Question about Godfather II (Spoilers)

Loosely related, when I was in Havana last year, we wandered into the lobby of Meyer Lansky's old hotel/casino -- still with the '50s decor -- and I expected Pacino and Lee Strasberg to appear.

it's been awhile since i've watched it, and i'm inclined to go back and look carefully again, but i seem to recall feeling that at some point after boarding the boat, fredo recognized what was about to happen to him. i think there's tension there between fredo thinking that michael can't do what he's about to - that it's, as phil says, beyond the pale of their (and really any other) code - and the knowledge in his gut that it's about to happen. both factors kind of freeze him in place. this is how i remember it in my head... but like i said, i should go back and watch again.

"Frodo, you're no longer my brother anymore. When you come to the Shire for the Harvest Festival, I want you to tell Gandalf in advance, because I don't want to see you."

"Golum said there was something in it for me! FOR ME!!!!!"

I wish I could join in on this, but I don't know a thing about any of the Lord of the Rings films. The funniest thing I've ever read along these lines was "The Bobfather: A Family Saga," something Rob Sheffield wrote for Rolling Stone about seven or eight years ago. From memory: Dylan = Vito, Jakob = Michael, and Beck (or maybe it was the Dust Brothers) = Sollozzo, very good with the sampler and growing the hip-hop hits back in Turkey.

there is no way that frankie 5 angels' bro was going to get killed.
categorically not. why would he have gone out there if they were going to kill him? i'd say that in the film they explain it pretty much without having to say so out loud that his bro's mere appearance (a man let's not forget who 'coulda had his own family') was enough to get frankie to realise the error of his ways. frankly i was on frankie's side. i think michael was just losing it and i always put myself in mr. 5 angels' shoes' every time.

for more detailed answers (and some quite scarily into-the-godfather freax) chec this:

http://www.jgeoff.com/godfather/

and no i dunno about fredo either. it's a tough one. hmmm

I dig SCTV's version of the first movie, with Candy as Pavarotti as Johnny Fontane and John Marley returning as Woltz ("Johnny Pavarotti does not sing that part"). Also, Dave Thomas did a kickass Duvall.

"She was young, she was beautiful, she was the best piece of stuff I've ever had, and then Johnny Pavarotti started fattening her up with all those big Italian meals"

I forgot, Marley was Leonard Bernstein!

I didn't know that! Did you like him in Faces?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I've still got to disagree concerning Pentangeli's brother: if Pentangeli had testified as planned, I think the brother would have been killed. When Pentangeli says that his brother could have had his own family, I've always taken that to mean that he chose not to because he wanted to stay as far away from the crime business as possible. Therefore, the idea that his presence in the courtroom would shame Pentangeli into not talking--i.e., his presence reinforces for Pentangeli the code of silence all gangsters are supposed to honour--hinges on a first-hand involvement with the crime world that the brother, by choice, just doesn't have. There's no (im)moral suasion at work, because that's the kind of thing that could only come from another gangster, and the brother's largely oblivious to that world. Which would also explain how they got him over there in the first place: he has nothing to fear, because it would never to occur to him why he's really been brought over.

I haven't seen "Faces" in forever, but I recall it's one of the less annoying Cassavetes films.

My personal impression of Pentangeli's brother being in court room was message. "It was between the Brother's, Kay. I had nothing to do with it." Michael tells Kay this, and I believe it to be true.

Pentangeli's brother was there to remind Frank that he is a Corleone. That they are all family, as his brother is also family. Signifying, of course, that family does not betray family. (Being very ironic to the fact that Fredo did, and they both knew it -- and Fredo would pay). The whole point of Frankie backing down was not from a threat -- he was doing it because he felt betrayed -- once Michael is able to send him the message (not being able to tal kto him obviously as he was in custody of the FBI) Frank realises that Michael didn't betray him.

In relation to Fredo... he had no idea. Simple. Fredo never had a clue, even from birth.

That's how I've always read both scenes too.

what exactly did fredo do against michael if he said he didn't know it was going to be a hit?

He told the rival family what part of the house Michael sleeps in, so they could just have a meeting there and talk things out.