I watched the whole thing

Status
Not open for further replies.
He doesn't get his wife killed,
Yes, I know. I didn't say he had her killed. She dies because of him, though. If there wasn't someone trying to kill him, she wouldn't have been blown up. He got her killed. By the way, what happens to the body guard? The movie makes it seem like he just gets away with it. You'd think a guy who went ahead and killed two people for shooting his dad would go find the guy that blew up the "love of his life." Instead, it just seems as if he gets away with it. Nothing happens to him.
he is betrayed by one of his guards and someone else has her killed. He decides to come back to the US because his only reason for being in Sicily is that he is in hiding. His father negotiates with the five families and makes it safe for him to return, then takes him under his wing as the heir to the family business.
Okay, so supposedly his father takes him under his wing and turns him into a mafia guy. Why do they not show anything that happens over the year that he is supposedly back? It's terrible writing. They skip a whole year's events where they could have shown his transformation. Instead we get one line where he says he has been back a whole year.
I think it makes complete sense that as part of that transition he would want to take a wife and have kids. I do not understand why this is so baffling to you.
How does that make any sense? You're the head of a mafia family. You last wife was blown up in a car. The thing to do is to get another wife? Why? Maybe if they had shown some of the stuff that happened during the year he was back, they could have shown the character develop. As it is, there is no reason for him to get another wife.

he is an anti-hero because he starts our as spmeone who rejects his family's crimiinal lifestyle and by the end he becomes the leader of a criminal empire.
He doesn't seem to reject his families lifestyle much. He still goes to the parties. He knows everything they do. He takes his date to the wedding at the start of the movie.

In the second movie he even goes to the point of having his brother killed. He basically saves the family in the first film. I do not at all see poor character development here.
We are discussing he first movie. What happens in the second movie does not matter. The first movie should be able to stand on its own. If you require the second movie to show 'character development,' the first movie has done a poor job of character development.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Then i think you were not doing a good job of paying attention. Havent seen it in a while, so not sure of the precise timeline, but it is very clear to the viewer this occurs over a period of time.

the year he spent before contacting her he has been learning the family business. The fact that he waits a full year before contacting also goes against your point that he jumps right back in with Kay after Apollonia dies.
Maybe if they had taken the time to show some of the things that happen throughout the year he is back, you'd have a point. But they don't, so you're wrong. The movie sequence goes from girl turns on car. Car blows up. Blondy sees Pacino. That's it. It's poor story telling.
 

He doesn't seem to reject his families lifestyle much. He still goes to the parties. He knows everything they do. He takes his date to the wedding at the start of the movie.
.

It is pretty clear michael wants to be a fully assimilated member of societ in the early part off the film. He is drawn into the family business because of the conflict between the families and things like the death of Sonny, who would have originally inherited the father's position.
 

Maybe if they had taken the time to show some of the things that happen throughout the year he is back, you'd have a point. But they don't, so you're wrong. The movie sequence goes from girl turns on car. Car blows up. Blondy sees Pacino. That's it. It's poor story telling.

I would have to rewatch it again to give you a play by play, but this is absolutely something i never had any trouble getting from the film. I am pretty sure they even stick in a "one year later" across the screen just for emphasis. Pretty sure in the book the time between Apollonia dying and him connecting again with kay is about two years. I dont know why you need them to spoon feed you every little detail. A lot of things are implied but you can tell considerable time has passed. Again though, would have to rewatch as I have not seen the first movie in about five years.
 

We are discussing he first movie. What happens in the second movie does not matter. The first movie should be able to stand on its own. If you require the second movie to show 'character development,' the first movie has done a poor job of character development.

We can bring in any details we want. The subject of his descent into evil came up and I felt the second part of the series illuminates that, so i mentioned it.
 

ould have shown his transformation. Instead we get one line where he says he has been back a whole year.How does that make any sense? You're the head of a mafia family. You last wife was blown up in a car. The thing to do is to get another wife? Why? Maybe if they had shown some of the stuff that happened during the year he was back, they could have shown the character develop. As it is, there is no reason for him to get another wife.

I dont know why this gives you so much difficulty. He is becoming the head of the family, and they. Bny into the idea that a real man has a family of his own. Having a wife and kids is expected of him. He chooses Kay because he is under the delusion that he is going to make the family legitimate, and to Michael Kay means assimilation into American society. Do not understand your problem with this at all.
 

again, i think it is pretty obvious from this sequence if the film that he falls deeply in love with Apollonia. It certainly wasnt put in as filler, as it was also a crucial portion of the book. But they did handle it efficiently. Personally, i think that was the righht call as it would have seriously dragged down the pace of the movie to get too deep into the Apollonia plot. The important elements are there and obvious to theviewwer. I am sorry but your explanation for why this was put in is just completely wrong.
That seems to be the problem, right there in bold. You are using the book as reference. I haven't read the book. All I have to go by is the terrible movie they put out. So all these wonderful things you keep referring to may have been explained and further developed in the book. In the movie? Nope. If you watch the movie by itself, it's garbage.
 

It is pretty clear michael wants to be a fully assimilated member of societ in the early part off the film. He is drawn into the family business because of the conflict between the families and things like the death of Sonny, who would have originally inherited the father's position.
No, Sonny's death occurs in the latter part of the movie. Pacino is already in Sicily for having killed the cop and the other mafia guy. By the time Sonny is killed, he is elbow deep in the family business.
 

That seems to be the problem, right there in bold. You are using the book as reference. I haven't read the book. All I have to go by is the terrible movie they put out. So all these wonderful things you keep referring to may have been explained and further developed in the book. In the movie? Nope. If you watch the movie by itself, it's garbage.

No, that isnt the problem. I watched the movie long before reading the book and none of the things you mention were an issue for me.
 
Last edited:

No, Sonny's death occurs in the latter part of the movie. Pacino is already in Sicily for having killed the cop and the other mafia guy. By the time Sonny is killed, he is elbow deep in the family business.

I know. But it is one of the things that cements his role as the next leader of the family.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top