Klydon, it is curious. But, the quick answer is that it made for a dramatic moment--one of many in the Trilogy where directorial license trumps logic.
To be fair to FFC: Michael may already have known that Questadt belonged to Roth--he didn't seem to be thunderstruck when he heard it. And Fredo might have seen Questadt around Roth (or Ola), or heard one or both talking to or about Questadt. If true, this could suggest that Fredo was in far deeper than he let on in the boathouse.

In an effort to explain everything outside the scope of directorial license (or oversight) I would posit that Fredo knew Queatadt belonged to Roth because he saw him in Havana with the Roth entorage. Alrthough he was kept pretty much in the dark it would not have been a big deal for Fredo to know that Roth owned the senate counsel, and frankly he would have probably never connected the dots until Michael was hauled before the committee.

Seeing Questadt within the Roth 'entourage' would not necessarily indicate that he 'belongs' to Roth.

After all, Sen. Geary, who also served on the Hearings Commitee, was also a member of the Corleone 'entourage' in Havana on New Year's Eve...was that supposed to serve as public notice that Geary 'belonged' to Michael Corleone?

And if it does, then it's entirely possible that Michael already knew about the Questadt/Roth relationship, and the one thing Fredo could offer was really no big news except to the audience.

Apple

This little, but important, scene is becoming more and more interesting to me. I'm seeing it in a completely new light.
When Michael asked Fredo if there was anything else to know, and Fredo replies with the information about Roth and the senator, I had always thought that Michael's glare of disgust was the result of learning the information, but it appears that his reaction was the result of his anger over Fredo being involved to such an extent that he would know this. Also, it had to be especially hurtful, finding out Fredo knew this, but didn't share it until he was on the hot seat.

Excellent point about Michael's reaction, especially in light of what happened just before. Michael asks Tom what does Fredo know, and Tom says he doesnt know anything, then Michael says he wants to see Fredo himself, and learns that he knows something after all. He could be mad at Fredo and disappointed with Tom (again).

I also think that Michael's cold, passionless response to Fredo after learning what Fredo knew is one of the most intense moments of the trilogy. Fredo's fate was sealed.
To say, "You're nothing to me now" to your brother in such a dispassionate way reflects complete heartlessness, which was also evidenced when he closed the door on Kay's face.

Yes, but then he went all squishy on Kay in GF III

Incidentally, I tried to watch that movie AGAIN last night and was bored silly after 10 minutes.

Granted, I came across it on AMC well into the film (got to see the AC hit & Michael's stroke) ... but still there was absolutely nothing there to hold me.

Plus it was bedtime...seemed fitting.

Apple

Took you that long? I am usually unconscious by the time Connie says "will someone please 'hail mary' oh escuse me your excellency."

Speaking of that AC hit scene...I found it extremely goofy how Michael had someone (was it Neri?) pass around those envelopes to the other Dons, I suppose containing checks for the gambling business had made for them.

Looked like passing bonuses around at the office Christmas party.

Just one more bite out of that rotten egg.

Apple

"We may be too late to save this Pope!"

Saw that again this afternoon....

I thought both Vincent and Neri passed out envelopes.

Ok, fine the both of them passed out the envelopes.

Either way it was a very silly scene. I also think it dragged endlessly after Zaza got snubbed & pissed off.

One valuable lesson I took away from watching it though...when being shot at from all sides, don't run for your 'lucky coat'.

Apple

Yes, Apple, you're right, it was silly. I think a lot of the dialogue in all the movies was silly. But it worked, for the past 30 some years. I'll have to review my copy of the DVD just to make sure. Unless you review yours first and let me know who handed out the envelopes.

No, exgigirl...GF and GFII have 'worked, for the past 30 some years.' Despite any intermittent silly dialogue and a hole or two in the plots. They worked because they were well written, well crafted, well cast and well acted.

GFIII did not work, does not work and never will work.

Not in the past 15 years, not in the next.

Apple

Wait a minute. What's so wrong with Al and Vinnie passing out envelopes containing checks? Michael was there to end his business relationship with the Dons. He liquidated their joint assets and distributed the proceeds. What's so unusual or silly about that? It was part of an overall theme to that meeting. It set the stage for treachery. Makes sense to me. Yes, it could have been done better. The lucky coat dialogue was unnecessary. So was Altobello's acting as he left the meeting. I also wondered why a meeting of the top dons in the country would be attended by call girls anyone of which could have been a FBI plant to report at least on who was and wasn't there.

Other than that, let's cut GFIII a little slack. Madonne!

Would that be a cashier's check or American Traveller's?

From what bank do you draw multiple checks made payable to the known bosses of American organized crime? - or maybe they were made out to CASH?

Movie was terrible; wait I should cut it some slack...on it's own it was aweful, but held against GF and GF part III it was terrible.

Actually, held against Jaws 3-D it is still terrible

"Wait a minute. What's so wrong with Al and Vinnie passing out envelopes containing checks?"

You can defend it all you like, I found it silly. And stavka makes an excellent point. In the business Michael and the other Dons are in, it seems a bit unrealistic that you simply draw and pass out checks to your colleagues (or soon-to-be-ex colleagues) in Organized Crime. In real life, it would probably be done a bit more 'under the table', via bank transfers etc.

That was strictly for show and it was silly.

In keeping with most of the rest of the movie, of course...

The only times I tend to cut 'GFIII a little slack' is when I again attempt to watch it. When it loses me yet again, that's when I stop cutting it slack.

*****
"Movie was terrible; wait I should cut it some slack...on it's own it was aweful, but held against GF and GF part III it was terrible." -- GREAT line, stavka (although I'm sure you mean GF part II...)

Just curious is there ANY movie you can hold it against that it might seem ok?
*****

Apple

As long as we are trashing GFIII, keep in mind if you cut all of the totally unnecessary opera scenes (and I dont mean the people running around the opera house trying to kill each other....just the scenes from the opera....you have about ten minutes of film time. If you cut out two or three other extraneous scenes ... like Kay arriving by train, you have a 75 minute movie.

And if you cut out the 'gnoochi' scene between the cousins, that allows another 6 minutes of what could've been quality film time.

Apple

That was truly disgusting. Also the most awkward screen kiss in history.


Also take out all the scenes where people are looking at photographs of themselves and of Apollonia in the old days.
What it amounts to is the GFIII could have been a 60 minute "short."

I guess the term 'quality not quantity' didn't apply when making this particular film.

Apple

Even at sixty minutes its not that hot

Heck, dontom...the first half hour alone seems more like 60 minutes!!

Apple