|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 4, 2020 11:21:11 GMT
~8/10 .............up from a ~7.5 in its previous formThis film is fncking gorgeous - I did not see the Blu-Ray yet but I assume it will be the same. It's much sharper and less murky in the blacks/dark scenes - cinematography nerds are going to love it. OK......the movie as it plays now is less sappy/romantic and more overwhelmingly tragic - it's tougher. There's less of that "we all love you Michael, it's ok" vibe but I couldn't spot exactly where or why that is ![:laugh:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/30ulL7PvEvGt97femFHx.gif) .......it is not "that" different, it's just much tighter and focused. The 2 major changes are both better imo - particularly the beginning which was great before but hurt the movie and its momentum. It's not just that scene - it's how that scene sets up what follows and now it gives Michael a coherent villain to square off against.......... The ending - well A LOT of people are going to hate it I guess but not me...........it just spells out what was there before and removes the "bad part" of it. It makes it more fable-like - actually reminds me of Unforgiven and its last scene. If you ever thought the Church being Michael's enemy was overblown before well, it makes more sense now and seems more realistic and "possible" (this part also has a cut within it). It's also its own film more than it was before - flashbacks that linked it to Part I and Part II are gone - so now it assumes you know what happened, doesn't feel the need to repeat it for you and forces this to be just Michael's story now - and Mary's - NOT Kay's, NOT Apollonia's which is why Sofia feels "better" now too to some people, it's that the movie around her is better .....I don't think he touched the opera (much) but the Don Lucchesi scene during it is a couple seconds longer and bloodier I think (?) (De Palmaesque it felt like!) and there are some cuts maybe different within it too. The middle passages are still the problem (and a lot could have been cut, wtf Francis!) - Sofia is still (at best) wobbly and iffy, Eli Wallach comes off a little better (he has at least one scene cut and possibly some of his reaction shots cut or shaved down?). Like I always say - endings matter ........and the ending to this movie is great - like all-time great.......but it's still an ending looking for a movie around it though now the movie around it is more logical and less baffling. I can't imagine that this doesn't completely replace the previous version but we'll see..... ![](https://www.denofgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-Godfather-Part-III-Cast.jpg?fit=1200%2C675)
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Dec 4, 2020 11:48:34 GMT
Where did you watch this?!
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 4, 2020 11:58:37 GMT
Where did you watch this?! Thursday late night theater screening ........which I might add was downright creepy af in the Covid fearful US suburbia.......I kept feeling like the entire staff was plotting against me ................ "He's OLD, possibly at high risk, may be wearing a pre-Used mask AND he has a ticket for that OLD person movie.......GTFO............ not on my watch Grandpa!.........take him down Team......... swarm, swarm!"
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Dec 4, 2020 19:15:11 GMT
The middle passages are still the problem (and a lot could have been cut, wtf Francis!) Just make your own fan edit once you get the Blu-ray! (the "Pacinoyes Cut")
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2020 21:32:09 GMT
I never cared about Robert Duvall's character in this series that much... until his complete (and unexplained?) disappearance in Part 3, which I remember turned out to be my biggest disappointment with this one (besides the general package being so "tame" for the most part)... it's the kind of performance which becomes more endearing with passage of time - and no wonder since the first two parts were bloated with great, and more "out there" performers left and right.
Haven't seen this film in ages though, and your usual applaud for the Opera scene sells it...
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Dec 7, 2020 9:51:17 GMT
Caught this at my theater's last showing tonight. I had only seen the original version once a long time ago, and didn't remember much of it aside from the ending, so I might as well have been seeing the film for the first time tonight. When I watched it years ago, I recall thinking it was pretty good even if it wasn't remotely on the same level as the first two films....... but now it actually seems worse than I remember it. Because it's been so long since I've seen the original, I couldn't tell you what else was different about this version aside from the beginning and ending, but if everyone is saying it's tighter and more focused, then maybe it's probably best if I don't go back and revisit the theatrical version. The movie I saw tonight I thought was still kind of a mess, particularly in the middle section, and I felt weirdly disengaged from the Vatican stuff (though I do like the opening scene) - probably because so much of the movie is focused on the plot mechanics rather than deepening the characters. Everyone complains about Sofia's performance and how Mary is underwritten, but Vincent doesn't have much dimension either....and for some reason I thought I remembered Anthony having a more prominent role, but instead he's pretty much a non-entity (it doesn't help that D'Ambrosio's brief performance is rather flat too). Also, I'm not sure what people think of Joe Mantegna in this, but I actually thought he was kind of bad, and I usually like him. It's really astounding (and infuriating) how the opera sequence through the end is on a whole different level than the rest of the movie, and truly makes you wish it were attached to a better movie because of how great it is. Regarding the changes made, I loved the original ending, and I think the altered ending is both better and worse: The new final shot definitely enhances the tragedy of it, so I support that change, but I do miss the flashbacks to the previous two films. It's not that I think the flashbacks on their own are crucial in and of themselves, it's more that centering Michael and Mary exposes what I think is lacking in the rest of the movie. By originally having Mary as part of the montage that includes Apollonia and Kay, it's showing how she's one of several women Michael has lost in his life.... but refocusing the ending to make it just about Mary left me feeling like I actually needed more of her relationship with Michael throughout the rest of the film so that the tragic weight of her death could resonate a little more. The film doesn't actually explore their relationship, and unfortunately that can't be fixed through re-editing. I honestly would have preferred it if the film spent more time on Michael's relationship with his children in general than his attempt at forgiveness with Kay, whose interactions with him I found unconvincing, particularly the stuff in Sicily. Aside from the stunning last half an hour and some good moments scattered throughout (like the confession scene), I can't say I'm really a fan of this movie overall, but I'm still glad I got to see it at the theater.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2020 5:32:30 GMT
Can we just take a moment to admire how gorgeous Sofia (the hair!) and Andy Garcia were in this film? ![](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/3xDd1bgJnnf0eeG.5cpKSA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTQ3OS41MTc1ODc5Mzk2OTg1/https://media.zenfs.com/en/insider_articles_922/f681cb6a4b8901d512f0fc089917c125)
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 9, 2020 6:24:29 GMT
Can we just take a moment to admire how gorgeous Sofia (the hair!) and Andy Garcia were in this film? ![](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/3xDd1bgJnnf0eeG.5cpKSA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTQ3OS41MTc1ODc5Mzk2OTg1/https://media.zenfs.com/en/insider_articles_922/f681cb6a4b8901d512f0fc089917c125) The only way she was gorgeous in GF III...
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 15, 2020 17:02:26 GMT
I didn't watch "Coda" for the sake of comparing it with the previous iterations - despite always liking "Part III", I was never a particularly big student of it so while watching "Coda" I wasn't really aware of any particular repurposing or deleting of scenes except for the changed beginning and ending. I was watching "Coda" simply to re-experience the third chapter of one of the greatest tragedies of all time in a way that its director intended. In other words, I watched it simply as a film. And I must say, I was a bit floored by it. As I've mentioned, I've always appreciated "Part III" but at the same time (sheepishly) agreed with the consensus that it was substantially weaker than the first two masterpieces. Knowing that Coppola essentially did it for monetary reasons clouded my judgment too, as well as thoughts about other stuff that might've been i.e. Robert Duvall or Winona Ryder.
This time, however, I watched the film without any of those prejudices and also removed from the other two films which I didn't watch prior to it (I remember them well enough). I wanted "Coda" to play as its own piece, and I absolutely adored it. It's an intelligent, haunting finale to a character study for the ages - a film of magnificent grandiosity and intimacy, an elegy for a soul. The final opera stretch of it is some of the very best filmmaking Coppola's ever done, leading up to a heart-crushing conclusion that I was floored by as never before this time. Again, this isn't even about "Coda" itself specifically but about this very underrated movie in general. As far as the "Coda" changes go, the beginning is certainly a wonderful choice, the ending is a great choice, and another thing I appreciated is how fewer shots from the previous films are inserted here - a decision which makes this version suitably merciless towards Michael as it removes the nostalgic shadows of the past. As most people, I used to be quite negative about Sofia in this but I didn't feel that way upon watching "Coda" - she's an admittedly limited actress, that's true, but overall I think she's fine. Pacino's brilliant performance captures such a strong love towards her that the main emotional core of the film easily prevails over some flat line readings that Sofia has. They're no big deal.
What I hope "Coda" does for those interested enough is to make them remember or realize just how great this film is.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 16, 2020 16:23:10 GMT
It's better. Tighter, a bit more focused, and sets the correct context for the film to begin.
However, the unfortunate thing about the third Godfather for me was not something that could ever be fixed with a re-edit. The issue was not in post-production but in pre-production, the script is flawed in a way that is inconsistent with the values of the first two films. Where the first two films took Michael on an internal journey, allowing us to fully see his descent and making his choices and actions the driving force of the plot, the third film has Michael already at his endpoint of seeking redemption and more consequential to the plot as a target than as a driving player. I get it, it's been quite a bit of time since Part II so Michael is not the cold, calculating man he once was, but the character is unrecognizable in this form and replaced with a much warmer, livelier, at times even joking patriarch with none of the command or menace he was once able to display in a simple glance. It'd have been nice to have seen any of that growth and change on screen since I don't find the ending of Part II with him sitting in a chair in reflection sufficient with where the character has been taken. The difference is so immediately stark that I can't take it seriously when Kay, who knew him at his worst as well as anybody besides Tom, is talking him up in the beginning like he's still the devil he once was. Having the character already fixed as repentant also renders him largely reactive to the machinations of the plot, always behind the 8 ball with Zasa or Altobello while Vincent (a character defined almost solely by his aggression) and Connie (huh??) pick up the scraps so Michael can show Kay that a lifetime of sin is nothing that a jaunt through Sicily can't fix.
There are other issues to be had - the helicopter attack is stupid, the incest plot is wholly unnecessary and wildly out of place, Vincent despite being admirably played by Andy Garcia is a bit too two-dimensional (Sonny was more than just a hothead), the Vatican plot never communicates the threat that it should - but the fulcrum of the entire series is Michael's character and on that front, Part III/Coda fails to adequately progress him. I understand that the film in many ways is Coppola coming to terms with matters in his own life, namely Gio's passing, so he made a Michael more identifiable to himself and what he was going through but the unfortunate side effect is it softened the edges of the character and therefore the entire film in a way that renders it incompatible with the first two - even reflected in its visual style, where the darkness and intensity of the colors have been softened to near-sitcom levels at points save for the gorgeous opera setpiece. I cannot even see any argument to let the film play as its own thing removed from the first two given how much this entry relies on the audience's knowledge of the others.
I do not put sole blame on Coppola and Puzo's screenplay, since they were dealing both with the financial and temporal restrictions imposed by Paramount in not paying Duvall what he asked for and only giving them 6 weeks for writing the script instead of the requested 6 months. I think Coppola and Puzo still had it in them to make lightning strike a third time but they needed all the support they could get in pre-production to allow them that opportunity. Unfortunately, we will never know what that could have been.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 16, 2020 16:26:21 GMT
It's better. Tighter, a bit more focused, and sets the correct context for the film to begin. However, the unfortunate thing about the third Godfather for me was not something that could ever be fixed with a re-edit. The issue was not in post-production but in pre-production, the script is flawed in a way that is inconsistent with the values of the first two films. Where the first two films took Michael on an internal journey, allowing us to fully see his descent and making his choices and actions the driving force of the plot, the third film has Michael already at his endpoint of seeking redemption and more consequential to the plot as a target than as a driving player. I get it, it's been quite a bit of time since Part II so Michael is not the cold, calculating man he once was, but the character is unrecognizable in this form and replaced with a much warmer, livelier, at times even joking patriarch with none of the command or menace he was once able to display in a simple glance. It'd have been nice to have seen any of that growth and change on screen since I don't find the ending of Part II with him sitting in a chair in reflection sufficient with where the character has been taken. The difference is so immediately stark that I can't take it seriously when Kay, who knew him at his worst as well as anybody besides Tom, is talking him up in the beginning like he's still the devil he once was. Having the character already fixed as repentant also renders him largely reactive to the machinations of the plot, always behind the 8 ball with Zasa or Altobello while Vincent (a character defined almost solely by his aggression) and Connie (huh??) pick up the scraps so Michael can show Kay that a lifetime of sin is nothing that a jaunt through Sicily can't fix. There are other issues to be had - the helicopter attack is stupid, the incest plot is wholly unnecessary and wildly out of place, Vincent despite being admirably played by Andy Garcia is a bit too two-dimensional (Sonny was more than just a hothead), the Vatican plot never communicates the threat that it should - but the fulcrum of the entire series is Michael's character and on that front, Part III/ Coda fails to adequately progress him. I understand that the film in many ways is Coppola coming to terms with matters in his own life, namely Gio's passing, so he made a Michael more identifiable to himself and what he was going through but the unfortunate side effect is it softened the edges of the character and therefore the entire film in a way that renders it incompatible with the first two - even reflected in its visual style, where the darkness and intensity of the colors have been softened to near-sitcom levels at points save for the gorgeous opera setpiece. I cannot even see any argument to let the film play as its own thing removed from the first two given how much this entry relies on the audience's knowledge of the others. I do not put sole blame on Coppola and Puzo's screenplay, since they were dealing both with the financial and temporal restrictions imposed by Paramount in not paying Duvall what he asked for and only giving them 6 weeks for writing the script instead of the requested 6 months. I think Coppola and Puzo still had it in them to make lightning strike a third time but they needed all the support they could get in pre-production to allow them that opportunity. Unfortunately, we will never know what that could have been. Indeed. This is a project that could only be salvaged so far, because to paraphrase Cormac McCarthy, what's wrong with it is wrong all the way through it. This is a project that is inherently flawed in its origin, and even if we can all agree that this retooling is a better film than the original cut, that doesn't make it a good film.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2020 8:14:25 GMT
This is for the first film but thought I share it here ![:laugh:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/30ulL7PvEvGt97femFHx.gif)
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 638
Likes: 292
|
Post by Pasquale on Jul 1, 2024 10:46:35 GMT
pacinoyes What do you think of this, if it is no bother answering?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 1, 2024 13:20:42 GMT
Pasquale - I think this ^ is mostly true however I'd argue that the changes in Michael Corleone have a lot to do with the "missing years" (ie 1959-1979) - in effect that's part of the 3rd movies point - Michael changed from who he was to who he becomes by the end of Part 1, he does not resemble Michael from Part 1 in Part 2 - so much - and given what he has put himself through why wouldn't he "change" in Part 3? My father at 60 was not who he was when he was 40............. BUT - I do get that the changes caught audiences off guard and you can't say audiences are wrong either - there's "movie reality" vs. "real reality" and Michael does not make perfect sense in terms of "movie reality" in Part 3...............however "the haircut" is fine - he is a military man from the 40s........that hair is fine............ One of the reasons that Coda works so much better than the OG Godfather 3 is that Coda - eases you into Michael - by placing this scene at the start of the film now ............it is far less jarring than the OG opening imo.........to me no one will watch the OG Part 3 rather than Coda going forward.......Coda is a far more cohesive, less jarring film I think
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 638
Likes: 292
|
Post by Pasquale on Jul 1, 2024 15:39:08 GMT
pacinoyes I am about to rewatch Part 2 and watch for the first time Coda. Thank you.
|
|