Posted on 09/12/2017 6:10:45 PM PDT by lowbridge
Ewwwww, what a creepy character he was. So glad when Vito gave him what was coming to him.
Godfather III is actually a good movie. The story is quite brilliant, and the relationship between Kay and Michael beautifully rendered. But there are a couple of casting miscues, and - when following in the footsteps of two of the greatest movies ever made - “good” ain’t good enough.
There’s also the problem that they chose to use firepower, not brain power, to bring it off. For a great use of brain power and terrific character development, with minimal violence and minimal pornography, go to “Better Call Saul “
Yeah, 89 is good...
We get what we get, and that’s all we get. Then its back to dust.
Seems futile and ultimately pathetic, doesn’t it... a lifetime spent learning stuff, figuring things out, working your ass off, and then done. Pfft.
Al Pacino was not Michael Corleone in this movie. He was Al Pacino. Nothing like the character he played in the first two movies.
“Agreed.”
Agreed.
“Yep...the greatest sequel. The only other sequel that can only come close to Godfather II is The Empire Strikes Back...”
Agreed. TESB is still the best Star Wars movie, period.
“In a sense GF II wasn’t a sequel...”
Good point. More like a prequel and sequel in one. Either way, I’d call it unique. TGF3 could have been so, so good. But...
Poor bastage died twice in that movie.
Yes. I also liked the 3 in 1 they put together, except the last half or so of part 3. It was a good story, but Al Pacino as Michael, was a huge disappointment. To say he overdid it, would be an understatement. He seemed to forget his character, all together. Kind of a cross between Groucho Marx and an old George Raft. Very disappointing. If Robert de Niro could play a young Vito, to perfection, whom he looked nothing like, they could have had someone other than Pacino play an old Michael. Michael Nouri, Armand Assante, even Ben Gazzarra, but NOT the now Crazy Al.
Ben Gazzara. His greatest character was Jackie Treehorn.
Good points, yes. Plus not having Robert Duval in “3” was a big loss.
I’m fine with the 3rd GF movie. But it probably suffered from being made too long after the 2nd. Strangely, the actors were 15 years too young to be playing their roles in the 3rd (which was supposed to be set almost 30 years after the end of the 2nd). The most heartbreaking scene in the 3rd was the one with Michael mimicking the death scene of his father, but this time, there were no grandchildren.
I just thought Pacino’s portrayal of Michael in GFIII didn’t match up with the Michael from the other GF movies, I didn’t believe I was watching the same guy.
Agreed.
GF-III STUNK——the previous two are masterpieces.
.
.
I thought not having Clemenza in II, was a loss as well. They basically had to invent Pentageli to cover for not having Clemenza.
I think there is still a good prequel to be made that explains how Vito got to where he did, GFII only takes it as far as the early days.
Well, he was almost 20 years older... and I’m sure 20 years at the top of the Hollywood food chain changed his perspective from the days when he was young and totally unknown. Same is true for Coppola himself. But the movie is still better than its reputation...
Gone With The Cannolis
As a standalone film, it’s good. But, it has to complete with parts 1 & 2; that’s where it fails.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.