I really thought that Sherman would whip out the "treasure" word instead of "dollars".

Is one of them Michael, or are there two Fredos here? And when's the Vegas speech coming?

[Insert "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" reference here.]

I can honestly say I've stopped giving a rat's ass.

N.Y. Post: Sherman: JOHAN SITUATION UNCHANGED BUT I HAVE COLUMN SPACE TO FILL(RR)

I like the notion that this remains a "race."

Is one of them Michael, or are there two Fredos here? And when's the Vegas speech coming?

No no no, you've got it all wrong. Hank is Michael, Cashman is Tom Hagen, Steve Swindal is Sonny. I guess that makes Hal Fredo.

Hank isn't Sonny?

Hank's gotta be Sonny.

Hank's is definitely Sonny. Steve Swindal is obviously Carlo. That isn't even close.

yeah, I should have thought of that.

so, Hank is Sonny, Swindal is Carlo, that leaves Michael and Fredo TBD

oh, and Bud Selig has to be the Nevada senator, right?

oh, and Bud Selig has to be the Nevada senator, right?

Giuliani

I like Cashman as Tom Hagen, that's perfect.

Torre would have been a decent Fredo (schmoozes with the media, has to do what the string pullers say).

Who plays the dead hooker then? George?

I like the notion that this remains a "race."

When neither team has budged an inch since the Winter Meetings? This is like watching rocks grow.

Torre = Sal Tessio

Wait... Kay = Fredo

Wait... Kay = Fredo

Does that make Sterling Robin Williams in Jack?

I have this image of a deserted horsetrack, wind blowing up the dried dirt on the track, with Theo sitting about 30 feet short of the finish line. Cashman is sitting about 20 feet behind him with a couple other GMs lying down further back around the bend. The only people left in the stands are a couple of sportswriters and Hank Steinbrenner.

I have this image of Smith trying to play fetch with a disinterested dog. The ball is 30 yards away across a busy street and Smith is just jumping up and down yelling "C'mon boy, go get the ball! C'mon, get the ball! C'mon boy!" while the dog just looses interest and wanders away to find a nice place to take a nap.

Wait... Kay = Fredo

Nah, Kay = Kay, whiny ##### that he is.

Not sure if this Jayson Stark column has been linked here...

The most surprising aspect of those [Santana] talks to some baseball people is that the Mets remain in the mix. It may be because the Twins would like to move Santana to the National League if possible. But while the Mets have made a four-for-one offer built around center fielder Carlos Gomez, indications are that the teams remain far apart.

It's believed the Mets offered Gomez, two of their three best young pitchers (Mike Pelfrey, Phil Humber and Kevin Mulvey) and another prospect for Santana earlier this month. But according to one source who has spoken with the Mets, the Twins want the Mets "to rip up their whole farm system" for Santana.

Just whip it, Omar.

Fredo was the only whiner. He was the one that sold out his family and his brother because "HE WAS PASSED OVER!"

Connie helped out the family, when needed.

Connie helped out the family, when needed.

Yup, she was pretty tough in GIII.
I never did understand the whole trashing of Sofia Coppola for that film. Sure, she wasn't great, but she did well in the scenes where she plays a horny young thing, and given how godawful the movie was, there was no reason to single her out for being singularly terrible.

That movie was only terrible compared to the first two. It was terrible in the same way Bobby Murcer was terrible, he wasn't, but he wasn't Mickey Mantle either.

I also thought the movie was pretty awful, but am I the only one in the universe who thought Pacino's "silent scream" at the end - before his actual scream - was damned effective?

It was terrible in the same way Bobby Murcer was terrible, he wasn't, but he wasn't Mickey Mantle either.

I'd like to know what part of Godfather III is the equivalent to Murcer's 71-72.

Connie helped out the family, when needed.

Connie was a whiner in The Godfather. Vito's daughter should never have taken the #### she took from Carlo and then let him set up Sonny.

As for Sofia Coppola, she was horrible. The things that were bad about that film were mostly the script, not the performances . . . except for her. What a monument to inept "acting."

Sam, how can you blame the victim of an abusive relationship? That just isn't right. And I think you know better than that.

There are parts to the movie are great. The pacing is a little off, Sophia is very off, but I have seen many worse movies.

Kay wasn't really whiny. If my marriage was on the rocks and my husband had just had his own brother, his brother-in-law and two of his closest business associates liquidated, I'd be a little on edge too.

Kay was the worst. She never should have married Michael when he came back from Sicily. It was obvious that Michael wasn't the same person she knew before he got involved in the family business. Instead she tried to bring the old Michael back and complained when he acted exactly as she knew he would.

Also the timeline up there is a bit off, Michael had Carlo killed in 1, Fredo wasn't killed until the end of 2 after the marriage was over, I am assuming you are referring to Tessio and Clemenza as the associates but Michael only killed Tessio. Clemenza died of "natural causes" although Frankie Pentagelli believed Clemenza was whacked.

I also thought the movie was pretty awful, but am I the only one in the universe who thought Pacino's "silent scream" at the end - before his actual scream - was damned effective?

Same here--it was a powerful, powerful moment.

Connie was a whiner in The Godfather. Vito's daughter should never have taken the #### she took from Carlo and then let him set up Sonny.

Of course, she had no idea Carlo was setting Sonny up, and it seemed pretty clear that while she started out as the spoiled daughter early in the first film, she grew up a lot after that.

As for Sofia Coppola, she was horrible. The things that were bad about that film were mostly the script, not the performances . . . except for her. What a monument to inept "acting."

I'll give you that, Sam. The script was astonishingly bad. But Sofia C. was just fine when all she had to do was be young and flirty and look lively in the opening party scene. Asking her to carry more than that was daddy's fault, not hers. I mean, what was Coppola thinking with the casting? George Hamilton in the role of consigliere? George Hamilton?? George Freaking Hamilton???

Following in the capezios of Robert Duvall, that was just disgraceful.

She never should have married Michael when he came back from Sicily.

That is one thing that has always bothered me. Why would Kay marry Micheal, he just left her, didn't talk to her for a couple years, then pops in and is all "hey, how are you, why don't we get married."

Clemenza died of "natural causes" although Frankie Pentagelli believed Clemenza was whacked.


funny story about that. Clemenza was supposed to be in II, basically filling the role of Pentagelli. But the actor who played Clemenza (Richard Castellano) was asking for too much money, so Coppola just killed off the character and wrote in Pentagelli.

also, IIRC, Castellano was actually the highest-paid actor on I. He was pretty well established at the time, and everyone else was unknown or thought of as over-the-hill (i.e., Brando)

Sam, how can you blame the victim of an abusive relationship? That just isn't right. And I think you know better than that.

She's not a real person, for heaven's sake. We're talking about the movie as a movie, and the characters as the characters they represented. The daughter of The Godfather does not fit in any meaningful way the profile of a woman who would stay in an abusive relationship -- Connie would be empowered, know exactly where she could turn for help, and go there immediately. The script treated her as a device needed to move Sonny's story forward towards its tragic conclusion, not as a real character in her own right, who made sense given her background.

Connie would be empowered, know exactly where she could turn for help, and go there immediately

I disagree. There are cases of abuse throughout all classes and races in society.

I disagree. There are cases of abuse throughout all classes and races in society.

Well, ponder this: you think it's implausible that Kay would have married Michael. I find Connie's actions implausible. Do you really think that's a coincidence? One of the very few weaknesses in The Godfather is that Coppola had no idea (and really, I think, no interest) in the motives and likely actions and reactions of the few women in the movie. They were just there for the men -- whom the movie was really about -- to react to when necessary, and to move the plot forward (again, when necessary).

By the way, forget Connie for a moment. I think it's even more massively implausible that Carlo would have dared lay the first hand on Connie given who her father and brother were.

Connie would be empowered, know exactly where she could turn for help, and go there immediately.

Don't buy it, there are too many alternatives. She may have been afraid to go to them for help, knowing where it might lead. She might have wanted to try and handle it herself. She may have thought that she deserved it up to a point. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other one sentence hypotheticals that would justify her actions as a true character.

Well Connie did know where to turn for help, she went to Sonny, primarily because Vito was still recovering from being shot, but also perhaps because as we later find out Sonny introduced Carlo to Connie. She just should have gone to Michael who would have quickly and discreetly murdered him, instead of humiliating him in the middle of the street like Sonny.

The script treated her as a device needed to move Sonny's story forward towards its tragic conclusion, not as a real character in her own right, who made sense given her background.

The novel treated her the same way, the script just reflected that. The novel did try to explain that the Godfather, even though he loved his daughter was an old country Sicilian, and a man could do whatever he wanted with his wife and no one could interfere- not even her relatives- Sonny didn't agree.

She just should have gone to Michael who would have quickly and discreetly murdered him,

She probably didn't want him murdered.

I'd like to know what part of Godfather III is the equivalent to Murcer's 71-72.

When Andy Garcia took out the two thugs in his apartment? No? That's all got...

She just should have gone to Michael who would have quickly and discreetly murdered him, instead of humiliating him in the middle of the street like Sonny.

I don't think Michael had evolved [devolved?] into that person yet.

The novel did try to explain that the Godfather, even though he loved his daughter was an old country Sicilian, and a man could do whatever he wanted with his wife and no one could interfere- not even her relatives- Sonny didn't agree.

Man, they weren't Sicilian, but that doesn't jive with any of my old-school Italian relatives (or Polish or Irish or German). You'd be lucky if the father or brother got to you and killed you before the mother found out. She'd realy f-you up.

I was pre-emptively threatened twice at my wedding!

I don't think Michael had evolved [devolved?] into that person yet.

Well he had, but of course he was in hiding in Sicily when Sonny was killed so Connie could not have turned to him for help. And you are probably correct that Connie did not want Carlo murdered, she probably figured Sonny would just kick his ass again.

And you are probably correct that Connie did not want Carlo murdered, she probably figured Sonny would just kick his ass again

Carlo was murdered because he tipped off the other Families and helped get Sonny whacked, not because he had beaten up Connie again - the beating was just to get Sonny to the booth where he was gunned down.

Well he had, but of course he was in hiding in Sicily when Sonny was killed so Connie could not have turned to him for help.

Hmmmmmm . . . at that point, he had killed Sollozzo and McCluskey, but had he changed to the point where he could/would have killed Carlo? Clearly, his prior innocence was gone, but I don't think his journey was complete at that point. I actually think it was Apollonia's death that was the key moment that sealed his fate and changed him into the man who would ultimately order Fredo's death.

Carlo was murdered because he tipped off the other Families and helped get Sonny whacked, not because he had beaten up Connie again

Yes, but Sonny was on his way to KILL Carlo ... remember what he'd said to Carlo after kicking his ass in the street: "You touch my sister again, I'll kill ya." I have no doubt he meant it.

As for Sofia Coppola, she was horrible.

Indeed. Winona Ryder was originally cast as Mary, as was Duvall as Tom Hagen, but supposedly they couldn't work out money/creative issues.

Hmmmmmm . . . at that point, he had killed Sollozzo and McCluskey, but had he changed to the point where he could/would have killed Carlo? Clearly, his prior innocence was gone, but I don't think his journey was complete at that point. I actually think it was Apollonia's death that was the key moment that sealed his fate and changed him into the man who would ultimately order Fredo's death.

I think prior to Appolonia's death (let's assume she moved back to the US when Vito worked out the deal to bring him home) Michael still would have killed Carlo, I think he turned into that person the second he killed Sollozo and McCluskey. I would agree that he had yet to turn into the monster that he became at the end of II and certainly Appolonia's murder, Fredo's betryal and his unsuccessful marriage to Kay pushed him in that direction. But I would say, yes, Carlo was a dead man as soon as Vito died.

I actually think it was Apollonia's death that was the key moment that sealed his fate and changed him into the man who would ultimately order Fredo's death.

Absolutely. This Michael could and would have had Carlo killed.

No, Winona had to bow out due to "exhaustion", although who knows what that means. (Drug addiction? Not getting along with Coppola [although she did later work with him on the craptacular Dracula]? Actually, in fact, getting sick? I dunno.)

How is Hank = Michael? He's the oldest son, and his loud mouth hurts the family... he "talks when he should listen"... Hank is clearly Sonny! If Hal, the younger and quieter one, somehow ends up replacing Hank and running things, then Hal would be Michael. (I don't see it happening, though.)

I think he turned into that person the second he killed Sollozo and McCluskey. I would agree that he had yet to turn into the monster that he became at the end of II and certainly Appolonia's murder, Fredo's betryal and his unsuccessful marriage to Kay pushed him in that direction.

Not seeing it, Dan. Killing Sollozo certainly was the end of his claims to not want anything to do with the family business -- blood was on his hands. But "all" he'd done at that point was kill the men who'd try to murder his father. Hard to say (at least with any certainty) at that point he'd take a life under anything but pretty extreme conditions.

The Michael who returned from Italy with Apollonia by his side -- deeply in love, happy, feeling like he'd done right by his father and his family and returned triumphant -- would hardly have been embittered by that experience. He wouldn't have wanted revenge for the death of the great love of his life. Hatred and anger would not have been at his core, and presumably the ugliness of all that then happened with Kay never would have occurred, either.

I think he becomes a man a LOT like Tom Hagen, actually. A problem solver for the family, but not the leader, and certainly not the man who takes actions that haunt his whole life.

I think prior to Appolonia's death (let's assume she moved back to the US when Vito worked out the deal to bring him home) Michael still would have killed Carlo,

This is a real stretch. Michael killed Sollozzo and McCluskey both to avenge his father, but primarily because he knew Sollozzo wasn't going to stop until the Godfather was dead. Killing Sollozzo was the only way for Michael to protect his father. Carlo's abuse of Connie, while disgusting, wasn't murder or attempted murder. There would have been no reason for Michael to kill Carlo. There would have been other ways to protect Connie.

Not seeing it, Dan. Killing Sollozo certainly was the end of his claims to not want anything to do with the family business -- blood was on his hands. But "all" he'd done at that point was kill the men who'd try to murder his father. Hard to say (at least with any certainty) at that point he'd take a life under anything but pretty extreme conditions.

When Vito dies, which happens whether or not Appolonia is still alive, who takes over the family business? Michael is the only choice and everyone knows that. I have a hard time believing that Michael and Tom close up shop and start renting umbrellas on Jones Beach. Now, he did not need to go and murder the heads of the five families, that is certainly true. But Carlo had to go. He had murdered Sonny and much like Tessio was a trader. I can't see Michael keeping Carlo around under any circumstances.

There would have been no reason for Michael to kill Carlo. There would have been other ways to protect Connie.

There was a very good reason to kill Carlo...he set up Sonny's hit. Also there is no way Michael could run the family business with a known trader in his midst. He wasn't killing Carlo to protect Connie, he was killing Carlo to protect himself.

Also there is no way Michael could run the family business with a known trader in his midst

I know, those stock brokers can really be devious

I know, those stock brokers can really be devious

hey, it's a baseball site, trader usually works...in the Mets thread I should write that Omar should be a better traitor.

There was a very good reason to kill Carlo...he set up Sonny's hit. Also there is no way Michael could run the family business with a known trader in his midst. He wasn't killing Carlo to protect Connie, he was killing Carlo to protect himself.

I'm pretty sure we were talking only about Carlo's actual abuse of Connie, and what Michael's response to it would have been. There's no way the preApollonia Michael beats Carlo publicly in the first instance as Sonny did and which humiliation prompts Carlo to set Sonny up for the kill. Once Carlo sets Sonny up Michael absolutely has to and should have Carlo killed.

Also there is no way Michael could run the family business with a known trader in his midst. He wasn't killing Carlo to protect Connie, he was killing Carlo to protect himself.

But in fact he does keep Carlo around for a while--remember the line about "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"? Good advice, since Michael lets Carlo know only what he wants his enemies to know.

OK, Dan, if you're saying he would have had Carlo killed for the hit on Sonny, then fine. But we were talking about whether he would have killed Carlo if he'd been around when Connie called, specifically because Carlo was beating her. That's a different question -- and the Michael who was in Sicily in hiding would, I think, NOT have killed Carlo at that point, prior to Sonny's death and without that as the provocation.

And as to whether Michael would have taken over the family when Vito died, I'm not so sure about that, either. Of course the Michael who came back from Sicily did so. Hell, by the time Vito died, Michael had pretty much already taken over the business. But if he'd come back with Apollonia, all happy and content, it's quite possible Vito would not have seen him as the man to take over the family. Tessio (who later betrayed Michael to Barzini, of course, but recall Michael praised him saying that was the smart move) would probably have been the choice.

But we were talking about whether he would have killed Carlo if he'd been around when Connie called, specifically because Carlo was beating her. That's a different question -- and the Michael who was in Sicily in hiding would, I think, NOT have killed Carlo at that point, prior to Sonny's death and without that as the provocation.

Yes, I would probably concede that point to you, assuming Carlo is simply knocking Connie around (sounds awful to say) Michael would not kill Carlo.

And as to whether Michael would have taken over the family when Vito died, I'm not so sure about that, either.

Well I totally disagree with this statement. From way back in that incredible hospital scene with Michael and Enzo the baker, when Michael tells his father, "I'm with you now, Pop" Michael is in the family. If Sonny doesn't get killed, then yes, maybe Michael doesn't take over but with Sonny gone Vito EXPECTS Michael to take over.

I think Michael definitely kills Carlo simply for roughing up Connie.

Michael wasn't a reasonable man or someone who had old school "honor among thieves" like his father. For the love of God, Michael was a good man who grew drunk on power and became calculating and spiteful. He didn't need to kill Moe Green; once the heads of the five families were all gone, Moe would have been much more amenable to a deal. But Moe had slapped his brother around ("You straighten out MY brother?") and he pissed him off.

The daughter of The Godfather does not fit in any meaningful way the profile of a woman who would stay in an abusive relationship -- Connie would be empowered, know exactly where she could turn for help, and go there immediately.

Sam, this analysis makes no sense to me.

First, we are talking about an old-style Sicilian father, who expected his wife to say nothing and keep cooking while everything was going on. I very much doubt Connie Corleone would have had education beyond high school, unlike "Joe College" Michael. Her real role model would have been her mother.

Second, don't forget that Godfather I took place largely around 1945-1946. The Boys came back from war, and the women left the workforce to make the baby boom. "Empowerment" would have meant very little back then.

Third, aside from the mother as role model, Connie Corleone would have been brought up in very sheltered world.

But Moe had slapped his brother around ("You straighten out MY brother?") and he pissed him off.

I don't think that was why he was killed. Here is the relevant dialogue:

Michael: your casino loses money, maybe we can do better.
Moe Greene: You think I'm skimmin off the top, Mike?
Michael: You're unlucky.
Moe Greene: You ####### guineas you really make me laugh. I do you a favor and take Freddie in when you're having a bad time, and now you're gonna try and push me out!
Michael: Wait a minute, you took Freddie in because the Corleone Family bankrolled your casino, because the Molinari Family on the Coast guaranteed his safety. Now we're talking business, let's talk business.
Moe Greene: Yeah, let's talk business, Mike. First of all, you're all done. The Corleone Family don't even have that kind of muscle anymore. The Godfather's sick, right? You're getting chased out of New York by Barzini and the other Families. What do you think is going on here? You think you can come to my hotel and take over? I talked to Barzini - I can make a deal with him, and still keep my hotel!

So Greene is possibly stealing money, and he is definitely allied himself with Barzini. He was not going to go quietly. So he went.

But if he'd come back with Apollonia, all happy and content, it's quite possible Vito would not have seen him as the man to take over the family.

Again, I have to disagree. Michael was always clearly the smart one of the family. If he comes back with a traditional Sicilian wife, he is following in his father's footsteps even more.

Happy and content? Maybe. But remember, he didn't just gun down Sollozo and the cop, he planned it, and he planned the way to explain it.

One of the pivotal scenes in the movie, is when he comes to the Hospital and the bodyguards are all gone. He does not panic; he takes action. He sits by his Father's bed and says, "I'm with you now", and Vito cries -- because he is happy to have Michael there, or because he had higher hopes for him? You are never quite sure. But the line, with its multiple meanings, and the scene, are amazing, one of the hidden gems in an incredible movie.

But at that moment, it is clear that Michael has made a decision. Killing Solozzo and the Police Captain flow from it, but they also seal the deal.

Consider, also, how Michael dealt with Apollonia's father. His guards are ready to run, because there has been an insult to honor. But Michael takes charge, and commands the stage. Compare that scene to Godfather II, when Vito takes charge over a meal with Tessio and Clemenza, and says that he will deal with Don Fanucci, and then meets with Fanucci.

They are both natural leaders. It is part of the essence of who they are, and it shows in how they act when they are required to act.

Going strictly by facial similarity score, Scott Brosius = Khartoum.