The Godfather - Part III
05-25-04, 11:28 AM
#26
DVD Talk Hero
i'm guessing that the original title "the death of michael corleone" was supposed to mean that thematically, not litterally, since we don't see him die in the movie.
oh and is the dvd, the 169 min dc, or the 162 theatrical cut?
oh and is the dvd, the 169 min dc, or the 162 theatrical cut?
05-25-04, 11:42 AM
#27
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 1,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Rypro 525
i'm guessing that the original title "the death of michael corleone" was supposed to mean that thematically, not litterally, since we don't see him die in the movie.
oh and is the dvd, the 169 min dc, or the 162 theatrical cut?
i'm guessing that the original title "the death of michael corleone" was supposed to mean that thematically, not litterally, since we don't see him die in the movie.
oh and is the dvd, the 169 min dc, or the 162 theatrical cut?
Spoiler:
05-25-04, 12:33 PM
#28
DVD Talk Limited Edition
DVD case says 170 minutes, so I guess it's the DC cut.
I actually just viewed the Godfather trilogy for the first time last month. I went into part 3 with low expections, considering how many people disliked it, but I thought it was very good.
I actually just viewed the Godfather trilogy for the first time last month. I went into part 3 with low expections, considering how many people disliked it, but I thought it was very good.
05-25-04, 02:49 PM
#29
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Northern California
Posts: 1,259
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
10 Posts
So many people seem to hate THE GODFATHER III, and I agree that when compared to the first two, it isn't nearly as good.
However, as a conclusion to the saga and on its own, it is an excellent flick, and probably matches GOOD FELLAS as far as best movies of that year. People who bash on it are not giving it a fair shake.
The concluding scene, the Vincent Corleone character, the cinematography, the direction are all top notch.
I do agree that Connie Corleone's character has become unbelievable. Too much over-acting on Talia Shire's part. And to kill off Tom Hagen's character over Duvall's salary was a seriously bad move.
However, as a conclusion to the saga and on its own, it is an excellent flick, and probably matches GOOD FELLAS as far as best movies of that year. People who bash on it are not giving it a fair shake.
The concluding scene, the Vincent Corleone character, the cinematography, the direction are all top notch.
I do agree that Connie Corleone's character has become unbelievable. Too much over-acting on Talia Shire's part. And to kill off Tom Hagen's character over Duvall's salary was a seriously bad move.
05-25-04, 03:04 PM
#30
[i] And to kill off Tom Hagen's character over Duvall's salary was a seriously bad move. [/B]
I couldn't agree more.
If they could just have negotiated with ROBERT DUVALL, and if Francis could have just waited for WINONA RYDER to get better,
then GODFATHER III might have achieved a better reputation than it does now.
Casting was key.
05-25-04, 03:24 PM
#31
Moderator
When it came out, I made this analogy:
Baseball player goes up to bat. He hits a homerun. A couple of innings later he hits another one. Then, towards the end of the game, he goes up to the plate again. This time he only hits a double. When he gets back to the dugout the manager looks at him and says, Dude, what happened? You used to be such a good hitter."
Baseball player goes up to bat. He hits a homerun. A couple of innings later he hits another one. Then, towards the end of the game, he goes up to the plate again. This time he only hits a double. When he gets back to the dugout the manager looks at him and says, Dude, what happened? You used to be such a good hitter."
05-25-04, 03:35 PM
#32
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 1,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by wendersfan
When it came out, I made this analogy:
Baseball player goes up to bat. He hits a homerun. A couple of innings later he hits another one. Then, towards the end of the game, he goes up to the plate again. This time he only hits a double. When he gets back to the dugout the manager looks at him and says, Dude, what happened? You used to be such a good hitter."
When it came out, I made this analogy:
Baseball player goes up to bat. He hits a homerun. A couple of innings later he hits another one. Then, towards the end of the game, he goes up to the plate again. This time he only hits a double. When he gets back to the dugout the manager looks at him and says, Dude, what happened? You used to be such a good hitter."
I think a slightly better analogy would be:
Bottom of the ninth, game tied. Game 7- 2004 World Series. Player hits a homerun, clinches the series.
The next year, same deal. Bottom of the ninth, game tied. Game 7- 2005 World Series. Player hits a homerun, clinches the series.
The next year, the same scenario again. Bottom of the ninth, game tied. Game 7- 2006 World Series. Player hits a double. Fails to score. Team goes on to lose the WS.
The problem is, when you're talking about the first two achievements, the third one, while still impressive, is not nearly as impressive because the first two were so monumental. Such is the case with The GFIII.
05-25-04, 04:46 PM
#33
DVD Talk Limited Edition
I never understood one thing: why create the character Vincent Mancini out of the affair Sonny Corleone had with Lucy Mancini during Connie and Carlo's wedding? Sonny had a few legitimate children with his wife, whatever happened to them? Why weren't they in the film? Why couldn't Vincent have been one of the legits? Was it really necessary to re-hire that actress who played Lucy Mancini?
And what about Fredo's kids (I think he had some) - wouldn't they want vengeance against Michael (they had to have known), and the fact that Connie still didn't know showed, although shrewd at that point in her life, that she was still kind of dumb.
And what about Fredo's kids (I think he had some) - wouldn't they want vengeance against Michael (they had to have known), and the fact that Connie still didn't know showed, although shrewd at that point in her life, that she was still kind of dumb.
05-25-04, 07:44 PM
#34
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by bardevious
Dude,
Dude,
Spoiler:
05-25-04, 07:57 PM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Rypro 525
well, call me ignorant but i didn't know that was him (i'm guessing he was at his daughters grave site, form what it looked like.
well, call me ignorant but i didn't know that was him (i'm guessing he was at his daughters grave site, form what it looked like.
05-25-04, 09:56 PM
#36
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by tonytapez
seriously bro, what movie were you watching cuz it really doesn't sound like Godfather III.
seriously bro, what movie were you watching cuz it really doesn't sound like Godfather III.
05-26-04, 10:17 AM
#37
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally posted by Buttmunker
And what about Fredo's kids (I think he had some) - wouldn't they want vengeance against Michael (they had to have known), and the fact that Connie still didn't know showed, although shrewd at that point in her life, that she was still kind of dumb.
And what about Fredo's kids (I think he had some) - wouldn't they want vengeance against Michael (they had to have known), and the fact that Connie still didn't know showed, although shrewd at that point in her life, that she was still kind of dumb.
So I really thought the movie was setting things up for a wickedly cruel double-cross. But, as it turns out, I guess she really was just dumb.
05-26-04, 01:00 PM
#38
Suspended
Originally posted by rennervision
This is one of my three problems with this movie. (The other two having already been mentioned - Sophia Coppola and no Robert Duvall.) The story had Connie oddly referring to Fredo's death as an accident, and suddenly she seems to be pulling the strings by getting Vincent in the family as the next Godfather. When I first saw this, I could have sworn she secretly knew the truth about Fredo and was plotting her revenge. I mean - she knew her husband's death was at the hands of Michael, so how could she not have known about Fredo? Even Michael's son knew, and Michael's daughter also suspected it!
So I really thought the movie was setting things up for a wickedly cruel double-cross. But, as it turns out, I guess she really was just dumb.
This is one of my three problems with this movie. (The other two having already been mentioned - Sophia Coppola and no Robert Duvall.) The story had Connie oddly referring to Fredo's death as an accident, and suddenly she seems to be pulling the strings by getting Vincent in the family as the next Godfather. When I first saw this, I could have sworn she secretly knew the truth about Fredo and was plotting her revenge. I mean - she knew her husband's death was at the hands of Michael, so how could she not have known about Fredo? Even Michael's son knew, and Michael's daughter also suspected it!
So I really thought the movie was setting things up for a wickedly cruel double-cross. But, as it turns out, I guess she really was just dumb.
05-26-04, 02:27 PM
#39
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally posted by JasonF
Why would you assume she'd want revenge against Michael for the death of Fredo?
Why would you assume she'd want revenge against Michael for the death of Fredo?
But her character completely changed in Part III with no explanation as to why. That's why I thought it was all an act, so she could deceive Michael when the time was right. But it seemed like the only person she felt strong animosity toward this time was Eli Wallach's character. She seemed to be taking a lot of glee waiting for him to die. (Again, not sure why.)
But many things seemed out of place in Part III. As others have said, I'm only "picking" on this movie because it doesn't measure up to the quality of I & II. But it's quite a drop in quality!
Everyone's acting their hearts out around Sophia Coppola while she just stands there lifeless. (Her last line, which I consider the worst delivered line in the whole movie, was surely intended on paper to be the most chilling: "Dad?")
Al Pacino seems more like his "shouting Al" persona that we've seen in other films besides the Godfather series.
And my favorite unintentionally humorous scene is when Michael is close to collapsing outside the Vatican and requests anything with sugar, and literally one second later a tray arrives with orange juice and all kinds of candy bars! (Now that's what I call service!) A little fade cut inbetween those two moments could have greatly improved that scene.
05-26-04, 08:07 PM
#41
DVD Talk Hero
also this was the first of the godfather movies, i really noticed the famous godfather oranges (when an orange is on screen it means somethin bad is gonna happen), like i saw one before Michael had his stroke, and a few more before the helicopter attack.
05-21-19, 08:37 AM
#42
Re: Godfather part III
Bump.
It sounds like Part III is another film Coppola is interested in revisiting and doing a new cut.
This is part of a very good interview with Coppola: https://deadline.com/2019/05/francis...ew-1202613659/
It sounds like Part III is another film Coppola is interested in revisiting and doing a new cut.
This is part of a very good interview with Coppola: https://deadline.com/2019/05/francis...ew-1202613659/
The first two were hard to measure up to when The Godfather Part III was made.
I want to try that again, and I’ll ask Paramount because in a few years there will be the 50th anniversary of the first film. I want to use a title I tried to but wasn’t allowed to, one that came from Mario Puzo. It’s Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone. But ‘coda’ means epilogue. In other words, you got part one and part two and then the epilogue.
Why didn’t the studio like that?
They probably wanted a Godfather IV and V. There’s a cut I want to make that would be 14 minutes shorter. Usually, I go back and make them longer. This would be effective, and it makes the ending break your heart. Jim Gianopulos is the head of Paramount. An extremely nice man. And so what I want to say to them is if you allow me this, you won’t have to pay me.
Why all this looking back?
All I know is maybe I’m older, maybe I’m more circumspect. I want to show Sofia a new version, because she is so beautiful in it and so touching. She wasn’t an actress. But she was the real thing, playing that 19-year-old Italian girl in love with her own cousin. Godfather III as The Death of Michael Corleone is doubly painful because at the end he doesn’t die but he does worse than die. He loses everything he loves—and he lives. There are certain things in life that are worse than death.
You took some heat casting your daughter Sofia, who has become a fine filmmaker in her own right. Was it right to put so much pressure on her, when she was untested?
Well, I felt betrayed by a journalist by the name of Peter Biskind. And Tina Brown. I was asked if a journalist could come to the set and report on the movie, but Peter came in with a story all ready to write because he knew that there was a controversy about the fact that I had cast Sofia. He’s the one that came out with the article first that sort of greatly criticized her performance and started that whole trend, that I had cast my daughter when Paramount didn’t want me to.
Why did you?
I was in a tough position on that matter because they wanted me to put actresses in the role that were much more mature. My idea of the character was, an 18 or 19-year-old who had a crush on her cousin. That’s why I had cast Winona Ryder. But she didn’t say, “I can’t do it.” We kept waiting for her and she kept stalling and we kept delaying. I had shot absolutely anything I could without the girl and only then did Winona tell me she was dropping out. I had no choice but to close down the picture.
Paramount had all these actresses who were like 27 to 30 and I felt that that would destroy what I was trying to do. Sofia didn’t want to be an actress. She wanted to be a painter at the time, but every time I had put her in a movie as a little girl, her natural personality always came through for me. I always put my kids in movies because I had them around. I always took them out of school to be with us, wherever and whenever we went on location. Sofia did that for me and I believe if I do this new cut that her performance will be very touching as a little 19-year-old girl. That’s one of the things that can be so improved.
I felt that the plot of Godfather III was that they were coming for Michael but they got her. And [in the press] they were coming for me but they chose Sofia. I don’t have malice against anyone at this point in my life, but, to this day, it upsets me that Peter Biskind was the one who was given access to the set and he used it to damn my daughter. I believe that in a new version of The Death of Michael Corleone, Sofia’s performance will vindicate her.
I want to try that again, and I’ll ask Paramount because in a few years there will be the 50th anniversary of the first film. I want to use a title I tried to but wasn’t allowed to, one that came from Mario Puzo. It’s Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone. But ‘coda’ means epilogue. In other words, you got part one and part two and then the epilogue.
Why didn’t the studio like that?
They probably wanted a Godfather IV and V. There’s a cut I want to make that would be 14 minutes shorter. Usually, I go back and make them longer. This would be effective, and it makes the ending break your heart. Jim Gianopulos is the head of Paramount. An extremely nice man. And so what I want to say to them is if you allow me this, you won’t have to pay me.
Why all this looking back?
All I know is maybe I’m older, maybe I’m more circumspect. I want to show Sofia a new version, because she is so beautiful in it and so touching. She wasn’t an actress. But she was the real thing, playing that 19-year-old Italian girl in love with her own cousin. Godfather III as The Death of Michael Corleone is doubly painful because at the end he doesn’t die but he does worse than die. He loses everything he loves—and he lives. There are certain things in life that are worse than death.
You took some heat casting your daughter Sofia, who has become a fine filmmaker in her own right. Was it right to put so much pressure on her, when she was untested?
Well, I felt betrayed by a journalist by the name of Peter Biskind. And Tina Brown. I was asked if a journalist could come to the set and report on the movie, but Peter came in with a story all ready to write because he knew that there was a controversy about the fact that I had cast Sofia. He’s the one that came out with the article first that sort of greatly criticized her performance and started that whole trend, that I had cast my daughter when Paramount didn’t want me to.
Why did you?
I was in a tough position on that matter because they wanted me to put actresses in the role that were much more mature. My idea of the character was, an 18 or 19-year-old who had a crush on her cousin. That’s why I had cast Winona Ryder. But she didn’t say, “I can’t do it.” We kept waiting for her and she kept stalling and we kept delaying. I had shot absolutely anything I could without the girl and only then did Winona tell me she was dropping out. I had no choice but to close down the picture.
Paramount had all these actresses who were like 27 to 30 and I felt that that would destroy what I was trying to do. Sofia didn’t want to be an actress. She wanted to be a painter at the time, but every time I had put her in a movie as a little girl, her natural personality always came through for me. I always put my kids in movies because I had them around. I always took them out of school to be with us, wherever and whenever we went on location. Sofia did that for me and I believe if I do this new cut that her performance will be very touching as a little 19-year-old girl. That’s one of the things that can be so improved.
I felt that the plot of Godfather III was that they were coming for Michael but they got her. And [in the press] they were coming for me but they chose Sofia. I don’t have malice against anyone at this point in my life, but, to this day, it upsets me that Peter Biskind was the one who was given access to the set and he used it to damn my daughter. I believe that in a new version of The Death of Michael Corleone, Sofia’s performance will vindicate her.
05-21-19, 10:33 AM
#43
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: The Godfather - Part III
Interesting.
05-21-19, 11:09 AM
#44
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 20,052
Received 168 Likes
on
126 Posts
Re: The Godfather - Part III
Very interesting. And yes, the criticism of Sophia in that film has always been a smokescreen to criticize her father, who is a genius filmmaker who intimidates untalented people in the industry.
05-21-19, 12:19 PM
#45
DVD Talk Godfather & 2020 TOTY Winner
Re: The Godfather - Part III
I don't know. He can blame Biskind all he wants. I can tell you this : I saw that movie opening day (Christmas Day 1990, iirc) in a packed, old-fashioned huge theater in Honolulu. Unlike L.A., this is not a sophisticated movie-going crowd, especially pre-internet. Nobody read EW or Premiere Magazine to know what was up in the film industry. They just went to the movies they wanted to see. And I will tell you, that packed movie theater roared with applause when Mary died in Michael's arms. They literally cheered. Maybe some of them were primed to hate the performance. But I assure you, a lot of the hate in that theater was genuine and well-earned.
05-21-19, 01:11 PM
#46
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 20,052
Received 168 Likes
on
126 Posts
Re: The Godfather - Part III
I was 12 when the movie came out. I hadn’t seen Godfather 1 or 2. While I remember it coming out, I was completely oblivious and unaware of any criticism. I finally saw G1 and G2 when I was in college. Saw them at a revival screening. I rented G3 on VHS and enjoyed it. Nothing about the performance was noticeably bad.
I liked the film. I liked everyone who came back. Keaton and Pacino are great.
For me missing Robert Duval is the film’s one and only sin. They should have paid him whatever he wanted. Hey Paramount, do you want to make a Godfather film or what? He’s in The Godfather. Hire him.
I liked the film. I liked everyone who came back. Keaton and Pacino are great.
For me missing Robert Duval is the film’s one and only sin. They should have paid him whatever he wanted. Hey Paramount, do you want to make a Godfather film or what? He’s in The Godfather. Hire him.
05-21-19, 01:18 PM
#47
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 20,052
Received 168 Likes
on
126 Posts
Re: The Godfather - Part III
Ultimately Paramount fucked up. Everything that is fundamentally wrong with the film is their fault. Duval not coming back is their fault. Insisting that it be called Godfather Part 3 is their fault. Had it been titled The Death of Michael Corleone or Coda or Godfather Epilogue or something else people’s expectations would be different.
But Paramount wanted to sell it as Part 3. The next chapter in a saga they hoped would go on and on. Greedy. All of that is more harmful than an inexperienced supporting actress.
But Paramount wanted to sell it as Part 3. The next chapter in a saga they hoped would go on and on. Greedy. All of that is more harmful than an inexperienced supporting actress.
05-21-19, 01:36 PM
#48
DVD Talk Godfather & 2020 TOTY Winner
Re: The Godfather - Part III
On the other hand, he was one of the first people to cast celebrity-love-of-my-life Bridget Fonda in a major motion picture. Shame he didn't just cast her as Mary (she was 25 at the time and fucking gorgeous)
05-21-19, 02:08 PM
#49
Re: The Godfather - Part III
I was 12 when the movie came out. I hadn’t seen Godfather 1 or 2. While I remember it coming out, I was completely oblivious and unaware of any criticism. I finally saw G1 and G2 when I was in college. Saw them at a revival screening. I rented G3 on VHS and enjoyed it. Nothing about the performance was noticeably bad.
I first saw The Godfather 1902-1959: The Complete Epic on VHS when I was probably 15. I thought it was great!
I rented The Godfather Part III right after that and was extremely disappointed. It felt completely different from the first two.
It started out cool: Andy Garcia ruthlessly dispatching some thugs, 90s style. I figured he was going to fall in love with Bridget Fonda's reporter character and that was going to be the main source of conflict: Vincent has to choose between being loyal to the family, or siding with the woman he loves who's trying to do the right thing and expose the Corleones' criminal enterprise.
But we never see from Bridget Fonda again.
Instead Vincent's love interest is played by someone who apparently has never acted before, and clearly not in Andy Garcia's league.
Wait, and its his cousin Mary?
And Mary's father Michel is okay with incest, just not the fact that Vincent is a criminal???
We're really going to recycle the Fanucci hit for Joey Zasa??
Wasn't Anthony slow like Fredo or severely screwed up? Isn't that why Michael wanted another boy so badly? They ignored all that for GF3/.
Kay's remarried, but we never see her husband again, and she and Michael are flirty in Italy.
And the finale with the opera was cliched and predictable.
Even at a young age I thought the film was comically bad.
For me missing Robert Duval is the film’s one and only sin. They should have paid him whatever he wanted. Hey Paramount, do you want to make a Godfather film or what? He’s in The Godfather. Hire him.
Ultimately Paramount fucked up. Everything that is fundamentally wrong with the film is their fault. Duval not coming back is their fault. Insisting that it be called Godfather Part 3 is their fault. Had it been titled The Death of Michael Corleone or Coda or Godfather Epilogue or something else people’s expectations would be different.
The problem was with the script, the story, and the acting. Not to mention Winona Ryder backing out at the last minute. MAYBE, the romance between her and Vincent would have been a little more believable.
But Paramount wanted to sell it as Part 3. The next chapter in a saga they hoped would go on and on. Greedy. All of that is more harmful than an inexperienced supporting actress.
And didn't Coppola say that he only made GF3 to get out of debt? The Godfather saga already had the perfect ending with Part II. Michael wins but he loses his family. There was no need to make a part 3 at all.
Last edited by brayzie; 05-21-19 at 02:20 PM.
05-21-19, 02:11 PM
#50
Re: The Godfather - Part III
There was talk of Part IV with Garcia, DiCaprio, Coppola, and Puzo all involved. Once Puzo died, it died too. Paramount wasn't interested in paying Puzo either.
Last edited by dex14; 05-21-19 at 02:18 PM.