Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Wildest cat from montana, Feb 11, 2024.
And Pacino's anguished scream . Too much. Much too much.
I haven't watched the new version yet but, after my first viewing of the original, I FF through all the Sonny Jr/Sophia scenes. Not just the acting but the oh-so-obvious he's a loose cannon like his father thing. Anybody that had ever met Sonny would have kept Junior far away from any real power, imho.
I read a review once that suggested the line plays much better if you look at as Sophia asking her father how she ever ended up in this position.
Another thing about Vincent a.k.a. 'Sonny Junior' is his incredibly quick transformation from street level hood saying ' dese' and 'dose' dressed in a leather jacket to smooth and savvy decked out in Armani and deeply involved in all aspects of the Family business in a matter of a few weeks.
when watching the Godfather Movies we start with GF 1 and end with
GF 3...enjoy them all. we have no negatives...sorry.
As always, you are one forgiving fella! LOL
Really didn't Coppola take a big nosedive as soon as the '90s hit? For a while there the guy was brilliant, until the 1990s.
First came GF3 and then that toad, Bram Stroker's Dracula (1992). I don't think he ever recovered.
No, that would be the 80s when his films all failed commercially (except The Outsiders, and I don't think it did overly well either).
By the end of the 80s, Coppola desperately needed money, which is why he agreed to part three.
Only because it made a Godfather Part IV just a bit less plausible.
I'd be up for seeing him make them a dollar menu offer they can't refuse.
It has many problems, but this is the biggest. It does not feel like the same character at all to me.
Not everything was meant to be a trilogy. The ending of Part II, with Michael on that bench, followed by the flashback is the perfect ending to the story. And that is where it ends for me.
Why would he feel like the same character? Michael is quite a few years older than when he killed Fredo. People age and change with time. Maybe there should have been a Godfather part 2.5.
Michael in Part II is in his early 40s at the end? What year does Part II end? The Communist takeover in Cuba is 1959, and some time passes after that. Michael was born in 1920.
Godfather III is set in 1979, when Michael is now 59.
One might be older and wiser, but I simply don't see a comple personality change in those 19 years. Perhaps it is my problem and not the films, but it takes me out of it.
At the end of Part II Michael is sat on the bench recalling a happy moment with his father on the train leaving Corleone, and more significantly, the day when he joined the army and everyone rejected him except Fredo.
So it's not out of line that Michael may be seeking absolution for his sins from the end of Part II onwards. (Which is about 20 years between the two films). Legitimising the business, finding some kind of peace with Kay and his children, leaving a charitable legacy. All to undo an act that cannot be undone. The murder of Fredo is the recurring theme that brings Michael low throughout the film. He shouts Fredo's name while having his diabetic episode of delirium, he confesses Fredo's murder to a priest in another key scene. His continual failure to achieve any redemption at every point is just part of his essential tragedy. [Cutting out his soliloquy at Don Tomasino's coffin was a mistake in the Coda edit, as this highlighted his knowledge of his failure before handing power to Vincent]
Well Michael seemed to have a complete personality change in the few years covered by Part I, so maybe Part III is him reverting to his original personality type?
Me too, but I just can't help repeating myself!
I will say, I prefer the DVD "Coppola Restoration" cut with the original ending and some tiny but important bits still left in, even though Coda has a more sensible opening scene.
My main problem with the film is that Bridget Fonda's character was underused. It was a great little part that could have been expanded.
Second would be Connie's transformation from the mumsy mouse at the end of Part II into the ruthless would-be Don. Way more OTT than Michael's change.
OK, might as well re-post some of what I said in that other thread:
I don't have a huge problem with the new cut removing Michael's actual death (though I like the tone of finality it gave to the the original version, and I also feel that Michael falling to the ground in such a forlorn and undignified way was the statement about karmic payback that Coppola rightly chose to make). However, I do take major issue with that on-screen quote about how "a Sicilian never forgets": I realize the words are meant to suggest that Michael's real death is in his having to live with the devastating consequences of his actions, but the ambiguity leaves it open to interpretation as another way of saying "I'LL BE BACK." The quote is unnecessary — we don't need to be told that Michael isn't going to forget that he caused Mary's death. (Also, in interviews Coppola acknowledges that the new ending opens the door to more sequels, which does not thrill me, and the fact that Coppola says he himself won't have anything to with any further Godfather films is not reassuring at all.)
What I said in that other thread:
[…] it's yet another example of the the third film's characters being too different, with no discernible through-line to connect how they were when we last saw them and how they are now — not even a tossed-off one-liner about how Connie has transcended traditional gender biases and become the de facto second-in-command, or how "stone-faced, uncommunicative Michael" has turned into "'yelling Al Pacino' Michael."
Also from that thread:
I can see how the new cut clarifies the plot and removes unneeded bits, and I'm OK with the changes. I never thought that The Godfather Part III was a bad film, nor did I ever criticize Sofia Coppola to the degree that others did (to me, the worst thing about her is that she's obviously not a professional actor and thus sticks out; otherwise, there's a sincerity and sweetness to her portrayal of Mary that I find touching and heartbreaking). That said, the third film, whichever the version, is always going to come up short in comparison to the first two, which are towering achievements in film history. I find it interesting that, in recutting III, Coppola didn't do anything about what I consider the two most cringeworthy, amateurish bits: the music and revelry at the party coming to a complete halt when Joey Zasa starts singing along (like the Western movie cliche of the tack piano and hubbub in the saloon petering out when the bad guy strolls in through the swinging doors), and the Vincent voiceover explaining the assassinations that are about to take place ("Are you with us, audience? THIS … IS … WHAT … IS … HAPPENING").
Michael yells enough in the first movie. He warns Apollonia about the car bomb. He yells at Kay to show her who's the boss. We know that he can yell when he needs to.
Lots of yelling in Part 2 as well...
" In my bedroom! Where my wife sleeps!! Where my children come and play with their toys!!!"
Separate names with a comma.