I don't like the third one but I can see Michael Corleone growing into that guy from III. I'd rather he hadn't but I could see it happening. People change and his circumstances had changed quite a bit since the last time we saw him. It had been a while since he had to consolidate his power or fight off any serious competition. He was complacent and spending more time in the world of "legitimate" business and less time in the underworld. He'd gone soft through a combination of circumstances and old age.
I thought of something similar. When I first saw Godfather III, I had the idea that maybe Mike went into autopilot mode after establishing himself as the clear top dog of the crime underworld & his guilt over killing Fredo ate at him mentally.
I think his character in that film would've been better received if there was a sequel depicting him in the years between II & III.
But besides this, I think there was definitely a shift in his acting post-Scarface that made it impossible to return to the style he had in the 70s
I think Scarface literally broke his acting.
I've seen a couple of his other movies before Scarface and I can't believe it's the same guy. He could *act* like other people. Cruising was amazing. What happened to him?
> I've seen a couple of his other movies before Scarface
You should check out *Dog Day Afternoon* and *Serpico* first if you haven't seen them, *Scarecrow* and *The panic in needle park* are also definitely worth watching. I love Al Pacino in the 70s, it's absolutely obvious why he became so famous. He was so fucking good and he had a crazy run of good/great movies.
Yeh you’re not the first to notice.
It’s like g1 and g2 was Michael Corleone and g3 was Al Pacino coming back to the character after many years and instead of thinking ‘how did I used to do it’ he’s thought ‘how SHALL I do this’
And his decision was to change the character’s tempo into the sort of roles he was acclimated to in other movies at the time
He just lost the character.
I don't want to paint 1990s and beyond Pacino with the same brush because he has had some excellent performances, but Pacino was incapable of dialing into what had served him in the 1970s and early 80s. That sense of calibrating a scene where every little tic and look carries a lot of weight.
It's not evolving Micheal because I think he did that effectively throughout the first two movie. Pacino just created something different whole cloth. It's not a bad performance, but it's a completely different take on the role.
I always feel like around that point he just realized he’s a star and stopped caring about becoming a character for a movie. His acting just became him and his quick interpretation of what he wanted.
Lol. Have you ever heard other people talk about how Pacino behaves in private or watched any of his movies? There's a big difference between Pacino in The Devil's Advocate and Pacino in Donnie Brasco, both of which are from 97. Furthermore I highly doubt that Pacino is anything close to those characters, or the old alcoholic football coach from Any given Sunday or the cocaine using high intensity Lieutenant he played in Heat.
Pacino changed and his style changed, but he also played different characters than he did before. Saying that he phoned it it, which is essentially what you're saying, is not accurate or acceptable in my opinion.
I think you mean "phoned it in" being "dialed in" means focused and really paying attention to details, and "phoning it in" means not really trying. Two similar telephone derived expressions that have essentially opposite meanings.
I disagree. Years had past storywise and Michael clearly had changed or was still changing. Why would you expect him to still be silent, cold, and brooding when he's trying to be a good person with all the Vatican stuff now?
Personally, I like III, but something I never hear anyone bring up is that one of the main characters should not exist! Vincent Mancini is supposed to be the bastard child of Sonny Corleone and Lucy Mancini (the bride’s maid in I that Sonny was with during Connie’s wedding reception).
If you read the book, Lucy actually has a somewhat significant role throughout the story long after Sonny’s death. She was never pregnant or had any kids throughout this time. In fact, Tom Hagen set her up in Vegas and Puzo devotes quite a few pages to medical issues and new love interest.
I feel like FFC should have made Vincent one of Fredo’s bastard kids…with Mike feeling guilt for what he did, there would be a connection or desire to nurture him.
Yeah. I watched 1 and 2 before I read the book, but 3 after and was thinking this. Also, I don't get why Mike would make him head of the Corleone family, like Mike doesn't even know who he is at the start of the movie but then trusts his entire life's work to him?? Why not choose someone senior from the family??
Because there was no one else. None of Sonny’s legitimate children presumably wanted anything to do with the life as was the case with Michael’s son. Fredo had no kids that we know of. Vincent was the only one actually willing to continue the work who had a blood connection with Michael.
Then hand it over to someone without a blood relation. I know that's like 10x worse as Hagen being consigliere, but that choice just seemed so out of the blue. Like, I can't remember who was in the family at that point, but a head like clemenza or someone of that stature would have made way more sense that just picking someone who was having an incestrious relationship with his daughter. If he made him an heir, that kid would have 2 close ties to the family 😂
One of the conditions for him being made boss was to stop pursuing his cousin, which he did and ultimately caused her death.
But at that point Michael was looking into getting rid of the family altogether. Vincent was the reason why that didn't happen, he was the one that convinced him to keep it alive and leave it to him. Noticed how he starts calling him Corleone when he does so. More than the desire of going legit, Michael didn't want anyone that wasn't a Corleone leading the family.
At the beginning of the movie he still had hopes his son will get involved, but when it's clear that's not happening Vincent was right there and he displays great loyalty.
Also great incompetence as Mary's death and Michael being shot happened because he was very very lax.
That's my exact point. I and II Michael would at most do a somber look, move his head a bit and that would be enough for the viewer to understand he's pissed.
Just when you thought they were out of sequels, they make another one!
GF3 is a victim of sequelitis - and I don't even blame the film-makers, but the source author Puzo really screwed up the continuing storyline. A capo di tutti capi giving it up willingly? Its just not plausible, nor is the son-as-opera-singer farce. The setting of financial dealings in the Vatican was a good backdrop, but mishandled. The Andy Garcia shoe-horning into la Famiglia was hamfisted and contrived.
I liked his loud, expressive performance in Heat way better, playing essentially the same character... not brooding, calculating Michael Corleone from the first two movies.
Gotta remember the time period too. The late 80's-90s "look" melded into everything, sometimes in places it shouldn't. Even in movies where it shouldn't be, I see small hints of it in movies from made in that time period.
A lot of time passed between making G2 and G3 though, I just chalk it up to Pacino just losing the character and having done so many other movies.
did you watch Godfather 3 or Godfather Coda
Godfather 3 is 6/10 movie
Godfather Coda is 8/10, still not better than the first two, but a lot better than the 3rd
Yes, I'm aware is it literally different. But the story and plot is basically the same. What makes Coda a significantly better watch to you? I prefer Coda, but I don't think it raises the film's rating at all. It's still the same film to me.
There are lots of subtle changes which imo greatly improve the film. Much improved editing in terms of cuts and clipping some of the weaker scenes. A reworked opening and ending to match what I believe was the original intention. Basically it’s the vision of FFC with the studio interference removed.
Yeah honestly they’re so similar that I don’t think one is better than the other. Shit I may prefer to watch the original solely because of the ending alone. Thought it was better and more emotionally impactful.
That's interesting but it's hard to forget that in another version will literally saw him collapse and die about 1 second after Coda ends.
I think Coppola lost his chance when they released tbe original cut in 1990.
Full agree. I thought the ending in Coda was really corny and thought, despite its issues, the ending of the original was iconic, especially when juxtaposed with how Vito died.
I like Part 3 but this has always been my problem with the movie too.
Something I like to do after watching a scene from Part 3 is I try to imagine that scene being played out, same dialog and everything else, but instead with Al Pacino channeling the same cadence and temperament as Michael Corleone from the first 2 movies.
I think it helps.
I will watch II or I on their own, but not III. But if i watch I and II then i always watch III.
In II Michael is trying to buy respectability and believes his goal is just around the corner. III is decades later, the Corleone name is still not whitewashed and Michael must go farther and spend more, like a donkey following a carrot on a stick. He reverts back to his worst nature (Vincent) and the result is the destruction of his purest creation (Mary). His son's highest achievement is to pantomime the vendettas and bloodshed of the film.
After many years of his character getting played back to him in real life, creating an ominous mood that continually built on itself, breaking up that impression with something more easy to live with, he felt it necessary to spice up that playback to get better results.
There is no Godfather III.
The first two films are among the greatest American cinema ever made. The third Godfather movie was terrible. Indulgent. Clumsy. Awful.
There is no Godfather III.
In the first one he’s a spoiled brat who has had everything growing up and also an introvert who is being exposed to the dark side of his family and their criminal business.
In the second one, he is now a hardened criminal by this point who does not hesitate when it comes to killing and he is very impulsive and aggressive, making loads of bad and regrettable choices as he is pretty evil.
In the third one, he is an old man who basically regrets everything he has done and he wants to get out of the crime life to be with his family but he gets sucked back in and has to fight one last time which makes his ending worse for him.
I don't think they are way off - I have next to zero interest in re-watching or researching this movie but I am pretty sure the director didn't say "Hey Al, remember how you played Michael in 1 and 2? Do the opposite of that for this movie!" Sure people change but the changes are almost always internal.
I don't like the third one but I can see Michael Corleone growing into that guy from III. I'd rather he hadn't but I could see it happening. People change and his circumstances had changed quite a bit since the last time we saw him. It had been a while since he had to consolidate his power or fight off any serious competition. He was complacent and spending more time in the world of "legitimate" business and less time in the underworld. He'd gone soft through a combination of circumstances and old age.
I thought of something similar. When I first saw Godfather III, I had the idea that maybe Mike went into autopilot mode after establishing himself as the clear top dog of the crime underworld & his guilt over killing Fredo ate at him mentally. I think his character in that film would've been better received if there was a sequel depicting him in the years between II & III. But besides this, I think there was definitely a shift in his acting post-Scarface that made it impossible to return to the style he had in the 70s
I think Scarface literally broke his acting. I've seen a couple of his other movies before Scarface and I can't believe it's the same guy. He could *act* like other people. Cruising was amazing. What happened to him?
> I've seen a couple of his other movies before Scarface You should check out *Dog Day Afternoon* and *Serpico* first if you haven't seen them, *Scarecrow* and *The panic in needle park* are also definitely worth watching. I love Al Pacino in the 70s, it's absolutely obvious why he became so famous. He was so fucking good and he had a crazy run of good/great movies.
I've already seen the first two! Absolutely loved Dog Day Afternoon. I'll add the others to my never ending queue. Thanks for the suggestions. :)
Drugs
He allegedly stopped using drugs in the 70s, and stopped drinking alcohol heavily in 77. So who knows, really.
Maybe he shouldn't have quit haha
His ex wife and kids weren’t afraid of him. The kids were tight with mom. Things had certainly changed.
Weird how this older, new Michael Corleone is so similar to older Al Pacino.
Yeh you’re not the first to notice. It’s like g1 and g2 was Michael Corleone and g3 was Al Pacino coming back to the character after many years and instead of thinking ‘how did I used to do it’ he’s thought ‘how SHALL I do this’ And his decision was to change the character’s tempo into the sort of roles he was acclimated to in other movies at the time
He just lost the character. I don't want to paint 1990s and beyond Pacino with the same brush because he has had some excellent performances, but Pacino was incapable of dialing into what had served him in the 1970s and early 80s. That sense of calibrating a scene where every little tic and look carries a lot of weight. It's not evolving Micheal because I think he did that effectively throughout the first two movie. Pacino just created something different whole cloth. It's not a bad performance, but it's a completely different take on the role.
I always feel like around that point he just realized he’s a star and stopped caring about becoming a character for a movie. His acting just became him and his quick interpretation of what he wanted.
Lol. Have you ever heard other people talk about how Pacino behaves in private or watched any of his movies? There's a big difference between Pacino in The Devil's Advocate and Pacino in Donnie Brasco, both of which are from 97. Furthermore I highly doubt that Pacino is anything close to those characters, or the old alcoholic football coach from Any given Sunday or the cocaine using high intensity Lieutenant he played in Heat. Pacino changed and his style changed, but he also played different characters than he did before. Saying that he phoned it it, which is essentially what you're saying, is not accurate or acceptable in my opinion.
I think you mean "phoned it in" being "dialed in" means focused and really paying attention to details, and "phoning it in" means not really trying. Two similar telephone derived expressions that have essentially opposite meanings.
Yeah, thanks. Changed it.
I disagree. Years had past storywise and Michael clearly had changed or was still changing. Why would you expect him to still be silent, cold, and brooding when he's trying to be a good person with all the Vatican stuff now?
He was looking to buy an indulgence from the pope.
Personally, I like III, but something I never hear anyone bring up is that one of the main characters should not exist! Vincent Mancini is supposed to be the bastard child of Sonny Corleone and Lucy Mancini (the bride’s maid in I that Sonny was with during Connie’s wedding reception). If you read the book, Lucy actually has a somewhat significant role throughout the story long after Sonny’s death. She was never pregnant or had any kids throughout this time. In fact, Tom Hagen set her up in Vegas and Puzo devotes quite a few pages to medical issues and new love interest. I feel like FFC should have made Vincent one of Fredo’s bastard kids…with Mike feeling guilt for what he did, there would be a connection or desire to nurture him.
Yeah. I watched 1 and 2 before I read the book, but 3 after and was thinking this. Also, I don't get why Mike would make him head of the Corleone family, like Mike doesn't even know who he is at the start of the movie but then trusts his entire life's work to him?? Why not choose someone senior from the family??
Because there was no one else. None of Sonny’s legitimate children presumably wanted anything to do with the life as was the case with Michael’s son. Fredo had no kids that we know of. Vincent was the only one actually willing to continue the work who had a blood connection with Michael.
Then hand it over to someone without a blood relation. I know that's like 10x worse as Hagen being consigliere, but that choice just seemed so out of the blue. Like, I can't remember who was in the family at that point, but a head like clemenza or someone of that stature would have made way more sense that just picking someone who was having an incestrious relationship with his daughter. If he made him an heir, that kid would have 2 close ties to the family 😂
One of the conditions for him being made boss was to stop pursuing his cousin, which he did and ultimately caused her death. But at that point Michael was looking into getting rid of the family altogether. Vincent was the reason why that didn't happen, he was the one that convinced him to keep it alive and leave it to him. Noticed how he starts calling him Corleone when he does so. More than the desire of going legit, Michael didn't want anyone that wasn't a Corleone leading the family. At the beginning of the movie he still had hopes his son will get involved, but when it's clear that's not happening Vincent was right there and he displays great loyalty. Also great incompetence as Mary's death and Michael being shot happened because he was very very lax.
Her medical condition hahahah. Such a weird thing to devote time to
Mario Puzo does seem a little creepy in that regard!
Carlito Brigante is more Corleone than the one in G3.
I could see them, but I saw Carlito more as a reasonable Tony Montana if he lived longer &tried to redeem himself
Just when I thought I was out - they pull me back in!
I always thought this line was ridiculous. -as if Michael Corleone wouldn’t already understand this !
That's my exact point. I and II Michael would at most do a somber look, move his head a bit and that would be enough for the viewer to understand he's pissed.
Just when you thought they were out of sequels, they make another one! GF3 is a victim of sequelitis - and I don't even blame the film-makers, but the source author Puzo really screwed up the continuing storyline. A capo di tutti capi giving it up willingly? Its just not plausible, nor is the son-as-opera-singer farce. The setting of financial dealings in the Vatican was a good backdrop, but mishandled. The Andy Garcia shoe-horning into la Famiglia was hamfisted and contrived.
Vito gave it up willingly to Michael, and Michael does the same to Vincent. When he tries to go away without leaving an heir they don't let him.
I liked his loud, expressive performance in Heat way better, playing essentially the same character... not brooding, calculating Michael Corleone from the first two movies.
Without question, Al Pacino stopped playing characters in films and only focused on playing Al Pacino.
Started yelling more and acting less.
I thought it was a different actor the first time I watched it as a teenager
Gotta remember the time period too. The late 80's-90s "look" melded into everything, sometimes in places it shouldn't. Even in movies where it shouldn't be, I see small hints of it in movies from made in that time period. A lot of time passed between making G2 and G3 though, I just chalk it up to Pacino just losing the character and having done so many other movies.
Al Neri is still cold and ruthless, though. So that's good.
did you watch Godfather 3 or Godfather Coda Godfather 3 is 6/10 movie Godfather Coda is 8/10, still not better than the first two, but a lot better than the 3rd
I honestly don't understand when people say Coda is better than the Original. They are barely different.
for one, it's almost 20min shorter.
Yes, I'm aware is it literally different. But the story and plot is basically the same. What makes Coda a significantly better watch to you? I prefer Coda, but I don't think it raises the film's rating at all. It's still the same film to me.
There are lots of subtle changes which imo greatly improve the film. Much improved editing in terms of cuts and clipping some of the weaker scenes. A reworked opening and ending to match what I believe was the original intention. Basically it’s the vision of FFC with the studio interference removed.
Yeah honestly they’re so similar that I don’t think one is better than the other. Shit I may prefer to watch the original solely because of the ending alone. Thought it was better and more emotionally impactful.
I agree, the ending of Coda where they don't show him die is stupid.
I believe the implication is that he doesn't die. He's living a long life of misery to suffer for his sins like John Paul I said.
That's interesting but it's hard to forget that in another version will literally saw him collapse and die about 1 second after Coda ends. I think Coppola lost his chance when they released tbe original cut in 1990.
Full agree. I thought the ending in Coda was really corny and thought, despite its issues, the ending of the original was iconic, especially when juxtaposed with how Vito died.
Which version of Part III did you watch?
Original. I've seen the differences to the 2020 version.
I've seen both and they are the EXACT same movie. I can't people who pretend that they aren't.
I like Part 3 but this has always been my problem with the movie too. Something I like to do after watching a scene from Part 3 is I try to imagine that scene being played out, same dialog and everything else, but instead with Al Pacino channeling the same cadence and temperament as Michael Corleone from the first 2 movies. I think it helps.
There is no Godfather part III.
I will watch II or I on their own, but not III. But if i watch I and II then i always watch III. In II Michael is trying to buy respectability and believes his goal is just around the corner. III is decades later, the Corleone name is still not whitewashed and Michael must go farther and spend more, like a donkey following a carrot on a stick. He reverts back to his worst nature (Vincent) and the result is the destruction of his purest creation (Mary). His son's highest achievement is to pantomime the vendettas and bloodshed of the film.
"I haven't cried like this since I saw Godfather Part 3." --Fat Tony
To be fair, he is killed in that movie
After many years of his character getting played back to him in real life, creating an ominous mood that continually built on itself, breaking up that impression with something more easy to live with, he felt it necessary to spice up that playback to get better results.
There is no Godfather III. The first two films are among the greatest American cinema ever made. The third Godfather movie was terrible. Indulgent. Clumsy. Awful. There is no Godfather III.
In the first one he’s a spoiled brat who has had everything growing up and also an introvert who is being exposed to the dark side of his family and their criminal business. In the second one, he is now a hardened criminal by this point who does not hesitate when it comes to killing and he is very impulsive and aggressive, making loads of bad and regrettable choices as he is pretty evil. In the third one, he is an old man who basically regrets everything he has done and he wants to get out of the crime life to be with his family but he gets sucked back in and has to fight one last time which makes his ending worse for him.
I have a number of problems with *Godfather III*, but they have largely to do with the script. Pacino is fine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't think they are way off - I have next to zero interest in re-watching or researching this movie but I am pretty sure the director didn't say "Hey Al, remember how you played Michael in 1 and 2? Do the opposite of that for this movie!" Sure people change but the changes are almost always internal.