PHE Press Release: Mario Puzo’s THE GODFATHER, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone (1 Viewer)

[B-ROLL]

Nah - use Jar Jar Binks instead!

I'm pretty sure Mr. Coppola would never do it Gungan Style !

 

[B-ROLL]

”.....restoration team began by searching for over 50 original takes to replace lower resolution opticals in the original negative....”

talk about going the extra mile.

They did something similar to create the 1080P version of Star Trek: The Next Generation. It was shot on film and completed in post-production on tape. I think they found all but 8 seconds of material for the entire series.

 

[B-ROLL]

Hate to be snarky, but pretty sure that wouldn't be an upgrade.

This all sounds very Depp State !

 

[Robert Crawford]

Sure, but it doesn't make sense to compare a Coppola movie to something from an obviously inferior filmmaker.

We know FFC once was a great filmmaker. Comparisons to his good movies makes "GF 3" look bad...

Again, I think it's a mediocre movie and even great directors produce mediocre movies.

 

[Lord Dalek]

I can only hope that Coppola's doing it for the money (that or he has a lot of free time on his hands), because that is the only way I could see him doing a remastered version of "The Godfather Saga" or the "Godfather 1901-1980" version that was released on VHS in the 90s. He reportedly only did the "Saga" to raise more money for "Apocalypse Now", and given the state he was in financially in the 90s it wouldn't surprise me if Coppola did "1901-1980" for the money, too.

IIRC Coppola didn't get out of the red created by One From The Heart until the release of Dracula.

 

[PMF]

My gut says that “Coda” will fulfill its initial promise of 1990; while also changing a lot of minds, as well.

 

[Worth]

Again, I think it's a mediocre movie and even great directors produce mediocre movies.

They make some terrible movies, too.

 

[Robert Crawford]

They make some terrible movies, too.

No doubt, but IMO, Godfather III isn’t a terrible movie. Others have expressed otherwise which I’m fine with people disagreeing with me. We all have opinions.

 

[Ejanss]

Again, I think it's a mediocre movie and even great directors produce mediocre movies.

I had actually never seen the originals (too young in the 70's, and too quote-saturated in college) until bingeing a Trilogy boxset, so unlike 1990 audiences, I was coming in fresh with the first two classics in mind--and a huge Old-Pacino fan after the '04 "Merchant of Venice"--and willing to give #3 the benefit of the doubt.
Thought it wasn't too bad, at the start, even with the showoff real-life Pope John Paul I theories, but then...I could see why critics referred to the last half-hour climax as "the Ken Russell ending".

And as one who usually rushes to the defense of movies that pop-culture giggling usually Razzie-Awards dogpiles on, I will admit: Dear Harriet, was Sofia embarrassing.

 

[Reed Grele]

Parts I and II are masterpieces. III less so, but I still enjoyed it very much and look forward to the new Coda.

I'm also eagerly awaiting a new 4K UHD BD set of all 3 films which I hope is in the works. The previous BD's are fine, but I'm sure that 2020 technologies can squeeze a bit more out of them. Also hoping that a future release of part II will restore the missing 10 second chord of the end title music.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

Also hoping that a future release of part II will restore the missing 10 second chord of the end title music.

Does this affect the mono and 5.1 track? I only watch the mono, but heard the 5.1 theatrically. That track has music playing in the wrong spot. After the assassination attempt on Michael's home, he shouts "Rocco, alive!" and the music is supposed to punctuate that, but it's out of sync at this point.

 

[Dick]

Replace not only Sophia with Winnona but get rid of George Hamilton as well. The 2 biggest mistakes. Just goes to show what the wrong casting can do to a film. Music as well. Think about how the wrong composer and score destroyed Never Say Never Again!

I certainly concur with your feelings about the awful score for NSNA...probably the worst score Legrand ever wrote. The title song (by Lana Hall, for a time married to Herb Alpert and a lead singer for Sergio Mendes and Brazil '66) is simply awful to my mind, and nothing that comes after improves on it.

 

[Dick]

I offered my opinion, just as you do. For ME, I don't understand how people can defend this film. They do, clearly, but I don't understand it. Nothing to do with kind and tolerant and everything to do with the fact that I saw the film just before it came out and thought it terrible and as disappointing as disappointing can be. I was not alone in feeling this - the entire industry audience I saw it with felt this way and you could feel it all during the screening. And some of the reviews, as you know, were hardly kind and/or tolerant, even the ones that thought they should like it but couldn't hide the disappointment, like Ebert. It's all good - everyone can buy it and be happy, and those who don't care for the film won't. I've tried to like it over the years - I've bought every new attempt - but I'm done.

 

[Reed Grele]

Does this affect the mono and 5.1 track? I only watch the mono, but heard the 5.1 theatrically. That track has music playing in the wrong spot. After the assassination attempt on Michael's home, he shouts "Rocco, alive!" and the music is supposed to punctuate that, but it's out of sync at this point.

I haven't checked, but I'd assume so because the restoration music/credits comes in right where the missing last chord should be.

 

[Worth]

I certainly concur with your feelings about the awful score for NSNA...probably the worst score Legrand ever wrote. The title song (by Lana Hall, for a time married to Herb Alpert and a lead singer for Sergio Mendes and Brazil '66) is simply awful to my mind, and nothing that comes after improves on it.

And we have Connery to thank for that. Apparently, the producers wanted James Horner, but Connery insisted on Legrand.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

The story I read was that Horner was overbooked (8 films he scored were released in 1983) and Kersh was talking with Barbara Streisand at the studio and she recommended Legrand.

 

[MatthewA]

Hate to be snarky, but pretty sure that wouldn't be an upgrade.

Would it be worse?

 

[Tom Logan]

I just can't accept that the Michael of "GF 3" is the same guy as in the earlier movies...

This is the crux of the problem with GFIII. At the end of GFII, Michael has lost his soul, completely, which means that what he has done--paradoxically killing his brother Fredo for the sake of "the family"--is irredeemable.

So GFIII is all about his attempted redemption, but to accept the premise means you retrospectively diminish the tragic depth of the first two films.

GFIII's Michael also just seemed like a different person from the previous films--playful, witty, more "human." But GFIII doesn't show us how he went from the soulless, hollowed-out GFII monster to this new person craving redemption. It was a jarring experience to watch.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

This is the crux of the problem with GFIII. At the end of GFII, Michael has lost his soul, completely, which means that what he has done--paradoxically killing his brother Fredo for the sake of "the family"--is irredeemable.

So GFIII is all about his attempted redemption, but to accept the premise means you retrospectively diminish the tragic depth of the first two films.

GFIII's Michael also just seemed like a different person from the previous films--playful, witty, more "human." But GFIII doesn't show us how he went from the soulless, hollowed-out GFII monster to this new person craving redemption. It was a jarring experience to watch.

And one I just couldn't buy. I simply couldn't accept that time mellowed Michael enough to forgive Kay after "II"!

 

[Ejanss]

This is the crux of the problem with GFIII. At the end of GFII, Michael has lost his soul, completely, which means that what he has done--paradoxically killing his brother Fredo for the sake of "the family"--is irredeemable.

So GFIII is all about his attempted redemption, but to accept the premise means you retrospectively diminish the tragic depth of the first two films.

Well, that last iconic "All I had to do for this..." shot of II does suggest he's feeling a little complex about this, but hey, it's business.
Now pile twenty years on that, and new aging/mortality fears for a diehard Catholic. Hence the Vatican plot.

That was enough for me to give III the benefit of the doubt, before it went loopy.