Board index › Topical Discussion › Television, Film, and Video

What's so bad about The Godfather Part III?

Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

07 Feb 2021, 2:44 am

I thought it was good. Not great like the first one, but better than the second, which I found to be disappointing. But it seems that everyone hates this movie and literally think it's garbage compared to the first two.

It's not perfect like the first one, and you can probably cut at least 30 minutes out and it wouldn't have mattered, but I felt the movie had a solid two hour story that had a decent ending to end the story with, accept for the very final scene, which I think should have been cut. It doesn't ruin anything, it just wasn't necessary.

But it seems that everyone hates and I don't understand why?



AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,665
Location: Houston, Texas

07 Feb 2021, 2:13 pm

ironpony wrote:
. . . but I felt the movie had a solid two hour story that had a decent ending to end the story with, accept for the very final scene, which I think should have been cut. It doesn't ruin anything, it just wasn't necessary. . .

Is this the scene in which Michael Corleone shuts the door on his ex-wife who has snuck in to see her children?

Of all the brutal things a mob boss might do and order done, yeah, keeping a mother from her children is pretty brutal.

I think Donnie Brasco from 1997 might be my favorite mob movie (if only they had found a way to end it!)



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

07 Feb 2021, 2:23 pm

Oh that's the second one where he shuts the door on her.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,947
Location:      

07 Feb 2021, 6:09 pm

It think the reason that SOME people MAY hate Godfather III has to do with the final two scenes...

Show Spoiler
Mosca shoots Michael, wounding him, and the bullet passes through him and hits Mary, killing her. Vincent shoots and kills Mosca. Michael cradles Mary's lifeless body and screams in agony; the scene fades out into a montage of Michael with Kay, Mary, and his first wife, Apollonia.

Years later, an elderly Michael, sitting alone in the courtyard of Don Tommasino's villa, slumps over in his chair and falls to the ground.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

08 Feb 2021, 1:10 am

The final scene where it takes place years later should have been cut. But what's wrong with the second last scene? I thought the scene with the family grieving in agony was good, but was it not?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,947
Location:      

08 Feb 2021, 9:43 am

ironpony wrote:
The final scene where it takes place years later should have been cut. But what's wrong with the second last scene? I thought the scene with the family grieving in agony was good, but was it not?
Have you asked Francis Ford Coppola?  I suggest you do so.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,665
Location: Houston, Texas

11 Feb 2021, 9:08 am

ironpony wrote:
. . . It's not perfect like the first one, and you can probably cut at least 30 minutes out and it wouldn't have mattered, but I felt the movie had a solid two hour story that had a decent ending to end the story with, . . .

But maybe not solid enough.

Let me ask you this, if it was just as long with the same slow parts and the same boring parts, but— The good parts were better. More interesting, more authentic, more believeable, more exciting, etc, would the “pay off” of the movie have then been worth it?



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

11 Feb 2021, 11:31 am

Oh are saying it would have been better if it was tighter?



AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,665
Location: Houston, Texas

11 Feb 2021, 12:23 pm

No, with all respect given [ in the style of a mob boss! ]

That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that I personally can put up with some really crappy parts of a movie, as long as the good parts really dance and soar across the sky.

In fact, I might even take this a step further and say, if a movie has both really good and really crappy parts, sometimes that gives it more overall texture. So paradoxically, the movie might be better, in part, because of the crappy parts. It’s still got to have the good parts, that’s an absolute necessity.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

11 Feb 2021, 3:56 pm

Yes that's what I was thinking that the pros outweight the cons, even if just by a little. So I would say it's good, it's just a lot of people think the movie is trash or terrible they say. But maybe expectations can be high when compared to the first one.



AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,665
Location: Houston, Texas

12 Feb 2021, 9:41 am

ironpony wrote:
. . . But maybe expectations can be high when compared to the first one.
Yes, I’d say that sky high expectations have sunk many a sequel. In a weird way, people expect the sequel to be totally alike and yet completely different! :jester:

Maybe The Godfather 1, 2, and 3 is more a continuation with the same characters as they get older.

And not merely a re-telling like many sequels? A possibility. In any case, this is kind of where my thinking is at.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

12 Feb 2021, 9:48 am

I think I've seen all three, all I can really recall is all three of those movies are very, very long.

But it was a long time ago when I was an adolescent/teen that I saw it, and I probably wasn't fully paying attention all the way through.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

12 Feb 2021, 12:40 pm

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:
ironpony wrote:
. . . But maybe expectations can be high when compared to the first one.
Yes, I’d say that sky high expectations have sunk many a sequel. In a weird way, people expect the sequel to be totally alike and yet completely different! :jester:

Maybe The Godfather 1, 2, and 3 is more a continuation with the same characters as they get older.

And not merely a re-telling like many sequels? A possibility. In any case, this is kind of where my thinking is at.


Oh okay. Well I'm one of the few people who would say that Part III is better than Part II.