Michael didn't know Fredo betrayed him until they were at the strip place and Fredo said Johnny Ola told him about the place when Fredo had previously told Michael he didn't know Ola or Roth.
49:25 One of the greatest moments in film history ever for me. Michael seemingly forgiving Fredo, he puts his arms around Fredo, the score swells as Fredo buries his face in Michael's chest and desperately clings on to him, digging his hands into Michael's back, finally forgiven, finally redeemed... he thinks. Then the camera swtiches to the pitch black gaze of Michael, slowly rising up, and he rests it on Al Neri, the hitman. Neri knows, we all know. ;(
Agreed. One thing, Kay Adams is Catholic too, (but American born), but she resented the Mafia thing so much she had, as she put it, the baby killed, despite her Catholism, to stop the cycle (there is a deleted scene in which Kay was lighting votive candles, praying to God for Him to save Micheal showing that she was a devoted Catholic).
@@arrow1414 She's not. She is from a New England protestant family. A daughter of a Baptist pastor. Obviously she converted to catholicism when she married Michael, but that's not excatly being catholic through and through. Her act of TRYING to become a good cathotic and fit in obviously is destroyed by the abortion. There is a lot more about it in the book which is where the deleted scene also takes it from of course. She is a much better, considerate and wiser person in the book too.
@@arrow1414Tom had Kay and the kids on lockdown in the family compound after Michael left. Either Kay snuck out, or she did the abortion herself with a coat hanger.
@@nrkgalt Were not certain when the lockdown ended, and I doubt she would do it herself, but I admit it would immediately convince Tom that it was a miscarriage. He wouldn't have known the difference if he saw the literal gory details first hand.
Tom the adopted brother is my fav character so underrated in this film Robert Duvall such a great actor the whole cast was legendary and young deniro playing Vito
Underrated and overlooked, just like his character Tom, who's only ever been 100% loyal to the family and to Michael, and still is met with suspicion and even hostility from Michael as he spirals downwards .. 😭
Fantastic commentary! I especially loved your verdict on the acting during the big Al Pacino/Diane Keaton scene!! The best thing to follow up this with is one of two movies: the same year as this, Coppolla directed ANOTHER masterpiece, "The Conversation". Both were nominated for Best Picture (Godfather 2 won). And the NEXT year, 1975, Al Pacino and John Cazale (Fredo) were in the amazing true crime story, "Dog Day Afternoon", directed by.....Sidney Lumet, who directed 12 Angry Men! John Cazale is in both movies actually, "Conversation" and "Dog Day Afternoon" (he was only in one other movie, "Deer Hunter", then he died of cancer. All classics). These guys were all on a roll! You might like "Dog Day Afternoon" and "The Conversation" even more "the Godfathers", they are both top shelf classics, I promise you!
When young Vito came back for Don Ciccio, one of their friends (the one who introduce him) was Tomassino. Tomassino, much older obviously, helped Michael in Italy when he killed the police officer and Sollozo. If you remember, Tomassino walked always with a cane due to a limp. That limp was produced because of the shot on the knee when he was young, in that moment when Vito took revenge on Don Ciccio.
Franky's brother showed up to let him know not to snitch on a fellow Italian... and keep his honor! Also, Tomasino, the guy who almost had his legs blown off, is the Don in part 1, who helps Michael take refuge in Italy.
I love when the younger generation discovers the classics. Great reaction! If you do a deep dive ? Both films (but especially Part Two) reflect actual events ... The Moe Green assassination, for example, reflects the real life slaying of Benjamin ''Bugsy" Siegel. and the Hyman Roth character is based on real life Jewish gangster Meyer Lansky. And there were real life Senate inquiries into organized crime. Brilliant writing.
Michael didn't know about Fredo until the show in Havana. Fredo had told Michael earlier he didn't know and never met Roth or Johnny Ola but Michael overheard him telling Geary that Johnny Ola had taken him to the show before. Can't believe you missed that look Michael shot.
It was a very subtle look by Michael, he plays his cards so close to his chest. If you've been watching it for 50 years it's obvious but first time watchers often miss it.
Enjoyed your reaction. Micheal met his match in his enemy Hymn Roth. It was like both of them were playing chess trying to outmaneuver each other. It was brilliant. In my opinion, both Micheal and Fredo are tragic characters in The Godfather Part 2. In trying to protect his family, Micheal ends up losing his family instead. What makes this movie even more tragic was the flashback at the end. Fredo was the only person to support Michael joining the army. Fredo had his flaws, but he did love his brother. Micheal always wanted to go his own way, but in the end, he could not truly escape the family business. Robert De Niro won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his potrayal of the young Vito! The main difference between Vito and Micheal was that Vito was loved. But Micheal ruled by fear. And BTW, if you think Connie has changed in this film, you ain't seen nothing yet! 😉 The Godfather Part 3 is not a Masterpiece like the first two films. But the movie does have its moments. But you be the judge. I look forward to seeing your reaction to The Godfather Part 3.
Be sure to check out John Cazale (Fredo) and his old friend Al Pacino together again in the terrific, much-honored true crime story "Dog Day Afternoon" (1975) about a bank robbery that goes haywire. No spoilers. You'll love it.
Many are going to say don’t bother with part 3 but it is worth watching to complete the story of Michael. Part 3 is not the masterpiece that parts 1 & 2 are but honestly no movies are. Hope you watch part 3.
Troy Donahue, a movie idol from the 1950s (recommended: "Imitation of Life" and "A Summer Place") plays Merle Johnson. Can you guess what his name was before he went into show business? .It was Merle Johnson.
What a lot of people miss about Frankie Pentangeli is the dinner scene at the party in Nevada. He was complaining about being made to wait in the lobby(while already visibly drunk btw), but then he gets to sit at the family table for dinner. That's a very small circle he is allowed into as a not blood related or partner/spouse of a blood related person. Obviously that's a an honor and recognition of his position to the family. In fact he is the ONLY person at that table that is not family(obviously Tom is). He acts like a drunk fool, then does it again in the meeting with Michael and Michael still gives him a free pass and writes it off under "old man had too much to drink". Michael treats him with a lot of respect a leeway given the situation. That adds to the tragedy of Frankie's mistake.
No, Michael even tells him at 9:41, "Your family still carries the name Corleone." Michael's behavior as don is utterly reprehensible. Frankie is the bravest of all Michael's victims, so he's the one who tries to warn Michael of his dishonorable conduct. After Tom (perhaps even equal to Tom), Frankie is the Corleone with the most honor and respect. His conduct at the party was not because he was drunk, it was because he was angry at the transgressions committed against him. Michael cannot seem to understand Frankie's logic, but it is 100% sound under the code of the family. Michael is blinded to that code by his intense and intractable narcissism. He's basically Sonny without the impulsivity. For me, the message of the trilogy and the book is the cosa nostra is no good because it doesn't live up to the standards it claims for itself. IOW, it's based on constant lying about family mattering, about loyalty, respect, honor and tradition, none of which its leaders practice but they lie to their minions about it in order to rope them in and keep them where they're wanted. Once Frankie understood this, he stopped caring about Michael and his affairs and started defending his own interests as best he could. As anyone thinking clearly would have done. Michael was toxic to everyone and everything. Eventually, Frankie understood this and responded correctly to the situation. Had he understood this at the film's opening, he wouldn't have even gone to that party. But it took a lot for his eyes to be opened. Tom's experience was on a similar track. He probably picked up on it sooner, but managed to stay out of Michael's crosshairs and slowly extract himself. Had he been Sicilian, it's hard to think he could have succeeded in that.
I don’t feel it was a mistake. When the hitman is strangling Frank he tells him that this is courtesy of Michael Corleone. How was Pentangeli to know that Hyman Roth and the Rosado brothers staged the whole thing in order to get Frank to turn against the Corleone family? Naturally, he thought that they had betrayed him. Most people would probably have been fooled by that whole scenario. Ross and company were very smart to do that. However, Michael was smarter.
@@MsAppassionata Hi. If you'll indulge me, i have a slightly different take on it. The Rosattos did not strangle Frankie to turn him against Michael. They strangled him with the intent to delete him. They only didn't succeed in this because the cop intervened. The reason they attributed it to Michael was either to make the bartender spread the word amongst the Corleone soldiers that it was Michael (to turn them against him) or because it was, in fact, Michael. Now supposing it wasn't Michael, the question would be who else might it have been? It would have to have been someone in league with the Rosattos, and with a reason to believe that Frankie and/or Michael posed a threat to the new, merged enterprise. That belief is the motive for the hit on Frankie, and also for the prior hit on Michael. Michael initially gives every indication of being certain that Frankie was involved in the hit on him and his immediate family. He states very clearly that he understands there's a mole in his close family and that this mole assisted with trying to take him out. He also states that he intends to expose this mole. Later, he asserts that the mole was in league with team Roth, Roth's motive being to remove the Corleones completely from the new venture so they could be replaced with people who wouldn't need to be paid so well and would be more subservient to Roth. Michael's theory that Frankie aided the hit because he wanted to defect to Roth simply makes no sense. We know, and Michael also knew, that Frankie couldn't stand the Rosattos or Roth and would never prefer them over the Corleones as long as he had any choice. For Michael to think that Frankie would cooperate with them to try to push the Corleones out of power was totally delusional. On the other hand, if Michael didn't believe this, then there's an open question of who Michael thought responsible for the attempt on Frankie. If Michael ever understood that Frankie was hit because of his undying loyalty to Michael, he certainly doesn't show much evidence for such belief. Which leads me back to my earlier alternative. What if Michael himself ordered the hit on Frankie, because he felt that Frankie's refusal to accept the partnership with Roth's enterprise was essentially treason against the family Corleone? If that were the case, then there are no strange lingering questions or inconsistencies. Michael knew early on that Frankie had nothing to do with the hit on him, but Michael didn't trust Frankie not to collaborate with the Rosattos in the future, because Michael was simply paranoid and delusional. Everything Michael was doing with Roth and the Rosattos was responsible for bringing trouble to the family, and Michael would never tolerate this dangerous conduct from his own people, but being the incredible hypocrite he was, he saw no problem with doing it himself, and didn't really care what effect his actions had on Frankie's family or anyone else. What he saw as potential treason if Frankie were to do it, Michael proudly and openly did himself, without considering it the least bit disloyal toward his family. Similarly, once we understand how paranoid Michael really is, Roth himself can be seen as potentially innocent in all of this. The assassin could have been some local New York family or perhaps someone avenging Moe Green. When Roth says 'I didn't ask because it had nothing to do with business', it's easy to see that as inculpatory of Roth, but it's just as possible that Roth had no idea who it was and was just trying to teach Michael that it was better for business to just let it go. A lesson that clearly fell on deaf ears.
@@no_rubbernecking 1. When Michael says that he is just reprimanding his underling and rightfully so. Frankie was way out of line and Michael's comment is actually indication of Michael handling it softly. When Michael intends to get back at somebody for their actions/words he tends to maintain radio silence until the hit. 2. The behavior of a head of a crime family is reprehensible? How? From the POV of society and the law - yes, it certainly is. But that is what they ALL are in crime. Within the world of organized crime there is no such thing as questioning the boss's position of power. You don't seems to understand most of the story. The boss does not have to explain himself to anybody because he has plans nobody should know about. It is the nature of that criminal business. If the boss ORDERS Frankie to do something Frankie does not need to understand or like it. It is a very simple and rigid power structure, it's not a democracy. 3. Frankie s a victim now? Again, did you watch the movies. Through the mouth of Hyman roth we hear "this is the life we chose". Frankie is a mobster. He decided to betray his boss out of stupiditty, failed and payed for it. He is not a victim or Michael's victim. He is a victim of his own decision to choose a life in crime if anything. 4. And again you did not understand the most important part about the mob. Honor, respect, decency are words they utter all the time, but they don;t mean bullcrap IRL. It's a busines, a bloody, dirty business and all that matters is who comes out on top. Frankie tells Michael what he thinks. And exctly for that Michael lets it slide. A drunken fool, but an honest fool who was always loyal. Michael does not punish him for that. He punishes him for betrayal he commits later. 5. Criminals have no honor or even respect. Those are words they use to deceive. 6. Frankie is angry and drunk. That is why he lets it all out. Michael explained to him as much as he could without jeopardising his plans. Frankie was just too dumb to understand. And that is bad. "Women and children can be careless, but not men". That includes understanding what is going on. If the boss tells you to turn a blind eye on those transgressions you have to THINK. There is either a bigger plan you don't know about or the boss is writing you off. Frankie was helped by Michael's enemies to decide it's the latter. He made a mistake. A huge one that would cost him everything. 7. You are telling me the sharpest mastermind in America's organized crime of that time(that is what Michael is deppicted as in the movies) can't understand Frankie's or anything for that matter? Michael perfectly understands every single bit. He even makes that dissappointed expression when Frankie fails to understand. And that expression means he likes Frankie, but Frankie is too dumb to see through his plans or just trust him on this. that upsets Michael. 8. Michael is a true leader. A leader of a crime family. A murderer, a thief and a criminal, but a highly efficient leader. Narcissism is the last attribute you could possibly put even near Michael. He calculates every detail, free of prejudice, free of emotions. He is Sonny without the impulsivity. And Sonny as we are told in the book was a pretty good leader in crime himself with that big flaw Michael does not have. You completely misread the relations between them all. 9. What standards? Standards of roganized crime? The at least partially deserved critisizm is glorifying the life in crime. 10. Your read on Frankie is amzingly wrong. Frankie did not need to understand anything there. He was just doing his crime thing as always. He voiced his complaint, but was denied by Michael. He did the right thing by still obeying his boss while not understanding his intentions. He is going to the meeting to strike a deal with the Rosatos. And there he gets played. That's it. There is nothing complictaed there. There is no deeper meaning to it, no sudden realization. Also what he thinks occured to him is an avery day occurence in their world. Why would it change his views on anything? He thinks he was supposed to be killed, so he seeks protection and turns against those who he thinks wanted to kill him. What you don't understand is in the world of crimnals everyone minds their own interest alone at all times. It's how they live every minute of their lives. 11. Toxic what? Again, what standards are you talking about? He is crime familiy boss. He is "toxic" as in killing people. That's his life. Vito was just as "toxic" as Michael. Maybe more and maybe more deceitful than Michael who was that intimidating master of Evil while Vito could maintain a finer facade. They are all evil people. What did Frankie think that he joined a boys choir? 12. Tom is a mob lawyer, covering up for murder, extortion, all kinds of crimes. Tom's experience? Tom is a loving, loyal brother. Unlike the dumb ones he perfectly understands what Michael is dong and why. And he knows exactly what their business is. They are both in it. Tom is not better or worse person than Michael. That is the tragedy(in theatrical sense). There is family life going on, there is love and children and all, but it all happens in a world of crime where people are getting killed just like that.
@@MsAppassionata How was Frankie to know? As mentioned in another comment "women and children can be careless". And to use another quote from the movie - when Michael talks to Fredo and Fredo admits his betrayal and tells "they" i.e. Roth's people told him he'd help the family by helping Roth Michael asks him even sarcastically "And you believed that story?". Michael goes on to call Fredo straight up dumb at sone point. They live in a world of crime. Believing something somebody told you without thinking is just dumb. Michael never believes anybody until he analyzes all the input. Granted most people do not live in the underworld. This is why the audience often understandably misreads those situations. Where Roth was smart is in his assesment of Frankie's intellectual prowess. He calculated correctly Frankie would fall for it i.e would make the mistake of misreading the situation by taking the most obvious assumption for granted. But that is exactly why Frankie is not the boss. And btw while Michael outplayed Roth in the end Roth's game was good and Michael was in real danger. Hagen tells that straught up. And the end of Frankie's story is in line with the narrative too. Michael is ruthless towards his enemies. He wipes everybody out. He lets Frankie take the "easy" way of suicide out. That's Michaels way of still treating Frankie differently. Partially because Michael understood the situation. Frankie was actually loyal, but not smart enought to see through the lies. Michael does not let people live. That's the most he could do for Frankie - the arrangement with Tom.
Hyman Roth is played by legendary acting teacher Lee Strasburg, Frank Plantangeline was played by award-winning playwright Michael Gazzo, and the Senate Committee members were played by various screenwriter, filmmaker friends
Fun fact: the guy that got blown up heading to the car after helping Vito get away when he killed the old Don, was the guy helping Michael when he was hiding in Sicily.😎
Robert DeNiro did not speak Italian (he is only one-quarter Italian) so to prepare for his role he went to Sicily with a tape recorder to record not only the language but the regional dialect
Every time I watch Michael and Kay scene about the abortion, I can not believe how good they are playing, I don't know if I ever seen anything better in acting as that scene, it is really unbelievable how good they are acting, and i have heard some comments about Diane Keaton that her acting was not soo good in this movie, are you guys serious ?, just that scene and also after the shooting the look she gives to Michael, oh soo good, I would die to know how she did that look, no words, just a look, so real................
The character of Plantangeline was created to replace Clamenza because actor Paul Castellano refused to do the movie unless his associate wrote his lines, although his widow (he died in the 80s working as a garage mechanic in New Jersey) claimed he was replaced because he had lost weight and the filmmakers wanted him to gain it back and he refused.
Michael brought Vincenzo from Italy for the Senate hearing because he knew Frankie would be ashamed of betraying the family in front of him. If Vincenzo went back home and told people in Italy Frankie had become a traitor he would lose his family in the sense that they would not accept him anymore.
Like Star Wars, the whole script was written together at the beginning. It was too large to convert into one movie. This is why it is so good and consistent.
Interesting that you find Part II better than the original. You aren't alone with your opinion. For me, I enjoyed the original Godfather more than Part II. However, I also believe Part II is the BEST SEQUEL movie ever made. There is no correct opinion here because BOTH movies were EPIC, in their own way. I truly appreciate your style of reacting. Thanks again for bringing us The Corleone Family!
Be wary of the multiple meanings within the Italian language. When Vito and Don Ciccio meet at the club with the short payoff. Don Ciccio's words and body language mean 2 different things among Italians. The pinch and smack on the face at the end was Vito's death sentence in the future. It's a disregard but Vito got to him first.
The reason why they ran the two timelines is because you wold see the differences between Vito/Michael. One man would create his family, The other would DESTROY it.
@@CourtReacts-zm9yv It also highlights the difference between Vito & Michael. Vito has some heart & warmth. Michael is cold & calculating. Which explains a lot.
@@actioncom2748 Michael didn't destroy his family! Fredo betrayed him. Santino was murdered. Appolonia was murdered in place of Michael. Connie couldn't get over the man that set her brother up to be murdered by beating her. Then after her mother died she came home. Kay never should have been anything. Michael didn't destroy his family.
GF 3 (either version) is worth a watch if only for closure of the saga. There is a scene between Michael and a future pope that is IMO some of Pacino's best acting in the whole saga. The only real problem with 3 is that it's a decent movie (nominated for Best Picture) but had a legacy of the two great earlier ones that it could never live up to.
Great movie..... but I disagree with people who say it's better than the first one..... to me the first one is better for a few reasons..... for one the grandiose performance by Marlon Brando... number two the character Arc that Al Pacino pulls off as Michael goes from uninvolved war hero to cold stone-hearted killer.. and there was just an overall stronger sense of character in the first one... anyways both great movies!
Absolutely!!! The score, screenplay, casting, acting, direction, and cinematography 😊 the first was the original and can't be matched 😊 also face it without the absolute Masterpiece of the Godfather. Part II doesn't exist.
I can’t stand the Cuban stuff in this movie... it’s really boring. The young Vito stuff is interesting but I don’t see him as the same character as the older Don CORLEONE. I like the first one better.
@@scottdarden3091 "without the absolute Masterpiece of the Godfather. Part II doesn't exist." That's the worst take I've ever heard. OF COURSE there wouldn't be a Part 2 without the first movie, that's why it's called Part 2, genius! Also, Part 1 was basically foundation. Part 2 is so good that it both expands on Part 1 and tells Vito's story as a prequel. There's very VERY few sequels that can stand up to the original movie in a series, so it's to Pat 2's credit that it is thought of as being Part 1's equal.
For more on the mob underworld surrounding the casinos and hotels in Las Vegas, check out the (aptly named) movie Casino from 1995. Directed by Martin Scorsese and starring, well, everyone, but the main trio is played by legendaries Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, and Sharon Stone. Fantastic performances throughout, and a really engaging story.
Book Vito initially is scornful of Michael's wartime heroism. "He does those things for strangers," he complains. How ironic that when Michael turns to family-first he winds up the Biblical man who's gained the whole world and lost his own soul.
There is a Godfather III. It's the weakest film of the three, but it fleshes out Michael and still showed the same themes as the others and completes the saga. Worth a watch!
I suggest you watch "the godfather, part 3", the 1991 director's cut. Other people suggest the new "coda" version, but i believe it is inferior. The 1991 version is better.
Unbeknownst to the actor playing the landlord, a nail waa placed through the door of Vito's office so his struggling to open the door was real and what he was saying were ad-libs.
Lots of criminality, even murder in these two masterpiece movies but if I had to choose one villain I'd say Kaye. She was weak and spiteful, she killed the baby not to "stop" anything, Michael already had a son. She was mad and vengeful and wanted to hurt Michael. If Appalonia had lived Michael would have turned out much more like his father. A traditional, loving Sicilian wife would have been what he needed
There's a small detail at end of the book worth noting. Kay converts to Catholicism and raises their children in that faith. Michael, however, would have preferred to have them brought up as Protestants, because it would be "more American."
When you do the next film, make sure its Coppolas " Godfather Coda" version. And not the Godfather Part 3 version. (As Coppola says, it's not really part 3 after so many years so Coda is more accurate.) But this film can get more complex than the first two, particularly since it also makes use of some real-life events. So you may have to pay more attention and speak less. Otherwise you can't complain about any confusions.
The Godfather Part II is the BEST of the Godfather films! I agree that The Godfather is also great--and I like The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone. But, for me, Part II is perfection! As you said, all of the performances are excellent--De Niro is amazing! The story and the plot have so many layers--and the two timelines weave those layers into a masterpiece!
Do yourself a favor and stop here! Don't bother with the dumpster fire known as Part 3. Also, don't listen to people who say "it isn't that bad" because IT IS THAT BAD! Just be happy that you've watched 2 masterpieces and leave it at that!
Michael didn't know Fredo betrayed him until they were at the strip place and Fredo said Johnny Ola told him about the place when Fredo had previously told Michael he didn't know Ola or Roth.
49:25 One of the greatest moments in film history ever for me. Michael seemingly forgiving Fredo, he puts his arms around Fredo, the score swells as Fredo buries his face in Michael's chest and desperately clings on to him, digging his hands into Michael's back, finally forgiven, finally redeemed... he thinks. Then the camera swtiches to the pitch black gaze of Michael, slowly rising up, and he rests it on Al Neri, the hitman. Neri knows, we all know. ;(
Sicilian Catholic girl Apollonia would never have asked Michael questions about his business or killed a baby.
I agree 100%.
Agreed. One thing, Kay Adams is Catholic too, (but American born), but she resented the Mafia thing so much she had, as she put it, the baby killed, despite her Catholism, to stop the cycle (there is a deleted scene in which Kay was lighting votive candles, praying to God for Him to save Micheal showing that she was a devoted Catholic).
@@arrow1414 She's not. She is from a New England protestant family. A daughter of a Baptist pastor. Obviously she converted to catholicism when she married Michael, but that's not excatly being catholic through and through. Her act of TRYING to become a good cathotic and fit in obviously is destroyed by the abortion. There is a lot more about it in the book which is where the deleted scene also takes it from of course. She is a much better, considerate and wiser person in the book too.
@@arrow1414Tom had Kay and the kids on lockdown in the family compound after Michael left. Either Kay snuck out, or she did the abortion herself with a coat hanger.
@@nrkgalt
Were not certain when the lockdown ended, and I doubt she would do it herself, but I admit it would immediately convince Tom that it was a miscarriage. He wouldn't have known the difference if he saw the literal gory details first hand.
"To you, she's beautiful. For me, there's only my wife and son."
good man
Vito's wife was more beautiful, too!
Tom is the backbone of this family.
Tom the adopted brother is my fav character so underrated in this film Robert Duvall such a great actor the whole cast was legendary and young deniro playing Vito
Underrated and overlooked, just like his character Tom, who's only ever been 100% loyal to the family and to Michael, and still is met with suspicion and even hostility from Michael as he spirals downwards .. 😭
Fantastic commentary! I especially loved your verdict on the acting during the big Al Pacino/Diane Keaton scene!! The best thing to follow up this with is one of two movies: the same year as this, Coppolla directed ANOTHER masterpiece, "The Conversation". Both were nominated for Best Picture (Godfather 2 won). And the NEXT year, 1975, Al Pacino and John Cazale (Fredo) were in the amazing true crime story, "Dog Day Afternoon", directed by.....Sidney Lumet, who directed 12 Angry Men! John Cazale is in both movies actually, "Conversation" and "Dog Day Afternoon" (he was only in one other movie, "Deer Hunter", then he died of cancer. All classics). These guys were all on a roll! You might like "Dog Day Afternoon" and "The Conversation" even more "the Godfathers", they are both top shelf classics, I promise you!
When young Vito came back for Don Ciccio, one of their friends (the one who introduce him) was Tomassino. Tomassino, much older obviously, helped Michael in Italy when he killed the police officer and Sollozo. If you remember, Tomassino walked always with a cane due to a limp. That limp was produced because of the shot on the knee when he was young, in that moment when Vito took revenge on Don Ciccio.
My Italian-American wife always says "Michael shouldn't have married a whitehead." Meanwhile, she married me. A whitehead.
Franky's brother showed up to let him know not to snitch on a fellow Italian... and keep his honor!
Also, Tomasino, the guy who almost had his legs blown off, is the Don in part 1, who helps Michael take refuge in Italy.
DeNiro is so good. Speaks all his lines in Sicilian.
Frankie and Tom scene is one of the great dialogue ever written.
Well, DeNiro tries. I think Siciclians will acknowledge his effort of course, but it's not like he's speaking like a true Sicilian.
I love when the younger generation discovers the classics. Great reaction! If you do a deep dive ? Both films (but especially Part Two) reflect actual events ... The Moe Green assassination, for example, reflects the real life slaying of Benjamin ''Bugsy" Siegel. and the Hyman Roth character is based on real life Jewish gangster Meyer Lansky. And there were real life Senate inquiries into organized crime. Brilliant writing.
Michael didn't know about Fredo until the show in Havana. Fredo had told Michael earlier he didn't know and never met Roth or Johnny Ola but Michael overheard him telling Geary that Johnny Ola had taken him to the show before. Can't believe you missed that look Michael shot.
It was a very subtle look by Michael, he plays his cards so close to his chest. If you've been watching it for 50 years it's obvious but first time watchers often miss it.
@@izzonj It wasn't subtle. Michael almost collapsed and did a palmface.
Greetings from Vancouver Island, Nice reaction as always Courtenay thanks.
Hey there! Thanks for watching!
I don't think Michael suspected Fredo, but he knew for certain when Fredo ran his mouth and revealed he did indeed know Johhny Ola and Old Man Roth.
Yes, he ran his mouth way too much.
Enjoyed your reaction. Micheal met his match in his enemy Hymn Roth. It was like both of them were playing chess trying to outmaneuver each other. It was brilliant. In my opinion, both Micheal and Fredo are tragic characters in The Godfather Part 2. In trying to protect his family, Micheal ends up losing his family instead. What makes this movie even more tragic was the flashback at the end. Fredo was the only person to support Michael joining the army. Fredo had his flaws, but he did love his brother. Micheal always wanted to go his own way, but in the end, he could not truly escape the family business. Robert De Niro won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his potrayal of the young Vito! The main difference between Vito and Micheal was that Vito was loved. But Micheal ruled by fear. And BTW, if you think Connie has changed in this film, you ain't seen nothing yet! 😉 The Godfather Part 3 is not a Masterpiece like the first two films. But the movie does have its moments. But you be the judge. I look forward to seeing your reaction to The Godfather Part 3.
Moe Green is Bugsey seagull, Herman Roth is Milla Lanskie, Frankie the singer is Frank Sinatra
The festival they were showing in this still happens in NYC in little Italy every year❤ such good food
really enjoyed your reaction Court. You're a smart cookie.
I never clicked soooooo fast!!! Yes!!! I am here for it!!!❤❤❤️
Hope you enjoy! Thanks for watching!
In many European cultures a light slap in the face is considered a sign of affection.
Be sure to check out John Cazale (Fredo) and his old friend Al Pacino together again in the terrific, much-honored true crime story "Dog Day Afternoon" (1975) about a bank robbery that goes haywire. No spoilers. You'll love it.
Your insight and appreciation are laudable. I've become a fan of your reactions.
That is so sweet! Thank you 😊
Many are going to say don’t bother with part 3 but it is worth watching to complete the story of Michael. Part 3 is not the masterpiece that parts 1 & 2 are but honestly no movies are. Hope you watch part 3.
Troy Donahue, a movie idol from the 1950s (recommended: "Imitation of Life" and "A Summer Place") plays Merle Johnson. Can you guess what his name was before he went into show business?
.It was Merle Johnson.
A legend in GODFATHER lore is that the cop at the door in the rug stealing scene was McCloskey.
"She looked good in the casket though" Hahahahaha 48::00
What a lot of people miss about Frankie Pentangeli is the dinner scene at the party in Nevada. He was complaining about being made to wait in the lobby(while already visibly drunk btw), but then he gets to sit at the family table for dinner. That's a very small circle he is allowed into as a not blood related or partner/spouse of a blood related person. Obviously that's a an honor and recognition of his position to the family. In fact he is the ONLY person at that table that is not family(obviously Tom is). He acts like a drunk fool, then does it again in the meeting with Michael and Michael still gives him a free pass and writes it off under "old man had too much to drink". Michael treats him with a lot of respect a leeway given the situation. That adds to the tragedy of Frankie's mistake.
No, Michael even tells him at 9:41, "Your family still carries the name Corleone." Michael's behavior as don is utterly reprehensible. Frankie is the bravest of all Michael's victims, so he's the one who tries to warn Michael of his dishonorable conduct. After Tom (perhaps even equal to Tom), Frankie is the Corleone with the most honor and respect. His conduct at the party was not because he was drunk, it was because he was angry at the transgressions committed against him. Michael cannot seem to understand Frankie's logic, but it is 100% sound under the code of the family. Michael is blinded to that code by his intense and intractable narcissism. He's basically Sonny without the impulsivity.
For me, the message of the trilogy and the book is the cosa nostra is no good because it doesn't live up to the standards it claims for itself. IOW, it's based on constant lying about family mattering, about loyalty, respect, honor and tradition, none of which its leaders practice but they lie to their minions about it in order to rope them in and keep them where they're wanted.
Once Frankie understood this, he stopped caring about Michael and his affairs and started defending his own interests as best he could. As anyone thinking clearly would have done.
Michael was toxic to everyone and everything. Eventually, Frankie understood this and responded correctly to the situation. Had he understood this at the film's opening, he wouldn't have even gone to that party. But it took a lot for his eyes to be opened.
Tom's experience was on a similar track. He probably picked up on it sooner, but managed to stay out of Michael's crosshairs and slowly extract himself. Had he been Sicilian, it's hard to think he could have succeeded in that.
I don’t feel it was a mistake. When the hitman is strangling Frank he tells him that this is courtesy of Michael Corleone. How was Pentangeli to know that Hyman Roth and the Rosado brothers staged the whole thing in order to get Frank to turn against the Corleone family? Naturally, he thought that they had betrayed him. Most people would probably have been fooled by that whole scenario. Ross and company were very smart to do that. However, Michael was smarter.
@@MsAppassionata
Hi. If you'll indulge me, i have a slightly different take on it. The Rosattos did not strangle Frankie to turn him against Michael. They strangled him with the intent to delete him. They only didn't succeed in this because the cop intervened.
The reason they attributed it to Michael was either to make the bartender spread the word amongst the Corleone soldiers that it was Michael (to turn them against him) or because it was, in fact, Michael.
Now supposing it wasn't Michael, the question would be who else might it have been? It would have to have been someone in league with the Rosattos, and with a reason to believe that Frankie and/or Michael posed a threat to the new, merged enterprise. That belief is the motive for the hit on Frankie, and also for the prior hit on Michael.
Michael initially gives every indication of being certain that Frankie was involved in the hit on him and his immediate family. He states very clearly that he understands there's a mole in his close family and that this mole assisted with trying to take him out. He also states that he intends to expose this mole.
Later, he asserts that the mole was in league with team Roth, Roth's motive being to remove the Corleones completely from the new venture so they could be replaced with people who wouldn't need to be paid so well and would be more subservient to Roth.
Michael's theory that Frankie aided the hit because he wanted to defect to Roth simply makes no sense. We know, and Michael also knew, that Frankie couldn't stand the Rosattos or Roth and would never prefer them over the Corleones as long as he had any choice. For Michael to think that Frankie would cooperate with them to try to push the Corleones out of power was totally delusional.
On the other hand, if Michael didn't believe this, then there's an open question of who Michael thought responsible for the attempt on Frankie. If Michael ever understood that Frankie was hit because of his undying loyalty to Michael, he certainly doesn't show much evidence for such belief.
Which leads me back to my earlier alternative. What if Michael himself ordered the hit on Frankie, because he felt that Frankie's refusal to accept the partnership with Roth's enterprise was essentially treason against the family Corleone?
If that were the case, then there are no strange lingering questions or inconsistencies. Michael knew early on that Frankie had nothing to do with the hit on him, but Michael didn't trust Frankie not to collaborate with the Rosattos in the future, because Michael was simply paranoid and delusional.
Everything Michael was doing with Roth and the Rosattos was responsible for bringing trouble to the family, and Michael would never tolerate this dangerous conduct from his own people, but being the incredible hypocrite he was, he saw no problem with doing it himself, and didn't really care what effect his actions had on Frankie's family or anyone else.
What he saw as potential treason if Frankie were to do it, Michael proudly and openly did himself, without considering it the least bit disloyal toward his family.
Similarly, once we understand how paranoid Michael really is, Roth himself can be seen as potentially innocent in all of this. The assassin could have been some local New York family or perhaps someone avenging Moe Green. When Roth says 'I didn't ask because it had nothing to do with business', it's easy to see that as inculpatory of Roth, but it's just as possible that Roth had no idea who it was and was just trying to teach Michael that it was better for business to just let it go. A lesson that clearly fell on deaf ears.
@@no_rubbernecking 1. When Michael says that he is just reprimanding his underling and rightfully so. Frankie was way out of line and Michael's comment is actually indication of Michael handling it softly. When Michael intends to get back at somebody for their actions/words he tends to maintain radio silence until the hit.
2. The behavior of a head of a crime family is reprehensible? How? From the POV of society and the law - yes, it certainly is. But that is what they ALL are in crime. Within the world of organized crime there is no such thing as questioning the boss's position of power. You don't seems to understand most of the story. The boss does not have to explain himself to anybody because he has plans nobody should know about. It is the nature of that criminal business. If the boss ORDERS Frankie to do something Frankie does not need to understand or like it. It is a very simple and rigid power structure, it's not a democracy.
3. Frankie s a victim now? Again, did you watch the movies. Through the mouth of Hyman roth we hear "this is the life we chose". Frankie is a mobster. He decided to betray his boss out of stupiditty, failed and payed for it. He is not a victim or Michael's victim. He is a victim of his own decision to choose a life in crime if anything.
4. And again you did not understand the most important part about the mob. Honor, respect, decency are words they utter all the time, but they don;t mean bullcrap IRL. It's a busines, a bloody, dirty business and all that matters is who comes out on top. Frankie tells Michael what he thinks. And exctly for that Michael lets it slide. A drunken fool, but an honest fool who was always loyal. Michael does not punish him for that. He punishes him for betrayal he commits later.
5. Criminals have no honor or even respect. Those are words they use to deceive.
6. Frankie is angry and drunk. That is why he lets it all out. Michael explained to him as much as he could without jeopardising his plans. Frankie was just too dumb to understand. And that is bad. "Women and children can be careless, but not men". That includes understanding what is going on. If the boss tells you to turn a blind eye on those transgressions you have to THINK. There is either a bigger plan you don't know about or the boss is writing you off. Frankie was helped by Michael's enemies to decide it's the latter. He made a mistake. A huge one that would cost him everything.
7. You are telling me the sharpest mastermind in America's organized crime of that time(that is what Michael is deppicted as in the movies) can't understand Frankie's or anything for that matter? Michael perfectly understands every single bit. He even makes that dissappointed expression when Frankie fails to understand. And that expression means he likes Frankie, but Frankie is too dumb to see through his plans or just trust him on this. that upsets Michael.
8. Michael is a true leader. A leader of a crime family. A murderer, a thief and a criminal, but a highly efficient leader. Narcissism is the last attribute you could possibly put even near Michael. He calculates every detail, free of prejudice, free of emotions. He is Sonny without the impulsivity. And Sonny as we are told in the book was a pretty good leader in crime himself with that big flaw Michael does not have. You completely misread the relations between them all.
9. What standards? Standards of roganized crime? The at least partially deserved critisizm is glorifying the life in crime.
10. Your read on Frankie is amzingly wrong. Frankie did not need to understand anything there. He was just doing his crime thing as always. He voiced his complaint, but was denied by Michael. He did the right thing by still obeying his boss while not understanding his intentions. He is going to the meeting to strike a deal with the Rosatos. And there he gets played. That's it. There is nothing complictaed there. There is no deeper meaning to it, no sudden realization. Also what he thinks occured to him is an avery day occurence in their world. Why would it change his views on anything? He thinks he was supposed to be killed, so he seeks protection and turns against those who he thinks wanted to kill him. What you don't understand is in the world of crimnals everyone minds their own interest alone at all times. It's how they live every minute of their lives.
11. Toxic what? Again, what standards are you talking about? He is crime familiy boss. He is "toxic" as in killing people. That's his life. Vito was just as "toxic" as Michael. Maybe more and maybe more deceitful than Michael who was that intimidating master of Evil while Vito could maintain a finer facade. They are all evil people. What did Frankie think that he joined a boys choir?
12. Tom is a mob lawyer, covering up for murder, extortion, all kinds of crimes. Tom's experience? Tom is a loving, loyal brother. Unlike the dumb ones he perfectly understands what Michael is dong and why. And he knows exactly what their business is. They are both in it. Tom is not better or worse person than Michael. That is the tragedy(in theatrical sense). There is family life going on, there is love and children and all, but it all happens in a world of crime where people are getting killed just like that.
@@MsAppassionata How was Frankie to know? As mentioned in another comment "women and children can be careless". And to use another quote from the movie - when Michael talks to Fredo and Fredo admits his betrayal and tells "they" i.e. Roth's people told him he'd help the family by helping Roth Michael asks him even sarcastically "And you believed that story?". Michael goes on to call Fredo straight up dumb at sone point. They live in a world of crime. Believing something somebody told you without thinking is just dumb. Michael never believes anybody until he analyzes all the input. Granted most people do not live in the underworld. This is why the audience often understandably misreads those situations.
Where Roth was smart is in his assesment of Frankie's intellectual prowess. He calculated correctly Frankie would fall for it i.e would make the mistake of misreading the situation by taking the most obvious assumption for granted. But that is exactly why Frankie is not the boss. And btw while Michael outplayed Roth in the end Roth's game was good and Michael was in real danger. Hagen tells that straught up.
And the end of Frankie's story is in line with the narrative too. Michael is ruthless towards his enemies. He wipes everybody out. He lets Frankie take the "easy" way of suicide out. That's Michaels way of still treating Frankie differently. Partially because Michael understood the situation. Frankie was actually loyal, but not smart enought to see through the lies. Michael does not let people live. That's the most he could do for Frankie - the arrangement with Tom.
Hyman Roth is played by legendary acting teacher Lee Strasburg, Frank Plantangeline was played by award-winning playwright Michael Gazzo, and the Senate Committee members were played by various screenwriter, filmmaker friends
So many great scenes, and a great reaction vid.
Fun fact: the guy that got blown up heading to the car after helping Vito get away when he killed the old Don, was the guy helping Michael when he was hiding in Sicily.😎
Robert DeNiro did not speak Italian (he is only one-quarter Italian) so to prepare for his role he went to Sicily with a tape recorder to record not only the language but the regional dialect
Another good movie with Al Pacino,and John Casel is 1975 Dog day afternoon definitely a 10✌️❤️
Every time I watch Michael and Kay scene about the abortion, I can not believe how good they are playing, I don't know if I ever seen anything better in acting as that scene, it is really unbelievable how good they are acting, and i have heard some comments about Diane Keaton that her acting was not soo good in this movie, are you guys serious ?, just that scene and also after the shooting the look she gives to Michael, oh soo good, I would die to know how she did that look, no words, just a look, so real................
The character of Plantangeline was created to replace Clamenza because actor Paul Castellano refused to do the movie unless his associate wrote his lines, although his widow (he died in the 80s working as a garage mechanic in New Jersey) claimed he was replaced because he had lost weight and the filmmakers wanted him to gain it back and he refused.
The festival is called San Gernnaro
Michael brought Vincenzo from Italy for the Senate hearing because he knew Frankie would be ashamed of betraying the family in front of him. If Vincenzo went back home and told people in Italy Frankie had become a traitor he would lose his family in the sense that they would not accept him anymore.
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for watching!
@@CourtReacts-zm9yv You are very welcome!!
Like Star Wars, the whole script was written together at the beginning. It was too large to convert into one movie. This is why it is so good and consistent.
Morgana King ("Mama Corleone") refused to get in the casket in the funeral scene. The woman in the casket is Coppola's mother wearing a wig.
Interesting that you find Part II better than the original. You aren't alone with your opinion. For me, I enjoyed the original Godfather more than Part II. However, I also believe Part II is the BEST SEQUEL movie ever made. There is no correct opinion here because BOTH movies were EPIC, in their own way. I truly appreciate your style of reacting. Thanks again for bringing us The Corleone Family!
Thank you so much for watching! Both movies are wonderful. I am a sucker for a good backstory which made Part II even more enjoyable for me. ☺
@CourtReacts-zm9yv Point well taken. BOTH movies are so GREAT. No matter what the movie anyone chooses, there can be no disagreement.
@@NicholasRamos You are correct!
Be wary of the multiple meanings within the Italian language. When Vito and Don Ciccio meet at the club with the short payoff. Don Ciccio's words and body language mean 2 different things among Italians. The pinch and smack on the face at the end was Vito's death sentence in the future. It's a disregard but Vito got to him first.
The reason why they ran the two timelines is because you wold see the differences between Vito/Michael. One man would create his family, The other would DESTROY it.
It was a great decision on their part to show both timelines.
@@CourtReacts-zm9yv It also highlights the difference between Vito & Michael. Vito has some heart & warmth. Michael is cold & calculating.
Which explains a lot.
@@actioncom2748 Michael didn't destroy his family! Fredo betrayed him. Santino was murdered. Appolonia was murdered in place of Michael. Connie couldn't get over the man that set her brother up to be murdered by beating her. Then after her mother died she came home. Kay never should have been anything. Michael didn't destroy his family.
@@scottdarden3091 I don't agree. If Michael had his pop's humanity, it wouldn't come to betrayl and loss of love.
@@actioncom2748 I don't think he ever loved Kay.
When Barack Obama became president and flew over Lake Tahoe in Air Force One he looked out the window and muttered, "Poor Fredo."
Part three isn't that bad. You could react to it (?)
@fernandopalomino1419 Indeed, the "trouble" with Part III is that the previous ones casts such a large shadow over it.
Great movie but I still prefer part 1
Great reaction watching from PEI Canada
GF 3 (either version) is worth a watch if only for closure of the saga. There is a scene between Michael and a future pope that is IMO some of Pacino's best acting in the whole saga. The only real problem with 3 is that it's a decent movie (nominated for Best Picture) but had a legacy of the two great earlier ones that it could never live up to.
Great movie..... but I disagree with people who say it's better than the first one..... to me the first one is better for a few reasons..... for one the grandiose performance by Marlon Brando... number two the character Arc that Al Pacino pulls off as Michael goes from uninvolved war hero to cold stone-hearted killer.. and there was just an overall stronger sense of character in the first one... anyways both great movies!
Absolutely!!! The score, screenplay, casting, acting, direction, and cinematography 😊 the first was the original and can't be matched 😊 also face it without the absolute Masterpiece of the Godfather. Part II doesn't exist.
Folks just gotta disagree for no apparent reason lol…but i digress, 1 is better for sure
I can’t stand the Cuban stuff in this movie... it’s really boring. The young Vito stuff is interesting but I don’t see him as the same character as the older Don CORLEONE. I like the first one better.
I agree with you 100%. Michaels character arc was one of the best in cinematic history!
@@scottdarden3091 "without the absolute Masterpiece of the Godfather. Part II doesn't exist." That's the worst take I've ever heard. OF COURSE there wouldn't be a Part 2 without the first movie, that's why it's called Part 2, genius! Also, Part 1 was basically foundation. Part 2 is so good that it both expands on Part 1 and tells Vito's story as a prequel. There's very VERY few sequels that can stand up to the original movie in a series, so it's to Pat 2's credit that it is thought of as being Part 1's equal.
And the other friend is younger Tessio!!
For more on the mob underworld surrounding the casinos and hotels in Las Vegas, check out the (aptly named) movie Casino from 1995. Directed by Martin Scorsese and starring, well, everyone, but the main trio is played by legendaries Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, and Sharon Stone. Fantastic performances throughout, and a really engaging story.
It is not better, it's almost as good IMO but you can not improve on perfection.
I like the first one better
They are both wonderful films 😊
He told Gredo in the meeting with Moe Greene. Don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again.
Book Vito initially is scornful of Michael's wartime heroism. "He does those things for strangers," he complains. How ironic that when Michael turns to family-first he winds up the Biblical man who's gained the whole world and lost his own soul.
There is a Godfather III. It's the weakest film of the three, but it fleshes out Michael and still showed the same themes as the others and completes the saga. Worth a watch!
I'd walk away a winner if I was her. This is how it was supposed to end but whatever
I suggest you watch "the godfather, part 3", the 1991 director's cut. Other people suggest the new "coda" version, but i believe it is inferior. The 1991 version is better.
Unbeknownst to the actor playing the landlord, a nail waa placed through the door of Vito's office so his struggling to open the door was real and what he was saying were ad-libs.
The slap clearly didnt fly with Vito.
Walk away a winner now.
Dig it*..
On to the 3 rd!
No you didn’t! Yes you did!!
Lots of criminality, even murder in these two masterpiece movies but if I had to choose one villain I'd say Kaye. She was weak and spiteful, she killed the baby not to "stop" anything, Michael already had a son. She was mad and vengeful and wanted to hurt Michael. If Appalonia had lived Michael would have turned out much more like his father. A traditional, loving Sicilian wife would have been what he needed
There's a small detail at end of the book worth noting. Kay converts to Catholicism and raises their children in that faith. Michael, however, would have preferred to have them brought up as Protestants, because it would be "more American."
Fidel Castro was the biggest Godfather of the lot.
The Godfather Part 2 is the Greatest sequel of all time!
You're pretty
When you do the next film, make sure its Coppolas " Godfather Coda" version. And not the Godfather Part 3 version. (As Coppola says, it's not really part 3 after so many years so Coda is more accurate.) But this film can get more complex than the first two, particularly since it also makes use of some real-life events. So you may have to pay more attention and speak less. Otherwise you can't complain about any confusions.
The Godfather Part II is the BEST of the Godfather films! I agree that The Godfather is also great--and I like The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone. But, for me, Part II is perfection! As you said, all of the performances are excellent--De Niro is amazing! The story and the plot have so many layers--and the two timelines weave those layers into a masterpiece!
Do yourself a favor and stop here! Don't bother with the dumpster fire known as Part 3. Also, don't listen to people who say "it isn't that bad" because IT IS THAT BAD! Just be happy that you've watched 2 masterpieces and leave it at that!