The Godfather

A certain young Robert De Niro is amazing in part 2.

The criticism for part 3 is way over the top, hardly a classic but it's a decent ending to the trilogy.
 
It becomes so annoying to hear the same drivel from the same crowd over and over again. We've got the same problem with Taken that has a brilliant cast set in down town Paris and some amazing editing and cinematography but because it's fast paced it's unrealistic.

It's a shame that people get so controlled by the reviewer/critic narrative that it begins to control the movie experiences - every film has it's merits. A comedy is a comedy, an action is an action, a drama is a drama and to make my point bluntly but apt - a porno is a porno.
 
Saigo said:
I agree. Part 3 is a very good film and well made. In comparison with the majority of films it is excellent. Perhaps it doesn't scale the heights of the first two - but as the first two are considered among the greatest films of all time, that can be expected.

The criticism of Part 3 has become the 'thing to do'. But there really isn't any weakness (apart from Sifia Coppola) and it does deal with a very different time and story.[/QUOTE]

Not on my part. I remember looking foward to the release of Godfather 3 for ages, I went hoping to see another masterpiece but came away disappointed. The critics never influenced me at all..I desperately wanted it to be great.
It was still a very good film, but ( as you say) did not scale the heights of parts 1 and 2. The casting was partly to blame, Sofia Coppola as you mentioned..also George Hamilton in place of the superb Robert Duvall.
Click to expand...
 
But those are technical issues that don't involve the whole film or the main characters as such. Even if people found Sofia a bad choice - she played her part in the continuity effectively enough for comprehension. Point being, measuring artistic ability to the yard stick of the whole substance of a film is like not seeing the wood for the trees.

I think GF3 had more soul but less technical substance. I would watch GF3 and think, ok, it lacked in the technicalities but I know what happened and why it happened.

With GF1 and GF2, especially GF1 but less so GF2, I kept wondering at times, yes, substance is great, technically brilliant but rushed and over confident on some parts - which Coppola masked with great film making. I could say that a lot of the scenes in GF1 and GF2 are masterful, brilliantly executed but I also think why? Why not go for something placid and seamless to increase fluidity.

The relationships that we see finalised and the final opening up of characters, the conclusions to events in GF3 (which were unwritten in GF2 and unspoken of) really make up for it's lack.
 
Copolla said he was also interested in Laurence Olivier for the role of the Don. In 1972, Marlon was about 47 so too young to play him without make up really. In the commentary, he talks about finding his transformation amazing. His style of talking was because (according to Brando) the character had been shot in the throat or something, that was why he had cotton wool in his mouth.
 
I saw it all the way through for the first time on Sky Movies HD over christmas, brilliant film.

Godfather II is even better imho and really fills in the back story but give Godfather III a miss.
 
Back
Top