The Godfather Epic

[MrsRafaelBarba]

My Lord, Andy Garcia was so damn hot in Godfather III.

Like Joe, but his character's stupid name was more than enough for him to die

Joey Zaza, seriously?

Edited February 2, 2016 by MrsRafaelBarba

[Dejana]

Michael tells Kay about his first marriage in Godfather III.

Figures, the one I've blocked out. I'm wondering if his family knew about it, because you'd figure it would have come up at some point during the Michael/Kay marriage, if they had. Also, when applying for a license, you're often asked if it's the first marriage, though a person could always lie about that.

[benteen]

Someone mentioned Al Neri, really curious about that character.

Would've liked to see what made him go to the bad side of the law. After being a cop. Was it explained in the book?

 

He ended up going to jail for caving in a pimp's skull with a flashlight after the pimp beat up a prostitute.  He hit him so hard that the glass and the batteries popped out of the flashlight.  He went to jail and someone from the Corleone family took an interest in him, I can't remember who.  But he eventually got out of jail and I remember him thinking about when he was invited over the Corleone home and met the Don.  He was very grateful to the Don and it's noted (I believe by the Don) that he is Michael's Luca Brasi who will do anything (though he's not even close to being as horrible as Luca Brasi is).

 

As for why he went bad, I think Neri's internal thoughts indicate that he was a frustrated cop.  Frustrated in general.  I can't remember as its been a long time since I've read the book.

[GHScorpiosRule]

He ended up going to jail for caving in a pimp's skull with a flashlight after the pimp beat up a prostitute.  He hit him so hard that the glass and the batteries popped out of the flashlight.  He went to jail and someone from the Corleone family took an interest in him, I can't remember who.  But he eventually got out of jail and I remember him thinking about when he was invited over the Corleone home and met the Don.  He was very grateful to the Don and it's noted (I believe by the Don) that he is Michael's Luca Brasi who will do anything (though he's not even close to being as horrible as Luca Brasi is).

 

As for why he went bad, I think Neri's internal thoughts indicate that he was a frustrated cop.  Frustrated in general.  I can't remember as its been a long time since I've read the book.

 

Just finished the book this morning, and yes, finally toward the end, we got Neri's backstory. He was an honest cop, but one who used excessive force on the hoods, thugs, etc. in each of the precincts he worked the beat.  And after beating the shit out of his nephew, who treated his mother (Neri's widowed sister) disrespectfully, his wife left him, because she was scared of him. This came as a shock to him, because he'd never hurt her or yelled at her, or lifted a finger against her. And the night before he was going to go to her to make up, he was called on a scene, where a prostitute, and a little girl had been hacked up with razor marks, knife wounds, and it was the pimp that had done it. And like benteen posted up above, the second punch with the flashlight, that caved in the pimp's head, wasn't necessary, and it killed him.

 

Now Neri's father-in-law didn't think Neri would be safe in prison (he'd been tried and found guilty of manslaughter, term of one to ten years), and he also thought his daughter was stupid to leave him. So he went to Vito, and pressed his case.  Vito got the sentence suspended, and then Neri met with both Vito and Michael, and after meeting with them, he was hired and worked under Clemenza, before he went to Michael, and became Michael's Luca. Except Neri wasn't the monster that Luca was.

 

That said, I really, really like the changes that were made from the book for the movie, because I didn't find how Michael settled all debts in the book at all satisfying. And it was Tom and Rocco who thought that Michael wasn't sure about Carlo's guilt/that Michael didn't feel like he was the Don, because he was asking Carlo to admit what he did. Like, Vito would never have said that.  It's too bad we didn't get to read the conversations that Vito and Michael had about what to do; something the movie, at least, in the restored deleted scenes gave me, that Vito knew what he was doing when he made the peace, knowing it was a sign of weakness. That he was biding his time to make the Barzinis and Tattaglias pay.

 

And I'm also glad the movie ended where it did, because we got a whole chapter of Kay after that, and her reasons for leaving Michael before she came back were beyond STUPID. And the conversation between her and Tom made me roll my eyes. Like, after all this time being married to Michael, she really thought this?  

 

Oh and I didn't remember that Kay had two boys, and that the movie changed it to boy and a girl.  Or that there was no Christening of Connie and Carlo's second baby that Michael finally consented to be Godfather to, but at their older son's Confirmation.  

 

So yeah, I liked the changes the movie made. But the book is still very good. I'm glad I didn't feel like tearing my hair out at the changes or end up hating the movie (like has happened in the past) because I read the book.  Of all the movies I've seen based on a book I've liked or loved, Godfather is the only one where I prefer the movie over the book, but still like the book, if that makes sense.

Edited February 2, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Inquisitionist]

Of all the movies I've seen based on a book I've liked or loved, Godfather is the only one where I prefer the movie over the book, but still like the book, if that makes sense.

 

IMO, the book is entertaining on a trashy level, while the movie is a piece of art.

 

Oh and I didn't remember that Kay had two boys, and that the movie changed it to boy and a girl.

 

I imagine Coppola made this change in Part II to give more urgency to Michael's inquiry about whether the aborted fetus was male.

 

there was no Christening of Connie and Carlo's second baby that Michael finally consented to be Godfather to, but at their older son's Confirmation.

 

Hard to explain confirmation to a largely non-Catholic audience, I think.  Baptisms also film better.  The interspersing of Michael's recitations at the baptismal font (renouncing Satan and all his works, etc) while his henchmen killed off legions of enemies was a high point of American cinema. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I imagine Coppola made this change in Part II to give more urgency to Michael's inquiry about whether the aborted fetus was male.

I never thought about that. And I suppose it would have been too complicated to put in that Apollonia was pregnant when she was killed.

 

 

Hard to explain confirmation to a largely non-Catholic audience, I think.  Baptisms also film better.  The interspersing of Michael's recitations at the baptismal font (renouncing Satan and all his works, etc) while his henchmen killed off legions of enemies was a high point of American cinema.

Oh, totally agree that Baptism also filmed better. I loved, how between each recitation, we saw Green, Tattaglia, Barzini, Cuneo, and Stracci get theirs.

Which reminds of that line in Godfather II from Tom to Michael, about does he want to kill everyone? and Michael calmly says: "I don't want to kill everyone. Just all my enemies."

And I loved that they kept most of the dialogue from the book in the movie, though I liked the tweaks Coppola made. Like Michael's line to Fredo about never siding with anyone against the family. Ever. In the book, Mo Green and his goons were still in the room when Michael said it. I prefer how Michael waited until it was just him, Fredo, Tom and Neri in the movie to say it to Fredo.

[benteen]

I think the book is great once you get past some of those trashy chapters (Sonny's mistress).  I read an earlier book that Puzo wrote called The Dark Arena (not recommended, it sucks) and I can't say I'm a fan of the way he writes his male and female characters.

 

We also get the Don Corleone Godfather II backstory in the Godfather novel.  Although the scene where Vito return home to Sicily to get his revenge on the old Don is a strictly movie-only subplot and that was a GREAT addition to Godfather, Part II.

 

We also get to learn about the Corleone family's glory years in the book.  That source material was originally going to be used for The Godfather, Part IV, which Coppola and Puzo were starting to develop before Puzo died in 2000.  It would have shown the rise of the Corleone family with Sonny (played by DiCaprio) contrasted against the complete destruction of the Corleone family in the present day under Vincent.  At the very end of the Godfather III DVD commentary, Coppola talks about what they had planned.  It's definitely worth a listen.

 

Speaking of Coppola, I read on The Digital Bits (a blu-ray website) a few days ago that you shouldn't count on The Godfather Epic being released on Blu-ray/DVD.  Coppola just doesn't want to do it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Speaking of Coppola, I read on The Digital Bits (a blu-ray website) a few days ago that you shouldn't count on The Godfather Epic being released on Blu-ray/DVD. Coppola just doesn't want to do it.

WAAAH!!!!

Maybe he'll change his mind?

And I absolutely agree, young Vito going back to Sicily and avenging the murders of his father and brother (created in movie) was AWESOME. I hadn't realized it wasn't in the book until I read past that part and it wasn't mentioned.

I also agree that I don't like how Puzo writes his female characters in this book, more so than the males. I especially didn't like how Comare was written.

And now I'm hoping the EPIC will be a regular airing that I can watch if it is removed from on demand. The movies are great on their own, but the inclusion of those deleted scenes just add that bit more and clarify some scenes that don't make sense, you know?

[benteen]

Reading Puzo's books, his female characters come across as weak and dumb while his male characters come across as very unlikeable in their arrogance.

 

I'm not quite sure why Coppola doesn't want to release the Epic on DVD.  I've heard he wants his original versions of the movies to be THE versions of the movies but he did release it on VHS back in the 80s or 90s.  I think my aunt and uncle used to own it.

 

Sonny's beatdown of Carlo is immensely more satisfying in the movie than it is in the book and of course, the Baptism/massacre in the movie is far superior as well.

Edited February 2, 2016 by benteen

[GHScorpiosRule]

Reading Puzo's books, his female character come across as weak and dumb while his male characters come across as very unlikeable in their arrogance.

I'm not quite sure why Coppola doesn't want to release the Epic on DVD. I've heard he wants his original versions of the movies to be THE versions of the movies but he did release it on VHS back in the 80s or 90s. I think my aunt and uncle used to own it.

Yes, that's what bugged me.

I don't know why either-and if you look at the date, the epic was released in 1981. The epic could have been an extra in the bluray 3-movie pack that I have.

But that's just me.

[ZaldamoWilder]

The Godfather Saga is a gift that keeps on giving.

You can always catch something new, that was missed before.

For me, the symbolism with Oranges.

The double take and pained look on Fabrizio's face.

When Michael States his intentions to marry Apollonia to her father.

 

Girl I'm gonna need more words.  What do the oranges mean?

 

Each time I see the horsehead scene, the transition from the scream to Vito in his study - I don't know if it's intentional or supposed to even be perceptible but Marlon Brando does this thing with his face, his eyebrows go up and he damb near does a shoulder shrug that coincides with old boy's reaction to all the blood in his bed.  Almost as if to say to himself, see what happens when you don't respond to me nicely.   It's the only place in the movie where I laugh, loudly. 

[MrsRafaelBarba]

@ Zaldamo Wilder....

Oranges were a symbol for death in the film.

Re-watch again and notice everyone that's shown holding one or near them.

[Inquisitionist]

What's with all the oranges?  Nice compilation!

 

On the other hand, maybe

 

oranges were simply another carefully chosen compliment to otherwise somberly dressed sets. ‘We knew this film wasn’t going to be about bright colors, and oranges make a nice contrast,’ said [production designer Dean] Tavoularis. ‘I don’t remember anybody saying, Hey, I like oranges as a symbolic message.’

[VCRTracking]

Coppola cast Diane Keaton because the role of Kay as written was a very bland character and he thought Keaton's quirky quality would at least make her more interesting.

 

Critic Amy Nicholson in a podcast debating whether Godfather Part III should be part of the "canon" of great movies along with the first two made me laugh when she said in Part III, that the older Kay was now  "dressing like Diane Keaton". And it's true! All she needed was a bowler hat.

Edited February 3, 2016 by VCRTracking

[GHScorpiosRule]

Critic Amy Nicholson in a podcast debating whether Godfather Part III should be part of the "canon" of great movies along with the first two made me laugh when she said in Part III, that the older Kay was now  "dressing like Diane Keaton". And it's true! All she needed was a bowler hat.

 

And I say, a big FAT, NO! It shouldn't be part of the canon of great movies. It was a disgrace. I remember being so excited in wanting to see it, and it disappointed on so many levels. That Vincent was a made up character, and all the rest, which I've stated upthread.

 

Blech.

[ZaldamoWilder]

So either death or vivid set design?  lol.  Even the background stuff isn't dull.

 

Coppola cast Diane Keaton because the role of Kay as written was a very bland character and he thought Keaton's quirky quality would at least make her more interesting.

 

Critic Amy Nicholson in a podcast debating whether Godfather Part III should be part of the "canon" of great movies along with the first two made me laugh when she said in Part III, that the older Kay was now  "dressing like Diane Keaton". And it's true! All she needed was a bowler hat.

 

consideration of III for inclusion in the "canon of great movies"?   Amy please turn in your neck pass and leave it with Security.  Thanks.

[ulkis]

And I say, a big FAT, NO! It shouldn't be part of the canon of great movies. It was a disgrace. I remember being so excited in wanting to see it, and it disappointed on so many levels. That Vincent was a made up character, and all the rest, which I've stated upthread.

 

Blech.

 

I remember hearing about how bad Sophia Coppola's acting was, and when I watched even that wasn't enough to prepare me. I didn't think it was going to be that bad.

[GHScorpiosRule]

 

I remember hearing about how bad Sophia Coppola's acting was, and when I watched even that wasn't enough to prepare me. I didn't think it was going to be that bad.

 

Her death scene was the most laughable. She should have been dead immediately, but after being shot in the heart? Managed to say, "Dad?" and then keeled over and died.  And I don't think that was the intent: to make me laugh.

 

And then there was this bit of idiocy:

 

Michael to Mary about Vincent: "He's your first cousin."

 

Mary: "So I'll love him first." or something like that. Truly awful.  She was much better as a baby, playing a boy baby being Christened in Godfather II.  I think Coppola got as many of his own family members to appear in the movies as he could!

[VCRTracking]

The podcast is a good listen. Summary:

 

Karina Longworth, host of the film history podcast, “You Must Remember This” and author of "Al Pacino: Anatomy of an Actor," joins Devin & Amy this week with a bold nomination: The Godfather: Part III deserves to be in the canon along with The Godfather and The Godfather: Part II. Should the first two classics enter alone? Does the full trilogy satisfy -- or sabotage -- the Corleone saga? Was Sofia Coppola really so bad that her father's final installment should get scrapped? Tune in for the difficult down-to-the-wire decision everyone must make -- and head to the forums on Wolfpop to cast the deciding vote!

 

I think the podcast is a good listen whatever your opinion because they discuss the whole trilogy. Even though I don't think it's a great film Coppola did bring a lot of himself into it, he had financial problems, his eldest child Gio died in a boating accident, etc.

In the end of the podcast Devin Faraci said Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen was too important to the saga and Michael's arc that his absence in Part III disqualifies the movie. Amy said the emptiness of Michael's death is enough to overlook all the flaws in Part III she feels that it's the perfect ending for him. The voters ultimately decided no.

 

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/04/20/the-canon-episode-23-the-godfather-trilogy

Edited February 3, 2016 by VCRTracking

[GHScorpiosRule]

Because I have nothing else better to do, and because after today, this Epic will no longer be available On Demand. At least, according to the 'expiration' in the corner. I hope that's not true.

 

Anyhoo, a couple of things I don't think I mentioned before, or forgot to; We never did see cute Kitty after the scene where Bonasera asks Vito for help.

 

And I like babies/children. BUT. Good Goddamn but the baby playing Sonny's youngest? The incessant crying every.single.time. he was on scene, the infant was hollering and screaming at the top of his voice. When Vito was brought home from the hospital, when Clemenza came to say he heard Vito was dead, and of course, when Comare was holding him when Connie called, which led to Sonny's murder. Made my ears bleed. And I'm someone who is used to hearing babies cry, but here, it irked me beyond reason.

 

And this is what I get for going down the Rabbit Hole. I didn't know that the reason Pacino didn't attend the Oscars the year Brando won, was in protest, because he felt he should have been nominated for Best Actor, since he appeared in more scenes in the movie than Brando. Now, I don't know if that's true, because really, stuff on imdb and wiki, are put there by fans for the most part.  I don't want to believe it, because I would like to think that so early in his career, Pacino would be that petty. I mean, he was nominated for Best Supporting. But what do I know? Just going by interviews around that time, he didn't strike me...that way. If that makes sense.

 

But he is a DAMNED good actor. Just found out Scarface was available as a free movie and watched it again last night.  And I swear, he looked like he was in his 30's and not early 40's, which was his actual age.  Not sure when his looks started to fade...around the time the third Godfather came out, I think.

[Inquisitionist]

But he is a DAMNED good actor. Just found out Scarface was available as a free movie and watched it again last night.  And I swear, he looked like he was in his 30's and not early 40's, which was his actual age.  Not sure when his looks started to fade...around the time the third Godfather came out, I think.

 

I think Pacino was made up to look older and ailing in GIII.  He still looked quite good in Glengarry Glen Ross, which came out a few years later (1992) and even in Heat (1995).

[VCRTracking]

And I like babies/children. BUT. Good Goddamn but the baby playing Sonny's youngest? The incessant crying every.single.time. he was on scene, the infant was hollering and screaming at the top of his voice. When Vito was brought home from the hospital, when Clemenza came to say he heard Vito was dead, and of course, when Comare was holding him when Connie called, which led to Sonny's murder. Made my ears bleed. And I'm someone who is used to hearing babies cry, but here, it irked me beyond reason.

 

I was going about to post a funny quote from Outlaw Vern's review from a few years ago. He hadn't seen it before but liked it a lot thought it deserved it's reputation as a great movie, but he also wrote in a kidding way:

Also, I gotta call out the babies. The babies in this movie are always fucking crying. Come on, babies. Learn some god damn manners.

 

 

and I also checked Twitter and saw a lot of tweets complaining about them! I guess because I have a lot of relatives and family friends growing up and there was always a crying baby in the house that I never noticed it or was bothered by it in The Godfather! Also in Part II you have the flashbacks where baby Sonny and baby Fredo are crying(although Fredo had pneumonia so he has an excuse).

Edited February 19, 2016 by VCRTracking

[GHScorpiosRule]

and I also checked Twitter and saw a lot of tweets complaining about them! I guess because I have a lot of relatives and family friends growing up and there was always a crying baby in the house that I never noticed it or was bothered by it in The Godfather! Also in Part II you have the flashbacks where baby Sonny and baby Fredo are crying(although Fredo had pneumonia so he has an excuse).

 

I didn't think I would mind the crying baby, either, as I stated above that I'm used to babies and love them and children, but for some reason, the baby here just really, really annoyed me!

 

I have a bit of confusion in Godfather II about who it was that had pneumonia! Because when Clemenza and Vito brought the red rug, it was Santino, who was still clearly a baby, crying, yet the sick baby was Fredo? I am still confused because there is at least two to three years difference between Santino and Fredo, as we see on the stoop after Vito has killed Fanucci. So I'm wondering if that wasn't an error in the script. That it was Santino who was sick, because he and Fredo weren't twins and the babies looked to be the same age.

 

But yeah, seems like Santino was always crying. Michael, Connie and Connie's second baby, who was baptized, were the only babies that didn't cry, heh.

[VCRTracking]

I have a bit of confusion in Godfather II about who it was that had pneumonia! Because when Clemenza and Vito brought the red rug, it was Santino, who was still clearly a baby, crying, yet the sick baby was Fredo? I am still confused because there is at least two to three years difference between Santino and Fredo, as we see on the stoop after Vito has killed Fanucci. So I'm wondering if that wasn't an error in the script. That it was Santino who was sick, because he and Fredo weren't twins and the babies looked to be the same age.

 

It's supposed to be Fredo. It's to show he was always weak even at an early age. There's a time jump from when Vito steals the rug and the scene where Fredo is sick. In the first part of the flashbacks Vito mentions to his friend Genco, for him there is only his wife and child, meaning he only has one son at that point. Then after he becomes criminals with Clemenza, Fredo is born, then it jumps ahead a few years later and his third son Michael is born and that's when he gets blackmailed by Fanucci.

Edited February 19, 2016 by VCRTracking

[GHScorpiosRule]

I promise I'm not trying to be difficult, but they showed Fredo as a sickly baby first, and then showed Vito and Clemenza stealing the rug and it was baby Santino crying. Which caused me to scratch my head, because he should have been a toddler by then.  If they had shown the rug scene first, and then tending to Fredo, who had pneumonia, then I wouldn't be confused!

[VCRTracking]

If they had shown the rug scene first, and then tending to Fredo, who had pneumonia, then I wouldn't be confused!

 

 

That's what they did in the Godfather Part II. I saw the "Godfather Epic" chronological version later and it was confusing to me too because as you said the way it was edited made it seem like he was the eldest when it was really Sonny. In Part II it cuts from when Michael's son Anthony tells him he wants to help him and Michael says "Someday" in 1958 and there's a dissolve to Deniro as young Vito as watching Sonny in his crib in 1917:

 

 

Then after Vito and Clemenza steal the rug and baby Sonny is crying on it, it cuts to a modern train in 1958 as it takes Michael to New York to meet Pentangeli and there's the long stretch of the movie where he goes to Cuba and finds out Fredo betrayed him. When he comes back to Vegas Tom Hagen tells him Kay had a miscarriage and that they can't find Fredo it dissolves to young Vito worrying over baby Fredo:

 

Then the movie goes into the part where Vito kills Fanucci. After Fanucci comes back and holding baby Michael tells him in Sicilian "I love you very much." there's an intermission(on the DVD or VHS you go to the second disc or tape) We return to Michael for a short bit where he arrives home to the Corleone compound in Lake Tahoe, sees Kay sewing with her back to him but he doesn't see her and instead goes to his mother and asks her if his father was ever afraid of losing his family. His mother tells him "You can never lose your family." and Michael says "Times are changing." Then it cuts to Vito who is now the don of the neighborhood and has a mustache. After Vito and his friends watch them put up the sign of "Genco Olive Oil" company it dissolves to Michael being interrogated by a Senate committee. After Kay tells him it wasn't a miscarriage but an abortion it cuts to the final Deniro flashback as the young Corleone family arrive by train to Vito's old village in Sicily. When they are leaving later by train and young Vito is holding Michael and they're waving goodbye, it cuts to Mama Corleone's funeral where she's in her coffin.

Edited February 19, 2016 by VCRTracking

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay, now I'm going to have to rewatch my bluray of Godfather II, because, I'm positive that like you posted above, in 1917, we see Santino in the crib, then the next flashback is when Fredo is sick, and a baby, and then the next scene/flashback after that, is Santino on the rug, etc.

 

I think it doesn't help that we don't get a year when Fredo was sick. But I do know it's several years later when when Vito finally kills Fanucci, because there are three children now, Santino, a toddler with the curly mop, Fredo and baby Michael.  And when he returns to Sicily to kill Don Ciccio, Connie is there. Santino has to be around 7? He's fake boxing with Don Tomassino.

 

In the words of Bill Waterson's Calvin: AUGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!.

[VCRTracking]

I love how restrained Pacino is in the first two Godfathers because it makes moments like this after Kay tells him she had an abortion have that much more impact:
 

[Inquisitionist]

Okay, I was wrong. Comare was used by that ungrateful asshole, undertaker, Amerigo Bonasera.  When Tom called him to tell him the Don needed him to fulfill a service, he's bitching to his wife, that Vito would probably get him killed by the other Families, because Bonasera was probably going to have to hide a body or something. And he said he regrets the day that "Comare Corleone" became friends with his wife.  

 

And that scene did not appear in The Godfather.  I watched a few hours of the epic On Demand last night, and found most of the reinserted "deleted scenes" to be superfluous at best, and laughable at worst -- especially Michael on his bed after the explosion swearing vengeance at Fabrizzio.   My advice: watch the movies, which are masterpieces, and skip this epic, which removes much of the poetry of the original pacing and inserts some trash that was rightfully discarded the first time around.

[VCRTracking]

Also the scene where he actually does get vengeance on Fabrizzio gets cut out. In the book Fabrizio is in America working in a pizza parlor when Michael comes in after the baptism killings to settle one final score and shoots him. That scene was actually filmed but cut out of the movie. You can't find it but there are pics and behind the scene stuff:

 

In Part II, they filmed a scene where during the communion party Michael is told they found Fabrizio and they cut to later where he gets killed just like Apollonia, with a car bomb. That was cut out as well but it was later seen in the Godfather Epic and on DVD extras.

Edited March 11, 2016 by VCRTracking

[benteen]

Yes!  That was the picture I was talking about with Michael.  A different one but still one of his wearing a suit and hat and holding a shotgun. 

 

Great find!

[VCRTracking]

There's another pic from a different of Michael with a shotgun aiming it towards camera at the Godfather Wiki page for Fabrizio. It might be the one you were talking about.

 

Here's a link.

Edited March 11, 2016 by VCRTracking

[benteen]

Yep, that's the one.  Thanks for sending it over.  I'm surprised that wasn't part of the movie in some capacity.  I think only this version is the only one where Michael does the deed himself.

Edited March 11, 2016 by benteen

[ZaldamoWilder]

Also the scene where he actually does get vengeance on Fabrizzio gets cut out. In the book Fabrizio is in America working in a pizza parlor when Michael comes in after the baptism killings to settle one final score and shoots him. That scene was actually filmed but cut out of the movie. You can't find it but there are pics and behind the scene stuff:

 

In Part II, they filmed a scene where during the communion party Michael is told they found Fabrizio and they cut to later where he gets killed just like Apollonia, with a car bomb. That was cut out as well but it was later seen in the Godfather Epic and on DVD extras.

 

It's like solving a 40 year old mystery.  I just literally exhaled.  Thank you!

[GHScorpiosRule]

Yep, that's the one. Thanks for sending it over. I'm surprised that wasn't part of the movie in some capacity. I think only this version is the only one where Michael does the dead himself.

Hee benteen!

I think you meant deed!!

Edited March 13, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[VCRTracking]

I actually thought that was more brutal.  He was probably in a lot of pain for a couple agonizing seconds where he knew he was going to die, as opposed to it being over in an instant(like hopefully it was with Apollonia).

 

I also like learning that after coming to America he got married and had a few kids and owned his own little pizza restaurant.  He was closing up, carrying a pizza box tied up with string, probably bringing home dinner for his family, a prosperous and happy man who thought he was safe with the past behind him and then, BOOM.

Edited March 11, 2016 by VCRTracking

[GHScorpiosRule]

I would have found it more brutal, if he actually looked like he had been hurt. I could see no blood on him, nothing. He looked intact.  Maybe a decapitated leg or arm, something. But no, the car blows up, he manages to open the car door, stumble out, walk a few feet or yards and just plop down dead.

[VCRTracking]

Intact doesn't mean it doesn't hurt or would be pleasant. Looking up what happens to the human body when it's close to the impact of a car bomb I found:

 

You, as you read this, are subjected to normal air pressure of 15 pounds per square inch, depending on how close you are to sea level. The rapidly expanding gases of the bomb push the air out of the way generating air pressures of as much as 700 tons per square inch in the immediate area. But even on the outer perimeters of the blast area overpressures can be deadly.

The human body contains two principal air-filled spaces -- the lungs and the nasal cavity and attached sinuses. A human subjected to a bomb blast wave instantly has hundreds and perhaps thousands psi of pressure pushing on these cavities. A mere 15 psi above normal is considered the threshold for possible lung injury, so imagine what happens to those near the epicenter of a bomb blast.

The chest caves in. The lungs inside it are compressed violently in on themselves -- so violently that the entire network of pulmonary vessels connecting them to the heart and the rest of the body are sheared off.

When the instant of blast overpressure passes, the lungs suddenly re-expand, like a crushed rubber ball rebounding in the hand of a strong man. But now they are filled with a huge volume of blood, blood that should be flowing to the heart and other parts of the body.

Blood that would normally return to the heart through the left ventrical has now overwhelmed the lungs. No blood in the left ventrical equals no blood in the heart equals no pulmonary output to the body. Blood pressure -- zero. The body is instantly starved.

Up above, in the skull, at the same instant, the overpressure works in another way. The nasal and sinus cavities implode. That part of the skull called the cribiform plate ruptures, snaps and may be thrust upward into the base of the brain.

 

I checked and Fabrizio was alive for 10 seconds after the explosion while all that was happening inside of him.

Edited March 13, 2016 by VCRTracking

[GHScorpiosRule]

Intact doesn't mean it doesn't hurt or would be pleasant. Looking up what happens to the human body when it's close to the impact of a car bomb:

 

Stop with the logic, VCRTracking! Let me just whine, whydon'tcha?

[benteen]

In the book, the gunman who kills Fabrizio pretty much tells him that Michael sends his regards. Michael at the very least definitely would have wanted Fabrizio to know who is was that had gotten him before he died.

[GHScorpiosRule]

In the book, the gunman who kills Fabrizio pretty much tells him that Michael sends his regards. Michael at the very least definitely would have wanted Fabrizio to know who is was that had gotten him before he died.

Yeah, that's what I posted yesterday.

[VCRTracking]

Nice little bit with young Vito and his wife deleted from Part II:

Watch the video here.

[Spartan Girl]

Ooh, I always loved the part in Part II when Vito gives her the pear and they had that nice little kiss at the dinner table.

Ironic that Vito was the one model husband in that whole family. Ok, maybe that's not completely fair: Michael was still fairly untainted when he was with Apollonia.

[voiceover]

On 2/18/2016 at 6:10 PM, VCRTracking said:

Also, I gotta call out the babies. The babies in this movie are always fucking crying. Come on, babies. Learn some god damn manners.

This is simply one of the best things ever written about The Godfather.

I'm not even bitter that I didn't think of it first.

[VCRTracking]

21 minutes ago, voiceover said:

This is simply one of the best things ever written about The Godfather.

I'm not even bitter that I didn't think of it first.

Maybe that was what was wrong with Part III? Lack of crying babies!

[SlovakPrincess]

On February 3, 2016 at 1:42 PM, VCRTracking said:

Coppola cast Diane Keaton because the role of Kay as written was a very bland character and he thought Keaton's quirky quality would at least make her more interesting.

I guess he had limited success with that plan - she does well in the role, but there's not a whole lot of personality in Kay (well, until she gets some great scenes in Part II, when Kay finally realizes "hey, wait, all of this is terrible and wrong!")

I still don't get why Kay was so willing to marry into this family.  She knows they're incredibly secretive and Michael has told her just enough to know they are dangerous.  Then Michael disappears for a year or so amid an attempt on his father's life and headlines about the subsequent murder of two people (including a cop).  Then Michael turns up and apparently expects her to pick up where they left off.  He's not the same young man she was in love with, she knows these people are dangerous ... what was she thinking?  Does the book explain it better?  Do her parents object to the marriage? 

Also, Sofia Coppola aside ... could anyone make this role work?  Mary is just dumb.  I guess they were going for pure and innocent ... except that she wanted to bone her incredibly violent first cousin, I guess.   But since she was just there to ultimately die, I guess they didn't really bother to make her a realistic person.  

Edited June 5, 2017 by SlovakPrincess

[VCRTracking]

Yeah, Winona Ryder and Julia Roberts were considered for it but I don't think either would have done better in the part. Coppola meant the story to be Michael as King Lear, raging at the storm, but Mary was no Cordelia. Also we're meant to be moved by this couple's doomed romance but we're more like "Ew gross, that's your cousin!"

38 minutes ago, SlovakPrincess said:

I guess he had limited success with that plan - she does well in the role, but there's not a whole lot of personality in Kay (well, until she gets some great scenes in Part II, when Kay finally realizes "hey, wait, all of this is terrible and wrong!")

I didn't realize until critic Amy Nicholson said it in a podcast but old Kay in Godfather Part III dresses more like Diane Keaton IRL! She probably told Coppola and the costume department "Look I just want to wear suits, jackets, and pants from now on!"

[benteen]

Yeah, I read Winona Ryder was originally cast but fell ill and Coppola didn't want to wait.  There's not much that could have saved Godfather 3 but Ryder and Robert Duvall certainly would have helped.

[voiceover]

Winona Ryder is an actual *actress*, so right there, an upgrade over Coppola.

btw: Wed June 7 is the last day to catch TCM's showing of the first film at your local theater.

[TigerLynx]

12 hours ago, benteen said:

There's not much that could have saved Godfather 3 but Ryder and Robert Duvall certainly would have helped.

I agree.  Robert Duvall as Tom Hagan interacting with Michael, Connie, and Kay would have been better than what we got.

I've never read the books, but the only way I could understand Kay marrying Michael in the movie was because she believed him when he said he was going to take the family business legit in five years or some nonsense like that.  I liked Kay being remarried, happy with her new husband in Godfather 3, and calling Michael a liar over and over again, but Kay in the first two movies was a doormat.

I guess they had Vincent be Sonny's son because Michael's son Anthony wasn't going into the family business, and if Michael was going to hand the reins over to someone else, they would need to be family.  The stuff with Vincent and Mary was just ick.  There is not enough brain bleach in the world to erase those scenes.