Do you include Part III in the saga?
-
DracTarashV — 10 years ago(September 12, 2015 12:50 PM)
The movie is called "Godfather" and it continues the story of Michael and his family, so it's part of the canon whether you like it or not.
Personally, I prefer to think that the events of Part III never happened (except for maybe the cousin lovin' he he).
Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry! -
degree7 — 10 years ago(January 28, 2016 01:19 PM)
Part III sucks, I watched it again after 10 or so years and realized its excessively worse than I remembered. Nothing about the
Movie redeemable, it's like a bad TV soap opera. Remarkably mediocre sequel to some of the greatest films of all time, and the worst part is it feels like such a cash in. You couldn't even pay me to watch it again. If I got a box set of the trilogy, I'd just throw the third disc away and pretend like it doesn't exist.
Coming off the heels of the first two, it's embarrassing to watch even by myself. It's just a dog of a movie that coasts on the influence if the originals. Without them it wouldn't even be talked about or remembered today.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here. -
ElMaruecan82 — 9 years ago(April 22, 2016 10:20 PM)
We can make a parallel between the trilogy and the Corleone brothers:
The Godfather
is like Sonny : fierce, brutal, yet tender and good-hearted, it's entertaining and deep in the same time. And we all just love 'Sonny'The Godfather Part II
is Michael : deeper, darker, smoother, yes, even 'boring' sometimes, but it's more implacable and ruthless we can't love it with the same intensity as the first opus, but we respect the cinematic achievement, and it leaves us with an extraordinary feeling. It's not the most entertaining, but certainly the most fascinating.
And of courseThe Godfather Part III
is Fredo : it tries too much, it has a good heart but it's weak and even sometimes 'stupid' but hey, it's still a blood brother of the first two films, we still feel Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola's touch and it features some heartbreaking moments, like Michael's silent scream. Some magnetism was lacking from the very start, but can we really hate 'Fredo'?
I'm sure those who prefer the first film also appreciate the last one and those who love the second film and think it's the best one, identify so much with Michael that they hate
"Part III"
, with the same intensity and severity Michael expressed towards Fredo. They don't forgive any mistake and consider the last film a disgrace for the trilogy, and symbolically disown it.
Darth Vader is
scary and I
The God
father -
TwoThousandOneMark — 9 years ago(October 27, 2016 10:26 PM)
No. I've seen GF3 twice, & that's enough.
I take solace that Coppola fought & lost the fight to title it The Death of Michael Corleone rather than GF3, because even vision as director knew it was uncoupled.
my essential 50
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/ -
sidgirl — 4 years ago(November 19, 2021 06:11 PM)
To be honest, I never watched Part 3 because of it's reputation.
You missed nothing.
I do not include it. I pretend I never saw it, and that it does not exist. To follow up two of the greatest films/stories ever made with that pile of soap-opera garbage is a travesty.
The scene that, to me, most stands out in pointing out what nonsense trash III is, is the scene where Michael apologizes to Kay, after visiting Apollonia's grave. Michael apologizes to Kay. For what??? For keeping his word to her? For giving her everything she wanted? For her killing their baby? What utter and complete crap.
Kay sure has a lot of nerve being pissed off that Michael killed Carlo–the man responsible for Sonny's death–when she killed their unborn child out of spite.
(And this is not a statement on abortion, btw, so don't get all reflexive, "It's not killing a baby, it's just a clump of cells!" or whatever. We can argue that subject forever, though I don't especially want to. I'm not talking about all abortion here, I'm talking specifically about Kay's abortion, late enough in her pregnancy that they could tell the sex of the baby, and deliberately intended as murder. That's how she herself refers to it, so that is how I am referring to it. Kay killed their innocent unborn baby because it "might" turn out like Michael, which is frankly disgusting. Michael should never have forgiven her for that, and we as viewers shouldn't be asked to see it as totally forgivable and NBD, something that Kay feels no regret or anything over.) -
Blue Wave — 3 years ago(December 14, 2022 03:40 AM)
Yes I do. While it is in parts inferior to the first two films - it doesn't pick up on threads from the novel, like the doctor who fixed Mike's nose or explaining the change in gender of one of their children from the original novel or offering any explanation of Fredos' method of how he betrayed michMMichael, all of which should have been in there, as part of the plot for the movie - what did make it on screen I think makes a good drama.
Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 