criterionforum.org

Roger_Thornhill wrote:I've heard quite a few people say they dislike Part III because Michael is a bastard and as such he should've continued being a nasty fellow until it destroys him. That to me sounds like the conventional approach.

When Al Pacino was on Inside The Actor's Studio, he said he wondered if this was reason enough why the film was not as well-received. If that were the sole reason alone that the film was a financial failure upon it's release, it now would be as revered as the other films in the franchise.

Roger_Thornhill wrote:How can any film critic be objective when our likes and dislikes are based on a plethora of things such as personal experiences, mood, our environment, level of knowledge, age, etc...?

That is exactly why I said I was naive..

Just to touch upon the thematic elements of the film again - what really struck me about The Godfather Part III is the exploration of family, tradition and honor that were so integral in the first two movies are pretty much abandoned here.

There is a scene in which Anthony asks Michael "How can a country this beautiful, have so much violence?". To me, this seems to sum up Coppola's themes for this film - as a forum to address violence, ambition and how they are intertwined - but like the dialogue above, I believe he handles them in an overly simplistic fashion. We get none of the complexity and moral anxiety that made the first two films so fascinating. Instead, we get Michael and Vincenzo sort of acting like rogues and the
Vatican like Enron.

I recall reading somewhere that there were lots of rewrites on the script for this film, and I think it's felt heavily throughout. But it speaks to the power of Pacino as an actor that he makes it easy to sit through the three hour film. He is always a spellbinding presence throughout the film.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:

Roger_Thornhill wrote:I've heard quite a few people say they dislike Part III because Michael is a bastard and as such he should've continued being a nasty fellow until it destroys him. That to me sounds like the conventional approach.

When Al Pacino was on Inside The Actor's Studio, he said he wondered if this was reason enough why the film was not as well-received. If that were the sole reason alone that the film was a financial failure upon it's release, it now would be as revered as the other films in the franchise.

Oh I'm not trying to suggest it's as good as I or II, just that it's a common complaint I've heard about part III and one I disagree with.

Did anyone see the new 40th anniversay screening of The Godfather that is making a run this month? I saw it today. First big-screen experience for me, the screen was HUGE, similiar to IMAX. I have seen the film on TV too many to count but the big screen, big sound experience was so staggering that I teared up many times throughout. The film restoration was magnificent. The Godfather never looked this ravishing. Soo gorgeously detailed that I could almost smell homemade wine, sugo simmering, tomato plants in the August sun, smoke, anisette... And to hear Nino Rota's soulful elegies in the complete "Big Sound" is an experience you will never ever forget - pretty much the whole cinematic extravaganza, every bit of it.

Is this the same restoration that Coppola did a few years ago for the brief theatrical run before the Blu release? He hasn't done more work on it since then, has he?

Brian C wrote:Is this the same restoration that Coppola did a few years ago for the brief theatrical run before the Blu release? He hasn't done more work on it since then, has he?

Yes the same restoration from 2008. But I didn't realize it was released theatrically then. Thought it was restored and then went straight to DVD and Blu-ray the same year. I have the Blu ray and it looks very much like what I saw today. Sooo beautiful on the big screen!

It's possible that it didn't have an actual theatrical run, but new 35mm prints were created - I saw the first two films in October 2008.

At any rate, yes, I remember them both looking and sounding sublime as well.

From the preview I saw today, The Godfather Part II will be screened next month.

I loved the footage from that documentary that acted as an extended EPK for III, with Martin Sheen auditioning for Michael. Quite often you hear these stories of this or that actor trying out for this role, but I don't think I've seen anything quite like that. Even in the latest Back To The Future docs, you get like a few seconds of Eric Stoltz as Marty.

There's also DeNiro auditioning for Sonny. And there's the footage of Sam Fuller auditioning for Hyman Roth with Pacino. I hope that ends up on one of the next releases.

I've always been very grateful that Francis kept Martin and DeNiro in mind for his future projects.

I did a bit research. The Coppola Restoration of The Godfather 40th Anniversary Edition as a project began in 2006 between Paramount Pictures and the director. Archivist Robert Harris joined the project, followed by the original cinematographer of the film Gordon Willis, to complete the team. It was Cinemark who picked up the films Part I and II to screen on their XD screens this month and next month.

If folks were blown away by The Godfather when they first saw it in 1972, I now could certainly understand why. What Stanley Kubrick said of the film: "Possibly the greatest film ever made". I couldn't agree more.

Cold Bishop wrote:There's also DeNiro auditioning for Sonny. And there's the footage of Sam Fuller auditioning for Hyman Roth with Pacino. I hope that ends up on one of the next releases.

You can watch the Sam Fuller audition here. Very cool.

I wonder what that conversation is like, between Coppola and Fuller, with the former basically explaining to Fuller that he didn't get the part. I mean I'm sure Coppola ASKED Fuller to do the audition, I just imagine what Fuller's response would be when he gets told they're going with Lee Strasberg: "Go Fuck Yourself, Fattie" ?

stroszeck wrote:I wonder what that conversation is like, between Coppola and Fuller, with the former basically explaining to Fuller that he didn't get the part. I mean I'm sure Coppola ASKED Fuller to do the audition, I just imagine what Fuller's response would be when he gets told they're going with Lee Strasberg: "Go Fuck Yourself, Fattie" ?

Actually, I thought Coppola had a good idea of who he wanted for many of the parts, but the studio didn't trust him and made him audition actors that had more notoriety but he never exactly had in mind for certain parts? Don't know if that's true for this, but it certainly happened in the interview process.

Drucker wrote:Actually, I thought Coppola had a good idea of who he wanted for many of the parts, but the studio didn't trust him and made him audition actors that had more notoriety but he never exactly had in mind for certain parts? Don't know if that's true for this, but it certainly happened in the interview process.

That's absolutely true of Part 1, where Coppola was set on Pacino, Caan, Brando, and I think Duvall (maybe some others), but the studio (Robert Evans?) insisted that he audition just about every other actor around because they wanted reliable marquee names for the film. By the time Part II came up, Coppola was able to negotiate a much better contract and the studio largely left him alone.

Drucker wrote:Actually, I thought Coppola had a good idea of who he wanted for many of the parts, but the studio didn't trust him and made him audition actors that had more notoriety but he never exactly had in mind for certain parts? Don't know if that's true for this, but it certainly happened in the interview process.

As far as I know, this wasn't true about Pt. 2

I was under the impression Fuller and Coppola were acquaintances and Fuller's audition was sort of a 'what the hell' idea for a difficult role

Didn't Francis want Scorsese to direct II, but Paramount balked?

Correct. He initially had no interest in doing II, told them he'd produce it and recommend another director, and upon recommending Martin they refused outright (Mean Streets had just come out).

He agreed to do it on condition of a million dollars, no studio interference, and that he get to call it Godfather Part II according to his commentary. (not sure if there was other stipulations I'm forgetting)

I think they also gave him a fancy car, which he asked for because he thought it a funny thing to ask for. But definitely a big part of it was that he didn't have to talk to Robert Evans anymore.

matrixschmatrix wrote:I think they also gave him a fancy car, which he asked for because he thought it a funny thing to ask for. But definitely a big part of it was that he didn't have to talk to Robert Evans anymore.

Yes! This is confirmed by FFC in The Conversation commentary. And he received the car while filming the Conversation, and the car actually appears in the film in one shot.

Michael wrote:I am with those of you who are disappointed over The Godfather I and II not making the cut to the top 10 due to the new rules. And yes, The Godfather I and II together is the greatest film of all time. Sorry it's impossible to separate those two.

I find it pretty easy to separate them, honestly. The first one is a masterpiece, while the second one takes a couple of points already made by the end of the first, and hammers them into the ground.

I don't mean to dismiss the second one altogether, as it has its share of fine setpieces and quotable lines of dialogue, but it's a pale shadow of the first film.

Brian C wrote:

Michael wrote:I am with those of you who are disappointed over The Godfather I and II not making the cut to the top 10 due to the new rules. And yes, The Godfather I and II together is the greatest film of all time. Sorry it's impossible to separate those two.

I find it pretty easy to separate them, honestly. The first one is a masterpiece, while the second one takes a couple of points already made by the end of the first, and hammers them into the ground.

I don't mean to dismiss the second one altogether, as it has its share of fine setpieces and quotable lines of dialogue, but it's a pale shadow of the first film.

I agree with this. The film has its moments of brilliance, but they are almost entirely limited to the Fredo storyline which I must admit is amazing. Everything else though is a redundant, less well executed retread of the first film. Even the Vito stuff comes across as Michael's arc from the first film with in a similar fashion Michael's arc if there is one resembles Vito's from the first film too much. It hurts even more since Pacino is in full screaming mode with this performance.