"Vito and Michael were both evil, no doubt about that and who would claim otherwise?"
Actually, I don't think they were evil, particularly Vito. Charles Manson--yes. John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy--yes. Mrs. Iselin (Angela Lansbury's character in the first "Manchurian Candidate" movie)--yes. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney--yes. But Vito and Michael--no.
(snip)
I actually admire Vito tremendously, he's one of my two favorite movie characters (the other is Indiana Jones). The reason is because Vito has an incredible combination of toughness, muscle and ruthlessness on the one hand, and compassion and wisdom on the other. This is rare in someone in a position of power. Combined with his incredible "rags to riches" story, it makes him a highly appealing character.
I do think Michael and Vito were both evil. Each of them places little value on human life if it gets in the way of what they want. Each will order murders in a nanosecond if they feel it's required. They both set up elaborate organizations that ran on fear, fed on people's vulnerabilities, and extorted money and services. Greed and Pride were extreme in both men even as they talked about family and respect. You could even be minding your own business (as both the bandleader and Woltz were) and if you had something Vito wanted, he would take it under threat of violence.
The difference that I see is that Vito is a bit more of a
Magnificent Bastard than Michael was. Vito was much more affable and actually occasionally helped people without an immediate expectation of a return favor. Michael was more the
Chessmaster but couldn't hold on to his family as Vito did. I do think he took things beyond where Vito would have gone.
But they were both evil. If Nazorine hadn't paid up his protection money to the Don's bakers organization (from the book)or if someone borrowed money from a Corleone loan shark and didn't pay it back with appropriate interest those folks would have gotten hurt. Badly.
