The Godfather Part 3 - whats your opinion ?

[zombie63]

I sat down to watch the trilogy again a few days ago ,As I often do when stumped for choice (If in doubt - pull the biggy out). Now I will always watch all 3 , you just have too , but my question here is not about the first 2 films which are flawless IMO , its about Part 3.
Now dont get me wrong I do like the film , but it has one major problem IMO which kind of ruins it from standing along side its 2 predecessors.

Sofia Coppolas performance - I do understand that Francis Ford was under huge pressure to cast a big name in the part of Mary and problems with actresses being locked into other projects seemed to make it difficult for him to choose a suitable actress to play her - but casting his daughter in this part was for for me , a monumental mistake.
Now I know many critics have said that her performance brought a air of innoncence and vulnerability to the part , but for me in the 'heavy' scenes I find it hard to watch and cringe with embarrasment at her performance.
I know Winona Ryder was linked to the film at one point and to be quite honest I dont know if even she could have pulled it off.
My favourite scenes are Michaels confession to the priest and the opera finale which are both beautifully handled.
So c,mon everyone get it off your chest - Whats your opinion ?

[BluBonnet]

I've spent most of the last 18 years trying to forget Part 3 even existed. It was something that should never have been made. As was reported at the time, Coppola was in a horrible financial situation and only did it for the money, because he needed it desperately.

[surfdude12]

as coppola says on the commentary (not sure if part 3 or part 2), part 3 was never intended to be called "godfather", but "death of michael corleone", so was never intended to be in the godfather series. paramount forced his hand on the marketability of the godfather brand. of course, thats coppola's position, i'm sure some doubt that and say that's just him redirecting blame for a relatively poor film (compared to 1&2), but i take him at his word.

like many others, i think part 3 is a very good film, when looked at by itself, but only is good/fair when looked at with 1&2.

you're right about coppola's daughter. the worst scene was at the theater and she wants to talk to garcia but he says no, and she tries to act all flustered...its BAD

[Crimson King]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

as coppola says on the commentary (not sure if part 3 or part 2), part 3 was never intended to be called "godfather", but "death of michael corleone", so was never intended to be in the godfather series. paramount forced his hand on the marketability of the godfather brand. of course, thats coppola's position, i'm sure some doubt that and say that's just him redirecting blame for a relatively poor film (compared to 1&2), but i take him at his word.

like many others, i think part 3 is a very good film, when looked at by itself, but only is good/fair when looked at with 1&2.

you're right about coppola's daughter. the worst scene was at the theater and she wants to talk to garcia but he says no, and she tries to act all flustered...its BAD

Sophia Coppola is a terrible actor but a great director! Loved "Lost in Translation".

[zombie63]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

as coppola says on the commentary (not sure if part 3 or part 2), part 3 was never intended to be called "godfather", but "death of michael corleone", so was never intended to be in the godfather series. paramount forced his hand on the marketability of the godfather brand. of course, thats coppola's position, i'm sure some doubt that and say that's just him redirecting blame for a relatively poor film (compared to 1&2), but i take him at his word.

like many others, i think part 3 is a very good film, when looked at by itself, but only is good/fair when looked at with 1&2.

you're right about coppola's daughter. the worst scene was at the theater and she wants to talk to garcia but he says no, and she tries to act all flustered...its BAD

Yes completely agree , as a film maker she is amazing (like her dad) but unfortunatley she was a poor choice for this part.

[zombie63]

Originally Posted by BillyJack

Sophia Coppola is a terrible actor but a great director! Loved "Lost in Translation".

I hear ya

[progers13]

Compared to Godfather parts 1 & 2, I agree that it was a big drop off and didn't feel like it belonged in the same series. I think the only thing that really saved it for me was the finale. Sofia Coppola was a poor casting choice, but I'd be hard pressed to nominate someone else from that era.

[sfmarine]

Sophia killed it for me.

[zombie63]

Originally Posted by progers13

Compared to Godfather parts 1 & 2, I agree that it was a big drop off and didn't feel like it belonged in the same series. I think the only thing that really saved it for me was the finale. Sofia Coppola was a poor casting choice, but I'd be hard pressed to nominate someone else from that era.

I understand Julia Roberts was also cast in the part but pulled out due to other commitments - just as well really. Like you say its a hard part to cast for with the options available.

[Big-byrd]

i agree with the majority, when looked at by it's self. its good, with 1 and 2 it's bad.

[zombie63]

Originally Posted by Big-byrd

i agree with the majority, when looked at by it's self. its good, with 1 and 2 it's bad.

Yeah but when you watch the first 2 , do you watch the third after that ?

[Batman1980]

It may just be me but I didn't have any problems with 3, didn't notice any drop-off.

[charlieray1]

I don't really understand all the scorn this film receives. It's probably my least favorite of the 3, but it's a good film and a worthwhile follow-up. Sophia is weak, but it's not a fatal flaw. And parts of the film are as good as anything in the series -- like the opera/assassination sequence at the end.

I'd certainly rather have it than not!

[progers13]

Originally Posted by zombie63

I understand Julia Roberts was also cast in the part but pulled out due to other commitments - just as well really. Like you say its a hard part to cast for with the options available.

That was about the time Pretty Woman came out, wasn't it?

[zombie63]

Originally Posted by progers13

That was about the time Pretty Woman came out, wasn't it?

Yes think that was 1990.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by charlieray1

I don't really understand all the scorn this film receives. It's probably my least favorite of the 3, but it's a good film and a worthwhile follow-up. Sophia is weak, but it's not a fatal flaw. And parts of the film are as good as anything in the series -- like the opera/assassination sequence at the end.

I'd certainly rather have it than not!

So he made it because he was almost in financial ruin, so? If you want to attack movies because they were made for profit, there's a long line of them and The Godfather III would be way down that list.

[Big-byrd]

Originally Posted by zombie63

Yeah but when you watch the first 2 , do you watch the third after that ?

2/3 times

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by zombie63

Yeah but when you watch the first 2 , do you watch the third after that ?

Yep.

[jhiggy23]

I think it's a very poor film.

[Ernest Rister]

Here's the hard truth.

The original opening of the film is Michael wanting to purchase massive amounts of stock from the Catholic church. It's shot in a direct reference to the opening shot of the first film (a long OTS). Michael is a deeply compromised individual, so the Church would have to absolve his public image in order to do business with him. But the Church is ailing from bad investements, so they agree to his purchase, and give him an honor, and it's all BS. Meanwhile, Michael uses a foundation run by his daughter to launder and hide funds to pay off Church officials.

This scene was deleted. The movie begins instead as a replay of the final moments of the 2nd film and then cuts to the Church ceremony. If you put the original opening scene back in, it draws the entire first act into sharp relief -- the honor from the church is a sham PR ploy, his poor daughter's foundation is a front to move funds to purchase the stock, and essentially Michael authors his own daughter's tragedy. If you don't have that context, the movie really doesn't work. With the scene back in, the film suddenly has a dark structure in keeping with the first two. The deletion of the opening scene to this movie is my #1 choice for worst editorial decision in modern American film.

In the theatrical cut, they include some of that opening scene much later in the film, but it doesn't have the same impact and instead feels tonally awkward -- the Church has already given him the honor, now they have cold feet about the business deal? The theatrical cut creates a false impression that Michael has redeemed himself, when the exact opposite is true. With the original opening scene intact, the film comes alive with dark implications. The theatrical cut is a bit of a mess.

So why was the original opening cut? Coppola decided in post production that he didn't want people to hate Michael and wanted to play the redemption card. In essence, he shot the movie and then tried to re-write in post and it didn't work. He should have stayed with what he had, cause that version works.

To this day, before I watch The Godfather Part III, I play the deleted opening scene found on the bonus features. I suggest you guys give that a try. No one is going to fix Sofia's performance, but at least you can fix Francis' editorial decision that neutered the 1st act of the movie.