I hate the fact that John didn't get to do more. He was great.

Pacino said he learned more about acting from John then from any other actor!

Right? How in the hell did she miss that?

To be fair, the two Godfather movies are sooo dense that it requires multiple viewings to get all the nuances. Godfather two especially has soo many douple plays.

Charles Zerillo knows these places like the back of his hand!

And Frank Pentangeli was a famous playwright prior.

@@rustincohle2135 never knew that

This was Lee Strasberg first film role. And he was the first choice to play Mickey Goldmill in the 1976 hit Rocky.

Also known as the father of method acting. One of the first major actors to bring this in cinema was Marlon Brando. Both were part of The Godfather series.

@@scientia.veritas No. Strasberg had nothing to do with Brando. He was teached by Stella Adler.

Michael was more ruthless than his father.

Also: All 3 of his sons show certain personality-traits of Vito. Sunny inherited Vitos passion and temper. Fredo got his kindness and soft side. And Michael got his intelligence. All 3 of them have these certain aspects of Vito and I love it. It really shows that the 3 are indeed Vito's sons. Only too bad that these 3 personality-traits do not always work well on their own. At least not in this scenario. Sorry for my bad english

@@mafiosipepperoni7375 that's a very astute observation and your English is spot on. Bravo.

@@NeilLewis77 Thank you so much ☺️🙏

Everyone went to Vito, but Michael went to war. Sonny introduced his sister to the man that would marry, abuse her, and set him to be killed. And whether he knew they were going to make an attempt on Mochael and his family's life or not, Fredo conspired with enemy. Connie was so angry at Michael for killing her abusive husband, who set up her own brother's execution, that she purposely did things to herself, to hurt him. And Kay admitted she had an abortion, because she was disgusted by the thought of having another male child by him, while taking a shot Sicilians in general. Probably the closest thing Michael had to a normal family experience was he was courting Apolonia in Italy. Michael's misery is direct result of his dysfunctional family. One of the most unique parts of the table scene, was Michael smiling, because he rarely had a reason to.

Wow! Great story. I did not know that.

You just made me cry, what a story! Thank you!

John Cazale was in five films. All of them nominated for Oscars. Two won best picture.

well put

He made a mistake re marrying a western feminist. If only he married another Apollonia

@@victoriazheng2295 kay had nothing to do with the downfall of the family. Although Michael joined for the sake of his family (to protect his father), he in fact destroyed it- he killed his own brother and pushed his wife away

He didn't destroy his family, the mafia did. That lifestyle is poison.

What did Vito gain? Money? Clout? Fear/respect? He had to watch his oldest son turned into Swiss cheese, and his youngest, the one he wanted to legit, embrace the mob culture. There are no winners.

The final scene where Michael is sitting alone is a telling scene.I mean it shows us the audience a foreshowing of Michael's future being alone(symbolikely.

I’ve seen the script with Marlon Brando. It would have been Michael and Vito in the office and Vito tells Michael has plans for him but Michael said he had his own plans for his future. Same dialogue Michael had with Tom.

Actually marlon brando wanted to appear in the flashback scene for part 2 but he had a disagreement the people of paramount pictures i think.

Clemenza: “Go take a walk around the neighborhood -- do your job.”

For a hitman Clemenza is quite loveable.

@@isobelswan I've met a couple and they can be quite sociable and fun. There's plenty killers with big smiles

@@maniac50ae14 most murderers I meet are scarily normal.

@@isobelswan do you meet lillers regularly? If so, how?

It was Frankie’s family but still under the Corleone family flag.

Yeah. The music changed when he looked at his guard/assassin and even he was uncomfortable.... But I was prolly missed that too the first time I think.

Michael was the scapegoat.

The cop was in Roth's pocket sent there at the time of the meeting

I don't get these reactors who don't discuss the movie at the end, just sit there and laugh and say one or two words. You didn't do that! You had some great insights!

very good points.

Well said.

It's a movie you're talking about it as if it's real life.

@@dublinsfaircity a film set in the real world and meant to to reflect it. It’s called film analysis, does every bit of discussion about any fiction need prefaced with “I know this isn’t real, but”?

@@dublinsfaircity You don't understand the point of cinema or art in general.

Madisin did see it.

I don't think Micheal was a monster he was the right person to deal with the forces moving against his family.

I think calling him a monster is unjust and too facile. He destroyed his enemies (who tried to kill him and/or his family). What do you expect him to do? Sing Kumbaya and hold hands?

So absolutely true. Hats off to Madison's intellect and artistic maturity. By the way, don't skip G III, Madison! I think people who poo-pooed it didn't recognize the truths in it, especially as they relate to the current corrupt era!!

He actually covers his face and almost falls to his knees.

@@catherinelw9365 he’s totally shattered.

What life? I got no life! I'm in the dark, here!

He's good in it but Scarface is soooooooo much better and it's Pacino's greatest performance. I would say that Pacino as Tony Montana, is the greatest piece of acting that has ever been recorded. I'll also go so far as to say that no actor has, or ever will, be better as it would be impossible. Scarface is the best movie of all time and Pacino's performance in it is the greatest piece of acting that will ever be.

@@davejoe2592 As I said in my original comment, Subtle, internal performances are the hardest to do. Pacino is great in Scarface but a lot of different actors could be great in that role. Tony Montana is a role that lends itself really well to overacting and it's just the kind of ridiculous over the top role actors love to do. A lot of actors could do Tony Montana, very few actors could do Michael Corleone without it being a one note, forgettable "man that frowns" performance. Tony is a character you would have to try to make forgettable, Michael is one you would have to try to make memorable.

Not to be pedantic but Rome began as a kingdom, then became a republic, then an Empire, but your point still stands.

😆

Because Vito wasn’t going to give Don Fannuci the money anyway. He wanted Clemenza and Tessio’s trust first with the money.

That was Fredo's good trait but selling out his brother to Johnny Ola who I am sure was the 3rd man in the woods who killed the assassins early in the film was pathetic. Fredo insisted he didn't know it was going to be a hit but that confirms he told Ola Michael's plans for that evening and when thr party is over the assassins should make their move.

@@germanenglishengineer2054 No, Fredo really didn't know and it highlights his stupidity, it's the very reason his father didn't want him in charge.

@@germanenglishengineer2054 Yes, I second that you are entirely wrong.

That's an illusion. Michael was trained to take out enemies, foreign and domestic. He put Fredo out of his misery. They all know the rules. Michael at least waited until his mother was dead. By mafia standards Michael is kind.

Sonny was murdered because his sister's husband set him up...Vito died of heart attack, Fredo kept going against Michael, including being involved in assassination attempt. Blaming Michael for these things is weak sauce.

A more fitting expression would be "sins of the father" Michael had to singlehandedly save his father's life, and prevent the demise of his family.

1930’s New York scenes were filmed but was trimmed out of Part 2.

Indeed. Darth Vader deserved a much better backstory. We waited years for that and we only get a 2 visions and a lousy: "Will you join? Yes." Lucas was more busy doing fancy cheesy action instead sadly. The one time he shouldn't...

My take is he never really loved Kay. She was a vehicle for him to have kids with someone familiar. In reality, after appalonia died, michael should have just scooped up the cutest ignorant farm girl he could find and have her be a baby making machine without asking questions to secure the future. It's def what I would have done. Marrying Kay was a real bad future-business decision.

@@MrAitraining Michael did love Kay throughout his life. It’s right there in the movie and the book. Michael to Kay: “You we’re all that I loved and valued most in the world and I am losing you, I lost you anyway, you’re gone and it was all for nothing. I still love you Kay. Don’t dread me. Every night here in Sicily I dream about my wife and kids and how I lost them.”

That’s Italians.

Marines.

U.S. Marines... not the army! He was a Captain of Marines and a war hero who had been awarded the Silver Star, among other medals.

But won best picture oscar still

I don't remember any negative reviews from any notable critics of the time. This one was, almost out of the gate, considered superior to the first, which itself was an instant classic. I'd love to know which critics were less than wowed by a movie that's master-class level filmaking - doesn't speak very highly of their tastes.

@@gibsongirl2100 I remember ford coppola saying that and Wikipedia says it also. what confuses me is the movie came out in late December and won Best Picture and Director 3 months later so that's a very quick turnaround for people to change there mind

@@rxtsec1 "what confuses me is the movie came out in late December and won Best Picture and Director 3 months later so that's a very quick turnaround for people to change there mind" Critical and audience reception were mixed on "Godfather II", not the film industry itself (the Academy, directors guild and whatnot). The Academy, made up of top industry professionals, has a long history of nominating films that received a mixed reception. Just look at "Don't Look Up" (2021), "Joker" (2019), "Bohemian Rhapsody" (2018), "Vice" (2018), "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" (2011), "The Blind Side" (2009), "The Reader" (2008), "Ghost" (1990), "Blue Velvet" (1986), "Raging Bull" (1980), "Julia" (1977), "The Exorcist" (1973), "A Clockwork Orange" (1971), "Airport" (1970), "Love Story" (1970), "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (1969), "Hello Dolly!" (1969), "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968), "Doctor Dolittle" (1967), "Cleopatra" (1963), "The Cardinal" (1963), "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962), "The Alamo" (1960), "Psycho" (1960), "The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952), "It's a Wonderful Life" (1946) and it goes on. The Academy doesn't care about critics' reviews as much as you would think. Movies like "It's a Wonderful Life" (1946), "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962) and "Doctor Dolittle" (1967) were critical AND commercial flops and still got a Best Picture nomination. Sometimes, when an expensive movie flops really hard, the industry professionals in the Academy feel the need to nominate them in an effort to boost the box office-- because back in the day, Oscar nominations would spark the public's interest to go see a movie that got overlooked by audiences the first time around. Many times it was more of an effort to save their industry/studio rather than nominating films for their artistic merit.

@@rustincohle2135 but this movie had stood the test of time even if they were just trying to give it a boost