Do you include Part III in the saga?
-
gabby_bm — 10 years ago(April 27, 2015 04:38 PM)
This isn;t some "Terminator 2" fan-boy movie where they ended their wet dream at the end of Part II when the little fan-boys lose their pet-Termy! Good lord!
Of course i include Part III in the saga. It's very integral to the story. There's no denying that Part III is not as well crafted as the first two films, but it is a film good enough to be a "Godfather" and there is reasonable closure and exposure within. It also completes the corruption circle these movies were conveying about the "legitimate world", that there is corruption in Family and authority (part I), corruption in business and politics (part II) and corruption in religion (part III).
Without Part III, the message is incomplete.
I dont need you to tell me how good my coffee is.
.
. -
Movieloverrrr — 10 years ago(April 27, 2015 05:21 PM)
I think the question is valid. There are lots of people who just hate III. In my case, I consider it to be a good movie, enjoyable and all, but it's obviously out of tune in comparison with the previous two and ruins an excelent saga a bit. But yes, it belongs to the saga, like it or not. No need to mock Terminator fans.
-
gabby_bm — 10 years ago(April 28, 2015 03:44 PM)
I like to poke Terminator fans with a sharp stick when they plug their ears and go "
la la la
" with regards to "Terminator 3", pretending that Terminator 2 is the end-all, be-all of Terminator movies. Nothing personal. It's strictly business.
I dont need you to tell me how good my coffee is.
.
. -
mountaindewslave — 10 years ago(November 24, 2015 04:37 PM)
all of the later Terminator movies are horrible, why are you trying to be so cute and 'unique' by acting as if it's unusual at all for fans of a series to virtually ignore the rest of a series when it turns out terribly?
Terminator 2 is one of the best action movies of all time. it would be like you talking crap about "Alien" fans who love the first two films and ignore the last 2- again, they have a logical point because the quality dips tremendously
If i go crazy will you still call me Superman? -
-
OptimumTaurus — 10 years ago(May 10, 2015 11:58 AM)
I think a lot of people consider it "cool" to treat Part III as an embarrassment.
No doubt, it does not match the level of the first two movies. Not debating that. But, it wasn't meant to.
Originally, the title was supposed to be "The Death of Michael Corleone". It was supposed to be a sort of epilogue to the saga, not an equal part. In that, it was good. Not perfect, but good.
Treat Part III as an epilogue and I think it becomes a better film.
Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.
-Michael Corleone -
Jwink72 — 10 years ago(May 10, 2015 04:12 PM)
I think those who genuinely don't like it don't absolutely hate it. I think the problem with part 3 is that it seems like a self-parody. Some of the scenes feel ridiculous. It takes what was dramatically great about the first two, but somehow it makes it into a joke, probably unintentionally. I mean, the whole trilogy is so serious and dramatic, it borderlines a spoof of itself. But the first two were so perfect in keeping it professionally serious, it works.
I think people also don't like how much Michael has changed in part three, but that was the point. It was to show how the life is ultimately empty of anything but violence and regret. Nothing is sacred in that world. Michael committed terrible acts, he must suffer, no matter what circumstances. he tries to redeem himself, but there is no redemption. He has lost his family and his soul because of what he has done.
I like part three very much, and I think you have a good point to think of it as an epilogue. I think if it didn't have the name "the Godfather part 3," people wouldn't hate it as much. I think those that blame Sofia shouldn't focus too much on her, because that small role shouldn't ruin the whole movie. It has become a thing to hate it, and it's not really fair. It's definitely not an awful movie, but it's not great. -
OptimumTaurus — 10 years ago(May 11, 2015 10:57 AM)
I won't make any excuses for Sofia Coppola's acting- it was pretty bad. But, she wasn't really meant to be an actress in the first place, she was pretty much an 11th hour replacement.
Sofia Coppola has since proven herself a very capable director in her own right some would even argue she's a better director than her dad.
But just think of GF III as "The Death of Michael Corleone", an epilogue to the events of the first two films. It's much easier to appreciate that way. Michael isn't the same ruthless, cunning character he was in those two films. He wouldn't be. When GF III starts, he'd already lost two women he'd loved directly or indirectly due to his involvement in the underworld. He had ordered the death of his own brother, who he loved.
Michael wants to atone for the horrific things he's done with his life. But he finds the higher up he goes, the more crooked things are. He's a man who cannot escape his past no matter how earnestly he really wants to. It's tragic.
Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.
-Michael Corleone -
Cult_of_Kibner — 9 years ago(July 28, 2016 12:46 PM)
Originally, the title was supposed to be "The Death of Michael Corleone". It was supposed to be a sort of epilogue to the saga, not an equal part.
That's how I've always seen it. Parts I and II are one big movie, Part III is a separate movie. It wasn't even produced in the same era of film making, so it's got a pretty different feel to it. -
Darthmauler_megaa — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 08:06 AM)
I don't include Part III, except perhaps the very last scene. The rest of the story desperately needed rewrites. So many opportunities wasted or dropped. And completely lacking the subtlety of the previous films. When a movie is that broken, fans are entitled to put it aside. Canon is a fictional concept.
Hate speech is the modern term for heresy."Ayaan Hirsi Ali -
DreTam2000 — 10 years ago(March 06, 2016 07:50 AM)
I couldn't have said this any better myself. I agree completely. The only thing I'm fuzzy on is your last sentence. Canon can be important, like in the case of those
Predator
movies not written by the brothers who wrote the first two. Canon only becomes up-for-grabs when a damn-good writer or director is able to masterfully add to the original artist's material (like Cameron did).
The Godfather III
feels like a cheap gangster thriller. The first two films were patient dramas.
Impeccable
dramas. Like you, I only appreciate that final scene.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way -
Hancock_the_Superb — 10 years ago(July 31, 2015 04:57 PM)
I'm not going to exclude a canonical sequel, but it's a very flawed film if not a bad one. Two main complaints:
- Way too much going on. The first two films had a lot of characters but they all fit snuggly into their respective storylines. Part III on the other hand feels overstuffed from start to finish. Besides Michael's decline and abortive redemption, you've also got Vincent's maturation, the romance, the Vatican bank stuff, gang war with Joey Zasa, Don Altobello way too many players cluttering up the story, most given superficial treatment at best. And they tie together messily, at best.
- The violence is extremely over-the-top. Vincent biting Zasa's ear off ten minutes into the movie, for one. The helicopter massacre is ridiculous. The final settling of accounts goes on way too long, unlike the original's baptism and the second film's briefer montage. I did like Vincent's hit on Zasa, there the stylization worked. There's no impact to any of the killings, just flashy bloodshed. It's less a Godfather movie than an action film with Coppola grace notes.
That said, Godfather III has enough good things to recommend a watch: Pacino's at the top of his game, most of the supporting cast is good (with an obvious exception), Coppola's direction is mostly good, Michael's scenes with Kay and confession to the Cardinal are excellent, the finale is heartbreaking. But it's a mixed bag at best, an ambitious failure at worst.
I'm afraid that you underestimate the number of subjects in which I take an interest!
-
pfr_77 — 10 years ago(September 06, 2015 12:24 AM)
For now I do. I've only seen it once, and while the tonal shift was incredibly jarring at first, the film turned out to be not-so-bad and was pretty watchable and is sitting pretty well with me after the fact. I think I'm looking forward to watching it again just as much as I do with the others, albeit for vastly different reasons.
Currently, I hold no animosity towards it, nor do I have any reason to. -
Armond_Black — 10 years ago(September 09, 2015 07:33 AM)
The transition from Godfather 1 to 2 is seamless. It's like you're still watching Godfather 1.
I would consider Godfather 3 it's own standalone thing. It's not anywhere near the quality of the first two, it's almost like a fan-fiction of The Godfather. Even though it's technically acomplished, the screenplay is an embarrassment. If you like really campy movies like Scarface then you'll still get a lot of enjoyment out of part 3, but if I'm "watching the godfather movies" - that doesn't mean I'm watching godfather 3.