You godless sodomites come in here defending trash like Juno, 300, and Hellboy so you better defend this. It's not even close to being as great as I and II but I thought it was a competent effort at continuing the series. Al Pacino delivered an excellent performance. The Vatican subplot helped keep it fresh and interesting. My biggest gripe is the horrible acting from Sofia Coppola. It's almost like she said, "Daddy, can I pleeeaaasssse be in the movie?" I also don't know how Francis expected viewers to sympathize with Mary and Vincent's forbidden love. They're first cousins. That shit is disgusting. I wouldn't get involved with ANY cousin even if she looked like Zoe Saldana. We'd be having two headed kids and shit.

and it didn't come close

if it wasn't called the godfather, it would be a decent movie, but it is, so it's fucking terrible.

haven't seen juno, i can't imagine many people here liked 300.

but yeah, sofia sank it for me. could have been decent without her. but even then it didn't really add anything to the legacy of the films.

haven't seen the 2nd, but the first really sucked. I was surprised, reading the comics AFTER seeing the trainwreck of a film, that the source material was actually excellent

I didn't care for the first Hellboy either. I was excited to see it, but I didn't care for it, and actually fell asleep in the theater for a good 20 or so minutes of it.

Hellboy II is totally different. If you liked Pan's Labyrinth, then take the coolest visual moments of that and expand. It was a pretty fantastic film.

Compared to most other films, it's passable but not that great.

I hadn't seen the movies in years. Earlier this year I got my wife to finally watch them.

First two are still classic.

But that third. If anything, it's even worse than I remembered.

Sorry. It's bad as a Godfather movie. And just bad in general.

I thought Andy Garcia, Eli Wallach, and Mantegna were worse than Sofia because they're actors and they stunk it up as much as she did. Adam Vinatieri was awful as well.

The dialogue was unbelievably bad.

As for the incest, I can't remember the specifics in Coppola's commentary, but his comment about that story and its source made it seem like it with better execution it wouldn't have been as bad as it ended up being. The commentary also made me appreciate the film's concept on paper. I keep laughing at how the other characters handled the incest by saying "it's dangerous" rather than saying straight up that it's fuckin' gross and all kinds of wrong.

Though Michael's confession is one of the best scenes in the entire trilogy as are parts of Michael and Kays scenes together. Also, "Light a candle for the archbishop" is a great line.

Andy Garcia and Sofia's weird thing?

Yeah, it was bad.

If it wasn't connected to the other 2, people wouldn't even give it the limited props it does receive...intrinsically, it is wack.

Although I do like the whole Immobiliarie thing...

something that would have even been considered over the top for Scarface.

I'd say for die hard fans only. If somebody were to watch just that one on it's own, it's a very average to poor film. But if you really like the godfather story then u may get a lot more out of it and enjoy it.

and buck the trend. No it wasn't that bad. People talk about it as if it's some Phantom Menace shit. It's a half decent movie which if I saw in the cinema I wouldn't be mad about losing my money. IT IS the Godfather name which puts people off, I don't care what any of you lot say. Fuck this Sofia Coppola shit, how many movies do you lot love with terrible actors/performances in? Goddam Keanu Reaves has been in a bunch of solid to good films lauded round here and everywhere, yet half his acting looks like it came out of a high school project. One bad performance doesn't make a bad film. Al Pacino is still on point, and its reasonably good fun all round.

Obviously, 1 and 2 are 10/10 films and this is a 6. I don't want anyone thinking I'm suggesting otherwise. But it ain't no 2 or 3.

The only character that had the street swagger as Santino is what made it watchable. Even though it was kind of skin-crawling that he was slepping with his half-cousin.

The rest was just the Godfather according to Alan Alda. Everyone expressing their "feelings" instead of just taking care of business like the oldsters did.

dude was not believable as his son.

I know he got some flack for playing a Sicilian, but he worked it out.

He's truly one of the most underrated actors out there.

"OK" relative to the greatness of the first two, but potentially a good movie if you look at it objectively.

... I haven't watched it in years (planning on doing an all-day Godfather marathon on New Years Day with some friends who somehow haven't seen any of 'em), and while it's of course nowhere near the quality of the first two, I think if a capable actress were in that role it wouldn't receive half the hate it gets.

>I think if a
>capable actress were in that role it wouldn't receive half the
>hate it gets.

Not in my case. Even if the role of Mary was played by a capable actress, there still would be the horrible dialogue and other awful performances from Garcia, Wallach, Mantegna, Hamilton, Vinatieri, et al. The concept and story is good / interesting on paper though.

she sucked but there are so many other reasons it didn't work

the movie as weak as it is because she's FFC's daughter.

If you think that the actors shut up and do what the directors say all the time, I'd agree.

I wonder if a better actor might not speak out more if her role was so clearly crappy, and influence things a bit.

I know it's a hard argument to sell, since it depends on variables we wouldn't know about unless we were there, but...

can't help it. I hear you guys, but I saw Godfather III again like a year or so ago, and Sofia's performance was embarrassingly bad. And especially so amidst other actors that usually know what they're doing. Even if I didn't know that it was the director's daughter, I would've assumed it, or thought that it was the producer's girlfriend or something. Yeah she was working from a bad script, but in a couple scenes it seriously looked like she was reading straight from cue cards, without any voice inflection. Shit was painful.

>If you think that the actors shut up and do what the
>directors say all the time

I don't think that.

>I wonder if a better actor might not speak out more if her
>role was so clearly crappy, and influence things a bit.

Maybe, maybe not. The role of Mary wasn't the only crappy one in the film, and if the more experienced ones in the cast tried to improve their characters and went to FFC with their input, I don't think it helped because as I said earlier Sofia wasn't the only one who turned in a bad performance in a bad role.

>I hear you guys, but I saw Godfather III again
>like a year or so ago, and Sofia's performance was
>embarrassingly bad. And especially so amidst other actors that
>usually know what they're doing. Even if I didn't know that it
>was the director's daughter, I would've assumed it, or thought
>that it was the producer's girlfriend or something. Yeah she
>was working from a bad script, but in a couple scenes it
>seriously looked like she was reading straight from cue cards,
>without any voice inflection. Shit was painful.

Don't get me wrong, I think Sofia turned in a The Room level stinker. But I just think that people tend to single her out because she's FFC's daughter which in turn gets some people to overlook the awful script, roles, and other performances. The script / dialogue is the worst thing about the film, but that isn't mentioned often, Sofia's performance is.

Winona Ryder had stayed on board.

The reality is this movie was going to be savaged one way or another with or without Sofia in it.

of the 10/20 greatest films of all-time.

In other words, I think you answered your own question for why it's not so well-regarded.

it was hard to watch the scenes she was in, I tried to tune her out, probably why I missed most of the movie and shit didn't make sense. I was glad she was hot in the in.

received) if it were made/released in 1980 instead of 1990

Because to me, its release in 1990 felt like nothing but a money grab for Paramount and Coppola... I also felt the same way with The Two Jakes... I think the 16-year gap for both films was far too long...

EDIT: ... and in both cases the storytelling isn't as strong (even though, in the case of Two Jakes you had the same writer)... I just wonder if that long a gap -- with all of the implied effects of time on the creative people behind the projects -- had a negative effect on the finished products...

_________________________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/punannydiaries

also on Facebook

or Texasville either.

Either one worth seeing?

>Either one worth seeing?

_________________________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/punannydiaries

also on Facebook

thought maybe time/dimished-expectations could have salvaged them to being worthwhile. It's funny that all three of those flicks came out in 1990 with their predecessors all being 16-18 years before that.

and yeah sophia was not good

Casting Sophia and the incest decision were just two boneheaded decisions thst do tend to overshadow a lot of other good moments.....I liked the concept, it just wasn't executed like it should have been.

I agree with the people who said it wouldn't have gotten the hate it got if it didn't carry the Godfather name with it.

The good to great parts of the film were seriously diminished by things like the whole Mary/Vincent affair thing, Sofia Coppola's performance (even though she did play Connie and Carlo's baby in the baptism scene in the first movie) and some convoluted plot points. I had to see the film twice to understand the Immobilarie plot. Also, Anthony's pussyness (dude became an opera singer, for god's sake) really pisses me off.

However, Pacino should have won an Oscar (actually, he should have won his second Oscar) for his performance. Kay was a lot more sympathetic in this one than she was in either of the first two. Talia Shire also shined as Connie as she came into her own, making the call to kill Joey Zaza after Michael had his stroke. It was also good to see Al Neri come back and wreck shop. When you think about it, The fact that Vito died in his garden in retirement with his grandson and Michael died alone and wracked with guilt after spending much of his life distancing himself from the family, and ultimately becoming everything he despised and didn't want to become, does save the movie in my eyes. However, this one also had the misfortune of being released, not only in the same year, but AFTER Goodfellas. It had 3 strikes against it before it even came out when you consider the pedigree of the first two, the crowded field of gangster movies when it came out and the fact that Sofia Coppola replaced Winona Ryder at the 11th hour.


<----My debut album cover


Finally...The Blog of the Sith: http://shef1556.blogspot.com/

he basically admits it was a total cash grab + calls 3 an "epilogue" to the first 2, which he considers to be one film a la tarantino + kill bill.

>he basically admits it was a total cash grab + calls 3 an
>"epilogue" to the first 2, which he considers to be one film a
>la tarantino + kill bill.