It's the best. Although I have to be honest and say that there have been a fair number of sequels that were very good -- in contrast to the early days of sequels to successful films, which were usually just "quick-money" grabs. GF II is -- on its own -- sequel or not, one of the best films ever written and directed.
A great film, very great. I do still prefer Chinatown for 1974 though. I also still rate the first Gf higher as it is more straightforward; 2 is more convoluted and unclear. An example of that is the line "Michael Corleone says hello." It was improvised by Danny Aiello. Coppola liked it and decided to leave it in. I can't say I can point to a scene to support this, but I've always thought that a part of Michael must have resented Fredo; the longer he was Don and the more the job and all those responsibilities weighed on him, the more he might have remembered that he was in that spot because of Fredo's weakness and stupidity. I can't find the words to describe how much I love the final scene of this movie. Brando was supposed to be in it but didn't show up that day. I'm not sure he could have made it any better than it turned out.
I think of I and II as a complete arc of a story really about Michael so it's difficult to grade one over the other although the first one really set the rules, didn't it.
I'm happy you left in the scene with Michael talking with his mother about how Vito believed you could never lose your family. This is the key to all three films. Old Vito could count on all the loyalties, customs, traditions and the old ways and the cohesion of Italians in America pre WW2. Michael cannot rely on any of that post WW2. The Italian experience is now fractured in America. These loyalties and traditions no longer stand, all symbolized by the move to Vegas. Michael can't rely on family, tradition, only money and violence. So, with the flashbacks you see the continuity of Vito with Sicily brought to America. On the other hand, Michael, is left alone, he has to face everything in terms of the modern world, without any of those supports, not even family.
"I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!" Fun Fact: This was the first sequel to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. Lost In Translation Fact: Robert De Niro spent four months learning to speak the Sicilian dialect of Italian in order to play Vito Corleone. Nearly all of the dialogue that his character speaks in the film was in Sicilian. Lost In Adaptation Fact: This movie and the first movie, was working off the same book. Francis Ford Coppola stripped all the backstory spread throughout the novel in order to focus on the main story. However when work began on this movie, he included all the material that was left out of the first movie. Method Director Fact: The door to olive-oil business was rigged so that it would not open if a nail was inserted into the lock. Coppola kept this a secret from Leopoldo Trieste, who played Signor Roberto, and his difficulty in opening the door was real. Coppola wanted to film Trieste, a known Italian comedian, improvising his way through the scene. When Genco Abbandando opens the door, Frank Sivero surreptitiously pulls the nail out. Music Enthusiast Fact: The orchestra that plays in the band shell during the party scene at Lake Tahoe was actually the Al Tronti Orchestra that played nightly for big names like Elvis Presley and Tom Jones at the Sahara Tahoe Casino/Hotel on the South Shore of Lake Tahoe while this film was being shot. Al Tronti himself sits in the orchestra in the front room (only seen in shadow). He wasn't allowed to appear as the orchestra conductor since he looked "too Italian" and the orchestra in the movie was supposed to be a West Coast group that is not able to play any traditional Italian music.
@BigGator5 Always enjoy the info in your comments. And I just replied to another comment with a little mob related trivia that made me think of your comment/info. If you're interested, scroll down to richiecabral3602 (his 2nd comment) & take a look. Too lazy to retype it. Just thought you might like the story.😄
My favorite bit of "trivia" for this film is the subtle way they showed that one of the helpers in the assassination of the old Sicilian boss was the same Don in a wheelchair who "babysat" Michael when he had to hide out in Sicily, in the first film. They showed it by displaying how violently his legs were "shot out from under him." I like that they allowed us to figure this out for ourselves...
Couldn't agree more. Possibly my favourite character in Part II. Was really hoping he wouldn't die. All the more tragic when you see how close he had got with his nephew.
When young Vito came back for Don Ciccio, one of their friends (the one who introduce him) was Tomassino. Tomassino, much older obviously, helped Michael in Italy when he killed the police officer and Sollozo. If you remember, Tomassino walked always with a cane due to a limp. That limp was produced because of the shot on the knee when he was young, in that moment when Vito murdered Ciccio.
John Cazale (''Fredo'') is one of my all time favorite actors, who only made 5 movies, and they're all masterpieces in the cinematic history: ''The Godfather'', ''The Conversation'', ''The Godfather Part II'', ''Dog Day Afternoon'' & (my favorite) ''The Deer Hunter''
Really enjoyed how they expanded on his character in this film. Being a lot less intimidating than the likes of his father, Sonny or Michael made him stand out in a different way. Despite the fact he played a role in trying to have Michael killed I still hoped Michael would forgive him. Their dynamic was the best part of Part II. Crazy the actor only did 5 films.
Vito knew how Fanucci operated; he saw that when Fanucci was attacked, he was alone and no one came to help. Vito, OTOH, built a network of employees and people who owed him favors - a "family". So when Vito was attacked, the family continued to function even while Vito was in the hospital. Fanucci was an safe target, Vito was not.
Coppola has said that these movies are about family, so you're not wrong there, but as I prefaced last time, for me personally, it was always about Michael. That's the beauty for me of that flashback scene at the end because it's a reminder that Micheal was once the rebellious one that wanted nothing to do with the family business, and was so self determined to be independent of his family, and to be different. In the first one, it was his love for his father, and essentially his family in general, that roped him in despite his personal feelings because he felt it was necessary of him to protect his father, and that ultimately, as the only one that was enough like his father to really fill his shoes, he was obligated to. It was his love that corrupted him. In this one though, you have this parallel between Vito's rise, and Michael's further corruption, now that he has filled his father's shoes. I think part of the difference between the two though, is that even though realistically, Vito wasn't necessarily as innocent or virtuous as he's thought of as, but for him there was a sense of necessity to his story, in that he did what he had to in order to survive. Which again, isn't really true either. He didn't necessarily have to do the things that he did, and it's kind of corrupt thinking to believe he did, but just the same, in a sick way, we do buy that he did. In the first one, in the scene where Vito expresses the hopes he had once had for Michael, he even says something to the effect of, "I don't apologize for what I did for my family, and that's my life." In this one though, I feel that there's more of a sense in Michael's story that he's more consumed by his power than we saw from his father, and through his own ambition, he's insistent on going further than he really has to, but there's no longer as much of a sense that he really needs to. In the first one, during that conversation, Vito knew that despite what he himself did, that Micheal didn't really need to, and that didn't need to be his life. Then in the flashback, we're reminded that Michael once knew himself that he didn't need to, which is something that he had forgotten, and that his initial motivation to protect his family, was eventually the very catalyst that ended up being the very thing that was corrupted into that which destroyed his family. So, when we come out of the flashback, we see the contrast between the young idealistic Michael, and what he's now become, and essentially what's left of him after the very corruption of his own soul. Now, you can interpret the how or why of how he went from one to another in different ways. You could even argue that it's a tragic tale, and that this is the expected natural conclusion of not just one, but two lives, that let's face it, despite the glamourization and glorification of the lifestyle portrayed in the movies, were lives that weren't virtuous or noble, and that ultimately, Vito set both of their lives in motion, and on this particular path, and though he suffered the loss of Sonny, he himself ultimately escaped any real accountability for his own actions, but instead passed the debt of his sins on to Michael's shoulders, and that Michael had to suffer the consequences of them, along with his own. So, whether you see the third one depends on your own perspective. When you see where we leave Michael at the end of this one, you can either believe that it ends as it should, because Michael deserves what he gets, this is the natural conclusion to his story, and there's nowhere else that story could go, or, if you're overly optimistic and idealistic like me, you believe that Michael is still capable of retribution, atonement, and change. For me personally, I couldn't imagine this being the end of his story, and I wanted there to be a third act to his story because I believed he deserved a second chance.
Part 3 is a decent film, but there's no way it could live up to the standards of two of the greatest cinematic achievements. If you thought the plot of GF2 was hard to follow at first, you may find the third to be even more convoluted. Pacino was into his Scent of a Woman phase of overacting, so there's only one scene in GF3 where he really shows his acting chops, and that's his confession scene with the soon-to-be but very short lived future pope. I think a watch is worth it, if for that scene alone.
Yes, over the Part I AND Part II (I assume into Part III) Michael's arc certainly has the longest trajectory. It's also interesting how when he announced he was joining the marines, everyone bar Fredo was completely against it. You feel like he was always destined for the role he would eventually attain. Vito obviously had a special bond with Michael and even seemed proud that he chose the path he did, but with the attempted murder of his beloved father Michael's life completely changes. That was the snowball effect. Michael is subtly terrifying in this second film. Those death stares are chilling. Perhaps a more subtle version of Tommy in "Goodfellas". But you know Michael could explode at any moment.
@@IrishGuyReacts Ha! Well that's another thing that Al Pacino, and in a slightly different way, that I think Robert Deniro were known for. The two have been my favorite actors since I was probably around 12 years old, and I once read it referred to as the Pacino blast, where they both tend to have this quality where they are both very restrained, and can say so much with their faces, without saying a word or doing very much at all, and it seems like there's just so much control of their actions, but also that there's such raw emotion that's festering underneath, that sometimes just instantly explodes out of them, but even then, it's like a focused rage that serves a purpose. That's something that I've always dug about their performances. If you haven't already, also check out "Heat", which was the first time since this one, that they were in a movie together, and the first time they actually interacted with each other on screen.
@@richiecabral3602 Oh yes, Heat is another on my watchlist. I've heard Val Kilmer is great in it also. Then there is the Miami Vice connection with Micahel Mann. I bought the boxset when living in the States and have finally got around to start watching it. Season 1 has been very enjoyable so far.
Not that you asked, but the character of Hyman Roth, is their fictional version of Meyer Lansky, just as in the first one, which was brought up in this one, Moe Green was their fictionalized version of Ben "Bugsy" Siegal. If you're not familiar with the history, Charlie "Lucky" Luciano, Meyer Lansky, Ben Siegel, and Frank Costello were all famous gangsters that came up together out of the prohibition era in the 20s, and Charlie Luciano went on to form the first national crime syndicate in which the Italian, Jewish, Irish, and other gangs pooled their efforts to actually organize organized crime into a business where there was an actual structure and rules guiding and managing the different involved interests. So, Lucky Luciano was basically the head of the syndicate that was basically the head mobster in America, one of them at least, and Myer Lansky was his right hand man that was known as the Mob's Accountant. Myer Lansky and Bennie Siegel were both Jews that grew up together since they were children, and met Luciano and Costello as teenagers. I don't know how historically accurate it is, but there's a movie from '91 called "Mobsters" about the early days of the four of them starting out together! Like the character of Moe Green in the first one, Bugsy Siegel is also famous for being the guy that had a dream and created Las Vegas into basically what it is today. Or at least what it was. It's a little different now a days, and probably more corporate owned than the days it was run by the mob. There's a movie about him called "Bugsy", that actually also came out in '91, that was a huge movie that was nominated for Academy Awards and everything.
@richiecabral3602 I loved "Bugsy". And if you haven't seen it (but I bet you have) I highly recommend "Boardwalk Empire". Very interesting look at the early days of the mob. Lucky Luciano is portrayed in it as well as Stephen Graham as a young Al Capone. And Michael Stuhlbarg is great as Arnold Rothstein. Mobster History Sidenote:✨️ When my father was 18 he was working part-time at a service station. One day an elegantly dressed man in a beautiful car stopped in & asked the mechanic to take a look as something was wrong. The mechanic couldn't figure it out. My dad noticed a barely audible little noise & stepped in offering his opinion & help. He was right & fixed the problem. The gentleman & the rather hard-looking man with him paid the bill & gave my dad a very generous tip, then went on their way. Early one Saturday morning a few weeks later my newlywed father & mother were awakened by those same two men at the door of their little apartment. Car trouble again & the gentleman had gone to the service station & asked for my dad. Even though it was Dad's day off, the guy came looking for him to check his car. After that, whenever he was in town he'd stop in for Dad to service or maintenance his car. Turns out it was George Moran, better known as Bugs Moran, the gangster whose men were ambushed by Al Capone in the infamous St. Valentine's Day Massacre in 1929. In the 40's & 50's he kept a small office in our Kentucky town (in between prison stints) & often had some illegal activities going on between here & Chicago. My dad said he was always soft-spoken, well-dressed & gentlemanly. You never would have known his background just talking to him. Dad also said it was a pleasure to work on such a fine car but the other guy (Mr. Moran's bodyguard) made him a bit uncomfortable..never speaking, just watching everyone around with a little bit of a surly attitude. But it was worth it because Mr. Moran, knowing my parents were a young couple just starting out, always paid Dad extra...equal to about 2 or 3 weeks his usual pay. My dad found him quite likable.✨️
I must admit I'm not too familiar with that slice of history but fascinating to read about. I appreciate you addressing it. I'll have to keep both "Bugsy" and "Mobsters" in mind for future watches on the channel
@@deborahcornell171 Wow! Great story Deborah! You could picture that happening in a mob movie. Your father being a character having a flashback to a prominent figure he once helped out.
@@IrishGuyReacts I don't think you have on the channel, and I don't know if you already have in your personal life, but if you are going to get into more Mafia type stuff, you definitely should check out some of Martin Scorsese films. Primarily, "Goodfellas", which is based on a true story, and a look at a much later era of the mob, and "Casino", which is also a different perspective on Las Vegas at a very different era.
Almost everybody overlooks the scene where baby Fredo gets pneumonia & high fever. The resulting brain damage explains his weakness and limited Intellectual capabilities throughout the story.
There are iconic lines here, and Michael’s point that both he and the senator are “both part of the same hypocrisy,” the difference being that it doesn’t extend to his family and like he points out to Kay in Part 1, senators and congresspeople are just like the mob - they do have people killed. So the senator is a bigger hypocrite than Mike is - to that point, anyway. The 3rd film regardless of what people tell you is worth seeing. It was never going to measure up to the first 2 iconic films, but it’s on par with a mafia movie of that time (1990). It has its issues, but I wouldn’t dismiss it outright. It’s still good to close out the saga and see all the films from start to finish for context. There’s a theme throughout that you’ll learn as the series goes along. The ending of this film is terrific. Michael’s character arch is amazing, and I think even though the 3rd film isn’t Oscar worthy, it’s worth seeing the closing chapter of that arch, so to speak. And you might recognize an iconic line or 2 from that movie.
Please check out the documentary on the late John Cazale called "I Knew It Was You". He passed away at a young age and only a few movies under his belt, but he left an amazing legacy.
Enjoyed the reaction. YES!!!! Watch pt 3! A lot of people don’t like it, but I thought it was one of Al Pacino’s best performances. It still evokes just as much emotion now as when I first saw it and I’ve watched the trilogy many times.
Half-way through; I've watched many Reactors get lost here..20:45. This is the kinda film where you have to listen real close to what's being said, these damn gangsters
i think it was 1979 or '80 a tv version was released called "the godfather epic" that arranged the 2 films in chronological order, inserting scenes cut from the original 2 films. particularly from the de niro part of the film. at the end michael kills himself. i always loved that version. then a part 3 was released, not a bad film but not up to the standards of the first 2, that completely destroyed the ending of the "epic" version. oh well, c'est la vie! thanks for the video.
Would be cool to watch it in that version. You might notice things you hadn't before or pick up different perspectives within the story and among the characters.
@@IrishGuyReacts... yep. the added scenes i remember best involves the white-hatted, scarfaced mafioso during the de niro segment. they show how and why he got that scar. for some reason that's the only specific addition i can think of. i don't know why the "epic" version didn't become the standard version. i think its the best version.
The only thing that really pains me about this incredible sequel (and believe me, I've watched the original and the sequel a lot of times in my life, my first experience was even the tv-mini-series ''The Godfather Epic'', which told the story of the first two movies in chronological order) , is that the actor who played ''Peter Clemenza'', Richard S. Castellano didn't returned (reason was he asked too much money), so they (imo and theory) changed the original script and cast Michael V. Gazzo instead (still an amazing performance) as ''Frank Pentangelli'', because by its storytelling it would've made to me way more powerful and even more sense, with the flashback scenes of ''Vito'' & ''Clemenza'', and the storyline of ''Michael'' & ''Clemenza'' instead of ''Frank Pentangelli''....
@@IrishGuyReactsone of his greatest performances, imo he's not performing a young Vito Corleone, but actually playing a young Marlon Brando playing Vito Corleone....
The major organized crime figures were Jewish (Hyman Roth is an analog to Meyer Lansky) but the Sicilians got most of the attention as they were more flamboyant. The Irish mob were successful in transitioning to political power especially in places like Boston (Kennedys, O'Neils, Curleys, etc.) where it persists to this day
If you like movies set on trains then I would strongly recommend the film "The Train" starring Burt Lancaster as a French resistance fighter towards the end of WW2.
Not quite so good, (but it has the feel of an old western movie which looks to be very much your thing) would be "North West Frontier" with Kennth More and Lauren Bacall trying to transport (by train) a young Hindu prince across a rebellious muslim province of British India at the start of the 20th century.
Irish guy!!!! No Roberto Mancini in this film. I’m glad you enjoyed the 1st one a little better. I did too and for those who say Part II is even better, well they’re just a spanner and gombeen ay?
Top 2 or 3 movies ever, better than pat 1 by a bit, part 1 is top 10. This movie has it all. The whole books point was showing in modern day (1950s) vs. early 1900s when the Italian's were just trying to survive, the mafia was now a cut throat business and when you got sucked into it, it made you paranoid because of all the killing, back in the day it wasn't as organized, they just had men like Fanucci running around threatening locals.
I should have addressed it in the description. For some reason the screen was blank in the recording for the first 5 minutes or so. Otherwise I would not have left out the opening scenes with Vito as a child losing his family. That's obviously a major moment in the story.
@@IrishGuyReacts In that case, I apologize -- my bad! 🤣👍 I couldn't believe anyone could edit that on purpose, lol. I like your demeanor & style (including "fillum" 😉), so I'll go back & finish your reaction. 😺
Where does "The Godfather Part II" rank among your favourite sequels?
It's the best. Although I have to be honest and say that there have been a fair number of sequels that were very good -- in contrast to the early days of sequels to successful films, which were usually just "quick-money" grabs. GF II is -- on its own -- sequel or not, one of the best films ever written and directed.
A great film, very great. I do still prefer Chinatown for 1974 though. I also still rate the first Gf higher as it is more straightforward; 2 is more convoluted and unclear. An example of that is the line "Michael Corleone says hello." It was improvised by Danny Aiello. Coppola liked it and decided to leave it in.
I can't say I can point to a scene to support this, but I've always thought that a part of Michael must have resented Fredo; the longer he was Don and the more the job and all those responsibilities weighed on him, the more he might have remembered that he was in that spot because of Fredo's weakness and stupidity.
I can't find the words to describe how much I love the final scene of this movie. Brando was supposed to be in it but didn't show up that day. I'm not sure he could have made it any better than it turned out.
@@anrun Chinatown is (more or less) my favorite film of all time.
It ranks way up there. It made me an offer I couldn't refuse.
I think of I and II as a complete arc of a story really about Michael so it's difficult to grade one over the other although the first one really set the rules, didn't it.
I'm happy you left in the scene with Michael talking with his mother about how Vito believed you could never lose your family. This is the key to all three films.
Old Vito could count on all the loyalties, customs, traditions and the old ways and the cohesion of Italians in America pre WW2. Michael cannot rely on any of that post WW2. The Italian experience is now fractured in America. These loyalties and traditions no longer stand, all symbolized by the move to Vegas. Michael can't rely on family, tradition, only money and violence.
So, with the flashbacks you see the continuity of Vito with Sicily brought to America. On the other hand, Michael, is left alone, he has to face everything in terms of the modern world, without any of those supports, not even family.
There is a beautiful contrast between Vito raising up to the top and Michael floundering in despair despite being at the top.
"I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!"
Fun Fact: This was the first sequel to win the Academy Award for Best Picture.
Lost In Translation Fact: Robert De Niro spent four months learning to speak the Sicilian dialect of Italian in order to play Vito Corleone. Nearly all of the dialogue that his character speaks in the film was in Sicilian.
Lost In Adaptation Fact: This movie and the first movie, was working off the same book. Francis Ford Coppola stripped all the backstory spread throughout the novel in order to focus on the main story. However when work began on this movie, he included all the material that was left out of the first movie.
Method Director Fact: The door to olive-oil business was rigged so that it would not open if a nail was inserted into the lock. Coppola kept this a secret from Leopoldo Trieste, who played Signor Roberto, and his difficulty in opening the door was real. Coppola wanted to film Trieste, a known Italian comedian, improvising his way through the scene. When Genco Abbandando opens the door, Frank Sivero surreptitiously pulls the nail out.
Music Enthusiast Fact: The orchestra that plays in the band shell during the party scene at Lake Tahoe was actually the Al Tronti Orchestra that played nightly for big names like Elvis Presley and Tom Jones at the Sahara Tahoe Casino/Hotel on the South Shore of Lake Tahoe while this film was being shot. Al Tronti himself sits in the orchestra in the front room (only seen in shadow). He wasn't allowed to appear as the orchestra conductor since he looked "too Italian" and the orchestra in the movie was supposed to be a West Coast group that is not able to play any traditional Italian music.
@BigGator5
Always enjoy the info in your comments. And I just replied to another comment with a little mob related trivia that made me think of your comment/info. If you're interested, scroll down to richiecabral3602 (his 2nd comment) & take a look. Too lazy to retype it. Just thought you might like the story.😄
Amazing work ethic from De Niro. Paid off with the brilliant performance.
My favorite bit of "trivia" for this film is the subtle way they showed that one of the helpers in the assassination of the old Sicilian boss was the same Don in a wheelchair who "babysat" Michael when he had to hide out in Sicily, in the first film. They showed it by displaying how violently his legs were "shot out from under him." I like that they allowed us to figure this out for ourselves...
I definitely didn't pick up on that, but it's always nice for films to have little subtle references that can be picked up on on re-viewings.
I love Fredo. The actor nails that mix of sad, weak, overlooked, wayward, but also loving and kinda hard and fierce. Such an interesting character.
Couldn't agree more. Possibly my favourite character in Part II. Was really hoping he wouldn't die. All the more tragic when you see how close he had got with his nephew.
I agree, an oscar worthy performance in its own right, usually overlooked
When young Vito came back for Don Ciccio, one of their friends (the one who introduce him) was Tomassino. Tomassino, much older obviously, helped Michael in Italy when he killed the police officer and Sollozo. If you remember, Tomassino walked always with a cane due to a limp. That limp was produced because of the shot on the knee when he was young, in that moment when Vito murdered Ciccio.
John Cazale (''Fredo'') is one of my all time favorite actors, who only made 5 movies, and they're all masterpieces in the cinematic history: ''The Godfather'', ''The Conversation'', ''The Godfather Part II'', ''Dog Day Afternoon'' & (my favorite) ''The Deer Hunter''
I hope Irish Guy puts Dog Day Afternoon on his list. Seeing a reaction to Pacino and Cazale together again in another great film would be cool.
Really enjoyed how they expanded on his character in this film. Being a lot less intimidating than the likes of his father, Sonny or Michael made him stand out in a different way. Despite the fact he played a role in trying to have Michael killed I still hoped Michael would forgive him. Their dynamic was the best part of Part II. Crazy the actor only did 5 films.
@@flarrfan I'll have to add it to my watchlist
Only did 5 films, and each one garnered a best picture nomination!
Vito knew how Fanucci operated; he saw that when Fanucci was attacked, he was alone and no one came to help. Vito, OTOH, built a network of employees and people who owed him favors - a "family". So when Vito was attacked, the family continued to function even while Vito was in the hospital. Fanucci was an safe target, Vito was not.
Strategic and extremely observant. Vito was made for the role he attain.
Fanucci was marked as a punk loser and doomed the minute he settled for $100 instead of $200. He was a paper tiger and Vito realized it then.
Coppola has said that these movies are about family, so you're not wrong there, but as I prefaced last time, for me personally, it was always about Michael. That's the beauty for me of that flashback scene at the end because it's a reminder that Micheal was once the rebellious one that wanted nothing to do with the family business, and was so self determined to be independent of his family, and to be different. In the first one, it was his love for his father, and essentially his family in general, that roped him in despite his personal feelings because he felt it was necessary of him to protect his father, and that ultimately, as the only one that was enough like his father to really fill his shoes, he was obligated to. It was his love that corrupted him.
In this one though, you have this parallel between Vito's rise, and Michael's further corruption, now that he has filled his father's shoes. I think part of the difference between the two though, is that even though realistically, Vito wasn't necessarily as innocent or virtuous as he's thought of as, but for him there was a sense of necessity to his story, in that he did what he had to in order to survive. Which again, isn't really true either. He didn't necessarily have to do the things that he did, and it's kind of corrupt thinking to believe he did, but just the same, in a sick way, we do buy that he did. In the first one, in the scene where Vito expresses the hopes he had once had for Michael, he even says something to the effect of, "I don't apologize for what I did for my family, and that's my life."
In this one though, I feel that there's more of a sense in Michael's story that he's more consumed by his power than we saw from his father, and through his own ambition, he's insistent on going further than he really has to, but there's no longer as much of a sense that he really needs to. In the first one, during that conversation, Vito knew that despite what he himself did, that Micheal didn't really need to, and that didn't need to be his life.
Then in the flashback, we're reminded that Michael once knew himself that he didn't need to, which is something that he had forgotten, and that his initial motivation to protect his family, was eventually the very catalyst that ended up being the very thing that was corrupted into that which destroyed his family. So, when we come out of the flashback, we see the contrast between the young idealistic Michael, and what he's now become, and essentially what's left of him after the very corruption of his own soul.
Now, you can interpret the how or why of how he went from one to another in different ways. You could even argue that it's a tragic tale, and that this is the expected natural conclusion of not just one, but two lives, that let's face it, despite the glamourization and glorification of the lifestyle portrayed in the movies, were lives that weren't virtuous or noble, and that ultimately, Vito set both of their lives in motion, and on this particular path, and though he suffered the loss of Sonny, he himself ultimately escaped any real accountability for his own actions, but instead passed the debt of his sins on to Michael's shoulders, and that Michael had to suffer the consequences of them, along with his own.
So, whether you see the third one depends on your own perspective. When you see where we leave Michael at the end of this one, you can either believe that it ends as it should, because Michael deserves what he gets, this is the natural conclusion to his story, and there's nowhere else that story could go, or, if you're overly optimistic and idealistic like me, you believe that Michael is still capable of retribution, atonement, and change. For me personally, I couldn't imagine this being the end of his story, and I wanted there to be a third act to his story because I believed he deserved a second chance.
Part 3 is a decent film, but there's no way it could live up to the standards of two of the greatest cinematic achievements. If you thought the plot of GF2 was hard to follow at first, you may find the third to be even more convoluted. Pacino was into his Scent of a Woman phase of overacting, so there's only one scene in GF3 where he really shows his acting chops, and that's his confession scene with the soon-to-be but very short lived future pope. I think a watch is worth it, if for that scene alone.
@@flarrfan Dude! What's with the spoilers?! You understand that he hasn't seen it yet, right?
Yes, over the Part I AND Part II (I assume into Part III) Michael's arc certainly has the longest trajectory. It's also interesting how when he announced he was joining the marines, everyone bar Fredo was completely against it. You feel like he was always destined for the role he would eventually attain. Vito obviously had a special bond with Michael and even seemed proud that he chose the path he did, but with the attempted murder of his beloved father Michael's life completely changes. That was the snowball effect. Michael is subtly terrifying in this second film. Those death stares are chilling. Perhaps a more subtle version of Tommy in "Goodfellas". But you know Michael could explode at any moment.
@@IrishGuyReacts Ha! Well that's another thing that Al Pacino, and in a slightly different way, that I think Robert Deniro were known for. The two have been my favorite actors since I was probably around 12 years old, and I once read it referred to as the Pacino blast, where they both tend to have this quality where they are both very restrained, and can say so much with their faces, without saying a word or doing very much at all, and it seems like there's just so much control of their actions, but also that there's such raw emotion that's festering underneath, that sometimes just instantly explodes out of them, but even then, it's like a focused rage that serves a purpose. That's something that I've always dug about their performances. If you haven't already, also check out "Heat", which was the first time since this one, that they were in a movie together, and the first time they actually interacted with each other on screen.
@@richiecabral3602 Oh yes, Heat is another on my watchlist. I've heard Val Kilmer is great in it also. Then there is the Miami Vice connection with Micahel Mann. I bought the boxset when living in the States and have finally got around to start watching it. Season 1 has been very enjoyable so far.
Not that you asked, but the character of Hyman Roth, is their fictional version of Meyer Lansky, just as in the first one, which was brought up in this one, Moe Green was their fictionalized version of Ben "Bugsy" Siegal.
If you're not familiar with the history, Charlie "Lucky" Luciano, Meyer Lansky, Ben Siegel, and Frank Costello were all famous gangsters that came up together out of the prohibition era in the 20s, and Charlie Luciano went on to form the first national crime syndicate in which the Italian, Jewish, Irish, and other gangs pooled their efforts to actually organize organized crime into a business where there was an actual structure and rules guiding and managing the different involved interests. So, Lucky Luciano was basically the head of the syndicate that was basically the head mobster in America, one of them at least, and Myer Lansky was his right hand man that was known as the Mob's Accountant. Myer Lansky and Bennie Siegel were both Jews that grew up together since they were children, and met Luciano and Costello as teenagers. I don't know how historically accurate it is, but there's a movie from '91 called "Mobsters" about the early days of the four of them starting out together!
Like the character of Moe Green in the first one, Bugsy Siegel is also famous for being the guy that had a dream and created Las Vegas into basically what it is today. Or at least what it was. It's a little different now a days, and probably more corporate owned than the days it was run by the mob. There's a movie about him called "Bugsy", that actually also came out in '91, that was a huge movie that was nominated for Academy Awards and everything.
@richiecabral3602
I loved "Bugsy". And if you haven't seen it (but I bet you have) I highly recommend "Boardwalk Empire". Very interesting look at the early days of the mob.
Lucky Luciano is portrayed in it as well as Stephen Graham as a young Al Capone. And Michael Stuhlbarg is great as Arnold Rothstein.
Mobster History Sidenote:✨️
When my father was 18 he was working part-time at a service station. One day an elegantly dressed man in a beautiful car stopped in & asked the mechanic to take a look as something was wrong. The mechanic couldn't figure it out. My dad noticed a barely audible little noise & stepped in offering his opinion & help. He was right & fixed the problem. The gentleman & the rather hard-looking man with him paid the bill & gave my dad a very generous tip, then went on their way.
Early one Saturday morning a few weeks later my newlywed father & mother were awakened by those same two men at the door of their little apartment. Car trouble again & the gentleman had gone to the service station & asked for my dad. Even though it was Dad's day off, the guy came looking for him to check his car.
After that, whenever he was in town he'd stop in for Dad to service or maintenance his car.
Turns out it was George Moran, better known as Bugs Moran, the gangster whose men were ambushed by Al Capone in the infamous St. Valentine's Day Massacre in 1929.
In the 40's & 50's he kept a small office in our Kentucky town (in between prison stints) & often had some illegal activities going on between here & Chicago.
My dad said he was always soft-spoken, well-dressed & gentlemanly. You never would have known his background just talking to him.
Dad also said it was a pleasure to work on such a fine car but the other guy (Mr. Moran's bodyguard) made him a bit uncomfortable..never speaking, just watching everyone around with a little bit of a surly attitude.
But it was worth it because Mr. Moran, knowing my parents were a young couple just starting out, always paid Dad extra...equal to about 2 or 3 weeks his usual pay. My dad found him quite likable.✨️
I must admit I'm not too familiar with that slice of history but fascinating to read about. I appreciate you addressing it. I'll have to keep both "Bugsy" and "Mobsters" in mind for future watches on the channel
@@deborahcornell171 Wow! Great story Deborah! You could picture that happening in a mob movie. Your father being a character having a flashback to a prominent figure he once helped out.
@@IrishGuyReacts I don't think you have on the channel, and I don't know if you already have in your personal life, but if you are going to get into more Mafia type stuff, you definitely should check out some of Martin Scorsese films. Primarily, "Goodfellas", which is based on a true story, and a look at a much later era of the mob, and "Casino", which is also a different perspective on Las Vegas at a very different era.
@@richiecabral3602 Goodfellas I have seen. Phenomenal film!
Almost everybody overlooks the scene where baby Fredo gets pneumonia & high fever. The resulting brain damage explains his weakness and limited Intellectual capabilities throughout the story.
Was only when going back to edit it that I picked up on that I must admit
Sounds like you had pneumonia and high fever as a baby.
There are iconic lines here, and Michael’s point that both he and the senator are “both part of the same hypocrisy,” the difference being that it doesn’t extend to his family and like he points out to Kay in Part 1, senators and congresspeople are just like the mob - they do have people killed. So the senator is a bigger hypocrite than Mike is - to that point, anyway. The 3rd film regardless of what people tell you is worth seeing. It was never going to measure up to the first 2 iconic films, but it’s on par with a mafia movie of that time (1990). It has its issues, but I wouldn’t dismiss it outright. It’s still good to close out the saga and see all the films from start to finish for context. There’s a theme throughout that you’ll learn as the series goes along. The ending of this film is terrific. Michael’s character arch is amazing, and I think even though the 3rd film isn’t Oscar worthy, it’s worth seeing the closing chapter of that arch, so to speak. And you might recognize an iconic line or 2 from that movie.
I do intend to watch the 3rd film. I don't expect it to be on the same level as the first two so that may be the key to me enjoying it.
Thanks! Underrated reaction channel. Great review.
Thank you so much Mary. Appreciate the words of support too.
Please check out the documentary on the late John Cazale called "I Knew It Was You". He passed away at a young age and only a few movies under his belt, but he left an amazing legacy.
I loved him as Fredo so I would be very interested to see it. I must watch more of his work. Sad to hear he died way before his time.
All five were nominated for Best Picture.
Primarily a stage actor (hence, small movie count), his girlfriend, Meryl Streep, stayed with him til the end. So sad.
Enjoyed the reaction. YES!!!! Watch pt 3! A lot of people don’t like it, but I thought it was one of Al Pacino’s best performances. It still evokes just as much emotion now as when I first saw it and I’ve watched the trilogy many times.
Definitely hope to watch Part 3 at a certain point
Half-way through; I've watched many Reactors get lost here..20:45. This is the kinda film where you have to listen real close to what's being said, these damn gangsters
i think it was 1979 or '80 a tv version was released called "the godfather epic" that arranged the 2 films in chronological order, inserting scenes cut from the original 2 films. particularly from the de niro part of the film. at the end michael kills himself. i always loved that version. then a part 3 was released, not a bad film but not up to the standards of the first 2, that completely destroyed the ending of the "epic" version. oh well, c'est la vie! thanks for the video.
Would be cool to watch it in that version. You might notice things you hadn't before or pick up different perspectives within the story and among the characters.
@@IrishGuyReacts... yep. the added scenes i remember best involves the white-hatted, scarfaced mafioso during the de niro segment. they show how and why he got that scar. for some reason that's the only specific addition i can think of.
i don't know why the "epic" version didn't become the standard version. i think its the best version.
Classic movie.
The only thing that really pains me about this incredible sequel (and believe me, I've watched the original and the sequel a lot of times in my life, my first experience was even the tv-mini-series ''The Godfather Epic'', which told the story of the first two movies in chronological order) , is that the actor who played ''Peter Clemenza'', Richard S. Castellano didn't returned (reason was he asked too much money), so they (imo and theory) changed the original script and cast Michael V. Gazzo instead (still an amazing performance) as ''Frank Pentangelli'', because by its storytelling it would've made to me way more powerful and even more sense, with the flashback scenes of ''Vito'' & ''Clemenza'', and the storyline of ''Michael'' & ''Clemenza'' instead of ''Frank Pentangelli''....
Would have been nice to see Brando back in some capacity too. Although De Niro did a great job in the role.
@@IrishGuyReactsone of his greatest performances, imo he's not performing a young Vito Corleone, but actually playing a young Marlon Brando playing Vito Corleone....
It's well-nigh a high crime (or at least a misdemeanor) that you don't have more subs. Doing my best to spread the word. Keep at it, sir! 👍
Thank you so much .Really appreciate the support and kind words.
The major organized crime figures were Jewish (Hyman Roth is an analog to Meyer Lansky) but the Sicilians got most of the attention as they were more flamboyant. The Irish mob were successful in transitioning to political power especially in places like Boston (Kennedys, O'Neils, Curleys, etc.) where it persists to this day
20:36 "No. I never met them." Fredo just lied to his brother...
Yes, that came back to haunt him. I can't deny Fredo betrayed his brother but I still was hoping Michael would forgive him
If you like movies set on trains then I would strongly recommend the film "The Train" starring Burt Lancaster as a French resistance fighter towards the end of WW2.
Not quite so good, (but it has the feel of an old western movie which looks to be very much your thing) would be "North West Frontier" with Kennth More and Lauren Bacall trying to transport (by train) a young Hindu prince across a rebellious muslim province of British India at the start of the 20th century.
I appreciate the recommendation. I'll have to add that to my watchlist.
As great as the first one! Brilliant cinema!
Brilliant again and definitely deserves to be held on the same level as the original even if I'd lean slightly towards the original.
Sad but this is my Friday night 😂 looking forward I always like to leave comment before I watch
Hope you enjoyed and had a good Friday Night 😉
Irish guy!!!! No Roberto Mancini in this film. I’m glad you enjoyed the 1st one a little better. I did too and for those who say Part II is even better, well they’re just a spanner and gombeen ay?
Haha he must have been off playing for Sampdoria 😆
I salute you for the gombeen utterance 🤣
I try mucker.
Top 2 or 3 movies ever, better than pat 1 by a bit, part 1 is top 10. This movie has it all. The whole books point was showing in modern day (1950s) vs. early 1900s when the Italian's were just trying to survive, the mafia was now a cut throat business and when you got sucked into it, it made you paranoid because of all the killing, back in the day it wasn't as organized, they just had men like Fanucci running around threatening locals.
Yeah showing how it evolved between the two timelines and how that influence has expanded exponentially, seeing figures such as senators involved.
@@IrishGuyReacts Yea, they were never killing a U.S. Senator, they just compromise him, lol.
Read the book btw 👍🏼
I definitely should
If you like movies at least partly set on trains I recommend Alfred Hitchcock's "North by Northwest".😊
Really good movie I have seen. Appreciate the recommendation though 👍
Read the Puzo Novel. There is a bit more Vito back-story.
I hope to check out the book too.
YOU STARTED WITH HIM ARRIVING IN NYC??????? Dude -- movies are not your thing! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I should have addressed it in the description. For some reason the screen was blank in the recording for the first 5 minutes or so. Otherwise I would not have left out the opening scenes with Vito as a child losing his family. That's obviously a major moment in the story.
@@IrishGuyReacts In that case, I apologize -- my bad! 🤣👍 I couldn't believe anyone could edit that on purpose, lol. I like your demeanor & style (including "fillum" 😉), so I'll go back & finish your reaction. 😺