|
|
Post by shannondegroot on Dec 4, 2019 3:10:04 GMT
?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 4, 2019 3:13:11 GMT
Yes.
The problem is when comparing it to the first 2 movies, unavoidable though it may be.
|
|
|
|
Post by biker1 on Dec 4, 2019 3:16:06 GMT
oh the third one... I thought u meant #1. Yep.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 4, 2019 3:17:54 GMT
oh the third one... I thought u meant #1. Yep.I thought the "confounded moron" comment was a bit much. 
|
|
|
|
Post by biker1 on Dec 4, 2019 3:23:26 GMT
That was in case of drystyks..whenever he decides to park his dumb ass comments on this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 4, 2019 4:13:20 GMT
I enjoyed it. It's more plot heavy compared to the other two but it's fine. Sofia Coppola is genuinely terrible though. She really does drag the move down.
|
|
|
|
Post by ravi02 on Dec 4, 2019 4:42:08 GMT
Is it well-directed? Eh, I would say certain sections are. See: Michael's confession to the priest and the bit when Michael reminisces to his first wedding in Sicily. But they're just small glimpses of the greatness it could have been.
Overall though, the film is very flawed. It's poor script (which was written in six weeks and it shows!), casting choices and general lack of enthusiasm drag the film down.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Dec 4, 2019 5:08:30 GMT
Another good scene is Michael crying over the coffin.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Dec 4, 2019 6:33:40 GMT
On a whole, good-but-not-great directing from Coppola.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Dec 4, 2019 8:34:44 GMT
script is problem.
directing? don't think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Dec 4, 2019 13:55:15 GMT
I don't think casting his daughter was very well direction. Her performance is more his fault than her's.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Dec 4, 2019 14:35:43 GMT
I’d say so.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Dec 4, 2019 18:13:13 GMT
Hard to say definitively because the script was so terrible, but that last scene was a piece of crap all around, and not well directed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Dec 4, 2019 21:11:21 GMT
It kind of diminishes the second film since the ending for that is Michael Corelone has succeeded in taking over and destroying his enemies but he is alone and also ruined his father's family.
To have him decide he is reformed is out of character since we never get any hint of that in the earlier films. They made weird changes like having his sister become the ruthless one and ultimately the film seems to only serve as a way of getting some final misery out of it--there was no need for it. He didn't look happy at the end of part 2.
It's well-made but extraneous.
For some reason I find the idea that he could get a glass of orange juice and a chocolate bar from the Vatican the most intriguing part.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Dec 4, 2019 23:27:59 GMT
No, it's dry.
|
|
|
|
Post by njcardfan on Dec 5, 2019 9:30:07 GMT
I think casting Wynona Ryder as Mary would have been a wiser choice than Sofia although Sofia became an accomplished director in her own right
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Dec 26, 2019 11:13:32 GMT
That was in case of drystyks..whenever he decides to park his dumb ass comments on this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Dec 26, 2019 18:57:13 GMT
its got merit and the performance from Garcia is sublime, but ultimately it undoes alot of what it setup.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Dec 26, 2019 21:12:02 GMT
In part. But the director surely takes some responsibility for the performances he elicits and it's Francis Coppola who cast Sofia Coppola who gives a poor performance. I think Sidney Lumet takes his portion of the blame for casting Jenny Lumet in 'Q & A' (1990) as she also gives a poor performance.
Now Sofia Coppola's a respected director and Jenny Lumet's a respected writer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Dec 26, 2019 23:24:35 GMT
depends on which aspect, performances seemed misdirected to misguided sometimes and I'm not only talking about his daughter. Other than that the direction was ok.
|
|
