Is this movie an unofficial autism test? I watched Godfather I with my dad and loved it. I tried watching II and didn't get it. He also tried watching it and couldn't follow it at all. He watches movies from the 40s all day too so it's not that it had too much dialogue. I tried watching it twice more and got bored and couldn't follow it. Eventually I looked up literally strategy guides on the internet about wtf was going on in the movie and watched it again. It's a fantastic movie, but I swear half the movie is people giving slight glances at eachother and body language queues and then some guy gets strangled 20 minutes later later and it's because you had to remember something that was mumbled 45 minutes ago and keep in mind all the relationships and power dynamics. My thicc latina GF watched it once and loved it. Both me and my dad get called autistic all the time. Is there a correlation?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>half the movie is people giving slight glances at eachother and body language queues and then some guy gets strangled 20 minutes later later and it's because you had to remember something that was mumbled 45 minutes ago and keep in mind all the relationships and power dynamics
That could be said about the first one too, but I agree this one's hard to follow. Especially since the timeline changes from time to time.
The 50s part is especially confusing. I will say it makes a lot more sense if you have an understanding of the U.S. Dealings in Cuba pre Castro and the connection between the Mafia, US Coporations, the CIA and Batista. If you have bit of background knowledge it all makes sense. If you don't it just looks like people talking, eating cake and some old israelite rubbing his chest hairs for 2 fricking hours.
I watched it as someone that had read the book
all the Vito flashbacks were from the book and all the 50s Michael in Vegas stuff was original content for the movie
we're at a point where so much time has passed, no one remembers what pre-revolution and pre-embargo Cuba was like, and they don't teach it in schools
>all the Vito flashbacks were from the book and all the 50s Michael in Vegas stuff was original content for the movie
This should have been two individual movies. I really liked the Michael vs. Roth story, the Vito Corleone origin story was okay I guess.
originally, it was meant to be 2 three hour movies back to back, one about young vito up through the 30s, and Michael's story up through the early 70s. The very last scene of Michael sitting alone is the only part of the story past Fredo's death.
My biggest issue with GFII is that the plot is just not as well defined as the first one. Shit just kinda happens and the characters explain it in a single line of dialogue and never mention it again. Like it never really is clear about what Fredo did to betray them, for example, and the whole mystery isn't really that needed, as why would a senator try to bump someone off and why would a low level employee try to pull the same?
The 50s stuff is pretty vague, and like said, you kinda need a shitton of not provided background info. That whole speech about 90 miles from the us with a friendly government kinda touches on the US and Cuba situation and how it relates to the rebels. One of the things I really do like about this movie is that it shows characters fighting via subtle dialogue. Like when Roth admits it, he probably just lost his temper and spoke too much.
The reason the movie is fricked up is because Frankie pentangeli was originally supposed to be Clemenza, but the actor refused to do the movie because he was mad about his character being antisemitic, even though Italian mobsters were antisemites irl
It really doesn't change anything. Yeah it would have been more effective emotionally with a character we already knew, but the result is the same.
The whole point of the ending was to juxtapose young Vito and clemenza’s happy ending arc with Michael’s tragic arc where he murders clemenza and Fredo, his father’s best friend and son. Changing the character ruins the tragic irony
The parallel between Vito and Micheal is already obvious, you don't need Clemenza there. It's not like he even does a lot in the flashbacks, it's Vito's story through and through.
I mean the movie is ok without it being clemenza but it would have been so much better otherwise. It’s like having an oedipus movie where oedipus doesn’t murder his father but just kills some random guy who got shoehorned into the story.
I think it really needed to be Clemenza, otherwise you're relying too much on the first movie - yes, the parallel is obvious, but the tragic nature is muted unless you remember the first movie. Bridging the two halves of the second movie helps. Remember in Part II we don't see Michael prior to his tragic fall, we merely see the long drawn out consequences.
Also they should've made Clemenza/Pentangeli Michael's Godfather just to hammer it home. As OP proves )and the box office returns too) lots of people got confused by the second one so anything to hammer home the central idea/tragedy would have been good
>he was mad about his character being antisemitic
It's not that he didn't want Fat Clemenza betray Mike
So he wanted to work again after the movie was done. Can't blame him for that.
The actor literally was a israelite lmao. Or did you think he was Italian kek?
Who's the israelite, the Italian Richard S. Castellano or the Italian Michael V. Gazzo?
He also negotiated a new compensation that was too high for the producers.
I really don't understand why they didn't just put young Pentangeli in the Vito scenes, would've fixed everything
Not sure maybe they filmed the earlier scenes first? It makes no sense and ruins the movie.
>My biggest issue with GFII is that the plot is just not as well defined as the first one
I think that's the point. You can't legitimize Michael's paranoia without showcasing the events that exacerbated it in the order that they occur in.
>why would a senator try to bump someone off
What are you talking about? It's clear as day that Mike orchestrated the murder, why else would he make the prediction near the start?
>why would a low level employee try to pull the same?
I have no idea what you're referring to here.
>The 50s stuff is pretty vague, and you kinda need a shitton of not provided background info
I'd disagree. What you really need to know is just the fact that the revolutionaries won in 1959 and the story of the film picks up at 1958.
redpill me on the connection between the Mafia, US Coporations, the CIA and Batista
They’re all connected.
damn, now the movie makes a lot of sense
thx
Cuba was basically an American colony after we helped them gain independence from Spain in 1898. Cuba's economy was entirely reliant on American tourism and investment, which ultimately amounted to mafia-owned casinos and hotels. Then came the communists with the goal of severing all economic and diplomatic ties with the US, so the CIA colluded with the president of Cuba (Batista) and the mob bosses who ran the casinos/resorts to try and hunt down and purge the communist leaders.
Part of the reason Vegas turned into what it is today is because the mafia got ran out of Cuba during the revolution, so they all settled in Vegas as a backup location. Havana was the Las Vegas of the 1920s-1940s.
>If you don't it just looks like people talking, eating cake and some old israelite rubbing his chest hairs for 2 fricking hours.
It's not autism, you're just fricking dumb. Like 100 IQ tops.
one of the first major pleb filters
That would be Part III
Yeah it definitely requires multiple viewings, but that's what makes it so rewarding. Ebert called it confusing on his initial review.
test
it's too long, but it isn't hard to follow, at least I didn't find it difficult
>Is there a correlation?
It's possible but as this is a sequel some confusion is warranted. It's developing ideas that were only touched in the original.
In the first film the expansion of the Corleone empire had to be put on hold in order to deal with the war and then the subsequent business with the Five Families. Once that whole stuff was dealt with in the finale, Michael tries to grow the family through more 'legitimate' means. He decides to look towards Cuba was under the command of Fulgencio Batista. During this time, foreigners owned a vast of amount of land and the country had the backing of US government. These were attractive prospects for an individual like Michael, who would find it easier to transition into something more legitimate.
The man who he was in parternship with was the israelite called Hyman Roth. Roth and Vito had worked together but that didn't mean that he was to be trusted. At the party near the start of the film, Frank (the man who was strangled) tells Micahel that the Rosato brothers are stirring up trouble in his neighborhood. Michael refuses Frank from taking any action since the Rosato's are allied with Hyman Roth and this would interfere with his plans. Michael was correct in his assessment as demonstrated by Roth's little outburst. He goes onto meet with Roth and lies to him telling him that he suspects Frank was the one who put the hit on his family when it was really Roth.
[1/2]
Why did Hyman Roth do this? I guess it had to do with the whole Cuban Revolution. He must've known that there would've been a hitch in the whole plan (Michael suspects the same_ and if this upstart guinea can be squeezed for all he's worth, he can be both rich and powerful since the Rosato's will take over the original Corleone neighborhood. So he orders a faux hit on Frank. The reason why it's a faux hit and not a real one is because he has to have a legitimate reason to sow discord amongst Michael's family in order to undermine his authority. Since their attention is distracted, Roth's various schemes can finally come to fruition. They orchestrate this little play so that Frank believes that it was Michael who is in with the Rosato brothers all along and wanted him gone.
There is much more to be said but it would be far more productive if I just respond to any questions you have.
[2/2]
>faux hit
it's a strange faux hit because it's interrupted by a random cop who shouldnt be there
The cop is in on it
I forgot to mention this but look closely at the window to the right while Frank is about to get strangled. The cop is already looking right through before he makes his entry. Now you could respond by saying that it's too dark to know what's happening but why would a cop look through a dark window if he wasn't aware of what was going on inside. Why not just walk right inside the bar if he wasn't supposed to be there.
Couldn't the reverse be true as well? that the cop was suspicious that a bar that dark with the shutters on would be open. It wasn't as if the place was soundproof so he must've heard the screams. I imagine he feigned ignorance and got even more suspicious when he went inside. The Rosato's aren't the smartest since they bungled what in the original film looked like a really easy method to take a life. It's probable that Hyman just lied to the Brothers and said that Michael gave them the go ahead to kill Frank and that his death would cause problems inside the family.
Roth just used this mishap to his advantage which is why Hagen says, "Roth played this one beautifully".
>Michael was correct in his assessment as demonstrated by Roth's little outburst
Please explain more on this, what little outburst at you referring to, the "there was this kid I grew up with" speech?
Yes. Hyman showed his hand by revealing the emotional pain he felt over the murder of his protege. He knew Michael was responsible and and he had to act fast in order to secure his interests as his time on Earth was short. In comes Fredo. Due to his affiliation with Moe Greene, Roth knew he could manipulate him towards his side by prying on his insecurity of having been passed over and being kept in the dark. After Michael's murder, he would eventually take over the business, seceding some of his responsibilities over to Roth.
Yeh what do you think Fredo actually did? Who helped set up the assassination? Who got to the drapes?
>What do you think Fredo actually did?
Fredo provided intel on the order of operations but was manipulated in such a way that he wasn't entirely aware of what exactly he had given up that could've compromised the family.
Roth's ultimate goal is to distract Michael's attention so that he doesn't question the how hopeful the prospects of the whole Cuba operation. The level of civil unrest at the time would've necessitated more sinister maneuvers so as to not to rattle Michael.
>Who helped set up the assassination? Who got to the drapes?
Johnny Ola and Roth. Just like in the original, I imagine they got to the help who through the domestic workers. Ola probably asked Fredo for a favor and had some of his men on the compound already, way before the assassination was meant to occur. We know that there are flaws in the whole vetting process because for reason Kay was able to get an abortion without Michael or Tom knowing.
Remember, early into the film Roth is established as a man who cannot be trusted. Michael and Vito understood that the retaliation against the five families would ruffle some feathers so they were already prepped for the consequences. This is why they deliberately projected the family being weaker in the latter half of the first film, so as not to draw too much attention. Throughout the entire film Michael has to be alert and he has to be smart in the alliances he chooses. This explains why he's so catty with Tom near the end and why he doesn't just let Roth and his cronies get away with it. As I mentioned before Roth doesn't underestimate Michael, he needs his patronage for the Cuba plan but also knows that this alliance can be severed if it fails to come to fruition. Michael knows that Roth knows about this and plans accordingly. This is why he lets Roth in on his worry about the revolutionaries winning.
*I imagine they got through using the domestic workers
>We know that there are flaws in the whole vetting process because for reason Kay was able to get an abortion without Michael or Tom knowing.
Oh frick, that's something I never connected before, Kay's ability to slip away from the security.
A woman can cause herself a miscarriage, you know? Of course it isn't safe but Kay clearly didn't care.
Not to mention that in the 50s she could only get an abortion illegally, and ironically how would she find a doctor like that if not with the help of one of Michael's men?
>ironically how would she find a doctor like that if not with the help of one of Michael's men?
Her family maybe? But I think that Michael maybe suspects Tom helped her, hence his coldness
I imagine she induced a miscarriage rather than go visit a doctor. As for the presence of the assassins, betrayal from the inside has been a recurring theme in the series (Carlo, Fabrizio, Tessio and that driver kid) so I imagine that point here to emphasize Michael's line about the fact that no is safe, everyone can be killed.
>and that driver kid
What's funny is that his betrayal is actually never confirmed. Sonny orders the hit anyways based on entirely circumstantial circumstances.
Kek. Now that I think about it, you're right but I imagine he was involved in some way since whatever power the Corleones had was in jeopardy and he was shown to desire nice things during the wedding scene. I doubt Coppola would include such a moment if he didn't think it necessary.
Of course if it was Michael, he would've set up an additional ploy to check Paulie was culpable in the plot to assassinate the Don or not.
>We know that there are flaws in the whole vetting process because for reason Kay was able to get an abortion without Michael or Tom knowing.
It is a puzzlement, and I think it also explains Michael's coldness to Tom at the end of the film - Kay was in Tom's hands, after all, and he wasn't supposed to let her leave.
But to be fair, I think they'd probably be sharper about domestics at the house than a doctor. After all, pregnant women need to go to the doctor, don't they? And if the doctor is a square type who doesn't know who Kay's husband is...
Yeah but Michael somehow figured out he was behind it before that and it's never really explained how the hell he knew
I am unironically filtered by III
We all are
How did Michael ever even suspect Fredo? When he invites him to Cuba, he has already suspicions regarding Fredo. From what I can tell, nothing in the film earlier to this point hints at Michael suspecting Fredo. Where did it come from?
No he doesn't. It's obvious that when Fredo accidentally betrays himself Micheal is caught off guard and he's completely destroyed.
That's not what his body language is saying. He's carefully observing every single observation between Ola and Fredo and carefully waiting for Fredo to slip up.
>Fredo lies to him twice about knowing Roth and Johnny Ola
That was after his suspicions were roused. Fredo feigns ignorance for quite some time just so Michael won't suspect anything.
>Or the implication that it was someone else?
I absolutely felt the implication was the ones who tried to shoot him killed those guys.
Meant to quote
at the greentext
>That's not what his body language is saying
It's exactly what it says. When he hears Fredo mention Johnny Ola he's about to pass out from the shock. That's not the reaction of someone who had suspicions.
Yes of course it shocks him and he was probably hoping he'd be wrong. But watch again the first scene between Ola and Fredo when Fredo arrives in Cuba. Look how Michael is carefully observing them to spot any sense of betrayal. And he does it again later when Ola takes them out to dinner. He's in the background observing every word Fredo is saying and Fredo is pretending he doesn't know Ola.
Nah. Not buying it. Micheal isn't even the one laying the bait for Fredo, it's Fredo who asks him who he's doing business with in Havana, and that's what make him mention Ola and Roth. Furthermore all the interactions with Fredo are really warm and empathic, it's the most Michael is shown to be open and kind in the movie. That's not the behaviour of someone who is suspicious of his own brother.
And when he hears Fredo mention Ola you can see that it takes some seconds to process what he just heard and what the implications are, and for the shock to settle in. Again, not the behaviour of someone who was waiting for a slipup.
>The coldest most ruthless person in the history of cinema just wanted to hang out with his bro and sip some mojitos
Yeah, it's not like his only weakness is his family or anything. You know the scene earlier when he talks to his mom about his fear of losing his family? It wasn't a moment of doubt and weaknesses where he was finally opening up, it was all calculated manipulation.
Proves nothing. He already suspects Fredo when he talks to his mother. She says something moronic and unhelpful and Michael realises he is all alone in the world.
Filtered. He reels from the confirmation, but he already knew. That's why he gives Lurch the nod: the plans to kill Roth are already in place, ready to go at a moment's notice as soon as Michael gets the confirmation.
Earlier Michael is having a drink with Fredo and Fredo laments that they never spend time with each other like this. Michael is not drinking alcohol, it's all business: he's studying Fredo, he wants to know for sure and he doesn't want to believe it.
I noticed that Michael doesn't drink in the film at all so I imagine the opposition got Fredo drunk in order to get the information out of him without him knowing. Probably explains why he'd know of that sleazy Superman show.
Fredo was always a drunkard and a party boy, even in the first film. He was banging wienertail waitresses two at a time!
Nope. Read the reply chain.
Yep. You failed to make your case or understand the movie.
I brought forth more arguments in support of my case than you did. Unless you can refute them or can produce more proofs, I accept your concession.
You just repeated yourself except for this
>Micheal isn't even the one laying the bait for Fredo, it's Fredo who asks him who he's doing business with in Havana, and that's what make him mention Ola and Roth.
The scene in question:
If you can't see Fredo get super nervous and start awkwardly covering once he realises Michael is doing business with Roth...
>Oh? Well, that's great. Havana's great!
And if you can't see the little look Michael gives Fredo when he manages Hyman Roth and Johnny Ola... or realise that the reason Michael mentions Hyman Roth to Fredo in the first place - and to his face, after having kept him in the dark previously as to why he was coming to Havana - was to test him...
ah frick it who cares
>manages
*mentions
He knows Roth and Johnny Ola were behind his assassination and he knows someone in his own family had to have also been involved. Fredo lies to him twice about knowing Roth and Johnny Ola, then later starts yapping to the senator (I think) about how Johnny Ola and "Old Man Roth" told him about the strip club. Michael infers from that lie that it was Fredo.
As I type this out there's a bit of a plothole though. The reason he knew someone in the family was behind it is because the assassins were killed by someone inside the gate. That means that Fredo himself took out two guys with machine guns and hid their bodies in a ditch.....that seems a bit out of character for Fredo. Or the implication that it was someone else? then how did Michael conclude that someone else in the family was involved in his assassination.
Yeah this movie is really confusing.
Someone told them the layout of the house and someone inside opened the curtains as the tip.
Imagine the implication here is that it wasn't just those two men. In case of a frick up they probably had a third man present to dispose of the two likely suspects. This is why Michael is so paranoid because the killer could still be present.
Who would've been in his bedroom?
Plus Michael knows Fredo is weak and stupid and has past form with "taking sides against the family"
yeah you're a moron
It's not nearly as good as Gf1. That's what people can't admit because they want to appear smart
Watch HBO's cut The Godfather Epic. Puts all the scenes in chronological order.
This needs to be released on UHD or at least just Godfather II with all those extra scenes.
I think its really boring. The only thing I remember was the israelite hyman roth and his cool shirt. And cake he was eating and the golden phone
Crusty ass gangster movie with afros and bell bottoms, frick off
I liked all the young Vito stuff. Michael's story was hard for me to follow, I don't understand how he found out about Fredo.
I saw the entire trilogy 5 years ago and never got the impression that two was confusing, even though I wasn't entirely familiar with the Cuba situation. But this thread kickstarted an interesting conversation about the film and I see a couple of anons are really at it, so good job because I enjoyed reading your posts. I'd contribute, but haven't seen the trilogy in over 5 years so a rewatch is in order.
Are you nonwhite (shitskin) by chance?
Do you think sometimes your farts can come up into the stomach if you're lying down?
Why would Michael bring Fredo of all people close to his sworn enemies? You'd think he would want to distance Fredo unless he was already suspecting Fredo of betrayal. I am convinced Michael brings Fredo to Cuba entirely to confirm what he has suspected.
Not canon. Read the book. The whole movie is an asspull.
The book is full of stupid shit and Puzo is a hack. Unless you want to read about Sonny's abnormally large penis and his lover's cavernouis vegana.
GF2 and 3 plots are thicker than GF1 because some actual historical events about mafia were mixed, such as the senate's hearings and the Cuba affair (real life Lucky Luciano attended a similar meeting), while GF3 introduced certain characters and events specific to cold war italian politics (Licio Gelli, papa Luciani)
Personally GF2 I like the most for this reason, although I agree there's just too much to follow.
I saw it two years ago, had no trouble following it and I'd say I liked it more than the first one
>Is this movie an unofficial autism test?
nope
stopped reading there
It's better when you watch the chronological cut since it has a bunch of deleted scenes.
This thread made me realize why Michael sent Rocco on that suicide mission. It was Rocco's responsibility to guard the compound because he was head of security and under his command not only was the patriarch and his wife almost killed but the wife was able to get away with an abortion. This is simply unforgivable and if the truth got out it would severely undermine the strength of the family. This was more than enough cause to get Rocco to agree to go on a suicide mission without worrying the rest of the enforcers that their leader had gone mad due to paranoia.
I hope not, I understood the movie perfectly, it's my favorite of the three, but if I'm not an autist that means I'm just a loser.