The Godfather Coppola Restoration Collection - Very Glad It's on Blu-ray

i just re-watched 1 and 2 in the past month also on blu for the first time and i agree. amazing experience. i'd forgotten how great these movies are.

These are two of my favorite films. Parts I & II are film making at its finest. Since I need to watch them once a year, it's wonderful to have such a fine BD transfer available.

Part III isn't horrible -- it just pales in comparison to the masterpieces of the first two movies. In fact, I think that Part III would have actually been a decent film had Winona Ryder been cast as Mary Corleone, as originally planned. Sofia Coppola just didn't cut it in the role.

I was just talking about this to a friend of mine about the 3rd film.  Yeah, it's not horrible, in fact it's pretty darn good in some respects, but Sofia (and her character arch in general) are really flat.  I will give her this, she did express the almost inhuman innocence that the part called for.

My feelings on Part III changed almost completely upon listening to the commentary that Coppola did on the disc -- just hearing that he wanted to call the film "The Death of Michael Corleone" as opposed to Godfather 3 kinda changed my perception of what he was trying to do. Hearing him describe the film as more of an epilogue to the saga, as opposed to an equal part with the first two, had a way of changing and refocusing my expectations.  

As far as the restorations go, absolutely brilliant work - I was fortunate enough to see restored prints for I and II projected earlier this year and it was quite the experience.  If they're ever coming to your town for a one-night-only type of screening, and you love the films, it's absolutely worth going (even if you own the Blu-rays).

Sofia doesn't bother me that much; I think part of that is because I kept hearing how terrible she was in it for years before I saw the film, it became a case of "It couldn't possibly be as bad as people have been saying" and against that background of negative hype, it wasn't.  She comes off very much as a naive child in the film, which I think is what Coppola wanted anyway (I'm not convinced Winona or anyone else would have been that much better if that's the performance Coppola wanted).  I can't watch all three movies in a single sitting; the first two, yes, but with the third, I need at least a day's worth of distance to be able to appreciate it.

Part of that may be just a matter of what I love about the films - I think the best parts of the entire Godfather saga are when it focuses on the story of the father and his sons; whether it's DeNiro playing Vito as a young man trying to support his family, or Brando trying to rule his empire and groom his sons into taking over something that he himself built from scratch (trying to teach them in words the things that life experience forced him to learn), those are my favorite parts of the story.  (I'd count Hagen as one of his sons for the purposes of that general description.)  So with The Godfather III, with two of the brothers already dead, and Duvall choosing not to return - the things that I loved most about the original films were already out the window.  I always found Michael to be the least interesting of the characters and in many ways I think that's intentional.  I don't mean to beat a severed horsehead to a second bloody death, but hearing Coppola describe his intention to make the third film not be a direct continuation (as the marketing and promotional materials and poster made it seem), but to make it as a story of "The Death of Michael Corleone", I was finally able to appreciate it as its own thing.  

I'm very glad to have this set, and that all three films are included - they did an absolutely beautiful job of restoring and preserving the look of the films.  Even though Parts I and II were shot in the early 70s, at no point does the movie really look or feel like the 70s - it truly does feel like it's of the era it takes place in, and that in and of itself is one hell of an achievement.

Sofia Coppola's performance never bothered me.  I was possibly feeling more forgiving because it was her first film and she was dropped into what, I can only imagine, had to be an extremely intimidating  situation (replacing Winona Ryder at the 11th hour; sharing the screen with Al Pacino, Diane Keaton and Andy Garcia; performing love scenes for her father; critics and fans with their proverbial knives sharpened, etc.). 

No, the performance in Godfather III that has always been like fingernails-on-a-blackboard to me is Andy Garcia's.  I know he got an Oscar nod and I can see what they were trying to do with the character, but he was wildly overacting, particularly during the first 1/3 of the movie.

The first Godfather film I saw was number 3, so I've always liked it. I actually give it a small edge over 2 while the first film is my favourite. Blasphemy I know, but as good as 2 is, it always feels a bit long to me. :)

What is this, the "Godfather III" apologist thread?

I agree that it'd be regarded better if it wasn't a "Godfather" movie.  Can't agree with the defenses of Sofia, though - she was utterly awful.

Actually, most of the acting in "GF III" was bad, and that goes double for Pacino.  The Michael of "GF III" bears absolutely no resemblance to the one seen in the first two movies.

"GF III" is a mediocre film on its own and a terrible conclusion to the "Godfather" series...
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson 

What is this, the "Godfather III" apologist thread?

Yes.  We'll be turning our attention to Joel Schumacher's wildly under-appreciated gem, Batman & Robin next! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson 

The Michael of "GF III" bears absolutely no resemblance to the one seen in the first two movies.

 

I would argue that that was the point of the movie: in The Godfather Part II, as we watch DeNiro assembling his empire in the turn of the century scenes, we simultaneously witness Michael dismantling his soul, piece by piece.  It was bad enough (in terms of what happens to his character) that at the end of the first film, he's taken over his father's business, struck back against all his enemies with a kind of vengeance we never saw Brando display.  The first film ends with him killing his brother-in-law (who, admittedly, did have it coming), but far worse, looking his wife straight in the eye and lying to her face.  (The Michael we see at the beginning of the film would never have done such a thing.)  But his trespasses in the second film are far, far worse - and at the end of it, he's lost his wife, we can see that while he may have custody of the kids, they seem completely uncomfortable and maybe even terrified of his presence, and of course he murders his own brother.  I'd argue that whatever bit of conscience Michael may have left, whatever fragments of his soul might have remained, were completely annihilated by the film's final moments.  The cold, calculating rage that became part of his character may have enabled him to commit those acts, but it doesn't help you live with them.  The Michael we see in Part III, even from the beginning, is someone who is completely destroyed; he's a shell of a man, his body beginning to be ravaged by the cruel passage of time, his spirit completely broken by the events of his life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg 

I would argue that that was the point of the movie: in The Godfather Part II, as we watch DeNiro assembling his empire in the turn of the century scenes, we simultaneously witness Michael dismantling his soul, piece by piece.  It was bad enough (in terms of what happens to his character) that at the end of the first film, he's taken over his father's business, struck back against all his enemies with a kind of vengeance we never saw Brando display.  The first film ends with him killing his brother-in-law (who, admittedly, did have it coming), but far worse, looking his wife straight in the eye and lying to her face.  (The Michael we see at the beginning of the film would never have done such a thing.)  But his trespasses in the second film are far, far worse - and at the end of it, he's lost his wife, we can see that while he may have custody of the kids, they seem completely uncomfortable and maybe even terrified of his presence, and of course he murders his own brother.  I'd argue that whatever bit of conscience Michael may have left, whatever fragments of his soul might have remained, were completely annihilated by the film's final moments.  The cold, calculating rage that became part of his character may have enabled him to commit those acts, but it doesn't help you live with them.  The Michael we see in Part III, even from the beginning, is someone who is completely destroyed; he's a shell of a man, his body beginning to be ravaged by the cruel passage of time, his spirit completely broken by the events of his life.

I agree with this. I liked the third part. I thought Pacino's performance was haunting. You start out liking him in 1, you hate him by the end of 2, he tries to redeem himself but can't in 3, and just when I didn't think I could feel for him again I did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD_Brian 

 

Yes.  We'll be turning our attention to Joel Schumacher's wildly under-appreciated gem, Batman & Robin next! 

Well, Elliot Goldenthal's music for both Schumacher movies has always been underrated, I think .

Anyway, to The Godfather, I truly believe The Godfather Part III isn't a bad film. It's just that, since the two before it were so incredibly good, it just suffers in comparison. Of course, the second part had to deal with the same, since The Godfather was an incredibly popular movie, but there's a difference between a sequel coming out two years after the first, or a sequel coming out twenty-six years after a movie. The movies get appreciated (and/or hyped) in such a long time. I also felt Sofia Coppola wasn't that bad in the role, but I think that with Winona Ryder and Robert Duvall in it, the movie would've been better. Or would have been received better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Borst 

Well, Elliot Goldenthal's music for both Schumacher movies has always been underrated, I think .

 

Anyway, to The Godfather, I truly believe The Godfather Part III isn't a bad film. It's just that, since the two before it were so incredibly good, it just suffers in comparison. Of course, the second part had to deal with the same, since The Godfather was an incredibly popular movie, but there's a difference between a sequel coming out two years after the first, or a sequel coming out twenty-six years after a movie. The movies get appreciated (and/or hyped) in such a long time. I also felt Sofia Coppola wasn't that bad in the role, but I think that with Winona Ryder and Robert Duvall in it, the movie would've been better. Or would have been received better.

 

What I had heard, and I'm not certain that it's totally correct, is that Ms. Ryder arrived on set direct from her last shoot, totally exhausted from overwork.  Everything and everyone was in place to begin shooting, and with something like 48 hours notice, Ms. Coppola was substituted with no prep.  A possible matter of the show having to go on.  Her background and parentage was perfect for the role as her parents' backgrounds match that of Michael and Kay.

RAH
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cinescott 

I do miss the presence of Robert Duvall, however. There could have been a very interesting continuation of his character in III. 

 

Indeed. A higher paycheck for Days of Thunder was waiting, which is a shame in more ways than one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cinescott 

If I remember right, FFC's commentary on Part III mentions this. I believe they were shooting in Rome, she arrived there totally spent and Ms. Coppola was brought in at the last moment. I do miss the presence of Robert Duvall, however. There could have been a very interesting continuation of his character in III. 

 

That's what I remember as well.  I think RAH also makes a good point, that Sophia's personal background matched what the character's was supposed to be (so long as you substitute "filmmaking empire" for "crime empire").  I think Duvall is by far the biggest loss in III, and looking back on it now, it seems silly that they couldn't agree on a salary.  I think the George Hamilton character was invented to take his place, but it's just not the same - one more familiar face around the table would have made a big difference in the final result.

For me, Part III is really interesting because I see it as a story about mortality.  Kay was right in the second film when she accused Michael of being blind to what was right in front of him; Part III shows the consequences of that.  Michael tried to control his empire with the same mentality of people who hoard their money and possessions as if you could take them with you to the next life.  Part III is the repudiation of that; death comes to us all, it's equally unforgiving regardless of the kind of lives we lead - Michael may have escaped jail, may have escaped being killed, but he can't outrun death.  In the second film, he acts like he's going to live forever; in the third, we see how pointless that kind of thinking truly is.  I always liked that the film cut from Mary's death right to Michael's death -- by the time he confesses midway through the film about Fredo, we see how how suffers, and we can tell that he knows he deserves to be in agony.  But it's one thing to know you deserve to be in pain, and then it's another thing to experience the kind of pain losing a child (especially in the way Mary died) for the rest of your life.  At that moment, his life is truly over; whatever reconciliation he had tried for with Kay and with Anthony, you know that's over, that they will never, ever forgive him and probably never spoke to him again.  He's a man that's truly lost everything.  I think at the end of the second film, we as the audience understand that, but Michael as a character does not - Michael thinks he's won at the end of the second movie, we know he really didn't, not by any standard I'd choose to live by.  It's a brutally unforgiving ending to a film that has very few moments of joy in it.  It probably is the fate he deserved; that doesn't always make it fun to watch.

I really respect Coppola for making the film the way he did; I'm sure he must've faced all the pressure in the world to do another film where Michael "won" at the end, where he's still in the crime life at the beginning, a film where he was a gangster from start to finish.  Instead, he made a film about the consequences of all of Michael's life choices, a film about the cruel yet just end to an awful life.  Part III doesn't let Michael off the hook, and it doesn't really let the audience off either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris 

Quote:

 

What I had heard, and I'm not certain that it's totally correct, is that Ms. Ryder arrived on set direct from her last shoot, totally exhausted from overwork.  Everything and everyone was in place to begin shooting, and with something like 48 hours notice, Ms. Coppola was substituted with no prep.  A possible matter of the show having to go on.  Her background and parentage was perfect for the role as her parents' backgrounds match that of Michael and Kay.

 

RAH
 

 

That's true. In any case, Sofia must be one of the few actors who has played both a character and the brother of that same character . Sure, getting baptized as a baby doesn't require much acting experience, but still.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg 

I would argue that that was the point of the movie: in The Godfather Part II, as we watch DeNiro assembling his empire in the turn of the century scenes, we simultaneously witness Michael dismantling his soul, piece by piece.  It was bad enough (in terms of what happens to his character) that at the end of the first film, he's taken over his father's business, struck back against all his enemies with a kind of vengeance we never saw Brando display.  The first film ends with him killing his brother-in-law (who, admittedly, did have it coming), but far worse, looking his wife straight in the eye and lying to her face.  (The Michael we see at the beginning of the film would never have done such a thing.)  But his trespasses in the second film are far, far worse - and at the end of it, he's lost his wife, we can see that while he may have custody of the kids, they seem completely uncomfortable and maybe even terrified of his presence, and of course he murders his own brother.  I'd argue that whatever bit of conscience Michael may have left, whatever fragments of his soul might have remained, were completely annihilated by the film's final moments.  The cold, calculating rage that became part of his character may have enabled him to commit those acts, but it doesn't help you live with them.  The Michael we see in Part III, even from the beginning, is someone who is completely destroyed; he's a shell of a man, his body beginning to be ravaged by the cruel passage of time, his spirit completely broken by the events of his life.

"Part III"'s Michael doesn't seem like a tortured shell to me.  From my review:

For one, I found it hard to buy that he invested himself so strongly in his attempts to go straight. During much of the first two movies, he paid lip service to that concept, but he only became more heavily embroiled in the crime. By the end of Part II, he’d lost everything near and dear; the possibility that Michael would eventually snap out of it appears illogical and inconsistent with the character. 1959’s Michael was a tortured, doomed soul; there was no going back for him.

Bizarrely, the Part III Michael depicts choices that never would’ve fit the Part II Michael. For instance, at the very start of Part III, we learn that Michael long ago let Kay take care of their kids for their perceived benefit. Huh? I can’t imagine that the Michael of Part II who completely shut Kay out of his – and his kids’ – lives would then rethink things and be so generous and forgiving. The same Michael who had his own brother killed due to transgressions somehow comes to be so beneficent to Kay, the woman he clearly would hate forever after she aborted his child? No way – absolutely no way. Did Coppola and the others just totally forget all aspects of Michael’s character? Probably not, but they wanted Michael to be distant from his kids for Part III’s story, so this illogical character twist occurred.

Pacino plays 1979 Michael in a much more broad and gregarious manner as well. Oh, he seems tired at times, but he comes across as way too peppy and extroverted through much of Part III. For example, a scene in which he takes Kay on a tour of the family hometown in Sicily feels all wrong. I can’t envision even the young and idealistic Michael of the first film behaving in this way, much less the worn-out old man. By 1990, Pacino had become a much louder and showy actor than he’d been in the Seventies, and that made all the difference here. It hurt the film, for I never felt like this guy was even vaguely related to the Michael I watched earlier.

Colin, I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree - but that said, I can see it your way as well (your review makes a good case for your point of view) and enjoyed your write-up.

My wife and I revisited Part III over the weekend. I do agree with Colin that I do not buy Michael turning over the education of their children to Kay, as mentioned early in the film. There is no way the Michael of Part II would have even considered this.

I also still believe this was a decent film, but that Sophia Coppola was a very poor substitute for Winona Ryder as Mary. While Sophia may have had the life experiences to help with playing the role, she just wasn't a good actress. It was painful at times watching her performance.

The best part of revisiting this film? It got us in the mood to re-watch the first two movies, and we got through Part 1 last night.

Count me in as a GFIII apologist only in the sense that I don't think it was as horrible as everyone else portrayed it to be, but it certainly does pale compared to I and II. Of course, what film wouldn't?

I do think the GF trilogy was heavily affected by actors pricing themselves out of their roles in subsequent movies:

1. Clemenza - how cool would the storyline have been to have Clemenza, the lone loyal caporegime, feel betrayed in II (aka the Pentageli role) by Michael. Only to "redeem" himself at the end with the bathtub scene?

2. Winona Ryder in III - yes I don't think Sofia was horrible. But IMO she wasn't good. I think Ryder would have at least put her acting chops to use to make the most out of an admittedly small role.

3. Duvall in III - this I think is the biggest loss. I think what was likely planned for his role was split into Mr. Suntan's forgettable turn at consigliere, and Connie's unexpected rise as her father's daughter (something we never see even hinted at in I and II). I think it would have been compelling to see Hagen, who was frozen out by Michael as not being a wartime consigliere, actually take control of the family when Michael no longer has the stomach for it, kind of bringing that whole character arc and relationship between the two men full-circle. It also brings to bear Hagen's assertion in I about Don Vito "he's a much a father to me as you or Mike..."

Those are the three that jump out at me. And don't get me wrong, Pentageli did a great job in II, but I think his character kind of comes out of nowhere because of the fiasco that Clemenza (the actor who played him) did when he insisted on having his girlfriend have final say in his dialogue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina 

Count me in as a GFIII apologist only in the sense that I don't think it was as horrible as everyone else portrayed it to be, but it certainly does pale compared to I and II. Of course, what film wouldn't?

 

I do think the GF trilogy was heavily affected by actors pricing themselves out of their roles in subsequent movies:

 

2. Winona Ryder in III - yes I don't think Sofia was horrible. But IMO she wasn't good. I think Ryder would have at least put her acting chops to use to make the most out of an admittedly small role.

Sorry, don't understand this.  What does pricing have to do with this?

RAH

Hi RAH - I didn't mean pricing literally for all three. When I started writing I was thinking of the rumor I heard about Duvall wanting equal pay with Pacino, and that's why I used pricing. I think Clemenza also wanted more money, which they were willing to give, but then wanted his girlfriend to have writing oversight for his part, which they were not. And of course Ryder was due to exhaustion. So I probably should  have gone back and deleted pricing and substituted another word but...I was too lazy too.

I guess you could file all of those under "missed opportunities".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg 

Colin, I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree - but that said, I can see it your way as well (your review makes a good case for your point of view) and enjoyed your write-up.

Thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina 

Count me in as a GFIII apologist only in the sense that I don't think it was as horrible as everyone else portrayed it to be, but it certainly does pale compared to I and II. Of course, what film wouldn't?

 

I do think the GF trilogy was heavily affected by actors pricing themselves out of their roles in subsequent movies:

 

1. Clemenza - how cool would the storyline have been to have Clemenza, the lone loyal caporegime, feel betrayed in II (aka the Pentageli role) by Michael. Only to "redeem" himself at the end with the bathtub scene?

 

2. Winona Ryder in III - yes I don't think Sofia was horrible. But IMO she wasn't good. I think Ryder would have at least put her acting chops to use to make the most out of an admittedly small role.

 

3. Duvall in III - this I think is the biggest loss. I think what was likely planned for his role was split into Mr. Suntan's forgettable turn at consigliere, and Connie's unexpected rise as her father's daughter (something we never see even hinted at in I and II). I think it would have been compelling to see Hagen, who was frozen out by Michael as not being a wartime consigliere, actually take control of the family when Michael no longer has the stomach for it, kind of bringing that whole character arc and relationship between the two men full-circle. It also brings to bear Hagen's assertion in I about Don Vito "he's a much a father to me as you or Mike..."

 

Those are the three that jump out at me. And don't get me wrong, Pentageli did a great job in II, but I think his character kind of comes out of nowhere because of the fiasco that Clemenza (the actor who played him) did when he insisted on having his girlfriend have final say in his dialogue.

Carlo,

I agree that Duvall returning as Tom Hagen would have been much more interesting than the combo of Hamilton and Shire. While Shire is a fine actress, Hamilton didn't really add anything of interest to the film, and there was the lost opportunity to explore the Michael vs. Hagen storyline. Duvall's absence hurt this film more than anything else, including the casting of Sophia Copolla.

I do not agree, though, that Mary was a "small role". The part received a significant amount of screen time, was critical to the plot through her taboo relationship with Vincent and her manipulation by her father, and her death was the ultimate price that Michael paid for his sins.  It was one of the most important supporting roles in the film.