I've never seen it. They played pt 1 last night so I recorded it and will watch it this weekend near to pt 2 (I'm too busy this week to watch it any sooner!).
I hear they're quite good.
I hear they're quite good.
I'm watching The Godfather trilogy for the first time
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
They are amazing. I personally think they completely live up to the hype. Simply the best Crime films ever, featuring some classic performances.
That said, Only Godfather I and II are hyped like that
The third film is rightly regarded as big drop in quality from the first two.
But enjoy! I envy you in a way
That said, Only Godfather I and II are hyped like that
The third film is rightly regarded as big drop in quality from the first two.
But enjoy! I envy you in a way
Skip the third. Enjoy the first two, they're great (even if they're long).
Nah, you have to watch the third.
Even though it's not the best of the three there are still some good story telling moments in it and it completes ( somewhat) the story.
Omigod, you absolutely must skip "Part III." Pretend it was never made. Poorly written and poorly filmed. (Even the little things are messed up: A newspaper headline appears on screen, but the paper's date is 1990, rather than the time period of the film.) I have heard the opinion that if Robert Duvall had agreed to appear in it, it might have turned out better - but would including Tom Hagen in the script have made a difference? Nah.
I love how people can overbash...Poorly written and filmed, poorly ?
BOA vs PYTHON is poorly done not Godfather
The first two films are genuine masterpieces.
The third one suffers from a lack of Tom Hagen, an over-the-top performance from Pacino (who occasionally seems like he's forgotten that he's not on the set of Dick Tracy anymore), and some over-the-top moments in general. The film is still beautifully filmed, minor bloopers aside. And compared to some of the Part III stories Paramount tried to launch in the time between 1974 and 1990 without the involvement of Coppola and Puzo (mentioned in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc in the boxed set, and probably also alluded to in FFC's audio commentary), we're lucky we got the flawed story that we did.
Coppola's commentary also includes some discussion of what would have happened in Godfather, Part IV, a film he and Puzo dabbled with on and off throughout the 90s, but was left incomplete at the time of Puzo's death, and will most likely remain so.
The third one suffers from a lack of Tom Hagen, an over-the-top performance from Pacino (who occasionally seems like he's forgotten that he's not on the set of Dick Tracy anymore), and some over-the-top moments in general. The film is still beautifully filmed, minor bloopers aside. And compared to some of the Part III stories Paramount tried to launch in the time between 1974 and 1990 without the involvement of Coppola and Puzo (mentioned in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc in the boxed set, and probably also alluded to in FFC's audio commentary), we're lucky we got the flawed story that we did.
Coppola's commentary also includes some discussion of what would have happened in Godfather, Part IV, a film he and Puzo dabbled with on and off throughout the 90s, but was left incomplete at the time of Puzo's death, and will most likely remain so.
Sophia Coppola's presence does a lot more damage to the film than Robert Duvall's absence. She may have turned out to be a good director, but she was a terrible actress.
^^^Agreed. I think the poor girl is 90% of what is genuinely not good about pt. III. And failure to protect the family is the appropriately non romanticized ending to Michael's story. I suspect the glorification of John Paul I wasn't enough to soothe people riled over the hit on the pope in the story (and the general corruption of the Church portrayed.)
I watch parts I and II every year or two. I saw III when it came out, and have never felt the need to see it again.
I like part I a little better than II, there are some things in II that don't really make sense if you think about it.
I don't think Duvall would have helped III, but it would have been nice to see Tom in the last film. George Hamilton just didn't make it as a substitute!
--Justin
I like part I a little better than II, there are some things in II that don't really make sense if you think about it.
I don't think Duvall would have helped III, but it would have been nice to see Tom in the last film. George Hamilton just didn't make it as a substitute!
--Justin
Yes, Sofia Coppola was bad, but she didn't annoy me nearly as much as the helicopter attack in Atlantic City, which was totally over the top. Michael's subsequent explosion back at the house — "THUNDER CAN'T HURT! HARMLESS NOISE!" — is pretty cringe-worthy, too.
As for the plot against John Paul I and the church corruption, much of that is taken from a book called In God's Name, alleging that John Paul I was killed in connection with a brewing scandal at the Vatican Bank. Most of the fictional conspirators in GF3 — Don Lucchesi, the Swiss banker Keinszig, and Archbishop Gilday — had real-life counterparts in the Banco Ambrosiano scandal of the early 1980s.
As for the plot against John Paul I and the church corruption, much of that is taken from a book called In God's Name, alleging that John Paul I was killed in connection with a brewing scandal at the Vatican Bank. Most of the fictional conspirators in GF3 — Don Lucchesi, the Swiss banker Keinszig, and Archbishop Gilday — had real-life counterparts in the Banco Ambrosiano scandal of the early 1980s.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
I have the first DVD release still and recently watched Part I and II. I still love them. I tend to agree with cardinal biggles' assessments regarding Part III, but will watch it from time to time, just for the hell of it. I don't think it is nearly as deserving of half the crap it gets from some people, the same way I don't think The Search for Spock, Return of the Jedi, or Batman Forever get... not saying any of these is perfect by any stretch, just that I can put aside the bad things and still enjoy these films for what they are.
That said, Part II would have to be my favorite of the three, if only by a hair over Part I. There's just something sweeping about it that while the first installment has similar, Part II seems to expand on.
The only problem I can think of with Part II, and I had to have it pointed out to my by Indysolo a few days ago, would be a simple question: Why does Hyman Roth want to kill Michael?
That said, Part II would have to be my favorite of the three, if only by a hair over Part I. There's just something sweeping about it that while the first installment has similar, Part II seems to expand on.
The only problem I can think of with Part II, and I had to have it pointed out to my by Indysolo a few days ago, would be a simple question: Why does Hyman Roth want to kill Michael?
I haven't seen the movie in close to two years, but doesn't Roth, at one point, say that he knows Michael had Moe Greene killed?
The Godfather Part I and The Godfather Part II, as has already been repeated quite a bit in this thread, are truly great films. Part of Coppola's golden age of work (Patton, The Conversation, Apocalypse Now, Rain People, etc.).
The Godfather Part III has a number of problems, but it's not horrible. It's simply not as good as the first two films. Watch it once, and then decide if you'd like to forget it or not.
The Godfather Part III has a number of problems, but it's not horrible. It's simply not as good as the first two films. Watch it once, and then decide if you'd like to forget it or not.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
It could very well be. We did bring that point up in our discussion, however it had been just long enough since any of us had viewed the film that none of us could recall precisely.
I think Roth realized that Michael was too smart and wanted him out of the way so he could have the upper hand dealing with Michael's successor. And he was right, when the hit didn't work Michael outmaneuvered him in the Cuba deal. He was sore about Moe Green, too, though.
What is less clear is why Roth's Rosato hitman said "Michael Corleone says hello" to Frank Pentangeli when he was garotting him. Why say that to a man who is about to be dead? It was only by a freak chance that Frankie survived.
Also I've never understood why Michael gives a little speech about how his people are only loyal because he pays them good, and then one of his top guys, Rocco, goes on a suicide mission to get Roth.
--Justin
What is less clear is why Roth's Rosato hitman said "Michael Corleone says hello" to Frank Pentangeli when he was garotting him. Why say that to a man who is about to be dead? It was only by a freak chance that Frankie survived.
Also I've never understood why Michael gives a little speech about how his people are only loyal because he pays them good, and then one of his top guys, Rocco, goes on a suicide mission to get Roth.
--Justin
Here's the sequence of events:
- Michael tells Roth that Pentangeli was behind the attempted hit.
- Michael then informs Pentangeli that Roth was, in fact, behind the hit, and that Roth will be handled. But, for the time being, Pentangeli has to play nice with Roth and his men.
- Roth, in a moment of overconfidence, begins thinking that he's pulled the wool over Michael's eyes, and makes plans to have Pentangeli eliminated -- notably, because Pentangeli had already made efforts to have the Rosatos taken out.
- The Rosatos, in the classic "movie drama" moment, inform the would-be dying Pentangeli that Michael Corleone had ordered his execution. There are any number of explanations: They wanted to make Pentangeli feel despair as he was murdered, or they had been misled by Roth and honestly believed that Pentangeli was behind the Corleone hit, or they were just cold-hearted bastards.
Similar threads
