Godfather III - inferior sequel or just misunderstood? (MERGED THREAD) (1 Viewer)

[Zack Scott]

Jason...listen to Coppola's commentary. It's ansewer all your questions.
Poor Coppola. SOmeone needs to throw this guy a bone and let him make a movie the way he wants again. Godfather 2 was so extrodinary because he was in total control.

 

[TheoGB]

I dunno. I probably enjoyed Part II least of all. I liked the stuff with Vito in the past but it was all glossed over and we didn't see any 'key' scenes to my mind - we didn't see Tom enter the family for instance. The Michael Corleone side of the movie was good but seemed little more than a rehash of the first movie and didn't hold my attention as much.
I didn't find the dialogue of Godfather III all that ridiculous or indeed have any problem with the change in the characters.
I also thought the opera sequence at the end was totally fantastic.
------------------
My band is @ http://www.mokita.net
My Novelty Coasters

 

[Jason_Els]

****** MINOR SPOILER *****
Theo: I'll agree with you on the opera scene. There was a bit of irony in that the opera itself was about a Sicilian vendetta. It was nicely filmed and well-choreographed as far as the rest of the movie is concerned. My two big problems were: 1) seeing Connie feeling twinges of remorse after poisoning Don Altobello. Through the whole movie she's the one calling for heads on pikes. Sympathy doesn't suit her when it comes to family enemies. and: 2) Anthony is lead in an opera in the biggest opera house in Sicily in a country that takes opera very seriously. Not much of a struggling singer is he? Granted maybe Michael got him the part and just feigned surprise when the announcement was made, but that goes back to the first scene and his adamant demand that Anthony pursue a law degree in case he doesn't succeed.
And just why, after the archbishop is shot 3 times does the assasin go through the trouble of picking up the archbishop, risk getting blood on himself, and then tossing the archbishop over the balustrade down the stairwell. The guy just shot a gun in a marble building. Literally, the whole Vatican could hear that. Time to get out I say. But it did look awesome. Favorite shot in the whole movie that one. Strangely beautiful. Then again I went to catholic school so it did fulfill some fantasies I had about a few of the nuns there.
Thanks!
Jason

 

[TheoGB]

I guess the name Corleone would be enough to make the Sicillians give Anthony a chance and if he was good then fair enough. A bit pat, yeah, but then movies are always full of some coincidences and stuff.
I'm not sure about Sophia's feelings there. I felt it squared fine with her and Michael getting old beginning to lose the rage of youth. Also she was calling for heads on sticks because she wanted the family to be perceived as powerful again.
Her reaction of sorrow (not remorse) squared perfectly for me with Don Vito's "I have lost a son..." speech from the first movie - the idea that this is business and you do what you must do but you don't take pleasure in it - pragmatism.
This is essentially the scary message of all three movies - that you make someone's life as important as a bank note so that it may be used, even with sorrow, pay a debt.
[Edited last by TheoGB on October 15, 2001 at 07:05 AM]

 

[Michael Reuben]

The attempt on Michael's life in his Nevada home was organised by Roth. He had persuaded Fredo to let the would-be assassins into the compound. Roth was mad at Michael for killing Mo Green (the casino owner in Godfather I - the one who got shot in the eye on the massage table).

Mo Green's death gave Roth a personal animus, which comes out so chillingly in the scene in Cuba between Pacino and Strasberg, but the main reason for the hit is still business. Roth doesn't want to share the Cuban venture with Michael; that's essentially what Michael tells Pentangeli. Roth would never have someone hit for personal reasons alone -- "because it had nothing to do with business!"

Pentangeli wasn't supposed to be killed. The attack was arranged by Roth - the attackers deliberately said 'this is a present from Michael Corleone' and were supposed to leave him (barely) alive, making it look like a failed murder attempt. This was to make Pentangeli act against Michael.

No one, not even Roth, can plan ahead so many years. Pentangeli lives because a cop happens to enter the bar right in the middle of the hit. That's not something that Roth or anyone else could have anticipated or arranged.

At the point where the Rosados attack Pentangeli, Roth still plans to have Michael hit (which he tries to do in Cuba). He has no need to convert Pentangeli into an enemy. But after Michael visits Roth in Miami, he's able to tell the Rosados that Michael thinks Pentangeli turned on him. That leaves the Rosados free to do what they've obviously wanted to do for a long time: hit Pentangeli.

When they tell Pentangeli "Michael Corleone says hello", I think it's for maximum cruelty -- to inflict a horrifying betrayal along with a mortal injury. (Michael does something similar to Carlo at the end of part I, when he tells him he'll live, only to have him met by Clemenza in the car a minute later.) And because the Rosados think that Michael wants Pentangeli dead, it's an easy thing for them to say because, in their minds, it's true.

Of course, when Roth's plans in Cuba don't play out, he needs a new weapon against Michael. He knows from the Senate lawyer who "belongs" to him (as Fredo later tells Michael) that the FBI has Pentangeli, and he guides the lawyer on what information to get from Pentangeli in a sworn statement and how to set up Michael for a perjury charge. That's what Hagen means when he says that Roth "played this one beautifully".

M.

[Edited last by Michael Reuben on October 15, 2001 at 11:18 AM]

 

[Michael Reuben]

Some comments on Jason Ashley's post on part III.

Quote:

Someone had to play Michael's lawyer. The character behaves just as he should. I don't see the problem.
M.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Michael, with respect, I'm not sure that the murder of Mo Green isn't Roth's prime mover. Michael doesn't know about this motivation until Cuba - until then he's guessing that it's 'strictly business' (since that's the code by which they live) and that Roth simply doesn't want him to be part of the Cuban deal. Since Michael clearly is having doubts about the sagacity of going into Cuba after visiting the place, Roth could easily have dissuaded him if he wanted Michael out without bloodshed. I think the idea that Roth's motivation might be fuelled by love for someone outside the family takes Michael by surprise (note his expression during the relevant scene in Cuba). I agree that the 'attempted murder' argument is tenuous; obviously the line 'this is from Michael Corleone' has to be inserted for the plot development so that the audience sees why Pentangeli thinks he's been betrayed. Since the rest of the plot is so watertight, I'd always thought this was deliberate, but I guess it could have been a sadistic phrase which ultimately played to Roth's advantage.
George, I think the senator was drugged and the murder staged - it's obvious from the looks between Hagen and Michael at the meeting with the senator at the confirmation party that they are going to stitch him up, and this was how they did it.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Andrew --
I certainly agree that Roth's motivation is . . . complex. It plays a little differently every time I see the film. In large part, that's a tribute to Strasberg's performance. He conveys so much and so little -- at the same time!
The point that I was trying to make (and I didn't do a very good job) was that Roth might well have let the Mo Green murder go, just as he said, if there had been no further business dealings with Michael. It's almost as if their ongoing business gave him the opportunity to indulge an impulse to revenge that he might otherwise have kept in check. Then again, there's a moment in his hotel room with Michael where he reveals depths of fury and passion that are truly terrifying, so who knows?
Fascinating character.
BTW, I agree with you about the senator being set up (I'd say "stitched up" but Americans who use British slang sound hopelessly pretentious

). Other indications are Neri's brief appearance in the doorway (he's obviously been washing up, probably to get rid of the blood), at which point Hagen gives him a look that says "get outta here", and the fact that the senator can't remember anything.
M.

 

[george kaplan]

One thing about the 'it's not personal, it's only business'. While this might be true part of the time, it becomes increasingly clear to me that as time goes on, Michael kills out of vengeance. The murder of Fredo was personal. If a live Fredo had been a true threat to business, he wouldn't have let him stay alive for so long. I think that with rare exceptions, almost all of the murders are personal, not business.
------------------
13-time NBA world champion Lakers: 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001

 

[Scott W.]

I think Godfather 3 gets an undeserving bad rap just like it's friend, Alien 3. Both better than what most people think.
Scott

 

[Richard Kim]

BTW, I agree with you about the senator being set up (I'd say "stitched up" but Americans who use British slang sound hopelessly pretentious ). Other indications are Neri's brief appearance in the doorway (he's obviously been washing up, probably to get rid of the blood), at which point Hagen gives him a look that says "get outta here", and the fact that the senator can't remember anything.

So what you're saying is that the prostitute that Sen. Geary was sleeping with wasn't really killed?

I'm gonna have to watch GF2 again.

 

[Sean Cauley]

Michael Reuben:
I believe that when the question was posed earlier (don't recall who posted it) about avoiding Italian culture at Anthony's reception, it was in reference to the first communion party in 1958. The fact that the music was big-band (and, as Pentangeli proved, none of the musicians could even play a tarantella) was a big indicator, as was Pentangeli's inability to get any of the red wine that had flown so freely at Connie's wedding (and if Richard Castellano had returned for the film, this bit of business would have gone to Clemenza, who had gulped wine from a pitcher at the wedding, and the contrast between the two events would have been brought into even sharper focus).
Richard Kim:
The prostitute was definitely murdered, but it was apparently by Neri, not the senator. It appears that the senator was drugged, and, once he was unconscious, Neri entered the room and killed the girl. The senator then woke up with a dead woman and no recollection of doing her harm, but no logical reason to believe he didn't do it. Coppola has some interesting comments on this scene in his audio commentary, where he explains that it was important to show that the Corleone family was willing to murder a third party just to get an important man in their pocket.

 

[Elbert Lee]

MISITERPRETED by Coppola - He should have played it safe instead of making Michael Corleone a feeble old man, he should have dealt with the dualities of his old "aggressive" ways with a person that wants redemption for his evils. I think he tried to do the same thing with much to simple an emotional story arc. The emotional content of his daughter with Andy Garcia was nil. That was what was missing.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Richard Kim --

I believe that when the question was posed earlier (don't recall who posted it) about avoiding Italian culture at Anthony's reception, it was in reference to the first communion party in 1958.

That would certainly make more sense out of Jeff's observation, but it also makes the comparison between the two events utterly specious. Now we're talking about events that occur in two different films, that are 25-30 years apart, and that reflect different eras in America and in Michael Corleone's life.

At the time of Anthony's first communion party, Michael is still trying to assimilate the family into mainstream America (marrying a non-Italian like Kay was a big part of that effort). By the time we reach part III, Michael is clearly headed back to his roots, culminating in the final scene. Also, by the 1980s Italian-American culture was widely accepted, appreciated and even celebrated in mainstream America, whereas in 1958 it still had questionable connotations (part criminal, part immigrant -- we see some of that in the Senate hearings). By the era of part III there was no need for Michael to downplay his Italian roots, and maybe even an advantage in flaunting them.

M.

[Edited last by Michael Reuben on October 17, 2001 at 10:17 AM]

 

[Nate Anderson]

You know, it makes sense that Sophia Coppola was in III, she popped up in the first two as well.
I didn't mind her...but I wasn't really blown away either.
I like all three Godfathers, with perhaps a small leaning towards the first as my favorite.
------------------
"This is not a drill. This is the apocolypse!"
Link Removed

 

[Rain]

I just watched Part III for the first time. In a way, I'm grateful for all the bad things I've heard about it...made for a much more pleasant surprise, since I found it to be quite good. There are several very powerful moments in Part III and I thought it was a thoughtful end to the saga of Michael Corleone.
As for Sofia...I honestly didn't think she was as bad as the reputation would suggest either. Ok, it's not an Oscar-calibre performance, but she didn't stink up the whole movie or anything. For goodness sake, it's not like it was that demanding a role in the first place.
------------------

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon
Anyone in the Vancouver Canada area interested in a meet? Click here

 

[Samuel Des]

GFiii: You may someday be finished with the past, but the past will never finish with you.
------------------
Best, Sam

 

[TheoGB]

Yeah - what Rain said.

------------------
My band is @ http://www.mokita.net
My Novelty Coasters

 

[rob kilbride]

http://www.jgeoff.com/godfather/gf2/pentang.txt
According to this page the working script includes this passage seeming to prove that he was intentionally let go as I gathered from the movie :
In looking
through the 9-24-73 working script, I found the following illuminating
passage (p. 167):
Hagen: Roth engineered it, Michael. He made Pentangeli think you
hit him. Deliberately letting him get off alive. Then the
New York detectives turned Frankie over to the FBI. My
informants say he was half dead and scared stiff -- talking
out loud that you had turned on him and tried to kill him.
Anyway, they had him on possession, dealing in heroin,
murder one and a lot more. There's no way we can get to
him and you've opened yourself to five points of perjury.
I haven't done any research on my own to confirm this but why would he lie about having the working script. This comes from a major GF fansite.

 

[David Coleman]

This always amazes me! The main focus of the GODFATHER movies was always the character of Michael! That's why III is the way it is! It's a reflection of the character of Michael some 20 years later and what his live has evolved/disolved to.
One of the things that I loved about III is that Michael has come full circle! Here is a man that was once noble, who got brought into the family business by means beyond his control, got drunk with power and now 20yrs later we get to see that the man may have wealth but he has nothing else! He tried to come full circle to being the noble man that he was but would never be able to be because it wasn't his destiny. As the tagline of the movie was "... all the power in the world can't change fate!
The movie is a character study, it's not designed to be the "epic" the first two were. It amazes me how many people miss that and just dismiss this great film!
David