The Godfather Part III

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 2:37pm

What do you think?

Trainwreck?

Dissapointment?

Underrated?

Not nearly as bad as you thought?

Pretty darn good?

Nerve.com has a lively discussion over the least successful of one of the best trilogies in film history
Nerve.com on GODFATHER PART III

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 2:47pm

Not to sound like a broken record, but Sophia Coppola ruined it for me. Her character is so important and she was so terrible. She was an onion in a petunia patch.

Garcia was wonderful and SO sexy!

[cubanpab]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 2:50pm

i've always thought it was a pretty big dissapointed. and like doodle said, without sounding like a broken record, SC really ruined it for me in so many ways. but andy garcia was great in it.

overall tho, a far cry from the amazingness that is Part 1 and Part 2. My personal favorite is Part 2.

[Jane2]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 2:53pm

Sophia ruining it goes without saying. Laughable. Or cryable.(sp)

Perhaps if I didn't have to compare it to I and II, it wouldn't have seemed so bad, but I thought it was awful.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 2:54pm

One of my favorite lazy days was renting all three and watching them in order, one Saturday. I felt like I was in the mafia by the time I was done.

[clever name]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 2:55pm

I pretend Godfather III doesn't exist.

Therefore, I don't know what you are talking about.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 2:58pm

Do you think the original casting of Winona Ryder would have made the movie work as a whole?

[Jane2]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 3:06pm

I'm going to say no. That role notwithstanding, the rest of the film wasn't good.

[KrissySim]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 3:07pm

I never bothered seeing part 3. Part 2 was enough of a disappointment after the masterpiece original. Part 1 had a great dramatic structure and plot. The cast was good. Technical aspects of the production were good. It's a classic. Part 2 was cash in the bank. The dramatic structure was all over the map. Some of the acting and dialogue were disappointing. Stylistically it was still good, but Part 3 was obviously going to be just another bank draw, so why bother?

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 3:12pm

I think Ryder can be a good actress, so she may have improved it immensly...a good performance from anyone. Ryder couldnt have been worse.

I am glad she made Dracula tho, cause i freakin' love that film.

[Jane2]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 3:13pm

Krissy, I never heard anyone speak that way about part II I've only known it to be as good if not better than Part I.

[KrissySim]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 3:18pm

Jane2, I guess I'm just unusual : -)

[Roscoe]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 3:19pm

It has been a while since I saw it, but here goes.

I remember thinking that Al Pacino's performance, while occasionally effective, wasn't helping matters much. By time GODFATHER III came along Pacino had begun his No Scenery Unchewed phase, which rather went against the grain of the first two films where he is much more restrained.

Also, the script isn't a lot of help. Coppola finds it necessary to underline a lot of stuff that really doesn't need to be underlined. "Temper like his father." "He got that from you, that no." Stuff like that.

And Coppola also killed off Tom Hagen so that he wouldn't have to pay Robert Duvall's asking price, so instead of brilliant Oscar-winning actor of the ages Robert Duvall as Michael's lawyer, we got George Hamilton. And little Don Novello in a smaller role.

Sofia is clearly in over her head. I've always felt rather bad for her, it can't have been easy. Wasn't there anyone else available when Winona bailed?

On the other hand, there are some good things in it. I like the familiar cross-cutting at the climax, all the storylines being resolved, and I like the idea of Michael trying to get his soul back, the theme of redemption that Coppola would explore again in BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA.

There are worse movies. There are better movies.

Updated On: 9/23/08 at 03:19 PM

[clever name]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 3:20pm

I was going to say the same thing as Jane2.

[Jane2]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 3:25pm

"Jane2, I guess I'm just unusual : -)"

Nothing wrong with that!

[Roscoe]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 3:26pm

Hmmm. I've never thought that the structure of GODFATHER II was "all over the map." It always seemed very clear cut and precise to me. It alternates back and forth between the stories of Vito Corleone and Michael Corleone, but always very clearly and straightforwardly.

I saw GODFATHER II at Film Forum this past weekend. It is one of those damned great films, very nearly perfect, I think. The pros (the brilliance of the script, production and most of the performances) outweigh the cons (Lee Strasberg's unfortunate performance) pretty completely.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 3:44pm

I think Sophia was the Jar-Jar Binks of Godfather III.


Definitely not good... but really shouldn't be held responsible for everything else lacking in the movie.

[cubanpab]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 4:47pm

since we're talking about the Godfather trilogy.... this just came out today! shoot, why cant i afford a blu-ray player either:

http://www.amazon.com/Godfather-Coppola-Restoration-Giftset-Blu-ray/dp/B000NTPDSW/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1222202797&sr=8-1