

People rip on Sofia Coppola (which is deserved) but who in the hell could have possibly thought that replacing Duvall with George Hamilton was a good idea? That was absolutely horrible.

 

[bostonfred]

Here's something that never totally made sense to me. Michael tells tessio and clemenza to hold tight, and to wait six months for them to get situated in vegas. Michael gets back from vegas after talking to moe green for the first time. He sits down with vito, and vito tells him that barzini will come after him first.

Does "first" mean as soon as vito dies? Or does it mean that this was going to happen regardless of vito dying? It seems strange that tessio reaches out at vitos funeral, almost like that was the event they were talking about the whole time.

 

[Rick James]

Here's something that never totally made sense to me. Michael tells tessio and clemenza to hold tight, and to wait six months for them to get situated in vegas. Michael gets back from vegas after talking to moe green for the first time. He sits down with vito, and vito tells him that barzini will come after him first.

Does "first" mean as soon as vito dies? Or does it mean that this was going to happen regardless of vito dying? It seems strange that tessio reaches out at vitos funeral, almost like that was the event they were talking about the whole time.

A couple things-

1) at the time, people questioned whether or not Michael would be a good Don

2) Vito was in poor health

Combine those two things, and Vito assumed (correctly) that once he passed away someone would try to kill Michael in order to gain the upper hand against the other families. Easiest way to kill Michael would be from the inside, so there you go. The guy who tries to setup a meeting with Barzini (turns out to be Tessio) is the traitor.

Interesting convo at the funeral, too. When Michael tells Tom that Tessio wants to setup a meeting with Barzini, Tom is surprised and says he thought it would be Clamenza. Mike says "No, this is the smart move. Tessio was always smarter."

 

[Thunderlips]

Here's something that never totally made sense to me. Michael tells tessio and clemenza to hold tight, and to wait six months for them to get situated in vegas. Michael gets back from vegas after talking to moe green for the first time. He sits down with vito, and vito tells him that barzini will come after him first.

Does "first" mean as soon as vito dies? Or does it mean that this was going to happen regardless of vito dying? It seems strange that tessio reaches out at vitos funeral, almost like that was the event they were talking about the whole time.

Well, there were backroom deals already in play against the Corleone's. Green as much said it when he said Barzini would let him keep the casinos.

 

[Ghost Rider]

"You straightened my brother out?"

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

"Godfather III" might have had a chance if Coppola had worked on it in the same methodical way he worked on the first two. But, the 1980's had been brutal career-wise for him--his biggest hit was "Peggy Sue Got Married--and he directed bombs like "Cotton Club" and "Tucker", movies he had also partly financed out of his own pocket.

Pacino, too. The 80's weren't so good to him either. Other than "Scarface", which actually was not a huge hit when released, he has some big blank spots on his resume.

 

[bostonfred]

Here's something that never totally made sense to me. Michael tells tessio and clemenza to hold tight, and to wait six months for them to get situated in vegas. Michael gets back from vegas after talking to moe green for the first time. He sits down with vito, and vito tells him that barzini will come after him first.

Does "first" mean as soon as vito dies? Or does it mean that this was going to happen regardless of vito dying? It seems strange that tessio reaches out at vitos funeral, almost like that was the event they were talking about the whole time.

A couple things-

1) at the time, people questioned whether or not Michael would be a good Don

2) Vito was in poor health

Combine those two things, and Vito assumed (correctly) that once he passed away someone would try to kill Michael in order to gain the upper hand against the other families. Easiest way to kill Michael would be from the inside, so there you go. The guy who tries to setup a meeting with Barzini (turns out to be Tessio) is the traitor.

Interesting convo at the funeral, too. When Michael tells Tom that Tessio wants to setup a meeting with Barzini, Tom is surprised and says he thought it would be Clamenza. Mike says "No, this is the smart move. Tessio was always smarter."

Yeah, I get that stuff. The part that seemed odd to me was that michael clearly planned to make his move in the next six months, since he had told clemenza and tessio he needed them to wait that long, while they appealed to vito that they couldn't. So six months was always the timeframe, give or take. It seemed like the baptism became the official time to make the move, but that could just be storytelling coincidence. The part that struck me as odd was that michael and vito discussed this in the garden before vito died (obviously) and was talking about what to do when someone turned traitor. At that point, vito might not have been in good health, but there was no reason to think he was going to die within six months, was there?

Was the plan to move on the heads of the five families whether vito was alive or dead? Remember, vito swore on the lives of his grandchildren that he would not be the one to break the peace, and he doesn't seem like the type of dude that would bald faced lie when swearing like that. Was this just general advice on what to do when he died? Or did they expect a traitor to show up with a deal while vito was still alive?

Also, with all the vegas plans, was michael going to move to vegas if his move failed? After the baptism, someone comes up to him to tell him the news, and he says, change of plans carlo, you're not going to vegas. Meet me at my house. Did he ever plan to have carlo go to vegas? Why the ruse?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

The hits and betrayal weren't contingent upon Vito's death. It was more about them moving to Vegas. The power grab out there, and the void or weakness perceived left back in New York.

 

[Thunderlips]

Here's something that never totally made sense to me. Michael tells tessio and clemenza to hold tight, and to wait six months for them to get situated in vegas. Michael gets back from vegas after talking to moe green for the first time. He sits down with vito, and vito tells him that barzini will come after him first.

Does "first" mean as soon as vito dies? Or does it mean that this was going to happen regardless of vito dying? It seems strange that tessio reaches out at vitos funeral, almost like that was the event they were talking about the whole time.

A couple things-

1) at the time, people questioned whether or not Michael would be a good Don

2) Vito was in poor health

Combine those two things, and Vito assumed (correctly) that once he passed away someone would try to kill Michael in order to gain the upper hand against the other families. Easiest way to kill Michael would be from the inside, so there you go. The guy who tries to setup a meeting with Barzini (turns out to be Tessio) is the traitor.

Interesting convo at the funeral, too. When Michael tells Tom that Tessio wants to setup a meeting with Barzini, Tom is surprised and says he thought it would be Clamenza. Mike says "No, this is the smart move. Tessio was always smarter."

Yeah, I get that stuff. The part that seemed odd to me was that michael clearly planned to make his move in the next six months, since he had told clemenza and tessio he needed them to wait that long, while they appealed to vito that they couldn't. So six months was always the timeframe, give or take. It seemed like the baptism became the official time to make the move, but that could just be storytelling coincidence.The part that struck me as odd was that michael and vito discussed this in the garden before vito died (obviously) and was talking about what to do when someone turned traitor. At that point, vito might not have been in good health, but there was no reason to think he was going to die within six months, was there?

Was the plan to move on the heads of the five families whether vito was alive or dead? Remember, vito swore on the lives of his grandchildren that he would not be the one to break the peace, and he doesn't seem like the type of dude that would bald faced lie when swearing like that. Was this just general advice on what to do when he died? Or did they expect a traitor to show up with a deal while vito was still alive?

Also, with all the vegas plans, was michael going to move to vegas if his move failed? After the baptism, someone comes up to him to tell him the news, and he says, change of plans carlo, you're not going to vegas. Meet me at my house. Did he ever plan to have carlo go to vegas? Why the ruse?

The Carlo thing is a good one as they never explain whether he just dissappeared or was found dead. I'll have to check the book.

 

[Rick James]

I seem to remember Vito telling Michael to give Carlo "a living, but don't discuss business with him." Maybe Vegas was a part of that. Then when Vito dies, Michael changes plans.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I seem to remember Vito telling Michael to give Carlo "a living, but don't discuss business with him." Maybe Vegas was a part of that. Then when Vito dies, Michael changes plans.

He says that to Tom and Sonny the day of Carlo's wedding. Michael, however, makes Carlo comfortable and promotes him. Probably to feed bad info to Barzini and Tatagglia and so that he doesn't see his murder coming.

 

[bostonfred]

I seem to remember Vito telling Michael to give Carlo "a living, but don't discuss business with him." Maybe Vegas was a part of that. Then when Vito dies, Michael changes plans.

He says that to Tom and Sonny the day of Carlo's wedding. Michael, however, makes Carlo comfortable and promotes him. Probably to feed bad info to Barzini and Tatagglia and so that he doesn't see his murder coming.

Yeah, I think the deception angle played a big part in the Vegas plans. But there was an actual scene after the baptism where someone runs up to Michael to tell him the news, and the moment he hears it, he turns to Carlo and says, change of plans. Head to my house. At which point he is interrogated and murdered.

So the question is, what was the plan if it WASN'T successful? Were they actually taking Carlo to Vegas as planned? Or is it like you said, they made him think he was going to Vegas so he wouldn't tip them off before the baptism, but once the five heads were dead, the deception was over? You can make a pretty good case for the latter, but then there's a part of me that gets mad just thinking about the wasted airline ticket.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

I seem to remember Vito telling Michael to give Carlo "a living, but don't discuss business with him." Maybe Vegas was a part of that. Then when Vito dies, Michael changes plans.

He says that to Tom and Sonny the day of Carlo's wedding. Michael, however, makes Carlo comfortable and promotes him. Probably to feed bad info to Barzini and Tatagglia and so that he doesn't see his murder coming.

Yeah, I think the deception angle played a big part in the Vegas plans. But there was an actual scene after the baptism where someone runs up to Michael to tell him the news, and the moment he hears it, he turns to Carlo and says, change of plans. Head to my house. At which point he is interrogated and murdered. So the question is, what was the plan if it WASN'T successful? Were they actually taking Carlo to Vegas as planned? Or is it like you said, they made him think he was going to Vegas so he wouldn't tip them off before the baptism, but once the five heads were dead, the deception was over? You can make a pretty good case for the latter, but then there's a part of me that gets mad just thinking about the wasted airline ticket.

Carlo was never going to be in Las Vegas.

 

[Insein]

I seem to remember Vito telling Michael to give Carlo "a living, but don't discuss business with him." Maybe Vegas was a part of that. Then when Vito dies, Michael changes plans.

He says that to Tom and Sonny the day of Carlo's wedding. Michael, however, makes Carlo comfortable and promotes him. Probably to feed bad info to Barzini and Tatagglia and so that he doesn't see his murder coming.

Yeah, I think the deception angle played a big part in the Vegas plans. But there was an actual scene after the baptism where someone runs up to Michael to tell him the news, and the moment he hears it, he turns to Carlo and says, change of plans. Head to my house. At which point he is interrogated and murdered. So the question is, what was the plan if it WASN'T successful? Were they actually taking Carlo to Vegas as planned? Or is it like you said, they made him think he was going to Vegas so he wouldn't tip them off before the baptism, but once the five heads were dead, the deception was over? You can make a pretty good case for the latter, but then there's a part of me that gets mad just thinking about the wasted airline ticket.

Some one still could have used it.

 

[RBM]

I seem to remember Vito telling Michael to give Carlo "a living, but don't discuss business with him." Maybe Vegas was a part of that. Then when Vito dies, Michael changes plans.

He says that to Tom and Sonny the day of Carlo's wedding. Michael, however, makes Carlo comfortable and promotes him. Probably to feed bad info to Barzini and Tatagglia and so that he doesn't see his murder coming.

Yeah, I think the deception angle played a big part in the Vegas plans. But there was an actual scene after the baptism where someone runs up to Michael to tell him the news, and the moment he hears it, he turns to Carlo and says, change of plans. Head to my house. At which point he is interrogated and murdered. So the question is, what was the plan if it WASN'T successful? Were they actually taking Carlo to Vegas as planned? Or is it like you said, they made him think he was going to Vegas so he wouldn't tip them off before the baptism, but once the five heads were dead, the deception was over? You can make a pretty good case for the latter, but then there's a part of me that gets mad just thinking about the wasted airline ticket.

Carlo was never going to be in Las Vegas.

Hello Carlo

 

[bostonfred]

What the film doesn't discuss is that Vito had the most political influence in all of the families in the US. And the major drug operation underway needed cooperation at multiple levels of the government and judicial system. It was this influence that the rest of the families needed to go forward, which is why they shot Vito in the first place

I've never read the books, but this is pretty obvious in the movie. It's the main thing Solazzo asks for in their first meeting, and it's the main thing Barzini and Tattaglia ask for when Vito calls his meeting of the heads of the five families. They say he's got all the politicians in his pocket.

In the book, Carlo Rizzi was actually once a childhood friend of Sonny Corleone, which is how he met Connie, Sonny introduced them. In the book, Connie was very homely, a very traditional looking Italian girl, and Carlo, who was from Nevada, and his family from Nevada, was supposed to be extremely handsome and athletic and someone who was far out of Connie's league, but it was intimated in the beginning that Carlo married Connie because he wanted access to the Corleone wealth and power. Obviously he had seen the lavish lifestyle that Sonny lived ( Sonny was the Underboss in the first film before Vito was shot)

In the antepenultimate scene in Godfather Part II - all the kids gathered for Vito's birthday, and Michael says he's joined the marines - Sonny introduces Carlo to Connie, clearly setting the two of them up, constantly telling them to do stuff together, like asking him to help her put candles on the cake. So they did eventually touch on this. But I honestly didn't know that she was supposed to be homely. I just assumed that other people found Talia Shire (the actress who played Connie) attractive. She's in the same category as Julia Louis Dreyfuss for me, as someone I just have no interest in, but some people seem to think she's awesome.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The Godfather Collection Coppola Restoration on BluRay is on sale for $17 today on Amazon.

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

Both movies have been all over Cinemax this month. It seems that every day one or the other was on the air. (With only four days left in the month, there are still ten showings remaining).

The scene I randomly came across three or four times was Michael visiting Kay after his return from Italy. Who's being naive, Kay?

And Tom in GFII: Why do you hurt me, Michael?

 

[Raider Nation]

I'm smahhht! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smaht and I want respect!

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

I'm smahhht! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smaht and I want respect!

In the Eminence train-wreck thread I suggested that this is what I hear when I read his posts.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

He is, I believe, the brother.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Taken care of me?!!!

 

[Raider Nation]

He is, I believe, the brother.

And unless Frankie's memory gets cloudy very quickly, he and a cinder block are going swimming.

 

[RBM]

Hello Carlo

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

How did Michael automatically know that Hyman Roth was coming after him. They could have explained that a little better.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

How did Michael automatically know that Hyman Roth was coming after him. They could have explained that a little better.

He didn't know. He told Roth that he thought Pentangeli did it, and he told Pentangeli that he thought Roth did it. Both times he was hoping that the real killer would tip his hand. But it wasn't until Fredo slipped up that Michael realized Roth was behind it.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

How did Michael automatically know that Hyman Roth was coming after him. They could have explained that a little better.

He didn't know. He told Roth that he thought Pentangeli did it, and he told Pentangeli that he thought Roth did it. Both times he was hoping that the real killer would tip his hand. But it wasn't until Fredo slipped up that Michael realized Roth was behind it.

No....Michael knew before that trip to Cuba that Roth tried to kill him.

 

[RBM]

How did Michael automatically know that Hyman Roth was coming after him. They could have explained that a little better.

He didn't know. He told Roth that he thought Pentangeli did it, and he told Pentangeli that he thought Roth did it. Both times he was hoping that the real killer would tip his hand. But it wasn't until Fredo slipped up that Michael realized Roth was behind it.

No....Michael knew before that trip to Cuba that Roth tried to kill him.

Yeah what he realized on the Fredo slip at that weird club was that Fredo was actually involved.

 

[D-Day]

The trilogy is on sale at Apple for $10.

 

[Raider Nation]

The original coming up on HBO Sig.