The Godfather Part II

Agree. Dark and beautiful.

Keaton gets a door shut in her face in both films - first, shut out of the truth, then shut out of Michael and her childrens' lives.

The Godfather Part II and The Conversation are two of my favourite films of all time.

To think that Coppola made both those films in the SAME YEAR. Amazing.

Part II (1974) was made only two years after Part I (1972) - also amazing, especially since the scope of Part II is so much wider.

And then Coppola went on to make Apocalypse Now.

No wonder he burnt out creatively, but... who could blame him? He ruled the '70s.

I’m Italian. Sicilian. In 1974, when Godfather came out, it was a big deal with my Pop! When GodfatherII debuted, he cried during the scenes when they went to Sicily.

GF II is my absolute favorite of all the GF movies. A masterpiece!

Thanks, OP, for noting Gordon Willis' gorgeous cinematography.

I wonder if The Godfather series will be issued in 4K next year for the 50th anniversary. I'm sure there's going to be many things to commemorate the 50th anniversary.

The Godfather films -- well, 1 and 2 -- really live up to the hype. They are masterpieces.

Yeah, they were on TV yesterday, I watched them all day, hadn't seen these films for decades. Such a treat.

But Kay's clothes in especially that second film, and that hair! It looked like the abortion of their child that she declared to Michael that she'd had!

The evolution of Connie is interesting to me; in Part I, she is the baby "murder of Sonny. At the beginning of Part II, she is living a dissolute life in Vegas with "Merle" (Troy Donahue's real life name), but by the end of the film she is kneeling to Michael, kissing his hand and begging to "stay close to home" and take care of him. You kind of wonder what becomes of her eventually, especially once Fredo is gone - you get the sense that even though she probably knows what happened to him, she doesn't have the same violent reaction she had to her husband Carlo's murder. I see her maybe putting on a little weight as the years go by, maybe marrying one of Michael's henchmen like Al Neri or Rocco - no big wedding this time.

Sorry, somehow missed a few lines above: "She is the baby of the family, a spoiled Mafia princess, with that big splashy wedding and Johnny Fontane singing just to her. That of course ends badly, with the gruesome murder of Sonny."

In Godfather 3, she essentially become Lucretzia Borgia, an epic poisoner.

‘Becomes’, not ‘become’. -r13

I never think about Godfather 3. Ever.

Valid, r-15

The ending is devastating, and I know it’s “better,” but I still enjoy the first a lot more. The Sicily flashbacks are tedious to me.

In the novel version of The Godfather, Connie got over her anger about Carlo quickly and remarried within a year.

Let's revisit the brilliance that was the ending scene.

J’adore G3 Connie! She’s fabulous.

Love the back-and-forth of the movie. How obvious it is that the specter of his father Vito lingered over Michael, unable to do anything right.

Some of my favorite moments are the "I knew it was you" kiss and young Vito's almost operatic killing of the don in Italy.

I wonder what happened to the solid gold phone -

There's a good case to be made this is the greatest film of all time, certainly of American movies.

I love the Little Italy scenes in part 2 with De Niro as the young Vito—he was so brilliant in that role.

Do we like 1 or 2 better? Most people will say 1, but I prefer 2.

I love both, r25, but like you, I enjoyed 2 more. Everything with Fredo in it elevates 2 above the story told in 1. I also enjoyed the Little Italy segments.

Together, they are my second and third favorite movies of all time.

An Unmarried Woman is my favorite.

No dialogue needed in this flawless scene: a perfect blending of art direction, Gordon Willis' incredible photography, topped off with that perfect score.

The kid who plays Sonny is so perfect!

[quote]the Little Italy scenes in part 2 with De Niro as the young Vito

I never realized how attractive he was till I saw this. And I love the young newlyweds.

Remember Pauline Kael remarking on De Niro’s physical grace in that role and you can see it in the scene where he’s walking down the street balancing a basket of produce on his shoulder and when he’s on the rooftop after killing Fanucci.

I'll never understand how or why Pacino went from his brilliant and understated acting in this movie to the over-the-top hammy Pacino. Maybe it was the roles he took. He affects the viewer's emotions more here than when he is. SHOUTING. AT. YOU. See: The Devil's Advocate, "I'm a FAN OF MAN!" speech.

R6 - honey, a cute cub I was supposed to hook up with who was also a Ryanair junior pilot cries because he had to back to Sicily after the airline cut their staff size at the onset of the pandemic. It is pretty, but not a lot of opportunity.

Great post r30.

I actually forget what a great actor Pacino was when I revisit his '70s films, and even Cruising. I love Scarface but it seems like from 1983 and forward, he just dropped any subtlety or nuances in his work.

The Godfather Part II is so great because it's a classic American tragedy. The corruption of a once decent man or a man who showed initial promise and became hardened and finally alone because of that corruption.

It's still shocking that John Cazale was never nominated for an Oscar. He was always great. Maybe because he didn't have the showy roles in those great films he was in, but he was so integral to those movies, especially Godfather Part II. Fredo's fate is maybe the most important element in the film and Michael's downfall.

The ending of Godfather II breaks my heart.

Master class in acting right here; the lighting is so spectacular you can't even see their faces. These two would reunite the following year in DOG DAY AFTERNOON. Cazale was not nominated as Supporting Actor, although Michael Gazzo, Lee Strasberg and DeNiro (who won) were. One slot went to Fred Astaire for THE TOWERING INFERNO (!!!!) Pacino as Best Actor was passed over for Art Carney (!!!!) in that stupid HARRY AND TONTO.

This scene is stand alone perfection.

R33, the ending is indeed perfect, from the flashback to the ending scene of Michael alone outside. It was the correct ending to the Michael character arc. Instead we got Godfather 3. No one wanted to see a weak, ailing, and repentant Michael.

Minority opinion here, but I enjoyed 'The Godfather III' more than 'Part II.' It always struck me that the real reason 'III' was held in such ill regard was butthurt bitterness over the soiling the Church takes in the storyline.

R36 I don't think that had anything to do with the poor reception of the third movie. People didn't like the Church storyline, but more for reasons that it got way outside the scope of the original family and story and had a conspiracy type thing going. I also thought Andy Garcia's character was a little too cool and slick, the cousin love subplot was stupid, and (as I just posted above) no one wanted to see antihero Michael so hobbled.

R37, plus Sofia.

GF III had its moments.

It begins with another epic dance at a reception just like GF I and the last 40 minutes at the opera are beautifully filmed and the tense atmosphere that Coppola creates is very effective.

I was also moved by the scene where Michael confesses to the good-guy Cardinal of his ordering the killing of Fredo: (whispering) "I killed my mother's son".

But the screenplay is way, way too melodramatic, and, obviously, Sofia Coppola presence is, well, unfortunate.

Vincente Corleone (Andy Garcia) is still alive so, seriously I would not be surprised if there well be a GF IV.

there will be^

Too bad they couldn't leave well enough alone and had to make the execrable Godfather III. It should have ended with Godfather II; the image of Michael Corleone, alone, in a garden was the perfect ending.

Pacino was great again in "The Insider" (1999).

I think it's too late now for another Godfather. They should have done it when Garcia was still in his prime.

Imagine voting for the 1974 Oscars and deciding between The Godfather Part II, The Conversation and Chinatown.

R38 Yes, she's obviously not good, but I also think she's come to represent everything wrong with the third film when the problems were much bigger than her. A good screenplay could have withstood her acting.

Sorry to derail. Back to G2.

Godfather III lost me with that stupid helicopter flyover-hit attempt. Typical late 80s/early 90s Hollywood action-film stupidity. This isn't some goddamn Schwarzenegger film.

[quote]R41: Too bad they couldn't leave well enough alone and had to make the execrable Godfather III.

^^ Catholic.

[quote]R39: obviously, Sofia Coppola presence is, well, unfortunate.

Yeah, I could have done without her, and the whole hetero-cousin thing. I kept wincing every time they did close-up on her face.

But I disagree on the amount of melodrama. I thought it was just right for a film intended to finish the series.

I HATE GFIII but I watched the recut by Coppola that came out several months ago. While not on the same level of I or II it was much better and I enjoyed it.

I liked the recut too.

You don't have to be Catholic to despise GFIII, r44.

Sofia was supposedly pulled in at the last minute to replace Winona Rider, which may account for some of her awfulness... some.

[quote]I'll never understand how or why Pacino went from his brilliant and understated acting in this movie to the over-the-top hammy Pacino. Maybe it was the roles he took.

Maybe it was the cocaine he took, if rumors are true about him.

[quote]You don't have to be Catholic to despise GFIII, [R44].

R49, don't you mean R46?

Perhaps not, but it's a cinch that R41 is. From '𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮?':

[quote]The Bible contains a lot of wisdom. Also a lot of craziness; a woman made from the rib of a man, a talking snake, a woman who turns into salt, an ark with two of every living creature on earth in it. I can't believe there are people who actually take it literally.

Thank you for catching that, r50. Yes, I mean r46. What does being Catholic (or religious at all) have to do with disliking a shitty movie?

R51, the butthurt over 'Godfather III' is pretty specific to Catholics, since part of the storyline specifically references the Vatican Bank scandal of the early '80s, and connects it with the death of Pope John Paul I. The basis for this material was a book, 𝐼𝑛 𝐺𝑜𝑑'𝑠 𝑁𝑎𝑚𝑒, by David A. Yallop, 1984. Catholics intensely ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑒 any mention of the scandal, much the same as they do any mention of Church pedophilia and its attendant cover-ups. They're deeply offended by the notion that members of the Curia are political, and possess left/right political alignments; it does violence to their view of the Church as holy, and above political or business interests.

A lot of Catholics are deeply cynical about the church, r52. The more pious Catholics would be offended, but I really don't think mainstream American Catholics were.

Sofia should not have been cast in GF III. Her performance makes it watchable, only to laugh and break into applause at her demise. The script is weak and the acting sophomoric. Most comical scene: when Michael has a low blood sugar incident while visiting a monetary, or someplace. He requests candy and a priest walks in with a 23 pound tray of candy and orange juice with 20 seconds notice. It's called editing Francis!

R54, Winona Ryder had to drop out but I doubt she would have been much better. She is a good star but a mediocre actress.

A bit of GF2 trivia. Clemenza was scheduled to return in The Godfather Part II, but due to a disagreement between Castellano and Paramount, his character was killed off and was replaced by Frank Pentangeli.

r36, Sofia Coppola was part of the reason it's impossible to rewatch.

R49, what? Pacino was a cokehead? That's the first I've heard of that. I know he was a drunk but gave up boozing somewhere along the line.

[quote]A lot of Catholics are deeply cynical about the church, R52. The more pious Catholics would be offended, but I really don't think mainstream American Catholics were.

You'd be surprised, R53, what draws them out. It's the kind of thing that Catholics in general lost their goddamned minds over. No Catholic is so cynical that they abandon all hope in at least a core of the Church being the institution founded by Christ himself, against which the gates of hell supposedly cannot stand. Tell them instead that the Vatican is a political and business entity, with highly placed clergy having membership among the Freemasons, doing business in an 'Old World' organized crime way, in which even popes can be murdered, and they lose their shit.

It's like here on the DL: watch cynical, worldly homosexuals, self-professed agnostics and atheists, suddenly abandon all reason, scruples, and intellectual honesty when it's suggested to them that there's no evidence Jesus Christ existed. There's always something which flips the old religion switch back on. Then they fight tooth and nail.

[quote]the butthurt over 'Godfather III' is pretty specific to Catholics

I'm the only person I know who rewatches Godfather III, and none of my friends and family are even Christian, let alone Catholic. Some Catholics may have had an issue with it, but that's not why everyone else loathes it.

It was a popular rumor, r58. I have no idea if it was true or was just made up because of his role as Tony Whatshisface, but it's not unhesrd of for actors to toot the booger sugar at some point in their career.

[quote]I'm the only person I know who rewatches Godfather III, and none of my friends and family are even Christian, let alone Catholic. Some Catholics may have had an issue with it, but that's not why everyone else loathes it.

R60, not "everyone else" loathes it. Plus, your "friends and family" aren't "everyone else." Not even close.

A lot of Catholics hate it. One must not underestimate the weight of the Church in the panning some films take in the press, out of all proportion to their demerits. 'The Da Vinci Code' (2006) is another such example - detested by the Church, by Catholics, spitefully pursued for years afterward. Catholic authors, behaving as though they were early Christian Church Fathers, wrote books against it, and in some quarters, still haven't stopped bitching about it. (Understandable; they bitched about Marcion for centuries, until he ultimately became their single greatest formative influence.) 'The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) is yet another example of the truth to the adage, 'you haven't been hated till you've been hated by the Catholics.' That one backfired on them somewhat, since it seemed to have the effect of drawing viewers to the film, curious to see what all the vituperation was about. They've improved the technique of calumniating films somewhat since.

Then, too, "everyone is saying so" makes its contribution. Whether they want to admit it or not, most people don't make up their own minds about such matters, entirely independently of what others are saying. Unfortunately, public opinion is relatively easy to stampede. Even when people recognize the stampeding nature of spreading public opinion, they don't always recognize the source, like Scientology against the field of psychiatry, or the Russians against the Democrats. "I don't hate Hillary because of the Russians," says the typical Trumper, then proceeds to list a bunch of memes that originated among the Russians.

Is 'Godfather III' flawless? Certainly not. There's any number of things about it which I didn't care for, but I liked the film overall, in spite of those issues. But too many shit all over it, reflexively, as though conditioned to the response, and when asked about it, reach for and offer the reasons of others.

That is all.

[quote]your "friends and family" aren't "everyone else." Not even close.

Maybe not, but you aren't "everyone else," either- "not even close." I also chat about the Godfather on other websites, yet have never seen anyone else automatically accuse another poster of being Catholic when they dislike GFIII, and most of them do. Why not just admit that many consider it a turd, regardless of the religious angle?

R53 here. Too much vitriol.

I thought the topic was Godfather II.

Then say something about it, r65.

I already have, Fredo.

But not lately. Either keep the discussion going or quit bitching.

Coppola was insane for casting his non-actress, unattractive daughter as Mary Corleone. That whole storyline had to be changed because of it. Originally Mary Corleone was conceived as a very Americanized, independent, frisky young girl who unfortunately falls in love with her cousin. As Sofia Coppola plays she seems like a dumb, dull cow. Someone who worked on this film said of her casting: "They have fucked the love story." Another person said "I love Sofia but she has this teeny little girl's voice."

Coppola said he wanted to cast someone in the role who "looked like they could be the daughter of Al Pacino and Diane Keaton." So he chooses his daughter, who has never acted and doesn't look like she could be remotely related to either of them? Like I said, he was insane.

[quote] So he chooses his daughter, who has never acted and doesn't look like she could be remotely related to either of them?

That also explains casting Winona in Dracula. I mean, she's not a good actress at all and doesn't belong in anything taking place before the 50s.

Kay?

Seen both 1&2 a million times, r27, and I have no recollection of those children scenes at all!

Little Sonny was played by FFCoppola's son Roman.

Coppola hired all of his family members to work on his films at one time or another, except his nephew, Nicholas Cage.

You didn't see "The Cotton Club" either, eh, r74?

[quote] except his nephew, Nicholas Cage.

Funny, I was JUST thinking to myself how even Cage would have done a better job than Sophia in Godfather 3.

There couldn't have been more perfect music and it's instantly identifiable all these years later.

Vito and Michael were so different, Vito was a family man (crying a bit over baby Fredo being ill) helpful to the elderly (lady with dog), and wasn't he out Christmas shopping when he was shot? Michael had no idea what his kids got for Christmas and had his brother murdered. IIRC the ending shows the family gathered for Vito's birthday and upon his arrival home they all leave newly enlisted Michael alone, just like he was in Tahoe. Everyone loved and respected Vito, they only feared Michael

Here's the "Let's Be" thread for the Godfather movies.

[quote] Coppola hired all of his family members to work on his films at one time or another, except his nephew, Nicholas Cage.

Coppola directed Cage in Peggy Sue Got Married.

R80, the problem was that he didn’t direct him.

R69 "Coppola said he wanted to cast someone in the role who "looked like they could be the daughter of Al Pacino and Diane Keaton." '

This is apparently news to some, but Winona was not Coppola's original choice. I was working for her talent agency at the time. She got the role when Coppola's 1st choice was unavailable: Julia Roberts. Steel Magnolias hadn't even been released yet, and Julia was signed for the lead in Sleeping with the Enemy. She got three movie offers off of Mystic Pizza: Steel Magnolias, Pretty Woman, and Sleeping, (well, four if u include G3).

I know Julia is often maligned here on DL, (deservedly), but she would have been great. With the dark hair she had in Mystic, and her height, she could definitely been believable as the daughter of Pacino and Keaton. And her chemistry with Andy Garcia would have been off the charts. The love story would have made complete sense.

Substitute Julia for Sofia, give in to Robert Duvall's salary demands, and you might have had a great sequel, (or at least a much, much better one).

Julia Roberts would have been ghastly in the part; her look is too "modern" for a Mafia princess, esp those big old piano keyboard teeth and all that hair. And in terms of chemistry, she would have eaten Andy Garcia alive. Penelope Cruz would have been a better choice.

[quote] . Penelope Cruz would have been a better choice.

Penelope cannot shed her Spanish accent regardless of the movie she's in. It wouldn't work. She's a good actress in Spanish film and very beautiful though!

Laura San Giacomo was brought up as a replacement for Winona Ryder when Ryder dropped out due to "exhaustion>" I thought she would have been a good choice. She would have been great at playing the character as she was originally written (sexy, rebellious) and was Italian to boot. But the casting people didn't "want" her for some reason. At any rate I think she would have been a miles better choice than Winona Ryder, Julia Roberts and God knows Sofia Coppola.

My favorite film of all time. DeNiro was such a beautiful looking man and was incredible as Vito. Little Vito alone at Ellis Island broke my heart. And any film which features a live sex show in Havana is fine with me.

r69, initially he cast Wynona Ryder, who would have done a better job, not the best but a better job I'm sure. But some last minute drop out led him to cast his daughter. Sorry, I would have called up casting agents and said give me that round of almosts and we got to do this again.

82, Mystic Pizza Julia Roberts I may have brought. That was before she became that JULIA ROBERTS, actress, hard to disappear in a character.

We have no idea why people on here are praising the cinematography on the first two Godfather films.

Maybe a half-Italian actress like Mira Sorvino would fit the bill lookswise for Michael and Kay’s daughter.

Christina Ricci might have done a good job if she was just a tad older....

Another actress who actually had auditioned and gotten a callback was Rebecca Schaeffer. She was killed before she could take the opportunity any further.

I don't know how talented she was as an actress, but Schaeffer looked like a mash-up of Roberts and Ryder, so I could see Coppola being interested in her for the part.

Catherine Zeta-Jones was the right age and look. Not yet famous, of course.

I think Rebecca Schaeffer would have been fine as Mary Corleone. Of all the ones mentioned she seemed to be the best choice of the lot.

I wonder how different the film would have been had Coppola been able to convince James Cagney to come out of retirement to play the part that eventually went to Lee Strasberg

[Quote]Mira Sorvino would fit the bill lookswise for Michael and Kay’s daughter.

She was the right age and she definitely had the right look, very delicate, innocent doll face.. But she's 5'10". Could they have put Pacino in platforms?

Julia's tall too, but goodness, I could never believe her as a half - Sicilian, no matter how well she acted.

Jennifer Connelly might have worked. I think she's the same height as Al.

R19, I always thought the end scene signaled how Michael was all alone. Everyone he loved gone. I recently saw it again and googled some interpretations and apparently I was really off the mark.

R88- Before she became -A $100 million dollar budget, 2 page ad in the NYT ACTRESS

" I recently saw it again and googled some interpretations and apparently I was really off the mark."

How were you "off the mark?" I thought the ending was pretty obvious: Michael Corleone, due to his pathological desire for power and control, has destroyed his life, rendering himself totally alone and devoid of all human emotion. Look at his face; there's not a shred of humanity left in him. How could anyone interpret it any other way? By the way, it was the perfect ending. The Godfather saga should have ended once and for all right there. The third movie really fucked things up.

R96 Diane Keaton’s pretty tall, so it could have worked.

R100, it was a deep analysis about Michael and Vito as Dons and Michael’s destiny. I tried to find it, but I couldn’t. I think it was a bit much in retrospect. As I was looking for it I noticed that most people seem to have interpreted the way as we did.

r87 Coppola really wanted Sophia in the role. He began filming with her while the studio was still looking for replacements. He never had any intention of hiring someone else. He saw a chance to put his daughter in the film and took it.

I think Ryder would have been quite good in it if only that she was a very sweet and likeable performer at that time and seeing her be killed would have been quite shocking and sad for audiences. With Sophia you just don't care.

Anabella Sciorra and Laura San Giacomo were supposedly both approved by the studio and ready to fly over but it was too late.

[quote]But she's 5'10". Could they have put Pacino in platforms?

They didn't when he stood next to Keaton, so why worry about the height disparity with the daughter?

Keaton's reportedly just a inch taller, not Sorvino's four.

Anabella Sciorra would have been fantastic. She also looked like she could be the daughter of Keaton and Pacino.

It's odd that Coppola had the clout to cast his untrained and unattractive daughter in a major role, but not enough clout to get the very necessary Robert Duvall the salary he wanted.

I loved Anabella Sciorra, so sorry that shit with Harvey had to fuck up her career. Her older comeback in the Sopranos arc was fucking incredible.

Recently saw her on an episode of Law and Order. Glad she is working again.

I'm going to bump this thread--300+ posts about t.v. series that ended too soon and only 107 for the Godfathers?--and state that The Godfather (1) remains the best film. It was so unexpected in 1972 and ripped up the playbook for film going forward. The advertising, the naturalism of acting, lighting, sound, the actors nobody knew, the violence, the theme that just keeps getting more relevant about American corruption. It has my vote.

If you read the excellent book [italic]Easy Riders, Raging Bulls[/italic] about Hollywood in the Seventies, the author Peter Biskind makes the case that the person who was really responsible for the excellence of Godfather I was not Coppola at all (who just wanted to make a cheesy gangster family film like the original 1932 [italic]Scarface[/italic]), but rather the cinematographer Gordon Willis. It was his idea to make the film so shadowy and dark and textured.

R109 I remember in early limited screenings of Godfather people were saying how DARK it was, referring to the lighting and not the violence lol. Of course, it turned out to be genius.

R108 I revere them both but if I had to choose I might have to agree with you. The first Godfather had a seismic influence on popular culture. People were stunned. "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse" was all you heard for months. Horse heads in beds jokes. leave the gun take the cannoli. sleeping with fishes on and on...plus the debates about whether it was merely a good gangster film or something new.

Yes, the first Godfather was more monumental, one of the three or so most iconic films ever made. I think the second film is even better but that's because it builds and expands on the first one. It obviously couldn't exist withotu the first one. So while the first one is more influential, the second one is the better movie.

You're crazy as usual, R109. 0/10. Gordon Willis, The Prince of Darkness, was a collaborator with Coppola, who was in sole charge--decided on the cast, co-wrote the screenplay, chose the music, and directed like a genius. Nobody at the studio wanted Pacino, but Coppola insisted. Why would you want to downgrade the man?

As is the first film. When you see them together it’s a cinematic tour de force.

Aren't they making a series about the making of the Godfathers movies?

Pacino was never better than in these two movies, not before and not since. Same with DeNiro, "Raging Bull" excepted. Brando was restrained in his tour de force. The unrelenting pitiable nature of Cazale's Fredo has entered our lexicon for such a person.

The actresses, though in lesser roles, were no less brilliant. The dismissive reaction of the matriarch to Troy Donahue's "Mama." The sadness on Sonny's wife's face when she turns her head and instantly knows that Sonny is having it on with a bridesmaid. Kay's "This must all end!" marital death knell. Innocent and playful Apollonia and her "lightning bolt" stare.

And all the henchmen. Simply perfect in every scene, from loyalty to betrayal, from kitchen to Congress, from family to La Famiglia.

What "Godfather I and II" did was take the standard saga of the "American Dream" (of "Life, Itself," to quote Dr. Frank N. Further) and give it a twist, but a twist that showed us not only this criminal underworld, but showed us also....us.

The American Experience. Immigration. Capitalism. Generational striving. Conflict. Success. Simplicity. Complexity. Corruption.

Do you renounce Satan?

R6, Siciliana here! I can remember as a child, dancing with a bride and putting a dollar in her Bride Bag! The kitchen scene with the big pot of sauce and meatballs! Buying cannoli (though I actually dislike every type of Italian pastry!). My relatives lived in Bayonne. I used to say my grandfather was the only Sicilian-American not in the Mafia, and that's why my grandparents were poor!

Maybe I love these movies because I can relate!

Exactly, r32. In these two movies (I don't include G-3, and, indeed, have refused to watch it).....

We go from Don Corleone's Godfather who revered family above all, admonishing Sonny to do the same, and meeting his natural fate while laughing with his little grandson in a sun-lit garden; to Michael's Godfather who had his own brother murdered, and is left contemplating his life while sitting alone in an artificially-lit room.

Yet Vito is the one who sealed Michael's fate through his own choices. He should have negotiated more pragmatically with Solozzo: He ends up taking Solozzo's deal after Solozzo's death anyway in order to appease the other mob families. Had he done that, he wouldn't have been shot, Sonny would have lived to take over the family, Fredo would have stayed loyal as he wouldn't have been passed over for a younger brother, and Michael could have happily married Kay and been the mathematics professor he planned to be in the book.

But I believe the point of The Godfather, R117, was that NO ONE in the family escaped the curse of making yourself rich and secure by the use of robbery and murder. Don Corleone was miserable knowing he'd tainted Michael along with everyone else. That was Coppola's and Puzo's main point. "I believe in America," but America is the story of criminal violence making fortunes but granting no peace. It was revisionist fans who saw the first movie as being a family story. Yikes, who would want that daddy, that family???

R119, exactly. It's ultimately a story about fate. Michael did what he had to do (as he saw it) and ended up hated and alone. Tragic. Beautiful.

Pacino has said that he played Michael as if Michael didn't think of himself as a gangster, someone who had a bit of contempt for the whole scene. It's subtle.

John Aprea was way too handsome to grow up to be Tessio (Abe Vigoda). But Bruno Kirby sufficiently resembled Richard Castellano as Clemenza.

[quote]Aren't they making a series about the making of the Godfathers movies?

Armie Hammer was supposed to be in The Making of The Godfather miniseries but…you know.

No, thank you. I prefer my disbelief to remain suspended.

What was the reaction to the Oscar nominations? I always thought it was so odd that John Cazale and even Diane Keaton got left out and Talia Shire (in a nothing performance) and Lee Strasberg and Michael V. Gazzo got in.

Watched all three again over the past three days. I think Diane Keaton’s performances in the first two are extremely weak but oddly enough she’s pretty good in Part III/Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone.

I don't think Keaton was given much to work with. In the book, I like how Kay is characterized as someone who came to understand what Michael and the family were all about, but she decided that she was crazy about him anyway.

Yes, Kay had a lot more agency in the book. Unlike in the film, she is the one who pursues the relationship with Michael. After Michael murders Solozzo and flees the country, he assumes that Kay will have nothing to do with him. But Kay keeps in touch with Michael's mother, and it's Mrs. Corleone who tells Kay that Michael is back in the country and encourages Kay to come see him.

Michael is happy to see Kay, but he tells her up front that if they get married, there are things about his work he'll never be able to tell her. He does hope one day to make the Corleone family completely legitimate, but he can't guarantee that she won't end up a young, rich widow. She knows the stakes going in and acclimates very well, giving Michael two sons in just a few years. She admires her husband for his fairness and his devotion to his family (traits movie Michael loses).

Over time, Kay becomes a full-fledged Mafia wife, even converting to Catholicism and going to church every morning to pray for Michael's soul. The book ends with her praying for Michael, not being devastated by the fact that he is a Mafia don. Book Kate knows what her husband is all along, and she is pretty much fine with it. The suggestion is that Book Michael and Kay will have a long and happy marriage even if Michael never does go legit.

I like book Kay a lot more.

At the end of the novel "The Godfather" I didn't get the impression that Kay and Michael have a "happy" marriage. It's a marriage where Kay has to accept the fact that her husband is a liar and a murderer in order to continue living with him. She does that because she loves him (but does he really love her? I don't think so) but in order to cope with it she becomes a devout Catholic, praying for his soul every day the way his mother prayed for his father's. It really is a depressing ending.

I would gladly have watched many more hours of Vito's childhood and the De Niro Little Italy family story, if they could have been just as well-written, by some miracle, as the material that actually exists. I wish there could have been a whole series of movies about them, like they did with Harry Potter, slowly developing the story of Vito's ascent to the top of the Mafia family tree.

Wouldn't it have been something to have the fun of anticipating the next Godfather movie each year for seven or eight years? With Harry Potter, though, they always had the source material to draw from (and it was already conveniently divided into clear sections), whereas here, they didn't have much more of the original writing to draw from, nor could they have retained all of that acting talent over such a long period, I guess.

It makes a nice daydream, though.

R119 I agree with you that the Godfather story show the futility of any expectation that a criminal life will bring contentment, but I'm not sure that was the point. I don't think the movies had a point, if that means a cautionary aspect or a moral reckoning. As far as the family theme, no family is secure, no family is safe.

Don Corleone was disturbed that Michael was taking over but that was only because he wanted Michael to be the clean Corleone who would consolidate their power. The Don apologized for nothing. In some ways, it seems he WAS content. He knew America was a jungle despite the rhetoric and propaganda. A man does what he has to do to protect his family.

R130, I see your point. Let me clarify by saying that Book Michael and Kay will have a long, SUCCESSFUL marriage that will strongly resemble the one Vito had with his wife. Book Kay strongly respects her mother-in-law and models herself after the older Mrs. Corleone. It's not clear if Book Michael is capable of loving Kay the way he loved her before the Solozzo killing and his experiences in Sicily, but it's clear that he respects and trusts her, and that respect and love will grow over time as Vito's did for his wife. That IS love for a man in Michael's position.

Even if the Solozzo shooting hadn't happened, Vito might have ended up disappointed. He wanted Michael to be Senator Corleone or Governor Corleone, the living proof that Vito beat the medigans at their own game and put his son in a position of legitimate power. Michael, on the other hand, told Kay that he wanted to be a mathematics professor.

A little Michael V. Gazzo trivia. He wrote "A Hatful Of Rain," which if you haven't seen the movie, you should. It deals with a Korean War vet who's addicted to morphine. It stars a pre-North by Northwest Eva Marie Saint, the ever-hot Don Murray, Tony Francisosa, and Lloyd Nolan. It's really a terrific movie.

Well, R130, of course it's depressing. What else could it be? Puzo and Coppola (especially Puzo) knew mafia guys and these portraits of their lives are not meant to be uplifting. You can't be a good family man and a murderer. It's sociopathic to think you can, but as we've seen from the way the masses misinterpreted the films to be paens to patriarchal family life, I guess sociopathy is as popular as ever--at least in entertainment.

So somewhere in between Part II and Part III Kay got custody of the kids? And are we really supposed to buy Connie thinking Fredo had died? With a bullet in the back of his head?

I think Michael loved Kay, but was in love with Apollonia and would have remained married to and had children with her if only....

I grew up in an Italian neighborhood in Queens, NY. I think that to a lot of my friends' parents, the mob story line wasn't as important as the traditions of Italian life, both in NYC and Italy, were what made people love the movie.

Before Sollozzo, college-boy Michael loved Kay. Post-Sollozzo Michael loved Apollonia carnally and possessively, like a good Sicilian. Had she lived, that would have mellowed into the deep, unquestioning trust and respect that Vito had for his wife. Post-Apollonia Michael knew he needed a wife and mother for his children, and since Kay was 'pre-vetted' as it were, he settled for her.

Book Michael grew to trust and respect Kay the way that his father respected his mother, while Movie Michael grew increasingly indifferent to Kay while they were married and then hated her once she had the abortion. Of course, Book Kay and Movie Kay were very different creatures.

R137 I think someone convinced Michael to allow Kay to at least see the kids when she was in town (she got remarried, started another family, and moved FAR away, iirc) as part of his "rehabilitation".

Michael is in deep denial re. Fredo; Connie knows what happened, but she's invested in protecting Michael's mental health.

I don't think Michael was capable of loving anyone. I think he liked Kay; he liked being with her, he liked having sex with her. With Apollonia he was hit with the "thunder bolt", which I guess is supposed to be love at first sight, but it really wasn't. It was lust at first sight; it was "pure possession." He wanted to own the beautiful girl, lock her away and keep her all to himself. There was no love in that at all.

In the novel when Michael gets back to the U.S. he doesn't try to contact Kay at all. She learns from his mother he's back and is angry and offended that he didn't tell her and figures he doesn't care about her. His mother convinces her to come and and see him so she does and they reunite and fall into bed quickly. She asks him if he loves her and he doesn't tell her that. He says that when he got back and saw his family it was nice, but no big deal. But when he saw her he was glad. He asked her if she thought that was love and she said it was close enough for her. No, I don't think Michael really loved any woman.

If Harry wants to be with Meghan, fine. He's proven through his actions that he was toxic long before he married her--Palace PR just covered it up. Birds of a feather.

That said, if they'd quit with the attacks on his family, I'd wish them well with all of their publicity chasing in Cali. Of course, without the attacks on the family, there would be no publicity, so I guess those aren't going away.

Sorry--wrong thread.

Michael seemed capable of love before he got involved with the family war, but perhaps that was always just camouflage, like his nice college boy persona.

Maybe deep down, he was always just like his father and just waiting for circumstances to bring it out. If his father had convinced him to be a senator or governor, he might have ended up just as terrifying and corrupt.

Kay never finds out about Appolonia in either the book or the film, right?

No, she never does.

Yes, r140. Michael, when he came home to his Godfather destiny, turned to respectable, dependable, WASP Kay for a respectable, dependable family life. The better to infiltrate "respectable" society (all of whose institutions are shown as corrupt, so why keep out the Corleones?).

I read the novel ages ago and thought it was great. But after seeing these two iconic, brilliant, star-turn movies, why even care about the book?

R147, in Part III Kay mentions Appolonia. She knew he’d gotten married in Sicily.

Really, r149? Who would have informed her? Surely not Michael himself? And who else from his time in Sicily would be able to contact Kay? (Fabrizio wouldn't have dared!)

I NEVER think about Godfather III. EVER!

R151 There was a third Godfather?

Vito probably knew about Apollonia--I'm sure he had spies in Italy keeping an eye on Michael. He wouldn't tell Kay, though. I also think Michael mentions Apollonia to Tom at the end when they're taking their final revenge on the other mafia families at the end, as if Tom were already familiar with the story. Tom would keep his mouth shut too.

R150, I watched Part III a few days ago. When Michael is showing Kay around the house where he lived when he was in Sicily she mentions his marriage. She definitely knew about Appolonia.

Just rewatched the scene in Part III. Michael and Kay are in the Sicilian house where he stayed in. Michael says “I spent a lot of time in this room thinking of you.” Kay replies “And then you got married.” Michael replies “I still spent a lot of time thinking about you.”

I have to read the book again. I know it will have no bearing on Godfather2 but I need to get back to the original story. GodfatherII is the only sequel I know that surpasses the original. Just beautiful.

"why even care about the book?"

Because it really was a good book. And it fleshes out the story and characters considerably.

It has an entire chapter about Lucy Mancini, the slutty girl who fucks the married Sonny while she's in a bridesmaid gown at the wedding of her friend Connie Corleone. She and Sonny have a torrid affair based entirely on sex. She believes that he is the only man who can "make her body achieve the act of love", that is, an orgasm. After he's killed she tried to commit suicide; the Corleone family takes pity on her and sets her up in Vegas as a secretary in the hotel they own. There she meets a cocky asshole doctor named Jules Siegel; he used to be a promising young surgeon but was blackballed because of performing abortions. A friend of his pulls some strings and he got a job as the doctor for the hotel, where he basically does nothing but treat the Vegas showgirls for VD and gives them abortion. He inexplicably and immediately falls in love with her and tries to have sex with her, but she keeps putting her off. He finally gets her drunk and fucks her and finds out her "secret"; she has a loose vagina. That didn't matter with Sonny because his huge penis could get friction from even her big box, but with other men are turned off by it. Jules diagnoses her problem as "weakening of the pelvic floor" and arranges for a doctor friend of his to do the vagina tightening surgery free of charge. After she's healed up they try out his "work" and rut like weasels. He gives her a huge engagement ring but won't marry her until he sees he " has a future"; I think Michael Corleone talked about building a hospital and having him run it. Anyway, I think in subsequent Godfather novels Jules Siegel is killed off because Michael suspects him of giving Kay an abortion. Anyway, at no time does Lucy ever get pregnant with Sonny's baby. That was an entirely made up plot line for the Godfather III.

It was something out of a daytime soap and unworthy of The Godfather Saga.

So Godfather (just I and II of course) or Goodfellas.

Is Goodfellas more realistic and less romanticized? But is Godfather more powerful ultimately? Discuss.

I go back and forth on this, personally. But could discuss forever.

Goodfellas is definitely more realistic, though I've heard mafia experts claim that the most realistic mob movie is Donnie Brasco, as it shows you how low-level street guys really operate. It's not a glamorous life at all: You get up every morning trying to figure out what crap you can steal so you can kick up to the sleazy capo who runs your crew. If you don't kick up enough, you lose favor and can even be taken out over nothing. A shitty deal.

I agree about Donnie Brasco and I think that Goodfellas is in that same vein -- low-to-mid level mafioso trying to work their way up. I think GF 1&2 more realistically depict the higher eschelon mafia bosses. Casino portrays those old capos very realistically, far away from the action just collecting money and letting the low-level guys do the work.

Goodfellas has that feel of realism, but the Godfather movies speak to something much bigger than the mafia - whether that's the American dream, fulfilling one's destiny, father and son. It's really not a comparison of like things. But if forced to pick which is better, then absolutely the Godfathers.

R157, You're quoting me. I said I'd read it and the book was great; I didn't assign a book report.

Well, you're trying to compare a legit saga that spans generations, countries, states, and history to a serio-comic look at a small slice of the mid- to late-20th C. NYC Mafia, focusing on its King Rat.

Two different species. Enjoy it all.

I find Goodfellas and The Godfather to be very different. Great films but different.

An article/video that talks about specific scenes from TV & movies… the headline is misleading, he was never a boss.