First off let me say that i didnt like Roth but i understood his motivation it wasnt like he was like Barzini who just wanted to have it all. I think Roth realized how utterly ruthless and cold blooded mike was and thats why he wanted to get rid of him. Now im not saying Roth wasnt ruthless he definetly was but not as bad as mike. He obviously respected vito so its not like he would turn on anyone like barzini did

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I don't consider the Roth-Michael confrontation to be a first class story. I don't find Michael to be all that compelling as a protagonist, and for the movie to be a really interesting chess game Roth would have to be seen plotting on his own. The real value of the film, to me, is found in the Micheal-Fredo story line, in which Michael is the greater villain, and in the flashbacks to young Vito's life.

Yeah i didnt mean i was rooting for roth to hurt anybody else...just mike.

Interesting question.

You could make a case that Roth was the aggrieved party. Michael had been horning in on Roth's Nevada gaming empire ever since he returned from Sicily. He had Roth's best and most trusted friend, Moe Green, killed, in order to gain control of Moe's hotel. By the beginning of II, Michael owns or controls three Nevada hotels; is about to gain control of another hotel that Roth is a part owner of, and is negotiating for control of Roth's Havana holdings. It looked like Michael wanted to push Roth completely out of the gaming industry that Roth helped found.

On the other hand, Michael, who could have used violence or murder against Roth, didn't--he was negotiating for the Havana properties. Roth, on the other hand, set up the machine gun attack at Tahoe, and didn't care if Kay was killed in the attack. Moral of story: No honor among thieves.

Plan A try negotiating Plan B murder

Roth didn't care if Kay and the kids was killed in the attack

its not like mike would have cared either if it was the other way around. Im not saying Roth isnt a bad guy...mike is just worse

...like the hooker who was killed with Taggaglia...or the two guys in the elevator who were killed with Cuneo...or the chauffeur who was killed with Barzini...or the hooker who was killed to frame Geary...

How things evolved: When Michael wanted to visit Vito in the hospital after he was shot, Sonny tells Clemenza to send a couple of guys with him. Clem replies that it's not necessary: "Solozzo knows he's a civilian." But there were no "civilians" later.

thats what i mean. Mike would kill anybody as collateral damage just to get his target. My main point of this thread was in response to people who cheer for mike like he was the good guy when he was really much worse than roth. I think roth saw that mike was even more rotten to the core

Isn't this thread Mike vs Roth

Interesting how times changed, and fascinating how Mike was the ultimate beneficiary of those changes. Had it happened sooner, Solozzo's men would have gunned Michael down in front of the hospital, and that would have led to such different results for the families.

Good topic. I definitely wanted Roth to kill Michael, even though I already knew the spoilers about the ending...Because imo I thought Roth had a good reason to want him dead to avenge Moe Greene (even though this was only 1 of the reasons). I mean, Moe Greene was a gangster and a killer too, but the reason Michael had him whacked was one that could be applied to innocent victims as well: "you don't give up your business - you die". A businessman victim of extortion could be killed for this reason as well, Michael didn't care about the "background" of the victim.

And another reason I would have liked Roth to win: I don't get it why the hell do young gangsters always win against the old ones (especially in fiction)? If it was a boxing ring or any other kind of direct / physical confrontation, it would be logical by default, but when it's about organizing, planning, giving orders etc, the older ones theoretically should have the upper hand: if they lived that long, they survived more attempts on their lives, have killed (or at least faced in other ways) more enemies, have more experience, have learned from past mistakes etc. While the younger ones who have yet to learn from future experience as bosses, they are often hot-headed and overconfident, this is often a direct way to the grave, yet Michael wins by pure aggression only, the same was with all those bosses in the 1st movie, or even worse with Vincent and all those international criminals all over the world in the 3rd one, it was ridiculous imo: if somebody makes so many enemies and goes at war with ALL of them at once, such a nut would never live long, since ONE person taking over would be dangerous for the underworld balances; like in real life, Salvatore Maranzano was killed when he was trying to make himself a dictator of the underworld with all those hits he was preparing...And Vincent ordered hits all over the planet, not just in the USA.

Sorry for the off-topic, but to sum it up, I definitely wanted Roth to kill Mike: also because I despised Mike as a character since the 1st movie, more than his father even: he was acting like a "good guy", all "clean", demonstratively distancing himself from crime, and then he becomes just like the others with no problem, no internal struggle at all. That makes him worse than all of the gangsters in the story imo, because he isn't only a killer, but a hypocrite as well. And the way he talked about his children when he argued with Kay who wanted to leave him; as if they were his property and not living people; "I am going to keep them no matter at what cost because they are MINE"; even though he didn't word it that way, but the meaning was more or less the same. For that alone he deserved a bullet in the head imo. Or between the legs or in the stomach, so he could suffer longer (sorry for being too...emotional).

Great Post. I'm glad I'm not alone in my disgust for Michaels character(at least from the end of Part 1 to Part 2) Al Pacino was absolutely terrific but Mike was really just nto a guy I can root for. the funny thing is most fans do root for him or try to "explain" his actions. Look I'm not say Roth was a good man because he was just as bad too BUT he wanted to kil Mike mostly because Mike was just so ruthless.

My take, for what it is worth!

“if somebody makes so many enemies and goes at war with ALL of them at once, such a nut would never live long” Ridiculous and implausible indeed

Michael as the main character obviously had more screen time So, we see all of his ruthless, heartless, disgusting whatever acts

I reckon pretty much every such character “isn't only a killer, but a hypocrite as well” to single out one character is apples and oranges, disproportionate comparison

None of the other characters had to contend with their insolent sister, brother's betrayal, wife's abortion etc.

If my memory serves me right, among others,

Vito killed Don Fanucci and took over his business [Granted Vito looked after the people as well unlike Fanucci] Moe Greene was made an offer no such offer to Fanucci
band leader's signature or brains on his Godson Fontane's contract release
killing of Khortum horse
went back years later and killed, a senile, one leg in the grave, Don Ciccio who was living out his last days thousands of miles away absolutely no threat to the Corleones as revenge for killing his family because same as Michael the enemies have to be wiped out
planned all the dirty work – killing of Carlo Rizzi and Moe Greene, the baptism murders – for Michael to carry out after Vito's death thus leaving a murderous legacy for Michael

Barzini was getting “impatient with being the Number Two Don” wanted to dethrone Vito and take over
Barzini, Tattaglia and Sollozzo attempted to kill Vito twice because Vito wouldn't help them with their drugs business even as Vito lay helpless in his hospital bed
killed Sonny
presumably on Barzini's orders, Fabrizio planted the car bomb to kill Michael, which ended up killing Apollonia
Barzini was going to kill Michael, the new Don Corleone

Tessio set Michael up to be killed

Roth tried to kill Michael, who was like Roth's son / successor! [could have been the entire Michael Corleone family] in the bedroom shooting
planned to kill Michael in Cuba

As regards the wives and perhaps the children too, them being “property” of the men seems to be the culture then,

Vito shut Carmela out of business too, starting with when he went into the bathroom and closed the door on her after receiving the bundle of guns from Clemenza
Carlo beat up pregnant Connie but Vito did nothing because once married the woman is deemed her husband's property
Sonny was unfaithful to his wife, Sandra which Vito was aware of
Fredo told Michael at Anthony's party “He can't control his wife”
Pentangeli dismissed / ignored his wife's concerns, when Michael was waiting for Pentangeli in Pentangeli's house
Roth's wife Marcia seemed totally ignorant of what Roth's business really was [probably hoping Roth's new business with 'Mr Paul' would bring in some money so they could eat better than Tuna sandwich!]

Roth always made money for his partners and lived like our average neighbour, harmless old man
It is just that Roth probably never had a situation like Michael burrowing into Roth's empire However when Roth needed to be ruthless, devious, murderous etc. he certainly was

Anyway in the end both Michael and Roth were beaten

“Al Pacino was absolutely terrific as Michael” indeed
I believe every actor was terrific in the portrayal of their respective characters They even looked like their characters!
All credit to Coppola for his terrific casting

As I've mentioned here before, Vito seems a textbook case of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The childhood experience revolving around his father's death and his flight from Sicily very likely triggered Vito's response to Fanucci, with Fanucci standing in the place of Don Ciccio as the person who would not leave Vito alone. What Fanucci saw as a little shakedown, Vito saw as a death struggle.

I agree about the other characters being scumbags too, it's just Michael initially really looks like the only "good guy" in the family and then not only becomes a killer (not just once, when he killed Sollozzo and the corrupt cop) but a mafioso by "profession", without ANY internal struggle to be shown, he switches "morality" extremely quickly, quicker even than a chameleon changes color. The other characters at least were "bad" from the beginning, except Vito's scenes as a child, but once grown up, we have seen what happened.

But about Vito, in the movie they left out details from the book than make him worse than Michael even: in the book, there is an explanation why Luca Brasi is so loyal to him; Vito bailed him out and probably paid bribes to drop the case, when Brasi was arrested for burning his own newborn child alive. Vito obviously had no problem with that; on the contrary, he was fine with using child murder as assurance for the "murder machine"'s loyalty.

Tom Hagen, too: when he almost witnessed the act of pedophilia by Jack Woltz (again, this was dropped from the movie), he didn't report to Vito and Vito didn't order to cut Woltz's [censored] off. As long as the pedophile did what they said, they didn't care about the rest.

Michael pissed me more in the movies, where these scenes were dropped, and I hadn't read the book when I watched the 1st movie the 1st time, and the other characters were already represented as scumbags from the beginning (still have no idea why people say they are idealized, I don't think that gaining sympathy for them was the film creator's intention, just look at the final scene where Michael "repents his sins" in the church in a newborn baby's presence and right at the same moment his "soldiers" blast away everybody).

In the book, Tom does report this to Vito, and Vito just murmurs "infamita."

Thanks for reminding, I read the book a long time ago, didn't remember that he reported it, but still they did nothing at all. Cut off the horse's head (if somebody was really innocent in this story, it was the horse and of course the child rape victim) instead of cutting Woltz's [censored], as would have been the only "moral" decision a mafioso could take without informing the police. Yet, as long as Woltz gave Johnny Fontane a part in his movie, then, for all they cared, he could continue to rape children as he pleased

That was the big thing wasn’t it? Reason backed up by murder!

No brainer! I just re-watched, Godfather II again!

Extracts:Michael at Hotel Washington, among others “I won't allow it” and “I would use all my [power] to keep something like that from happening” was poignant indeedAlarming and disappointingly the Corleone women accepted and accommodated being the “property” of the men and even schooled the younger women of their place

At the dinner table, after Vito's discharge from the hospital -
Carlo: Hey shut up, Connie, when Sonny's talking...
Santino: Hey, don't you ever tell her to shut up -- you got that?
Mama: Santino ... don't interfere

Connie her face all bruised and swollen after yet another beating by Carlo, to Sonny “It was my fault”

No doubt seems to be the culture then but he did try before his power and don't you know me trip, of some things to talk about and changes to make

I reckon they would have had more balanced marriage with old Michael