A great actor that ought to finally be recognized. think about
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — John Cazale
felds — 23 years ago(February 16, 2003 09:25 PM)
A great actor that ought to finally be recognized. think about
5 films, 5 academy award nominated films. c'mon, credit him
as one of the best of the '70s, hands-down. -
corleolina — 22 years ago(August 10, 2003 02:38 AM)
The one that hurts me the most is Dog Day Afternoon. Chris Sarandon got nominated as Leo, while John Cazale (as Sal the dead-eyed, hair trigger sidekick) got jack squat. But then again, almost everybody in Godfather I and II got nominated for something while he, again, got jack squat. It just ain't fair.
"Buy the ticket, take the ride. If this thing's worth doing, it's worth doing right." Duke -
Don_Gonzalez — 22 years ago(August 31, 2003 10:08 PM)
It's like Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock, they never won an Oscar for their work. Except that this guy never even got nominated!
This movie was one of the first in a long time to pioneer special of this magnitude. -
mogilny — 22 years ago(January 07, 2004 03:23 PM)
"It's like Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock, they never won an Oscar for their work. Except that this guy never even got nominated!"
take that fact, and think about it. 2 of the very finest directors ever to have lived, and no ocsars. think of all the classics they produced. this shows you that the oscars are a 3rd rate awards show. especially as of late. too commercial, they dont reward real acting anymore. william h macy got absolutely SCREWED out of an oscar for fargo. i refused to watch it after that. -
ingres77 — 22 years ago(February 17, 2004 07:23 PM)
Ingmar Bergman - 9 nominations (for writing and directing); never won.
Akira Kurosawa - 1 nomination (for Ran), didn't win.
The Oscars have the
ability
to recognize greatness - but seldom do anything with it.
Your ego is absolutely colossal.
Yeah, yeah, not bad, how's yours? -
domino1003 — 22 years ago(November 08, 2003 02:58 PM)
I saw every single film that he did and it is wonderful that, despite his death, he has made an impact in every single film. Of all my favorites, "Godfather, Part 2" is the best. As the much degraded Freddo, he so desperately wanted to be treated with respect that he nearly gets his brother killed. Many people often asked "Should Freddo have been kiiled?" The answer: Yes. As much as we felt sorry for Freddo, he was warned NEVER to cross the family. What do you guys think?
-
chuckmeister03 — 22 years ago(November 21, 2003 04:39 AM)
It's a shame that he's not as well known as Brando, Pacino, or De Niro. I've seen all 5 films of his and there all fantastic movies. And he's superb in each and every one of them. He deserves to become a cult figure, like James Dean. He only did 3 movies.
-
jamesdrax — 21 years ago(January 10, 2005 08:21 PM)
Fredo wasn't a bad guy, he just wasn't cut out for Mafia life. Sure, he didn't have the wit or talent to lead the way that Michael did, but really who does?
I don't think Sonny would have made a good leader of the family either. He was too much of a hothead. For him, it was really his uncontrolled anger that got him killed. If he did eventually become "Godfather", he probably would have unwittingly led the family to be destroyed the same way he did himself. His early death was just waiting to happen. What Fredo and Sonny had in common was they were both loud, where as Michael was cool, quiet and composed, which was the secret of Vito's success.
"Your views are as narrow as your tie."- Bernard Herrmann
-
Lady_E — 22 years ago(December 02, 2003 04:03 PM)
I see your point but I still think Michael went against the family by doing that. He killed his own brother, for God's sake! I mean, do you really think Fredo would've made that deal had he known it would endanger Michael? I don't, he just doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would do that to his own brother. Michael didn't either but he was so consumed with his quest for power and glory that he changed completely. Fredo remained the same, overlooked. Why would he hurt Michael when he had taken care of him, been good to him? He might've held resentment against Vito but why against Michael? He seemed very supportive of his little brother; remember he congratulates him on joining the army. Fredo isn't evil or anything like that so why would he plot to kill Michael, why would he go against the family? He's just not like that. He made a mistake, it didn't mean he had to die.
On another note, I think Cazale should've been nominated for
Godfather II
.
I'm Tony Montana! You f
uck wit' me, you f
uckin' wit' the best! -
domino1003 — 22 years ago(December 03, 2003 04:29 PM)
Lady K:
I also see your point. Freddo was the weak link in the Corleone chain. Sonny was TOO hot-headed and Michael was the brains and the calm of the 3. Tom was not of the blood (German-Irish), so he would NEVER be considered head of the family. The mistake of being made consigliori (I hope I got the spelling right on it!)cost the family dearly (By the way, have you ever read the book? It's fantastic and goes into more detail.).
Getting back to Freddo, thoughI hated that Michael had him killed. Like Michael, it broke my heart. Freddo was taken advantage of. He saw himself as getting a better deal. Look at his life at that point: He had a trampy wife and was pretty much treated as a messenger boy, and he wanted something better. Don't we all feel like that sometime? -
chuckmeister03 — 22 years ago(December 03, 2003 10:15 PM)
Yea, Fredo was definitely stepped on. Poor guy. But don't think that Michael doesn't suffer as well. How would you feel if you had your brother killed? None of the money, power, and respect in the world can make up for the murder of a brother. It's a cardinal sin. Same with Claudius to King Hamlet I.