Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 3:17:58 GMT
I owned the box set and never watched part III.
I was afraid it would put a bad taste in my mouth and I'd always associate it with a perfect part I and II.
I don't know how to feel. It isn't as bad as people make it out to be, but it isn't on the level of the first film.
Maybe it should have been "The Death of Michael Corleone"? An epilogue to the Godfather saga...
The ending was amazing. But I can't stand Andy Garcia as Sonny's son. I actually liked Sofia Coppola as Mary over him for some reason.
Anyway. I'll give it an 8/10. Which is great, as a film if it stood on it's own. However, it pails in comparison to the first two. Near perfect films.
That scream at the end... Wow. Pacino nearly saved this movie single handedly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Aug 14, 2018 3:35:42 GMT
I owned the box set and never watched part III. I was afraid it would put a bad taste in my mouth and I'd always associate it with a perfect part I and II. I don't know how to feel. It isn't as bad as people make it out to be, but it isn't on the level of the first film. Maybe it should have been "The Death of Michael Corleone"? An epilogue to the Godfather saga... The ending was amazing. But I can't stand Andy Garcia as Sonny's son. I actually liked Sofia Coppola as Mary over him for some reason. Anyway. I'll give it an 8/10. Which is great, as a film if it stood on it's own. However, it pails in comparison to the first two. Near perfect films. That scream at the end... Wow. Pacino nearly saved this movie single handedly. What made you finally decide to watch it?
III is a flawed film, but it does have good moments. Enough good moments for me to say it's at least a good film.
Coppola originally was going to call it "The Death of Michael Corleone" or something like that, but was overruled by Paramount Studios.
Oh, and..... |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 14, 2018 3:35:55 GMT
7/10. It's really entertaining but it's nearly crippled by the single casting of Sofia Coppola. Andy Garcia is more "meh" as I remember. Agreed, that shot is arguably his best one of his career. Aside from the youngbloods being badly cast, I found the ending scene very underwhelming. I get it (he's alone and broken) but man, nothing about everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by darksidebeadle on Aug 14, 2018 3:39:04 GMT
I owned the box set and never watched part III. I was afraid it would put a bad taste in my mouth and I'd always associate it with a perfect part I and II. I don't know how to feel. It isn't as bad as people make it out to be, but it isn't on the level of the first film. Maybe it should have been "The Death of Michael Corleone"? An epilogue to the Godfather saga... The ending was amazing. But I can't stand Andy Garcia as Sonny's son. I actually liked Sofia Coppola as Mary over him for some reason. Anyway. I'll give it an 8/10. Which is great, as a film if it stood on it's own. However, it pails in comparison to the first two. Near perfect films. That scream at the end... Wow. Pacino nearly saved this movie single handedly. Yeah Garcia is the worst part, Sofia not as bad as people say. The opera house scene is fucking great 8/10 |
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Aug 14, 2018 3:45:32 GMT
I still haven't seen it, but I'm not the biggest fan of the first two.
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Aug 14, 2018 3:46:39 GMT
It isn't as bad as people make it out to be, but it isn't on the level of the first film. Exactly. It's a pretty good film – 7/10. I liked the brief appearances of minor characters from the previous two films: Lucy Mancini, Enzo the baker, Calo the bodyguard.... |
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Aug 14, 2018 3:54:25 GMT
Honestly, at this point in time I think the 3rd movie is the best (but I am sure I am in the minority around here as, to my knowledge, I think I am the only person who claims this around IMDB2 forums).
3rd movie = 7.5-8/10 (within my Top 105 movies)
1st and 2nd movies = 7/10 (within my Top 187 movies)
for the record... all three used to be a 10/10 for me for years (probably something in the ball park of 10 years or so) until a re-watch of the trilogy between Oct 16-18th 2016.
Yeah. I think, if anything, it's a bit underrated.
but I guess if someone puts the first couple of movies on a pedestal then even if the 3rd movie is comfortably above average it might be so-so in comparison to the first two movies for those people. but it's definitely a above average movie at the very least in terms of movies straight up, at least in my book.
I would go pretty much the opposite here.
I think she's pretty much the weak link of the movie. I would not call her horrible or anything but is basically the weak link of the general cast.
p.s. for the record... The Godfather Part III is the best thing she was tied to though as the movies she directs are pretty weak.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Aug 14, 2018 4:00:40 GMT
Maybe it should have been "The Death of Michael Corleone"? An epilogue to the Godfather saga... Coppola's first choice for its title. The studio heads of course wanted the GF name in title to (obviously) market much easier. Ironic considering Coppola had to push for the Part II name which was new to the biz & studios were quite wary of promoting. He covers that on one of the dvd commentaries, probably II while discussing the studio's angle about a sequel. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Aug 14, 2018 4:37:13 GMT
Honestly, at this point in time I think the 3rd movie is the best (but I am sure I am in the minority around here as, to my knowledge, I think I am the only person who claims this around IMDB2 forums). 3rd movie = 7.5-8/10 (within my Top 105 movies) 1st and 2nd movies = 7/10 (within my Top 187 movies) for the record... all three used to be a 10/10 for me for years (probably something in the ball park of 10 years or so) until a re-watch of the trilogy between Oct 16-18th 2016. Yeah. I think, if anything, it's a bit underrated. but I guess if someone puts the first couple of movies on a pedestal then even if the 3rd movie is comfortably above average it might be so-so in comparison to the first two movies for those people. but it's definitely a above average movie at the very least in terms of movies straight up, at least in my book. I would go pretty much the opposite here. I think she's pretty much the weak link of the movie. I would not call her horrible or anything but is basically the weak link of the general cast. p.s. for the record... The Godfather Part III is the best thing she was tied to though as the movies she directs are pretty weak. Pal, I rarely read your posts, because they are always MUCH too long. But I started to read this last one, and I can only say, I will never read a post of yours again |
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Aug 14, 2018 5:20:24 GMT
I think its the least of the three films but I still always liked it. Its a strong film despite its flaws.
|
|
|
|
Post by ravi02 on Aug 14, 2018 7:05:06 GMT
My issues:
1.) Michael's character change - At the end of Part 2, he's an irredeemable lowlife who orders his own brother killed. In 3, he's suddenly this emotional older guy who cracks jokes at weddings, donates to charities and has his nephew solve his problems with rival mobsters diplomatically? I know people change in 20 years, but they should have kept some of Michael's darkness intact. Remember Pacino's portrayal of an aging criminal in Carlito's Way? That's how Michael should have been played here.
2.) No Tom Hagen - The estrangement of Michael and his adopted brother was one of the threads left hanging in the second film and without him there, the story feels incomplete. I know Duvall wasn't all that interested in making the film, but Coppola should have tried harder to bring him back.
3.) Lack of compelling supporting characters - The other films gave us a treasure trove of colorful support like Tessio, Clemenza, Luca Brasio, Tessio, Moe Greene, Willi Cicci, Hyman Roth, Frankie Pentangeli, Don Fanucci. Each character had their own unique personality and contributed to the plot in some way. Aside from maybe Andy Garcia's Vincent Mancini, who in Part 3 is memorable? Joe Mantegna has his moments as Joey Zaza, but we know he won't last long. I don't give a damn about the Italian dude with glasses, the mustached banker, the braying donkey guy and while I like Eli Wallach, he's just a hammy retread of Hyman Roth.
4.) Sofia Coppola - I hate to pick on her because it was foolish of her father to cast her, but man, is she terrible. She reads all her lines with zero emotion and no understanding of what's going on in the scene. Her entire romance with Vincent is made all the more unwatchable due to the lack of chemistry.
5.) Recycling scenes from the originals - We get another opening family gathering, return appearances from Johnny Fontaine, Enzo the Baker and Calo the bodyguard from the original, another shootout during a street fair, endless flashbacks and a finale where "family business" is taken care of while they're off enjoying stuff as a family (here it's an opera instead of the original's baptism).
The film has its moments like Michael's confession to the priest or when he remembers dancing with his first wife, but for the most part, the film is a huge disappointment.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 14, 2018 7:16:53 GMT
Honestly, at this point in time I think the 3rd movie is the best (but I am sure I am in the minority around here as, to my knowledge, I think I am the only person who claims this around IMDB2 forums). 3rd movie = 7.5-8/10 (within my Top 105 movies) 1st and 2nd movies = 7/10 (within my Top 187 movies) for the record... all three used to be a 10/10 for me for years (probably something in the ball park of 10 years or so) until a re-watch of the trilogy between Oct 16-18th 2016. Yeah. I think, if anything, it's a bit underrated. but I guess if someone puts the first couple of movies on a pedestal then even if the 3rd movie is comfortably above average it might be so-so in comparison to the first two movies for those people. but it's definitely a above average movie at the very least in terms of movies straight up, at least in my book. I would go pretty much the opposite here. I think she's pretty much the weak link of the movie. I would not call her horrible or anything but is basically the weak link of the general cast. p.s. for the record... The Godfather Part III is the best thing she was tied to though as the movies she directs are pretty weak. Pal, I rarely read your posts, because they are always MUCH too long. But I started to read this last one, and I can only say, I will never read a post of yours again I used to rate his posts 5/10 eight minutes ago until a recent reread two minutes ago and now give them 4.5/10 (within my top 312 IMDB2 posters). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 7:19:40 GMT
I give it 5\10
I give both Godfather I and II a 10\10
|
|
|
|
Post by Caesium137 on Aug 14, 2018 8:18:40 GMT
Its still a very good film in its own right. The biggest shift is obviously the more relaxed and chilled out version of Michael, instead of the vasty different, cold and calculated one we got in part II. I also give it 8/10.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 9:40:06 GMT
Honestly, at this point in time I think the 3rd movie is the best (but I am sure I am in the minority around here as, to my knowledge, I think I am the only person who claims this around IMDB2 forums). 3rd movie = 7.5-8/10 (within my Top 105 movies) 1st and 2nd movies = 7/10 (within my Top 187 movies) for the record... all three used to be a 10/10 for me for years (probably something in the ball park of 10 years or so) until a re-watch of the trilogy between Oct 16-18th 2016. Yeah. I think, if anything, it's a bit underrated. but I guess if someone puts the first couple of movies on a pedestal then even if the 3rd movie is comfortably above average it might be so-so in comparison to the first two movies for those people. but it's definitely a above average movie at the very least in terms of movies straight up, at least in my book. I would go pretty much the opposite here. I think she's pretty much the weak link of the movie. I would not call her horrible or anything but is basically the weak link of the general cast. p.s. for the record... The Godfather Part III is the best thing she was tied to though as the movies she directs are pretty weak. Pal, I rarely read your posts, because they are always MUCH too long. But I started to read this last one, and I can only say, I will never read a post of yours again Thank you, because you don't contribute anything to the discussion worth reading anyway. So it's really a waste of time for you to reply or read my posts. I don't care about your opinion, thus, you and I can never have to cross paths and waste my time ever again. |
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Aug 15, 2018 5:51:44 GMT
You know originally the part of Michael's Daughter was going to go to Julia Roberts but then for some reason, it went to Sofia Coppola.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Aug 15, 2018 6:00:24 GMT
them1ghtyhumph Okay? sure, I realize I probably type a bit too much info AT TIMES but certain subjects I just happen to get into a bit more than others. but with that said, I don't think this particular post was THAT long. if you think that's too long you probably have a minimal attention span especially given it's text on a screen which makes it easier to comprehend vs if someone was saying a bunch of stuff in person for any length of time. chances are some people will like to read my posts if it's a subject they are interested in (like say the OP for example) as the way I see it... if it's a subject someone is interested in they will be more likely to appreciate a post that's a bit longer instead of a very simple reply especially given the OP seems to post more than just tiny bit of info. hell, come to think of it... what I typed ain't all that much different from what the OP typed but yet you were interested enough to read his post  @thegodfather I know that was directed towards them1ghtyhumph but with that said... you make a great point as if someone is going to reply just to basically dis someone else for a post being too long, they are better off not even replying especially if it's not more of a constructive criticism type of comment. but being it's pretty much a flat out dis, I make my reply here and if they still think my posts are a chore to read that's their choice and they are free to ignore me etc. p.s. like sometimes I have see in the past on the IMDb boards were some people say something like, "no one cares about your comment (and the like)" but I always reply that with that kind of mindset you could start applying it to random people and if no one replied, the forums would be pretty much dead. so based on that info... someones comments do matter (assuming they are not trying to screw with others etc). but it's not surprising as we got a lot of kids around here who like to talk crap and I make a reasonable reply and if they keep at it, I just move on as you can't really reason with people like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Aug 15, 2018 11:52:25 GMT
them1ghtyhumph Okay? sure, I realize I probably type a bit too much info AT TIMES but certain subjects I just happen to get into a bit more than others. but with that said, I don't think this particular post was THAT long. if you think that's too long you probably have a minimal attention span especially given it's text on a screen which makes it easier to comprehend vs if someone was saying a bunch of stuff in person for any length of time. chances are some people will like to read my posts if it's a subject they are interested in (like say the OP for example) as the way I see it... if it's a subject someone is interested in they will be more likely to appreciate a post that's a bit longer instead of a very simple reply especially given the OP seems to post more than just tiny bit of info. hell, come to think of it... what I typed ain't all that much different from what the OP typed but yet you were interested enough to read his post @thegodfather I know that was directed towards them1ghtyhumph but with that said... you make a great point as if someone is going to reply just to basically dis someone else for a post being too long, they are better off not even replying especially if it's not more of a constructive criticism type of comment. but being it's pretty much a flat out dis, I make my reply here and if they still think my posts are a chore to read that's their choice and they are free to ignore me etc. p.s. like sometimes I have see in the past on the IMDb boards were some people say something like, "no one cares about your comment (and the like)" but I always reply that with that kind of mindset you could start applying it to random people and if no one replied, the forums would be pretty much dead. so based on that info... someones comments do matter (assuming they are not trying to screw with others etc). but it's not surprising as we got a lot of kids around here who like to talk crap and I make a reasonable reply and if they keep at it, I just move on as you can't really reason with people like that. I agree 100% I just stopped worrying about your asinine posts. Your taste in movies is hilariously awful. The Godfather III is the best one of the trilogy guys, I swear. |
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Aug 16, 2018 1:50:40 GMT
DSDSquared
You keep on saying that but you just find a handful of examples you don't like and then use that to claim my taste in movies are awful which is not a proper way to judge someones overall taste in movies. if you want your opinion to be more valid you should do this instead...
look at My Favorite Movies, how many of those would you consider 'awful'? ; I have a feeling not many. hence, my taste can't be truly awful even based on YOUR own opinion of me. so for you to continue to claim that is a lie.
so unless you find those movies to be 'awful' you should stop claiming my taste in movies is awful as it makes you look less credible when you do that because even based on your true opinion of me, I think it's likely your either outright lying or at the least exaggerating.
but with that said... sure, there are plenty of semi-popular/popular movies that are nothing special for me but it's simply because only about 8.5% of ALL movies I have seen stand out to a higher degree for me. the vast majority of movies are nothing special and my ratings tend to reflect that.
do you have a list of say 100+ movies you consider favorites? ; this would give me a pretty good ball park figure on whether our taste in movies is in the ball park of each other or not etc.
p.s. for the record... all three Godfather movies are among My Favorite Movies, I just happen to like the 3rd movie the most at this point in time even though I realize I am in the minority there.
NOTE: I suspect he will likely ignore this post because if he actually paid attention to it he would likely have to change his opinion of me which he does not want to do as he wants to keep on dissing me without a legitimate reason to do so. all I ask for is honesty which I don't think he's actually being honest when he dislikes my taste in movies which I think is especially true if he judged me based on his opinion of My Favorite Movies which I think the the best way to judge someones taste in movies overall is looking at the movies that they think the most highly of. if he honestly thinks these are crap, then I would not mind him claiming my taste in movies is bad etc. but I honestly don't think he will say that based on this. so given he does not want to change his opinion of me, he will simply ignore this and keep on falsely claiming my taste in movies is awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by ravi02 on Aug 16, 2018 7:15:47 GMT
You know originally the part of Michael's Daughter was going to go to Julia Roberts but then for some reason, it went to Sofia Coppola. Actually Roberts (along with Madonna, who co-starred with Pacino in that same year's Dick Tracy) was among the actresses considered. It was Winona Ryder who was originally cast, but she dropped out due to exhaustion and Coppola could afford to delay production, so he (foolishly) cast his daughter. |
|
