The Godfather, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone (2020ish)

Where did you watch this?!

Just make your own fan edit once you get the Blu-ray! (the "Pacinoyes Cut")

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:

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.

The only way she was gorgeous in GF III...

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.

This is for the first film but thought I share it here

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