Adam_S
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2001
- Messages
- 6,316
- Real Name
- Adam_S
The Godfather Part III - 5 of 10
I've always been intrigued if Part three was relatively bad or just bad. It turns out it's the latter. If I were to guess, I would say that having to cut Tom Hagen out of the script took the mickey out of the project and it never really recovered, especially after Wynona Rider collapsed on them the day they were to start shooting.
That said Sophia Coppola is not quite as terrible as she's made out as. She's obviously a non actor, uncomfortable in front of the camera and her performance is carefully cut around. But there is something refreshing to the realness of her character, at times she seems very vulnerable, but much of the time she is just very stiff. I didn't even really notice anything different in her style of speech until Coppola pointed it out in the QandA after the screening.
This is the only Godfather that feels long to me, and I think that's because it's so haphazard and all over the place. It's hard to get a feel for the characters because other than Michael and Kay everyone is completely new to us, and there's not a strong easy to identify core of supporting cast like in the first godfather or in either of the storylines of the second godfather. The characters all run into one another and it often seems there is hardly any difference between any one character or another.
But even that wasn't the biggest problem.
What was really disappointing was how this felt very much like a pastiche or best of version of the earlier Godfathers. Simply doing over many of the famous scenes. The assassination in the Italian festival, the meeting of the Dons, the crosscutting 'everyone is killed' ending for instance. It sort of felt like the Brett Ratner version of the Godfather whenever they seemed to be repeating what worked big in the previous flicks. The script was absolutely terrible, bad lines, too much talking, people saying what they're thinking and phrasing it really badly. You didn't get much sense of personality from the dialogue, because so much of it was indistinguishable from character to character. and there were just some really bad lines too, laughably bad, you felt sorry for the actor or actress that had to say them.
What really did work in the film, though, was the story of Michael and Kay, which was beautiful and wonderful and perfectly told. Less so with the story of Mary (bad name, just did not work) and Michael, but I could see how that could have been much stronger with a different actress. I liked the pseudo incest storyline, but it's the sort of over-the-top-campiness that the script had already indulged in enough that the incest bit just sort of made you cringe. I think regarding the romance between Vincent and Mary (which is very important overall, imo) the character of Vincent could have been much stronger as a sort of Tom Hagen character, a street rat adopted by Talia Shire and half brought into the family--that would make a lot more sense, especially if you could have compared him to the older Tom had Duvall not priced himself out of the movie.
the other part of the movie I found quite fascinating was Michaels's desire for absolution, despite his equally powerful conviction to not repent. I thought it was handled badly in terms of throwing around large amounts of money and buying out the property firm of the vatican, it just really became TMI at some point, and you started rolling your eyes.
There's a lot of good things in the film, but I don't think it ever really quite came together to its full potential.
Coppola did announce tonight that he'd just seen (today) the finished product from the multimillion dollar full restoration on film of the Godfather and that it was an incredible experience. I hope they give the restoration a theatrical release next spring.
Adam
I've always been intrigued if Part three was relatively bad or just bad. It turns out it's the latter. If I were to guess, I would say that having to cut Tom Hagen out of the script took the mickey out of the project and it never really recovered, especially after Wynona Rider collapsed on them the day they were to start shooting.
That said Sophia Coppola is not quite as terrible as she's made out as. She's obviously a non actor, uncomfortable in front of the camera and her performance is carefully cut around. But there is something refreshing to the realness of her character, at times she seems very vulnerable, but much of the time she is just very stiff. I didn't even really notice anything different in her style of speech until Coppola pointed it out in the QandA after the screening.
This is the only Godfather that feels long to me, and I think that's because it's so haphazard and all over the place. It's hard to get a feel for the characters because other than Michael and Kay everyone is completely new to us, and there's not a strong easy to identify core of supporting cast like in the first godfather or in either of the storylines of the second godfather. The characters all run into one another and it often seems there is hardly any difference between any one character or another.
But even that wasn't the biggest problem.
What was really disappointing was how this felt very much like a pastiche or best of version of the earlier Godfathers. Simply doing over many of the famous scenes. The assassination in the Italian festival, the meeting of the Dons, the crosscutting 'everyone is killed' ending for instance. It sort of felt like the Brett Ratner version of the Godfather whenever they seemed to be repeating what worked big in the previous flicks. The script was absolutely terrible, bad lines, too much talking, people saying what they're thinking and phrasing it really badly. You didn't get much sense of personality from the dialogue, because so much of it was indistinguishable from character to character. and there were just some really bad lines too, laughably bad, you felt sorry for the actor or actress that had to say them.
What really did work in the film, though, was the story of Michael and Kay, which was beautiful and wonderful and perfectly told. Less so with the story of Mary (bad name, just did not work) and Michael, but I could see how that could have been much stronger with a different actress. I liked the pseudo incest storyline, but it's the sort of over-the-top-campiness that the script had already indulged in enough that the incest bit just sort of made you cringe. I think regarding the romance between Vincent and Mary (which is very important overall, imo) the character of Vincent could have been much stronger as a sort of Tom Hagen character, a street rat adopted by Talia Shire and half brought into the family--that would make a lot more sense, especially if you could have compared him to the older Tom had Duvall not priced himself out of the movie.
the other part of the movie I found quite fascinating was Michaels's desire for absolution, despite his equally powerful conviction to not repent. I thought it was handled badly in terms of throwing around large amounts of money and buying out the property firm of the vatican, it just really became TMI at some point, and you started rolling your eyes.
There's a lot of good things in the film, but I don't think it ever really quite came together to its full potential.
Coppola did announce tonight that he'd just seen (today) the finished product from the multimillion dollar full restoration on film of the Godfather and that it was an incredible experience. I hope they give the restoration a theatrical release next spring.
Adam