I wrote this with Christmas Vacation blaring as loud as possible, so it might be a little shaky. I also tried to make it an actual review instead of just an angry rant.


It must be said, when attempting a project of this nature, the author has an almost impossible mountain to climb. Unfortunately for us, Mark Winegardener hit a glacier a forth of the way up and slid all the way back down, never to attempt the climb again.
The Godfather Returns gives us the untold story of the Corleones in between the times in which the movies took place, beginning with the murder of Tessio. New characters and new plot lines are added, but attempted to be worked in to the originals. This apparently, is when Winegardener should have applied his ice melt, or at least pulled out the ice pick. Over the course of the book, Michael, Nick Geraci (pronounced Ger-eh-see as Winegardener pointed out numerous times) Louie Russo and all sorts of new characters are involved in countless plot twists (one of which involving the assassination of Castro)that make the Vatican storyline of Part 3 look like a children's book. The time periods don’t make sense by themselves (a crime Puzo isn’t innocent of either) much less worked into the original Godfathers.
It would make sense, that if you have been chosen to pen the prequel to a popular book and film adaptation, that you would spend at least a week getting to know the characters, but Winegardener is much too skilled of a writer for a menial task like that. He simply takes any and all characterizations from the original book and the movies and sweeps them under the rug, creating entirely new characters with the same names.
"Fredo's condition" has been well publicized even before the book's release and easily makes him the number one mischaracterized character. What could have possibly given Winegardener the idea that Fredo was screwing other men? What hints, or even hint at hints were given in any previous form of Godfather to make him think that? The only conclusion I can come up with was that it would sell more books. Sure, Fredo was a weak natured, gullible guy, but how could being bisexual have anything to do with that? Are we to believe Fredo was duped into betraying his brother because he was interested in men? As for the hair-brained plan about the cemetery rackets, Fredo was too dull to come up with anything that stupid and complicated. Granted, Fredo in the Puzo novel was written a slightly different was than was played by John Cazale in the film version, but in character they were the same. One of Winegardener's many problems was that he tried to combine Puzo's Fredo's physical appearance and Cazale's Fredo's which gave the reader a twisted mental image.
The new Don, Michael Corleone himself, comes in a close second. Now, miraculously he not only has time to take pilot lessons, and vacations to Tahoe, Sicily and Disneyland, but he now totes Kay along with him. He flies Kay to Tahoe (though her mood changes for hostile to pleasant every other sentence, she stray the least from existing characterizations)gets her into a closed movie house, after which they begin making out. Michael does and says strange things that, in any other version, he would never have even thought. During the flashback chapter (which strangely coincides with the flashback chapter of Puzo' novel) Michael drops out of a different college than he attended in any previous version when having learned his father might have had something to do with his getting accepted. He then joins the CCC, which is where he first hears about Pearl Harbor and presumably joins the Army. Apparently the exchange between Sonny ("Why don’t you just quit college and join the Army") and Michael ("I did" inferring he was enrolled at the time) never took place.
Peter Clemenza, the once jolly fat man, the Santa Clause of the Family, if you will, had now become an angry, gruff, hostile old bastard, cursing up a storm. His death, though described, doesn’t seem to be anything more than a page filler.
But at least the two most important characters are back. Folks, but you hands together for Johnny Fontane, who is even less entertaining then before, and Lucy Mancini, who has taken the form of one of Sonny's twin daughters, Francesca.
Although it might be an entertaining image to see Sonny bawling his eyes out in a sappy movie, it adds nothing to the story and betrays the character.
The only glimpse we get that Winegardener has a shred of human intelligence was the fact that he did not try to explain the death of Tom.
As I have mentioned earlier, the number of "books" and chapters in each "book" of The Godfather Returns are roughly the same as the original novel. As nifty as that may be, it stands as proof Winegardener tried much too hard to fit into a writing style that didn’t suit him, which leads to many mistakes: [talking about a satchel Johnny was told not to open]"Another sort of man would open it by now. Johnny couldn't have given a shit." Five sentences later; "She turned around. He looked down at the satchel. He opened it."(88) and unheard of absurdities: The Fred Corleone Show (so when Fredo was running around NY, scared of Michael, he had a show to host in Las Vegas?) and Kay not really having an abortion after all.
The Godfather suffers from a curse. All sequels, prequels, etc not made within a few years of the original, will, without a doubt, be stricken with it. The Godfather Returns is no exception. Many have said this was an impossible task, but if it could be done, Winegardener didn’t seem to want to try and find out.


Edited to please "Prof. Malta"

Not for nothin', buddy, but you didn't care enough about your review to even spell check? Shit... Word does it for you! :p

So I guess you didn't like it, then.... :rolleyes:

Seriously, though.....

You raise some good points, and make nice use of sarcasm. Next time, as Professor Malta points out, watch your spelling and punctuation and your grade will be higher.

A-

Dude,

I have read to Chapter 6, and I am thoroughly disgusted with this book.

There are many points I agree with you. Fredo being a bisexual man does not make any sense. So, he might have had a problem with his masculinity, however, his own proclivities of having multiple women would be sufficient for this. In addition, the movie has him with a trophy wife; obviously this is not someone who has a problem with sex.

My main beef (again, I have read up to Chapter 6) is that the Five heads of the Family are not dead. This author has Cuneo and Stracci alive, which Puzo in his book, and in the screenplay and movie show their deaths. He announces that Carlos is dead, (remember the scene....I have settled all family business, Moe Green, Stracci, Cuneo, Tattaglia, Barzini are dead....) and no explanation.

His characterizations of the two Dons in the West, Molinari and Falcone are simple, and ridiculous. Puzo, in his book had them describes as ordinary businessmen, obviously rich, not disrespectful, and interested in the lush profits of the movies. Why would they care about what happens in New York and Chicago?

Seems so silly. If this guy was serious, he should have read everything and studied more of their characters rather than try his hand at writing a silly, convoluted storyline.

I also agree that Puzo's writing is unique. He does not so much describe the scene as much as he discusses what the characters are thinking. Woltz and Hagen discussion over dinner becomes more involved when talking about what each of their thoughts are. Who cares when Hagen, in talking to Shea, the writer describes what the maid wears? A lawyer and an ambassador are discussing business, and this is what they are thinking????

Arggggggghhhhhh

As you may have read, I didn't particularly care for the book either, but just for the record, Puzo did not kill Cuneo and Stracci in the original.

They were, however, both killed in the film.

I am in my second read of the book. So far (detailing some sections and skimming other sections - I usually do 3 to 5 reads), the most intriguing concept to me is the Cuba connection - that seems to be a nice blend of fact and fiction.

What I am seeing in terms of reviews is a divergence in perception. I 'googled' the book title and read some reviews - looks like Winegardner is about to get nominated for President. Not much is being said (of what I read) about Fredo's lifestyle (FYI - the same issue will come up soon in the Alexander the Great movie. However, there 'are' historical documents that suggest that Alexander 'went around the world' as he conquered it).

This will be a red state/blue state situation. Padrino-philes (like us) will view this book like New Coke (e.g. Godfather-Classic, New Godfather, diet-Godfather, vanilla-Godfather - i.e. - brace yourselves for the upcoming GF variations). Our 'love' for the novel and or the movies increases our disappointment with anything that does not reinforce or enhance the relationship. We want GFR to give us more to love, not tamper with the object of our affection.

On the other hand, there seems to be a fair number of book critics who do like GFR. Perhaps because they are literary professionals and want to support their colleague.

In any case, this will be settled at the cash register by the public at large. I am borrowing a copy for now - can't force myself to invest in this yet. I apologize to everyone for being so critical of a book that I am easing my way through. This may be a decent book, but it does not feel like the book and movie with which I fell in love - hence I am having difficulty embracing it.

One thing we should watch out for - the phrase 'best seller'. I do not know how many copies constitute a best seller, but let's say the figure is 1 million. Assuming that the US population is 250 million, then 1 million copies is .004 percent of the country. The point being that if 1 million people buy GFR, that does not make it a good book, but rather that .996 percent cannot be fooled that easily.

Hey go to hell, alright :p Your message board doesnt give me the opiton to check my spelling.