Guru Askew

The ultimate failure of the saga/chronological version is that it presents the prequel material as an introduction to the Vito Corleone character when the material was always presented later on, even in the original novel.

The material clearly works better when you know the older Vito character from the Brando performance, plus you also lose the father/son contrast from Part II.

slop101

Yeah, the juxtaposing of Vito vs. Michael is one of the best things about part 2.
In Saga, the whole Lake Tahoe era just doesn't work as well by itself.

Solid Snake

God, yes. That aspect of part 2 is awesome. LOVE Vito's story just cuz of the setting itself.

TheDude

A while back, I watched all three Godfather films for the first time on Blu. Great experience - obviously, the PQ & Sound were amazing - and, it was fantastic to see all three films back to back (this was the first time I've watched them this way).

I actually consider Godfather I & II to be one extremely long film. If you watch them back to back you'll see what I mean. Because of this, I don't necessarily consider one to be better than another...

And, though all of the performances in these films are stellar, some of my highest accolades go to Diane Keaton & the late John Cazale. Even though they both have relatively small supporting roles in these two movies, IMHO their acting is truly sublime.

Fredo (Cazale) is incredible as well, notably his outburst in II as he gets upset at Michael for not trusting him more with the family business, especially since he was the older brother....Excellent. And, you had to feel sorry for him as his wife drunkenly danced with another guy at that large party earlier in the film, and one of Michael's subordinates had to remove her from the scene...since Fredo was either unwilling or unable to do so.

High accolades go to the masterfully controlled rage that Michael Corleone (Pacino) displays in II - this is nowhere near the over-the-top screaming/ranting & raving that we have seen in many of Pacino's '90's-on films - not even close.

The ending of II was also masterful, i.e. having a flashback dinner scene with the brothers talking right after the U.S. has entered WW II, and Michael's revelation that he has joined the military. It was interesting how Sonny criticized Michael's decision to join, whereas Fredo congratulated him...The fact that both had passed by the end of this film made the scene all the more poignant. And, the very ending of II with the close up of Michael staring into space & presumably thinking about the horrible thing(s) he had done was just incredible.

Re: Godfather III, IMHO this film has been unfairly maligned over the years; sure, it's not even close to being as good as the first two GF films, but it's still a decent - if flawed - movie.

This film also has one of my favorite quotes in cinema: "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."

I've always been interested in the theme of redemption, so it was interesting here to see an aging Michael Corleone looking back at his life, regretting many of the things he had done, and trying to make up for them.

The Atlantic city

IMHO the final sequence in the film

And, I felt the very final scene

Side-note: I didn't see any of these films in their entirety until around 2003 - shortly after they were first released on DVD...

hanshotfirst1138

Lots of people cheat 1 & 2 as a big long film, but they weren't actually a big single production schedule ala LOTR. They were in fact made two years apart by an entirely different producer. That they feel so of a piece is really a testament to Coppola.

TheDude

Yeah, I never thought Godfather I & II were filmed together - it's just they seamlessly go together so well that I like thinking of them as one long movie.

By the same token, these two sets of films also fit together extremely seamlessl (even moreso than GF I & II) re: the below two sets of movies, the second picks up immediately after the first one ends, and there are even scenes from the 1st film in the 2nd...excellent editing here:

Halloween I (1978)
Halloween II (1981)

Planet of the Apes (1968)
Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970)

Guru Askew

I wouldn't call the transition between the first two Apes movies seamless. For starters, they cheat and have inserts and new footage shot during the second film mixed in with the flashbacks, and Heston looks noticeably different in them and they stick out like a sore thumb. Secondly, you have Cornelius recast and Zaius's friendly relationship with Cornelius and Zira is completely at odds with the events of the first film, a film that is supposed to be just days earlier. And the bulk of the sequel itself (really anything with the mutants) is pure B-movie tacked-on sequel nonsense, including the recast lead and the huge and obvious budgetary downgrade which affects everything from the sets to the effects to the makeup. Beneath is a pale imitation of its predecessor.

jjcool

I am still amazed that they were filmed so far apart, yet fit so well together. Anyone that has seen the Saga can attest to that.

Cardiac161

[QUOTE=TheDude;12370623]
And, I felt the very final scene



I always think Godfather III was very much maligned mainly because of Sophia Coppola's perfomance, but the theme of "karma" is confidently depicted all throughout the film.

slop101

I do think III is better than it's given credit for, but if it just did these three things, it could've been as good as I and II:

- cast a better actress for the daughter
- give Duval the extra money he wanted
- give Coppola the extra time he wanted on the script

hanshotfirst1138

I've never seen the "saga" version. Personally, I think it would defeat the whole purpose of the second film. The whole point of the dual-narrative structure is to highlight the difference between Vito an Michael. Reshuffling the film chronologically would be an interesting gimmick, but frankly not serve much purpose.

Wasn't the original plot for III supposed to be about a big war between Michael and Tom? After losing Duvall, didn't Coppola have to rethink what he was going to do entirely?

Decker

This of course has almost nothing to do with the Blu Ray, but Coppola needed Duvall a hell of of a lot more than he needed Diane Keaton. Don't know what they were thinking there.

Ringmaster

Duvall was interviewed by Howard Stern years ago and said he expected Pacino would make twice as much as he would for making the movie and that he was at peace with it. The studio's offer to Pacino was leaked to the press and he was surprised to read that it was 3-4 times more than what they offered him. That's why Duvall chose not to do the film and he was sorely missed IMO.

bluetoast

Yeah that was some shitty decision making on the part of the studio. They could get away with this shit with Clemenza being written out of part II (since the actor wanted his girlfriend to write all his dialogue), but getting rid of Tom was idiotic.

TheDude

I don't mind the exclusion of Duvall in Godfather Part III; I think the film works fine without him. I don't think not having him should be held against the film, since the story has nothing to do with his character in the least. Also, IIRC most of Godfather III is set in the late 1970's, which, IIRC, is about 30 years after Godfather II. So, it would make sense that a lot of these characters aren't around anymore...Of course, I think Duvall is an overrated actor anyway...

And, let's be honest, even if Duvall had been in the film I'm sure it would still have been slammed by critics/movie fans. IMHO there was nothing the film could have done to make people think it was good back when it was released. It had too much to live up to, re: the previous two critically acclaimed films...

I also don't understand the vitriol directed against S. Copolla - sure, she was in the film because her dad directed it - I completely get that - i.e., Hollywood nepotism at it's most blatant. But, I felt that, considering her role, her acting was not bad - she was playing a young woman who was in love with her cousin (A. Garcia), and IMHO this came across fairly well in the film - her role did not require that much acting; and, I'm not sure that another actress would have been able to do any better, especially since I didn't think she did a bad job here.

That all being said, I know these are unpopular opinions & that many may disagree with me on this.

Going along with this, I'm of the opinion that Part III is one of those movies that gets better with age - as least as far as critics/fans are concerned. I.e., I think some of the hate towards the film has softened over time...

Spiderbite

I recently rewatched Godfather III and am going to have to disagree with you on every point you made...especially the gets better with age part. I actually thought it was okay when I saw it in the theater when it was first released. After seeing it several times since then, it seems to get worse with every viewing.

kefrank

Well, some people thought it was good at the time. It was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, although granted it didn't win any. I think it's been basically a mixed response since it was released, though it's detractors have had louder voices at various times.

Josh Z

To be fair to Francis Coppola, he did originally cast Winona Ryder, but she pulled out at the last minute. She claims that she had a respiratory infection and couldn't work, but rumors at the time were that she actually had a nervous breakdown.

Needing a quick replacement, Coppola made the mistake of thinking that he could guide his daughter into giving an adequate performance in what was going to be a small role anyway. Unfortunately, he couldn't.

slop101

Why do you assume I didn't already know all that? If they had given him time on the script like he wanted, he would've had time to find the appropriate actress.

TheDude

Fair enough - no opinons about movies/TV shows are wrong, because everything is subjective here.

I have noticed that I like movies other people generally don't. For example, I am a fan of Star Wars: Episode 1 (1999), even though it got hated & vilified by fans & films critics alike. I also enjoyed Napoleon Dynamite (2004), The Game (1997), The Thin Red Line (1998), Mulholland Drive (2001), Lost Highway (1997), Inland Empire (2007), Rounders (1998), etc. Though I know these movies do have some fans, overall I've read a lot of criticism about them...

And, the opposite is true: Everyone praises Avatar and Batman: The Dark Knight, and I think both movies sucked b$%#@......I also despised Superman Returns, but I'm not sure if that's an unpopular opinion...

Note I did really like Batman Begins (best Batman film, ever) & also enjoyed the third Batman film with Bane....

To be completely honest, I think WR is overrated as well...

Numanoid

Sophia Coppola's acting was perfectly fine. I totally bought her in the role. She took a lot of crap because people couldn't stand the nepotism. The guy who played Michael's son was a far worse actor than Sophia, but never gets mentioned because he wasn't the director's kid.

Shannon Nutt

No, it really wasn't...and I otherwise like Godfather III.

E Unit

Yeah, her performance pretty much derailed the seriousness of the story - especially when she was shot at the end and Michael was crying. I just couldn't take that seriously. She's a great director, and I'm glad she's stuck to primarily just that.

Spiderbite

I agree. Nepotism notwithstanding, she is bad in this. But so is Andy Garcia. I think Garcia's problem is the way the character is written.

Pacino is just eh. He just doesn't seem like the same character from the first two...evolved or not.

My biggest grip after watching the movie recently was Andy Garcia's character going from hot head to Godfather in a split second. His gaining that power seems neither earned nor realistic.

Honestly everyone seems to be sleepwalking in GIII and I attribute that to the writing/script. Look at the Star Wars prequels. It has some good actors but they all come across as cardboard cut-outs due to the terrible writing.

TheDude

Agreed - I thought she played the role of a young, nieve, love-struck woman fairly well. I'm not sure how her acting could have been even better - nor, as I said, do I think another actress would have necessarily been better either.

As you said, I'm also sure that if she were another actress & not the daughter of the director, you'd be hearing much less (if any) criticism of her acting - after all, she had a relatively small - but important - role in the film....it's not like she was in every scene...far from it...