@@4713CaineI think this was a case of him venting in front of someone he knew he could trust, as well as making the point that if he could forego immediate vengeance, then it wasn’t too much to ask Frank to go along with his plan.
He made the other families think he was weak. He made them grow confident in their power. He made them feel safe...and then they were weak, then they were vulnerable, then they were dead.
His mind was poisoned against the family by Moe it was tragic. He had an easy job in Vegas he could party all he wanted all he had to do was remain loyal but his insecurities compromised him.
Never understood why Pacino didn't win an Oscar for this or the first one. Especially the first one, his transformation from All American boy to cold blooded mafia don is mesmerizing.
The movie business is a blood bath. Maybe some people weren’t too happy with the success of The Godfather, it saved a dying industry on the brink of extinction, y’know that? Maybe somebody was waiting in the wings to revive it and reshape it into what they wanted. We all know awards are influenced decisions
@@kiyavas1879 Michael felt like he could allow himself to be angry since he was in such familiar surroundings. If only Frankie didn't allow himself to be fooled...
@Apollo Spade Well, the Rosato brothers were working for Hyman Roth. When one of the brothers told Frank that "Corleone says hello" before strangling him, he wanted Frank to die knowing that it was Michael who called the hit on him (which is cold). In which this case, isn't true. It was Hyman Roth who ordered the hit on Frank. And just in case Frank survives the attack (which he did), his trust for Michael diminishes and believes that Michael is determined to end Frank's life. The incident led Frank to paranoia and to his damning testimony. That line was actually improvised by the actor strangling Frank. He wasn't supposed to say that, but Coppola thought it was still fitting for the scene. Hopefully that clears the confusion because it confused me the first time I saw the movie, too.
Yes way more. The first film could have been called the Solozzo situation. Bc basically the whole film and the issues were directly the result of Solozzo and his drug business
@@Wolfe-zl4ld I know this comment is old now but the director had to dub in that Michael Corleone says hello line because Cappollo realized that Frankie testifying in the end didn't make sense. It was a plot hole that was poorly filled you don't have to cover for Cappollo. That said I still agree it's richer and deeper than the first godfather
I've never been sure when the hit on Frankie in the bar goes bad before the shootout, if the whole scene was all a Roth setup for the cop to walk in at just the crucial interrupting moment so Frankie could be left alive with the seemingly accidental (red herring) belief that Michael had betrayed him, so he'd turn on Michael, or if Michael really did betray him, but the cop walking in screwed up the killing.
@@robertnichols4833 Michael wouldn't be dumb to leave a letter like "Michael says hello". Pentangeli might be in distress and in the right mind to almost rat on him on the feds.
I want him completely relaxed and comforted in our friendship.Then I'll be able to find out who the traitor in my family was.Everytime I hear that I get goosebumps.
Frankie Pentangeli was a great replacement for Peter Clemenza. He never betrayed the Corleone family and at the end killed himself in order to protect them, that's really loyalty. Michael V. Gazzo best performance in a movie by far. I wish he had win an oscar for his role. 🏆
@@carpediem6431 That threat was there, but it also felt like the brother was willingly there to make sure Frankie didn't break the oath of silence. They would have had to kidnap the brother and bring him over on a plane, so I've always thought he agreed to come. And that the brother had some power back in Italy, so maybe killing him wasn't their first option. Of course, once the brother was in the U.S., they could have killed him if Frankie didn't halt his testimony.
@@carpediem6431 No, Michael brought Frankie's brother to the hearings to show that Frankie was mistaken about the attempted Rossato hit. Frankie's brother was in no danger.
@@napoleonsolo5929 you are correct and i also believe his brother was hardcore to and wouldn't allow a snitch in the family and knew he was being played at that point, he just did his version of a Seppuku
@@lasmitcas3847 He slit his wrists in a bathtub, after Michael had his brother brought over from the other side. When he saw him at the trial, he knew it was over. Then Tom Hagen met with him and basically told him to talk his life, so his family would be taken care of.
@@bostonbruinsfan247 yup when he saw his brother he realized he couldn’t become a snitch and destroy his families legacy and position within the family. Everyone thought it was a threat at first but instead a reminder of who he was and stood for. Frankie let his emotions get in the way of the bigger picture and ultimately it sealed his fate
What I love about this scene is, How we see the differences between Frankie When he drinks and when he doesn’t. I remember him being loud and argumentative against mike at the party. But when he is sober he just sits there like a quiet little mouse and lets Micheal yell at him. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant .
Two things astonish me about both stage and movies. First I'm surprised at how totally I can be taken in; not at the time (because I'm sucked in) but afterwards I shake my head in amazement at how much I actually believed in whatever those people were doing -- on stage in front of those obviously pasteboard walls, in the movie under that clearly artificial light and timing... Second, once I've gotten over how totally I fall for all this, I'm astonished at the degree of skill the actors put into it. In some movies Pacino comes across as like straight out of a Method class, but when the direction is good, which it usually is, damn, but they do it well!
I think his behavior at the party was a neat distraction to who was really betraying the family. Stands to reason if a guy is betraying you he's not going to give you a heads up with a blow up in public.
One of the most admired traits of Michael Corleone is how stoic he is under the most pressure situations. He has the ultimate poker face, which keeps his enemies in the dark all the time. Clearly, Michael is the true heir to the throne.
@@bobareebop Putting down Hagen was a loyalty test. I do agree it was insulting, but Michael had been betrayed by people very close to them, and by that point no one was closer than Tom. Killing Roth and Fredo was a message to anyone else who betrayed the Family. No one, no matter how high or low, how well connected to Michael, was beyond retribution. And remember that Michael had warned Fredo years before in Vegas never to take sides against the Family.
Yeah, but the whole point of playing it out was to find out who the traitor was. If he just kills everyone then that information is lost and his organization is still compromised.
When Michael pats the armchair at 2:58 I always thought he did so because he sat there once and Vito did the exact same thing on Michael‘s shoulder in Part 1.
Best lesson if you betrayed Corleone family: if they are too nice for you or suddenly want to take partnership/friendship with you, they want you to relax and then kill you. See: Solozzo, Fanucci, Don Ciccio, Carlo, Paulie, Fredo, Hyman Roth.
This thing is. He dosen't show anger at all. That makes a real leader. No one knows how you feel then no one can know what You are thinking. You have the advantage
@@misombra If u think thats showing anger u obviously haven’t been around people who are truly angry. The amount of restraint he showed was unreal. Just because he raised his voice momentarily that’s “Anger” 🤣 ok boomer
Yeah sorry I'm not a super ninja US army marine like you who has seen true rage and violence jesus christ moving goalposts must be your primary form of exercise you embarrassing fat kid
How complex is this film! The mastery, the acting, the script, the tone. The complexities of the characters had me at awe. Michael does an amazing job pulling the strings of his entire plot for revenge in this small scene BEHIND the curtain.
Stannis did have dozens of lords and a handful of Kings as enemies, not just a few guys from a few families. Plus, he was out there doing the dirty work on the battlefield. Way more boss than these guys
They're completely different scenarios. For mob bosses everyone they do business with is a potential enemy and they could be assassinated even before they could fight, they can't just reveal their intentions like Sovereign kings declaring war. Take Roth for example, even after Michael ascertained Roth's true intentions he didn't just declare war and neither did Roth. This also applies to Vito, sollozo and barzini in the first movie. They all resorted to deception, making their adversaries believe they're friends. This can't apply to a mediaeval king like Stannis who has to officially declare war, which he did on everyone basically. He didn't have to play pretend with his enemies, just had to defeat them on the battlefield. It's simpler
Great advice. You already know your enemies so keep them close and attended to as to not lose sight of them. Your friends are to be close to know particular things but not too much to make others aware
Every actor/actress in this movie deserves an Oscar even Michael’s bodyguard.. look how he’s acting! All perfection of this movie, thanks to the director Copola!
Look at how calm Pacino is when he is talking to Pantangili, " My father taught me many things in this room, he taught me he taught me to keep my friends close and my enemies closer." He did not reveal his emotions, like a boss but you can feel his anger." One of the most iconic scenes in Godfather 2.
The beauty of this film is that when I first watched it, I never could figure out for sure whether he really thought Roth was the one behind the assassination attempt. The only time I was absolutely sure was Havana. Amazing film.
Keep your friends close (because you trust them and not have to question their loyalty); keep your enemies closer (the closer your enemies are, the more power and ease you have to detect plots and conspiracies against you).
Michael is like a chess player. Thinking so many moves ahead, and looking out for traps. Sonny is impulsive and the family wouldn't have lasted long if he had become the Don.
I tend to disagree. What Sonny lacked in brains he made up for with his charisma and humility which he inherited from his father. Michael with his cold exterior was utterly unlikeable and therefore nobody would have been loyal to him for long. Michael being plotted against was inevitable. The difference between Michael and Vito was Vito was feared but also loved whereas nobody loved Michael just feared him.
Sonny was smart, and tough, but he lacked discipline and patience. Those are qualities Michael has in abundance. In this business inspiring loyalty only goes so far, because ultimately everyone is looking out for themselves.
I love Part I, it's nostalgic and comforting in its classic style...but Part II has depths of emotion the first doesn't come close to touching. It's a cold masterpiece that outweighs the first in consequence.
It's amazing the massive differences between the Godfather trilogy and the other mafia media that came after it. Goodfellas, Casino, The Sopranos. All good in their own ways but the tone and atmosphere of Godfather is much more regal and somber
Patience is truly a virtue, Trust me when Michael advises you something he has already thought about it more times then you can imagine, Frank wanted to be rash and smite his enemies but Michael knew to be patient all along and strike when the iron is hot and his enemies were cold, I've met many men like this in real life and if someone like this gives you advice listen and you will go far
...the words of Saud, the founder of the Kingdom of Saud. He also said, " a man who has ONE ENEMY, WILL MEET HIM EVERYWHERE". So the first chance you get at "eliminating that enemy...DO SO"...Don't pussyfoot around. ...
Scarface is still better, the plot is tighter, it has a sense of danger and, for the last 20 to 30 minutes, a sense of tragedy that the Godfather movies do not convey until the last 5 minutes of the third movie. Having said that, Godfather I & II are amongst the best flicks ever and the acting is better than Scarface.
When Mike finishes saying "... until I find who the traitor in my family was", the scene immediately cuts to Fredo, foreshadowing the resolution of this issue.
@beave 56 he was also pissed that Clemenza's character turns on Michael and wanted the script changed. Coppola wouldn't do it so he re-wrote it and put in Frankie.
I love the Mafia decorum show in this scene. He returns home and knows he has visitor, but nobody except his wife will tell him exactly who it is. Although, as a Capo Regime you can assume he must expect it’s his Don and does not push the issue with his soldiers (assuming at least one of them would know who was inside). Then when his Don says something somewhat ominous he immediately just turns to shut the doors accepting whatever is to come. Then when his Don losses his shi!t, he knows to shut the frak up and take it. And it just gets better from there. It’s actually very poignant after his lack of deportment at the wedding and the scene only gets better. It’s actually fair sad how they get divided by a misunderstanding/mistake.
The Godfather movies are just perfect! Amazingly perfect. I will watch them again in the next few days. No movie(s) would top the Godfather: Past, present or future!
Every now and then but not that often a movie comes along that the story is so powerful it grabs the viewer and never let’s go.that kind of movie never gets old and with these first two godfather masterpiece films even after almost 50 years since their cinematic debut they hold up on every category imaginable.I remember a long time ago an interview with james cann he was asked did you actors knew you had something special when first reading the draft script and james replied ohh yes even Brando has said he couldn’t top his performance in the film.another thing to think about is when you watch these old mob interviews that tell their involvement in the family they will also too reference The Godfather because it was a movie so closely resembles the true mob back in the old days.I cannot tell how many times I’ve watched this trilogy or come across it on tv and just had to stop what I was doing because the drama was spot on it grabbed you for 100th time and you couldn’t turn away from the tv.I’m sure with this new movie making technology there will be another movie that will stand the many generations of time but no matter what that movie will be it will be put against the best film to grace theaters.
This whole scene showed what Michael became in a very short period of time From his hairstyle his voice his whole physical demeanor There won't be another movie like this forever I MEAN FOREVER RESPECTS
See, but this is actually contradictory. In the book it's not an enemy that knifes Jon, it's a good friend, one that even voted for him in the election. It's Bowen Marsh that leads the mutiny against Jon, and is even crying as he dies. Janos gets a death pretty much identical to the show. He's the troublemaker at the wall, not Ser Alliser. Ser Alliser, while a hard bastard is a Ned Stark type, honour bound fool. He's just less pleasant and has it out for Jon, who in Alliser's defence, is prissy, and an entitled shit in the first book. When Jon is elected, Ser Alliser is not even a contender, and respects the election result, following Jon's orders to the letter, without question, even though Jon treats him poorly (in his perspective justified). So there is honestly more truth in keeping enemies close than far. So you know watch them. The irony is in the show, he keeps Alliser close because he thinks he should keep enemies close, and in the book he sends Alliser away because he doesn't like him. It's his friend, whom he keeps close, who kills him.
