The Godfather Part III: Is It Really That Bad?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 фев 2025
- Hope you enjoy my filmmaker reaction to The Godfather Part III. :D
Full length reactions & Patreon only polls: / jamesvscinema
Original Movie: The Godfather Part III (1990)
Ending Song: / charleycoin
Follow Me:
Instagram: / jamesadamsiii
Twitter: / jamesadamsiii
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED. All rights belong to their respective owners.
On with more Godfather activities...THE DON.
Want to vote on what I should watch next? Click here! www.patreon.com/jamesvscinema
Have a great day!
One movie you definitely should react to as a filmmaker is "Das Boot", because from the camera work to set design to direction, it is just groundbreaking.
Ummm, did you cut out Michael Corleone dying and falling out of his chair? Am I imagining this? The reason I ask is it is such a poignant and solitary moment. He lived his life as a man of great power and brutality but his ultimate demise was old, and weak, with a dog as the only witness.
Did you cancel my two comments?
I think it’s a decent film on its own, but it has the unfortunate task of being compared to two of the greatest films of all time.
Yeah the first one is my favorite!
Exactly. Godfather III may not be one of the greatest films of all time, but I still think it's quite good, and a worthy extension of the Corleone story.
could not agree more. simultaneously underwhelming, and one of the most underrated films of all time.
totally agree.
Exactomundo 🤌🤌
I don’t know if you knew this, but you watched the directors cut that came out only a couple years ago.
It doesn’t save the movie but there are major improvements to the version people disliked. Scenes are rearranged to make the pacing better and make the themes clearer, etc. As well as a changed ending
Yeah it's important to know that Coppola never intended for this to be "Part III" but instead it was the studio that released it under that name to increase sales. This worked, but the trade-off was people were much more critical on it as the final act of a trilogy rather than an epilogue to the duology (which it was made to be).
This is why this new directors cut of the film was given back the original title Coppola intended to name it "The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone" (Coda is Italian for Epilogue)
I forgot the directors cut was a thing. Thanks for the reminder!
Personally I prefer the original ending
Notice the brief glimpses of Vincent’s mother, played by Jeannie Linero. Linero also played the bridesmaid in Godfather I-the one who got, um, cozy with Sonny during the wedding. A nice touch.
Yeah. Lucy Mancini. In the book, she has a whole regrettable storyline about needing surgery to tighten her vaginal canal in order to feel pleasure, but she loved Sonny because he was...endowed enough for her to feel.
Typing that out felt weird, ngl.
"Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in."
Okay, so, you really need to watch The Sopranos now.
This is not the theatrical release of this film. This is a re-cut version made about 30 years after the original theatrical run. Pacino and Keaton liked this re-cut version a lot more than the original release. Coppolo likes it more, also.
People advising against watching The Godfather, Part III are talking about the original theatrical release.
No, we're also referring to this one as well. All of them are terrible
In the original godfather 3 he fell out of the chair and died alone
And when you place that side by side with the death of his father, who was willing to let go of power for the sake OF family, it really hits. It really shows what he lost in his own chase for power. It's one of the best and most profound parts of the original film and one of the worst things changed in the director cut.
@@GiggingwithTheGoon he stepped aside because he vowed to "not be the one to break the peace we made here today" at the meeting of the 5 families,for "selfish reasons", which was the return of michael...as michaels consigliere he helped orchestrate the death of the 4 other bosses, so the interpretation of him stepping down as some noble gesture is a bit of a reach
@@GiggingwithTheGoon Michael was also willing to let go of power for the sake of family....Vito eventually learns to give up revenge after losing his son. Michael needs to die in order to be redeemed. Coda is the superior version you don't get it.
I don't care what the "experts" say; I've always liked this film.
That’s good to hear!
Yeah, fuck those people. I'm not sure when 'not in the same league as its predecessor(s)' became synonymous with 'terrible.' Only a Sith deals in absolutes. 🙄
Coppola might be Italian but this trilogy was Greek as in, a classic Greek Tragedy.
Much of Italy, including the Naples region, Sicily and Puglia, WERE Greek.
@@SPQRatae I wasn't commenting on his ethnicity or Greek history, I was commenting on how the trilogy reminded me of common themes within classical Greek Tragedies... and that is a good thing.
@@neiladlington950 That's OK. I know what you meant. I'm just saying that Greek culture is not alien to those areas.
@@SPQRatae Fair enough.
The actor who played Fredo, John Cazale, appeared in 5 films before he died of lung cancer at 42. All 5 were nominated for Best Picture.
The other 3 are The Conversation, Dog Day Afternoon, and The Deer Hunter.
And nobody ever mention him while reacting to these movies. Even this director guy doesn't remember his character's name. Still for II he should have got a nomination and, now that I think about it, in DDA he made me think of a kind of Tarantino character.
Of course, he also appeared in this one via the flashback to Fredo's death in the original theatrical cut (which also got a Best Picture nomination).
There are things I would have done with this movie - I would have paid Robert Duvall what he wanted, I would have waited for Winona Ryder to take care of herself to do the film (cause the heat with a young Ryder & Garcia would have been INSANE) & I would have just tightened up the script. And I say that all but still, I LOVE this film. It's like the film they tell you that you should hate but there are so many incredible scenes and set pieces - that moment of his son singing the song that reminds him of his first wife echoing into the next scene is the kind of thing you just don't get by accident. And Pacino? He deserved an Oscar for this film. It's better than what people are told to think & feel. Glad to see someone giving it proper attention.
Sophia Coppola is not only Francis daughter but is now a very well respected director! Virgin suicides, Lost in Translation, Priscilla, Marie Antoinette, etc, all good films
Sometimes she gets a little too 'girly' for my tastes (see "Marie Antoinette" and "The Bling Ring" -- the latter being one of the cringiest movie titles ever, IMO), but I agree she's definitely a more-than-capable filmmaker. And I wish "On the Rocks" was available to watch somewhere other than AppleTV+. Fuck the death of physical media.
This guy gets it. Bravo. Loved this video as a Godfather 3 stan
I totally agree with you. This film should be watched. The casting of Mary (Francis Ford Coppola's daughter) was probably a mistake. I see you chose the Director's Cut (Coda). Had you watched the theater release, you would have seen that Michael actually died alone in that chair where you last saw him. The chair even rolled over and Michael was dead on the ground, alone (there may have been a small dog running around). When anyone asks me what's my favorite grief scene, I immediately go to Michael outside the opera after Mary was shot. I felt his grief down to my core. Al Pacino did an excellent job. George Hamilton played the family's new lawyer as Tom Hagen had passed away in the film. Many, many actors from the previous films reprised their roles. I felt it was a great vehicle for a young Andy Garcia as Vincent. Glad you enjoyed it!
I wouldn't say bad. Just not as cinematic as the first two.
My favorite is the first one too
@@JamesVSCinema I used to go back and forth but in the end yeah I think the first one is the goat. The Deniro stuff in 2 is fantastic but weighing that against the Brando and James Caan performances, and Michael's transformation, it's so good.
One of the biggest complaints I’ve never understood is people disliking Michael’s characterization and seeing him as “weak” in Pt. 3.
It’s so obvious that even in Pt.2 that having his brother murdered and the falling out with Kay emotionally crippled him. The Michael in Pt. 3 is a hollow shell, truly wanting to be done with “this life” and haunted by his sins.
People also tend to forget who Michael was in his youth - an idealist, who considered it more important to fight for his country than to support the family "business".
Dude, he is a completely different person. In the kitchen scene he gets possessed by Tony Montana. It's really bad.
@@Chinaski1 FFS, if you didn't notice, he got a bit less cool, calm, and collected in each film. It was a fairly logical progression. 🙄
@@Chinaski1 Pretty sure having a stroke tends to make everyone act out.
Thank you for reacting to this. Just because it's not one of the best films of all time, doesn't mean it's a bad film, and your reaction was really perceptive. PS the plural of magnum opus is magna opera... ;-)
I believe Wynonna Ryder was supposed to play Michael Corleone daughter but it went to Sofia Coppola.
It's sad too because she has a pretty decent film making career, but the GF3 nepotism story still hounds her.
@@VaeluX yeah
Ah damn really???
Yes. She became ill and had to drop out. @@JamesVSCinema
@@debravega2453Rider also chose to do Edward Scissorhands instead of Godfather III, which was filmed basically the same time as Godfather III and she mainly did that film due to Johnny Depp wanting her to do that film with him. Because of this, she felt bad about bailing on Coppola, since they were essentially days or a few weeks before filming was supposed to start and at that point so much had been put into prepping the film and Mary had to be recast fast, so that’s why Sofia is in the film as they had a schedule to keep and so he asked his daughter and she said yes. After Godfather III and Edward Scissorhands came out, she came to Coppola to do Dracula together as a way of basically apologizing for not following through on playing Mary Corleone.
Kay shutting the door on Michael as she joins the party is the perfect mirror to the first two films doing the same motif.
I think it’s a great film that has to contend with two of the greatest films in all of film history. Third acts in overarching stories are almost always more reserved and contemplative.
Yup! That’s why I mentioned it. Really cool thesis throughout the trilogy that may go a little unnoticed.
What was missing from the film was Robert Duvall's Consigliere "Tom Hagen" -
If they paid him, there was a chance script that he would’ve been one of the antagonists.
As a side note: the opera, "Cavalleria Rusticano" is set in the Sicilian town of Vizzini, which my ancestors ruled long ago. Wonderful intermezzo plays at the end.
Joey Zasa's bodyguard was played by boxer Vito Antuofermo, undisputed middleweight champ in his prime.
Hi James , the uncut "Once upon a time in America"?? you won't regret it....
Have you ever watched the documentary “Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse“? It follows Francis Ford Coppola as he is filming Apocalypse Now. It is probably the best documentary about the making of a film I’ve ever seen. It also marks a turning point in Coppola‘s career. I feel like there is Coppola’s filmography before, and there is Coppola‘s filmography after when it comes to Apocalypse Now.
I haven’t! I’ll give that a look!
@@JamesVSCinemait’s one of the best documentaries about film that I’ve ever seen James, it’s absolutely incredible 👍
I vaguely remember that documentary.
This movie doesn’t deserve the hate it gets, it’s a solid film that unfortunately follows two masterpieces. Andy Garcia and Talia Shire are both great
as Francis Ford Coppola has said himself, the first two work as one film and then the third one being the "coda", the epilogue, the resolution and i agree. i remember when i was a child and watching these back to back at my aunts place and just being awe struck by them. i love all oof them
Tomassino here (before die) it´s quite old and unfortunately in a wheelchair. He spent many years with the cane, for that limp caused when he was young, due to the shot on the knee when young Vito Corleone took revenge on Ciccio.
Francis Ford Coppalla's daughter plays Micheal's daughter and was the baby baptised in the first movie 😊
To be fair, you watched Coppola's Director's Cut which fixed a lot of the pacing issues with the original. I think the main issue is you miss a lot of the great supporting characters like Tom Hagan. Worth it for Pacino though.
It would be a good experiment to watch both versions to see how Coppola took all the feedback and changed it to this.
0:00" Don't do that ever again"
29:43 Shows the clip twice 😂😂
"Stay away from that kind of thing. No good can come of it, trust me. I don't want no uhng-uhng grandkids."
-Frank Reynolds and probably Michael Corleone too maybe
😂
After the intro i was like `Yea, he`s gonna like this movie`.
Hahahaha I was perplexed when he made that noise 😂
Of the dozen or so channels that have actually reacted to it so far, not a single reactor has genuinely disliked it. They acknowledge it's not in the same league as the first 2, but still a solid outing and a respectable ending to the saga.
In this version the end quote has a darker meaning to it. In the theatrical version Michael slumps over in his chair dead. Leaving him alive makes him even more alone. “When your wished centani it means long life” a life alone.
I love this film. While it falls short of the first two, it's an important film to complete Michael's journey, and the scorn heaped on it is overboard. And wrapping the death of Pope John Paul I into the plot creates such an incredible backdrop. I saw this in the theaters twice when it came out.
Comparing Part III to the previous films definitely makes it pale in comparison, but it is not a bad film at all. I thought Sofia was the weakest link, Andy Garcia was dynamic and Michael was pure tragedy turned human. Thank you so much for this excellent reaction, James and for giving the film a fair overview. ❤
Most of the scream at the end WAS a silent scream. When the emotion is at the most intense and the lungs temporarily stop working, it cannot break out.
For me, part 3 is the point of the trilogy. Michael made himself believe that everything he did was for the people he loved but, in the end, the life he chose destroyed them. Despite all the money and power he worked for decades to obtain, he died sad and alone.
Had Winona Ryder stayed as the Mary Corleone part and had they just payed Duval the 5 million he wanted; this would have been a much better movie.
Also cut out about 30 minutes.
7.8/10
This movie is greatly misunderstood and it has become popular opinion to say it is bad.
The Godfather Part three is a great movie but many would contest. This final installment of the greatest trilogy ever made is misunderstood by most because they do not see what this film is really about. G3 is not about hits and gangland killings, but rather, G3 is about the end of Michael Corleone's legacy of crime in America. This movie shows him stepping out of the gambling and the other rackets because they have hurt him so badly. This movie is a masterpiece because it shows the conclusion to an incredible story. There had to be an end to this trilogy and this thoughtful way to do it exemplified the trilogy as an unbeatable one. Just because it doesn't end with a violent scene like the murder of the heads of the 5 families does not make it a bad movie, but in this case, a beautiful one. Please, don't feel you have to agree with the common view by proxy, but think on your own about what this movie really means and how it concludes and consequences the first two.
Yeah no doubt! At the end of the day it’s up to how YOU feel. I’m just happy I was able to have a good time with this film.
23:13 That double take was hilarious..! 🤣 "Why were y'all dressed like that? African-American senses tingle..!" 😆
Most directors working today can only dream of making a film this good.
In the original cut the last scene shows Michael dying, alone, with a dog.
"The mind suffers and the body cries out" is the quote. Is the line from the bishop who becomes the pope. I agree this movie wasn't the four-star car crash that many make it out to be. It just had two impossible acts to follow.
There have been talks that before Puzo died, there was a potential for a fourth film. Supposedly, this film would have been structured similarly to the second film. With one story showing the rise of the Corleone family under Vito, including Sonny finding a young Tom Hagen, Sonny realizing what his father does and embracing that life, etc. And the second story showing the fall of the family under Vincent as he brings the family into the drug trade with Vincent meeting his end in a similar fashion to Pablo Escobar. This would have tied up the entire Corleone family story.
I prefer this Coda version, though I wish they would have kept that final scene going a few seconds longer the way they did in the original cut.
As others have mentioned, by itself, Part 3 is a fine film. It's not as strong as it's iconic siblings (and honestly, how would others be if in the same position of comparison), yet it's an Oscar nominated film that can hold its own and is worthy of the watch, and being a part of the overall Godfather saga. It was a fitting conclusion to Michael's story.
P. S. Thank you for reacting to the Coda edition. The edits make this the superior version of the finale.
I still don't like that it leaves out Michael's literal death at the end, though. I know the 'death' in the title is supposed to be figurative, but I thought it showed a fairly poetic contrast to his own father's death.
I watched the Coda and I have to say that I like the original version better, the scenes in the Vatican was interesting to me . Great videos, James.
I think in light of recent films, not enough people appreciate that Coppola made The Godfather Part 3, where everybody aged normally, instead of a Godfather Prequel, where a 50 year old Al Pacino plays Michael as a teenager.
I like this film. Yes, it's flawed, yes Coppola made a mistake casting his daughter. I think an experienced actress would have made a big difference. However, I love the theme of failed redemption. The scene where Michael confesses is one of my favorites of the entire trilogy. The priest who becomes pope was inspired by the first Pope John Paul, who mysteriously died weeks after becoming pope. There was speculation at the time that he was murdered. It has a lot of great ideas that unfortunately didn’t come together as well as in the other two movies. But I still enjoy watching it.
Experienced actresses in that age group aren't that many, so getting one on short notice, as was necessary since Winona Ryder dropped out, is quite difficult. Also, it's not like she was completely inexperienced, either
@ohauss Maybe not famous ones, but there are always plenty with experience in all age groups. I recall clearly that Coppola said at the time he DIDN'T want a famous actress. He could have discovered a new star. Maybe he thought he was doing that for his daughter, but Sophia was very green, and it showed. If Mary hadn't been a pivotal character, it wouldn't have mattered so much.
“Joey......... ZASA!” 😂
fun fact, a part IV was gonna be made, focusing on Vincent's reign as the don (with Michael in his old age as well) and, in Part II fashion, it was gonna intercut that with the continuation of Vito's rise to power (continuation of his storyline in Part II ig) AND show the rise of young Sonny (played by Leonardo DiCaprio).
I think the real reason why many people don't like this one is that "Mafia" is seen as this old fashion Gangster theme and it works with the first two Movies but the last one is somewhat "modern" Era and doesn't fit the style of "Classic Gangsters". I still like it.
I'm so happy to see you take this film on. Most reactors stop after the 2nd one. We all know the first two are great, I'm more curious how you feel about this one.
The first is my favourite, the second is so close and I can understand someone who likes it better. The 3rd is extremely hated on, but is beautiful and emotional and probably the best way it should have ended.
It's a masterpiece. Always has been. Just hard to live up to two of the greatest movies of all time.
Oddly enough, it’s surprising from a story perspective that Kay didn’t end up dead a couple years after the events of godfather 2. Given that Micheal didn’t want to rob his kids of a normal childhood, but he was angry enough where he could’ve willingly made the decision to take her out in an accident to save face (given that film takes place in the 1950s).
It's actually good. Except for Sofia Coppola. The first two are just masterpieces.
First one is my favorite!
It's not a terrible film. It's the most UNDERRATED 3rd sequel in history.Those people who think its not good, need to be banned from watching it. Just coppola's daughter didnt act well enough, but the opera scene compares with any scene in part 1 and 2!
Yes, it's like faulting Mt. Kilimanjaro for not being Mt. Everest. 🤷♂
Shoulda been Marisa Tomei.
What's wrong with Sofia?
I always loved this film. Yes the other 2 are better but seeing the Don struggling with his past and trying to get legit is amazing.
I agree! His story in this was so damn mature. The redemption arc for that character was something I dug in this film!
People that find this a bad film, are people I envy cause they don't know what a bad film is.
Michael's arc was in the end was tragic, but if you look at the whole picture. his daughter was never going to stop loving Vicente and vise versa. his son is alive and his family is safe! so in the end there is some success. the loss of his daughter is tragic but at the same time it is some type of mercy for all of the terrible things he had done as well. its hard to judge Michael because he did all of those things for his family, he tried to fill his dad's shoes, and as well as Sonny. so.......Salud Don Corleone!!
I remember seeing the trailer for this in cinemas as a youngster (maybe watching Indiana Jones or something) and the iconic Godfather puppet logo stuck with me even then.
There is no redemption for Michael. Only the price of atonement.
Apenas pelos primeiros 4 minutos do seu react posso ter certeza que você saberá apreciar este terceiro filme como um fechamento perfeito para a trilogia, que aliás, poderia se chamar "a trágica vida de Michael Corleone".
The Godfather Part III is a really good movie, which depicts the culmination of the tragedy of the family story. Note that unlike the other two parts, the time span in part III is quite short actually, so it cannot have the saga feel, as it actually shows only the end of a great family saga (the starting of which is shown at the beginning of part II). In fact the unfolding of the story, part I and part II are intertwined and make a very solid block. Part III distinguishes itself by being a follow-up leading to the end. Most people want to embark in a deep and long story with characters they are familiar with and feel an attachment for, but part III could not provide that, and in my opinion, it is good that it did not do that. We get an immersion, yes but only to conclude a tragedy, which is already quite satisfying to wrap up the story.
This is the first of the Godfather movies I ever saw. I was taken by a friend and it interested me enough that I bought the other two.
I agree with you when you say that all movies should be watched, no matter what people say. If you don't like it, at least it's your own opinion. Recently, a lot of people were telling others not to go and watch Joker 2 and I had the same feeling as you with Godfather 3.
I have only just started this video... and I salute you sir!!! THANK YOU. I dislike this movie on several points but based on its full story It still have great parts and I'm so glad that I ignored people saying not to watch it. The ending still makes me grip my chest and It makes me so sad that people tell people to not feel this ending... thought the film around Michael isn't as good.... The movie is still a movie to hold the hand of Michael at this point and I'm all for it.
I don't care about what people say about this last movie.. at all.... this movie is good and it make the 1st and 2nd movie so much better because you get to see it end. I love part 3 just as you would love your 3rd child.... if you disagree -go tell your own children and rank them at their faces whom you like best... OR -tell them that they all make up a good family as these moveis does.
Top 100 movies at imdb any day of the year..
It is kind of fitting that the story ends in tragedy because Don't forget the entire Corleone family was born out of tragedy. Young Vito Andolini from the town of Corleone Sicily Italy, saw his mother and (I'm not sure if he witnessed it but) his father murdered By Don Ciccio so he was an orphan when he was sent to the United States to protect him from being killed by the Don who wished him dead so he wouldn't seek Revenge (Vito did later kill him and get Revenge) That was when the immigrations guy misread his paperwork or whatever and wrote him down as "Vito Corleone" which was the town he was from not his surname.
The trilogy really does follow the birth of the Corleone family to the death of it.
I think the main problem for why people hate this one is although it really is a very good movie, the first 2 movies were 2 of the greatest films in the history of cinema. They were both let's say a top-of-the-line model Cadillac Fleetwood d'Elegance where this is say a T-O-T-L Buick Electra luxury sedan. Still a VERY nice car but beside the Cadillacs it does fall short. That and on top of it, the seemingly anticlimactic finale of Michael sitting in a chair totally alone and just falling over dead, was kinda a letdown for people who expected him to go out in a blaze of glory or pass the torch etc. People hated the fact it ended like that.
James, you may not see this today, but Merry Christmas to you if you do!
Today was my first time watching this film all the way through because I wanted to watch your reaction after it. First, I must agree with your philosophy on films that "shouldn't be made." If you have a story to tell and it's not illegal, then make the darn film. Let people enjoy it or not.
Next, I have to say I was disappointed with this film when inevitably trying to compare it to the first two films in the series. I watched the same "Godfather Coda" version that you did, so my thoughts are based on the same film you saw. I think the main things that disappointed me were the pacing and the editing.
From watching your reactions to films for a long time, I know you are a fan of pacing that takes its time in film and TV. Shows like The Wire and Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul all do that beautifully. They sit with an idea long enough or revisit an idea often enough that you can really get deeply into it. And the first two films in The Godfather saga also took that same deliberate, slow pacing so that every payoff felt truly earned. This film felt like it was enough material for two films that was chopped down to fit in a single movie. A lot of important transitions felt like they were rushed, tossed out, or completely ignored, and many scenes felt like they had significant portions simply never written. There were also cuts that felt like they created jarring continuity errors because scenes weren't allowed to have a final breath.
It was almost hard to believe that the same writer and director worked on this film as they did on the first two movies. There were little beats missing in this film that gave the first two such great connective tissue. For example, on the day that the assassins tried to kill Michael's father, we had the tiny but important scene where Fredo was going to drive his dad on the day because Johnny had called in sick. On its own that scene didn't do much, but it planted the seed that something was off and something was about to happen, even if we didn't realize it. Likewise, after the first time Carlo beat Connie and Sonny found out about it, he beat Carlo to within an inch of his life and promised he would kill him if he ever hurt her again. So when she called in tears after the second time he beat her, we knew Sonny was going to storm off in a blind rage, leaving him vulnerable to the assassins that were waiting for him. Those are tiny little pieces of connective tissue that make the whole film tell a much more satisyfing story.
In this film, those little things were missing. We cut from Michael in a hospital bed to Vincent's crew gunning down Joey Zasa in the street without any setup or preparation. Perhaps it was intentional, but it felt rushed--it felt like the writer and director of the first two films would have given us something in there to set up that Zasa was going to be in trouble that day. I would love to know the full story behind it--if Coppola and Puzo had written a story treatment for multiple films and Paramount forced them to chop it down to one for budget reasons. And in terms of continuity problems, that scene in the first part of the film where Michael and his new consigleare are meeting with the church and business officials in Rome, the meeting seems to be only partly concluded when there is a jarring cut from people sitting ant talking politely to people standing and screaming. There's no escalation, no rising tension, no buildup--and then if the artwork and furniture are any judge, it appears it's not even the same meeting but a different room altogether with a subset of the people that were in the first meeting. It all feels very problematic.
And as rushed and chopped together as the scenes feel, the whole film seems like it's simply tired of telling us this story about these characters. Some of the acting is brilliant. And like you, I won't fault Sofia Coppola too much in her role as Mary. She was not originally cast, and according to some sources I have read she was not considered for the part until after several other A-list names had been considered. I don't know how much acting she had done prior to this, but being on the set with legends like her father and Al Pacino and some of the other big names in the movie would be enough to make anyone's acting appear a bit stilted.
If the first two Godfather films were masterpieces, this third installment felt a little bit like it was mailed in by almost everyone. Yes, there are some amazing scenes. Yes, there are a few lines of great dialogue and some moments of brilliant acting turned in by our major characters. And yes, there is gorgeous cinemetography and use of lighting in some of these scenes, which you very rightly pointed out with your filmmaker's eye in your reaction video. For all those reasons, this film deserves to be watched and studied and used as inspiration by film students and other filmmakers. But I do think this film has significant shortcomings when compared to the first two installments.
Keep up the great work, James! I always look forward to what shows and movies are coming next.
Godfather Won 3 Oscars including "Best Picture". - Godfather II Won 6 Oscars including "Best Picture". Godfather III didn't win an Oscars for "Best Picture" didn't win any Oscars at all. & We heard..."They're slipping, not as good as they used to be, what a shame, it's embarrassing to add it to the other two." Indeed, a movie with no Oscars, whoever heard of such a thing?
Great to experience these three with you.
I think there may be an element of through what lens these are watched. Those like me who saw this over 30 years ago, grew up with the original 2 which were made almost back to back, and so to us, the third felt almost like an outsider. Add to the fact the Coppola’s style had changed by then too, it just felt a little jarring to me personally. It was the same feeling as with Star Wars and then the prequels.
When you were watching, did you feel from the movies they were made 20 years apart, or did they tie together from a production PoV?
No problem with 3....at all...not 1 or 2...but I love that we can watch these characters one more time and on a high level
I think this part is like the first two episodes beautifully written and acted 👍
"Comparison is the killer of joy." (?).
It did get nominated for best picture and 6 other categories.
They were almost serious about Godfather 4, but after Mario Puzo died, Coppola wouldn't do it without him.
I think the biggest problem with this film is it didn't know what it wanted to be and it muddles the story. Is it a grand cinematic mobster film or a character study of Michael Corleone in his twilight years as he comes to terms with the consequences of his actions. Also while I like the Coda edit I really don't like the ending, it's just a repeat of Part II while the og one of him dying alone finally ends the saga.
At least with the end of this one, though, there's a genuine sense that he _tried_ for redemption (whereas he didn't seem to give a shit either way at the end of Part II), making him seem much less cold and inhuman as a result.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. You caught major plot subjects & there was no redemption. Great review James. Thanks
In countries like Italy or Spain, it´s not very usual but it´s "normal" to be married with a cousin. It´s not strange to see it.
Yes, it's more of an 'Old World' thing (well, and Southern white trash 🤐). I still find it amusing how many people are far more squeamish at the slightest hint of incest than some of the bloodiest violence out there... 🤔
I never thought GFIII is a bad film. I don't enjoy it as much as the first two tho. I think it just has this certain lingering, sad feeling that sums up Michael's life perfectly. He grabbed power (in the beginning to protect his family) and in the end alienated everyone and was utterly alone.
I studied abroad in Italy, and I did a double take when I saw the Easter procession garb in my town too! Apparently they have been wearing that getup in Italy since the Middle Ages, so it's a bit like the Nazis appropriating the swastika, which has been a symbol of divinity and prosperity in South Asia since ancient times.
Hitler got the swastika from the flyfot. The word [Fylfot] is Scandinavian and is compounded of Old Norse fiël, equivalent to the Anglo-Saxon fela, German viel, many, and fotr, foot, the many-footed figure. which was a Norse symbol. It a most sacred symbol to the Odinist forefathers of the Germanic lands. It has been found to represent/mean a few different things depending where it was used and on what Etc
1.the most common meaning of the Fylfot was of cycles, the natural cycles in the cosmos, both vast and minuscule, and everything in between. This idea is compounded with suggestions that the four arms each represent a key point in such cycles, for example: the high festivals (winter solstice, spring equinox, summer solstice and autumnal equinox), the seasons (winter, spring, summer and autumn), the phases of life (birth, life, death and re-birth), the phases of the day (night, morning, day and evening), the elements (air, fire, water and earth), the phases of the Moon (lunar eclipse, waxing, full and waning, the cardinal points (North, East, South, West), etc.
2. among the Vikings, it represented prosperity, power, and protection.
This is because among the Vikings the Swastika or flyfot [and also the Sun Wheel] was used to represent Thor’s Hammer, Mjolnir.
The Swastika often appears alongside representations of Thor’s Hammer, or used interchangeably with the symbol for Mjolnir. The Swastika has also been found carved into many Viking Age hammers. It sometimes appears that it is meant to symbolize Thor's hammer mjolnir in flight with = a clockwise spinning Fylfot (using this orientation 卐) symbolises decomposition, death, destruction i.e. the destructive element to Thor’s Hammer, while an anti-clockwise motion signifies creation, evolution, and the fertility-giving properties of Thor’s Hammer..
Remember Hitler's Fascination with Blonde haired blue-eyed Scandinavians and the fact that the symbol was sacred to the odinist Germanic people.
The symbol definitely was used in other parts of the world as well independently, but it was very prevalent in that section of Europe as well
“African-American senses tingle” is top notch!!
Dude, this is why I watch your channel. You get it. This was a great entry to complete the character arc of Michael. Been saying that for thirty years to all the haters who disregard it because of the minor nit pick of the daughter’s bad acting. BTW: Both versions of III do Michael justice.
And yeah man, part I is the greatest.
Sofia Coppola's acting might 'not be that bad', but she's done ok for herself in movies generally.
I don't think the altered ending is an improvement, though.
It really just leaves him exactly where he was at the end of Part II: alone and left with his regrets.
Although Anthony is still out there, at the start of a promising career free of the criminal world. Connie and Sonny had several children as well.
By now there could be many legitimate and thriving Corleones. It just took a generation or two longer than Vito wanted.
Well, that was kind of the point, wasn't it? Michael wanted the family to be legitimate, but he wanted to experience it firsthand. Alas, because of the circumstances surrounding this film, he was pretty much completely abandoned by his family and left to die alone, particularly since I would imagine both Kay and Anthony immediately severed all ties to him after Mary's death.
Great commentary. I always liked the operatic style and Vatican politics of this. Looking back it's somewhat uneven, but certainly should not be spurned.
I actually prefer the ending of the theatrical release. In that one, you see Michael actually dying. He's sitting on his chair, puts his glasses on, and then it changes to a wide shot. He's sitting alone in the distance, accompanied by a puppy dog. Then you see him fall from his chair and lie down on the floor with the puppy near him. Vito died while playing with his grandson in a happy moment. Michael died alone consumed by guilt and sorrow. I think it's a lot more poetic.
On some downtime in the spring, I watched all three back to back on Paramount and was surprised that 3 wasn't as bad as I remembered until I later found out it was Coda that I watched and not the original part 3. I own the director's cut of part 3 (which is part of the box set) but I never rewatched it. I don't mind this version at all. As another comment pointed out, it has Greek tragedy elements. I also was interested in the historical aspects of the death of John Paul I dying 33 days after becoming the pope and the Vatican Bank scandal. I saw the vision of intertwining these real life events into Coda more than I remembered in part 3.
I love Al Pacino. Even though I'm not particularly fond of the 3rd movie, I still watch it because of Pacino. He's just so enigmatic and has such a captivating screen presence in whatever he's in.
Saying "Never hate your enemies" for the purpose of a clear mind, I feel, is something Michael learned BEFORE this series began when he was at war. That type of thinking would fit the type of soldier he presented as.
(I see the white hoods, I grimace. Then look to the corner, and see a very similar grimace. I too was searching for how to approach that. THEORY EDIT AFTER SEEING AFTERMATH:I Whether it's a period piece or not, including guys in white robes, apart from being a deliberate choice- It was one that immediately catches, hopefully, most people off guard. It should build unease that's horribly paid off. A nice parade and- What are these hoods? Building up curiosity in a direction that only helps the REAL surprise that's about to come. I dunno, that felt like it was on purpose. )
Vincent and Mary Corleone are the Jamie and Cersei of the Godfather trilogy.
I love this movie. It's so sad this gets all the hate but Pacino's acting especially at the end, deserves much appreciation. Yes it is lonely and empty but it's the right ending.
23:18 fantastic faces you were making there.
The third movie is culmination of one big lesson, that if you don’t sacrifice the love for your family. You will love improperly and your world will be destroyed. So the trilogy is about everything he did for his family when he should have let go of his family and done the right thing. His prayer was also answered at the end of the movie. When his daughter was killed the love they had for each other was at its highest so he was spared their relationship falling apart which more then likely would have happened from the choice he gave Vincent.
The severity of their love can only be matched by mercy of god. I hope this catholic perspective helps with some the meaning.
This film has a very bitersweet but sad ending and I love it. I think overall this is a decent conclusion to the trilogy, is it as good as the first two films? no, but it did not need to be. It was good on it's own and I think for the most part it worked.
The movie got a lot of hate because of Sofia Coppola's wooden performance. A lot of people felt she wasn't up to it and let the movie down, but still a good film just for Al Pacino's performance.
This movie got me to go to the opera, which is quite a feat. Had to see the show they based the ending of this movie on, and it was clear it was an inspiration for much of the series (also the soundtrack to the opening of The Raging Bull)
Please check out the documentary (and/or book) called The Kid Stays in the Picture by Robert Evans, the producer of The Godfather. He and Coppola fought almost nonstop throughout the filming of The Godfather, and Robert Evans is a terrific storyteller who gives a really interesting (and funny) perspective about how The Godfather was put together.
The third part ties up Michael's story. It is not as good as the other two, but it is good. Vito starts with nothing and dies with a business and a family. Michael starts with everything and loses it all. "What profit a man ...."
I would totally take a sequel with the new godfather. Since he is supposed to be the best aspects of the Corleone men, he would be fascinating to watch rule in his prime.
Glad you watched this cut of the movie. The original theatrical cut was not as good. I believe Coppola re-edited the movie to get this one. In the original, you see him die at the end. I like this ambiguous ending best. Kudos to the actor who played the priest who became the Pope. The confession scene was amazing and so heartfelt. A truly magical moment.