Has i said , never understood this scene from gf2 . After the assination attempt at michaels home after antonys baptism , micheal travelled to cuba , in that time rolled over in his mind all that had happened and why , figererd it out to be of roffs doing . now what i cant workout is why then when he arrives back in america and visits pentangeli why dose he rant :in my home , in my bedroom , where my children play with their toys etc ; If he knows it was roff then why blow off at pentangeli , just never got my head around, again sorry if i am going over old issues which may have been well worn .

He isn't sure about Roth, he knows that ther is a traitor in his crime family, and he is legitimately upset that his family was endangered.

Michael was almost 100% certain that Roth was behind the Tahoe shooting. His outburst at Frankie's home was designed to test Frankie's reaction, and then to soften him up so he'd agree to meet with the Rosato brothers.

No. I think he was just legitimately upset. He didn't need to get upset to test Frankie's loyalty and he did, in fact, order Frankie to serttle things with the Rosatos.

I'm with this line of thinking. Every single move Michael made was cool and calculated, and designed to get others to do exactly what he wanted - even to get people to do things they really didn't want to do.

I also agree with this analysis, and I will take it a step further. Not only did he want to test Pentangeli's reaction, he wanted Pentangeli, who was already uneasy that Michael came unnanounced, to be so shaken that he would give up on his idea to wipe out the Rosatos and make a deal with them as part of a larger plan to help Michael take his revenge against Roth.

That was exactly his purpose. Frankie was so shaken by Michael's unannounced appearance, and so grateful that Michael didn't blame him for the Tahoe attempt, that he agreed to take a huge risk by meeting with the Rosatos. It was a win/win for Michael: If Frankie and the Rosatos settled their differences, it was one more detail he didn't have to worry about. If they tried to whack Frankie, it was one more proof that Roth was behind the Tahoe shooting. Although Michael didn't need more proof at that point, it was more icing on the cake.

It was Michael at his most manipulative and, IMO, Pacino's best scene in II.

But what could have been Frankie's reaction that he was testing?

"You know Mike, I know we're family and all, but you are a real SOB and I just wish to God that they would have plugged you."

or ...

"Well, Mike, ya know that this is the business we've chosen."

or ..., as he did say

"Mike, I almost died myself."

To get back on topic:

The Roth/Michael interactions are, IMO, the most interesting and stimulating elements of GFII. The continuing, underlying theme is the deadly ballet the two of them dance throughout the film. Lots of ambiguities and missteps. But the key is the famous "this is the business we've chosen" scene. It's a near-certainty that each of them knew what the other's intention was at that point. And yet, they continued to play out their string to the very end: Michael to find out who the traitor was, Roth angling for the $2 million. Great stuff!

And even then it wasn't over...

TB, I think that Roth, like Barzini, was one of the few adversaries that the Corleones encountered. The Rosatos, the Tattaglias and the Sollozzos of the world were no match for them. To see them matching wits was truly like the mongoose and cobra.

FFC may have taken liberties with what we Board members know about Mafia SOP. The main one for me is that Roth didn't have any troops. So, who was he going to turn to to execute Michael? Well, Ola, right? But it's never clear just who Ola is and his Mafia hierarchy standing. I always took him to be a capo. Unless he's a Don himself, Roth had to get the okay from at least one Don to take Michael out, right?. I would think that he would have needed more than one Don given Michael's preeminent position in the underworld. And Roth aligning himself with (just) a crew in the Rosato brothers does not rise to the level of what we probably figured to be Roth's level of intelligence and logic.

I believe Roth was thinking and acting out of the "Mafia box." I think he planned to have his pals in the Cuban government's intelligence organization (called SIM) assassinate Michael and the soldiers in the military car that was taking him back to his hotel, making it look like Michael accidentally got caught between the government and the rebels.

I also don't think he needed permission from any Dons to whack Michael, who was by that time posing as "legitimate," and was far away in Nevada (and Havana). In fact, the birthday party was designed by Roth to create an alibi for Michael's assassination ("Hey, it wasn't me--I loved the kid. Just ask all those guys at my birthday party"); and to line up support. He promised shares of his territories to other Mobsters at the time of his retirement or death--the rest to Michael. With Michael out of the way, there'd be more for them to share.

SB, much as I agree with you, I don't think Barzini was in the same league as Roth for cunning and treachery. I thought he was kind of obvious.

As you know, an oft-asked question on this board is: "How did Vito know it was Barzini all along?" A more likely question, IMO, would be: "Why did it take Vito all that time to figure out it was Barzini all along?" He said to Tom after the Convention: "Tattaglia is a pimp; alone he could never have out fought Santino." Well, Vito, Tatt was always a pimp; and if, as you said, "alone he could never have outfought Santino," then he had to have had a backer from day one. And it had to have been Barzini, who was the youngest, most modern Don, and the most ambitious to succeed Vito.
I guess the Don was slippin'.

I don't know about that, TB. Sollozzo was sort of slimy, as was Tattaglia. It might make sense for them to be hand in hand. Barzini had a forcefulness about him, a politician's ability to seize control of just about any situation for his own good. He may not have been in Roth's league, but he certainly was a true threat to the Corleones.

As I see, my posts in this thread are deleted. Obviously, there was something going on that I didn't understand, something that had a history in this forum, which results now in the Zero Tolerance Policy.

I'm sorry if I have hurt anybody with my posts. I thought that this thread was just for fun's sake.

I mean, who am I to make fun of incorrect spelling, grammar or whatever. I guess I made some funny mistakes too.

Once again: I'm sorry if I hurt someone.

Regarding Roth, he had two things going for him ... first the analysis that he would let the Cuban government do the dirty work is correct. It gave him a perfect alibi. Second is that Roth (who is based on Meyer Lansky) was basically the money man for all the mob. He had the ability to launder all the money that was coming in illicitly, so he had allies everywhee.
By knocking off Corleone, and using the Rosatos and other allies to seize their territories, Lansky could protect himself from any one who objected to the killing of Michael by giving that Don a slice of the pie....and besides, who in the mod would have objected to the Corleones being wiped out? After all that's the premise all three GF movies.

I'm not sure about that DT. I just don't buy that Roth makes the decision to eliminate a mob boss without having consulted other Dons. I just don't see that happening.

Hadn't Roth already made an attempt on Michael's life (Tahoe)? That would have certainly required the pre-approved go-ahead from the other bosses, and since that plan failed, I don't think Roth would have had to ask the other bosses a second time for approval to have Michael killed.

IMO, Roth was attempting to execute the perfect end-run by having Michael come to Cuba and have him assassinated as a result of "being in the wrong place at the wrong time," i.e. being in the limo when the government and the rebels had a clash. If that plan had been executed as planned, the other mob bosses likely would not have questioned it, even if they hadn't given approval a second time. After all, it appears they all wanted him gone, as it would mean more of a slice of the pie for them.

Just my two cents.

I dont think that Roth sought out permission to assassinate Michael either time:

1. Makes it look like a mob hit from NY and Pentangelli

2. I dont think he could have any/all or some of the mob families involved/or knowing in the Cuba assassination either. Too many possible leaks.