gf 2 > gf

Godfather II is possibly the most perfect film ever made. Godfather III is a forgettable movie that was mildly entertaining and killed by bad casting choices. You could have released it any time and its reputation was never going to improve.

Were they expecting Cruising 2?

Hips or lips?

Cruising II : Party Size

Cruising II: I Ain't Never Made It With a Martian Before

I though Andy Garcia was the ONLY good thing in the movie (actually, Talia Shire was pretty good as well). Watching a young hothead cousin come up and basically take over the Family was kind of interesting. Everything else with the family drama and the pope and everything was not.
Sophia Coppola really ruined it though. Her death should have been the biggest gut-punch in the series and instead people in my theater were CLAPPING! That's a terrible outcome from an awful performance.

Michael Corleone's death on a folding chair looks like a Monty Python tribute sketch.
<object width="640" height="480"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/KupAgY18QDc?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/KupAgY18QDc?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="480" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

I know a lot of people say that, but I have never gotten it. I do not think II is anywhere near as good as I, not even remotely close. I like the flashback scenes and appreciate Michael's arc, but to me I is a far superior film, and one of the best movies ever made if not THE best.

III was a good film but had several problems, I don't think release date would have mattered much.

I never found that scene to be believable because he moves his hand when he's about to lay flat on the ground. At 1:28secs. It should have been done over (the fall).

I finally got around to seeing GII from start to finish about a year or so back.
While I thought it had some truly sharp, vivid passages, I walked away with the distinct feeling it was so much less than the sum of it's parts and terribly overrated. At least as far as being the benchmark by which all 'subsequent chapter' films are measured. In fact I got kind of irritated every time the film flipped back to Vito's story, as Michael's contained more than enough conflict and intrigue to merit the sequel. There was great material in the flashback, I just thought it diffused the momentum and focus more than it contributed.

Wasn't the original storyline about a gang war between Michael and Tom's respective families, but due to a financial dispute about Duval's salary, it was eventually rewritten?

Agree x 10. I also agree with another poster that while "GIII" was good, the first two were masterpieces. Tough shoes to fill. Or match. I'd also like to add, I thought Talia Shire was absolutely horrible in the first two films. Laughably bad (IMO). Her performance was shrill and over the top. Sophia just felt out of her league.

The Godfather III has so little focus. All three films have long runtimes, but only the third one feels long, and to me that's in large part because every scene seems to meander and go on far too long. Then you throw in Sofia, whose smile looks like she's just had her lip caught by a fish hook and whose line readings would make deaf people wince, and you can't possibly win. Someone else also mentioned that Pacino felt like Pacino here, versus the first two movies where he was Michael, and I absolutely agree with that. "Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in!" is a great line, but it's Pacino saying it, not Michael.

I wouldn't say GFIII is a bad film, but it's not a very good one.

Also, to Groucho who argues that Coppola lost his touch after Apocalypse Now, I recommend revisiting One From The Heart. It's wonderfully inventive and is an excellent counterpoint to the overwhelming cynicism and nihilism of AN.

Great point about Pacino. When I saw Part one for the first time, I didn't really know about the cast, so Michael was just...Michael. When I saw Pacino's name, that was a surprise. In part three, it's Al.

Yeah, at some point Al Pacino stopped being an actor and started playing Al Pacino in every movie he's in. Maybe it was Scarface; I'll have check imdb later.

I wonder if GFII would have been better served as two separate films, one a prequel about the early life of Vito, and another, a sequel, about Michael. While it is a great movie, I don't think the structure, where it flips back and forth between two different characters in two different time periods, serves the story particularly well.

I think it's true that when more time passes, peoples expectations get higher and higher till you can't top what they've been imagined that whole time. However, even if Godfather III came out right after the second I really doubt it would have been well received.

It has some really bad things going for it that have nothing to do with expectations being too high.

For one thing, the Godfather story ended. Michael won, but lost everything including his soul, and the only people left around are some henchmen and his sister and they all live in total fear of him. But in part III he's cool uncle Mike who's cracking jokes at parties and acting flirty with his ex.

Another is the bad acting and bad script. Garcia does a bad impersonation of Sonny, and early on he's supposed to be a hot head but is cold and calculating when dispatching assassins in his own apartment. His characterization wasn't even consistent and looked more like you were seeing an actor on screen than a fully realized character.

Though I've never seen it, it makes sense now that Coppola would have been tempted to cut the film chronologically for a special TV broadcast- and that so many people were so excited when that came out on LD back in the day.

Hasn't Coppola since decided that he prefers the cross-cut version because of the paralleling of the two narratives?

I can't remember but diidn't he show GFII with Vito first and then Michael? People hated it, Coppola freaked out, and then we got the version we got today cuz of that? I can't remember the story that well. I think that's how it happened.

I like the back and forth of Vito and Michael. Showed what struggles Vito had to take care of his family and Michael's issues in that present. The compare and contrast of the two in keeping the family going forward.

One story is showing the rise of the Corleone family and what made Vito a great man.
The other is showing the downfall and what has made Michael rotten to the core.

uhhhhh...for..wha?

GFIII to me is alright. There are big misses and some hits. As it is.. Pacino isn't Michael. Pacino is Pacino. I didn't really see the Michael of years past anymore. This Michael talked about it but Pacino didn't really live in the role.

I never had issue with Talia Shire in the first 2. She played her part well. In GF, Connie was still very much a young girl. In. GFII she's broken and bitter, etc. GFIII, I never really registered with how Connie went. It seemed like there was too much in between the two sequels to where Connie go that route for me.

Sophia wasn't great. No matter what. The character wasn't even that well written so a non actress could only go so far with meh material. Garcia's character is all over the place.

It really didn't feel like the time period visually. Unlike the others where you FELT the era they were placed in. Michael's son was pretty much worthless in this. It just felt off. In GFII you could feel the eras. ESPECIALLLY for Vito's section, Jesus...that whole festival thing is a masterpiece.

GFIII had GF moments but they didn't really succeed in being as memorable as them. Say for except the helicopter bit. That was cool and very interesting how he constructed it.

It's a film that I only own cuz of the set. I don't hate it but it's a very going nowhere kind of film. People are talking and doing things but you never really feel the impact of it. And then comparing it to the previous two films is just sad cuz there is a massive drop in quality. It's a very pedestrian film compared to the others. It's a safe studio film. Whereas the other two weren't so much.

Re: your comments on Sophia's looks. Ouch!

I agree with you on "One From The Heart". It's been years since I've seen it but visually alone, it's pure big screen eye candy.

I should have been clearer and wrote
"tempted to cut the films chronologically..."

Because what I was referring to was a TV broadcast that cut GFI and GII into one chronologically told story. I don't remember if it was called "The complete Novel For Television" or if that was something another TV event used, but that was the gist.

That is exactly how I feel about III.