The Godfather

I'd say Part 2 is even better than Part 1, but not by much. Part 3 comes a bit behind, but I still liked it, had a great ending. Tragic, but incredibly fitting.

Part 3 is a bit too jarring of a tonal shift. The first two movies are gritty but classy at the same time while Part 3 gets a bit too silly for its own good, ie helicopter attacks and involving the Pope in the proceedings.

I watched all 3 in a single day once. One of the most jarring aspects is that Michael is portrayed as this calm, subdued mastermind in the first two movies but by Part 3 he's suddenly a typical comic Al Pacino Large Ham allá his other roles in Scent of a Woman and Devils Advocate. It's pretty bizarre. That also comes with Part 1 and 2 being a gradual descent into darkness for Michael (in the first he grows to be a ruthless man in a ruthless world, in the second he's ruthless even by the standards of his own world of crime) but he's suddenly a lot more sympathetic in Part 3, so the movie walks back the character development he had for much of its runtime.

There are some moments, though. Eli Wallach is great as Don Altobello (though he does come out of the fucking nowhere) and his death scene at the opera stands heads and shoulders above anything else in the movie. Down to the fact his death is a very bittersweet affair as he's probably the most personable villain in the entire trilogy whom even the main characters feel some sorrow for after killing.

It's not sudden, there's about 20 years in between the events of the two films. I don't find it that far fetched that Michael would change over time. Would you like it Michael was the same 20 years later? Then there would be no film, Michael would not have a desire to repent, would not regret committing fratricide, alienating everyone who'd ever cared for him, etc. Although this movie came in the middle of Al's overacting phase, he gives a restrained performance. That confession scene is masterful.

Everything involving Michael is great. Everything else, nope.

20 years or not 20 years I think he acts like a completely different version in Godfather 3 (and Al Pacino himself agreed it was weird that Michael seems to have grown a consciousness). Of course, people change and it's possible that he could have had some event to justify that drastic change in those 20 years but it's simply bad form to have such a drastic change of character occur off-screen and in the opposite route of where he was going in 2.

Godfather III goes in the same box as Psycho II and The Two Jakes.

The only thing keeping Part II from being a perfect sequel to Part I is the fact that they had to replace Clemenza with Pentangeli because of Clemenza's actor refusing to return. Having Clemenza get Pentangeli's story arc for Part II would've appropriately mirrored his initial encounters and befriending of Vito.

Now that I think about it, that may have been one of the reasons why I considered the first better than the second...

Is Psycho II generally considered a bad movie?

The Clemenza-Pentangeli problem I think goes beyond Pentangeli being a new character unseen in the trilogy before or after. He just doesn't fit as a member of the old guard. He looks and sounds like a character out of Scorsese, not the Godfather, so there's something about him that just doesn't fit. There also isn't ever a moment where he's on Michael's good side or entirely loyal, so our image of him right at the start is that of a disgruntled, openly insubordinate lackey and not a trusted lieutenant. Clemenza turning informant is already foreshadowed in Part I where he has to be convinced to stay loyal in the face of Barzini's attacks on his territory and begs before that to split off so he can preserve something. It shows that while both capos were loyal, there was always the potential for them to betray Michael. Pentageli also never shows up in the De Niro part of Part II, which is a missed opportunity because Hyman Roth does in a deleted scene. And Clemenza being the guy to rat on Michael would have simply added weight to that plotline. Part II is great because it quotes Part I extensively, but zagging where Part I zigged because the family changed and the times have changed. Having Clemenza, the guy who gave Michael the gun he used to kill Sollozzo and who was a Cool Uncle to the five children, be the one to testify against him would show how the family has unraveled. It would also strengthen the "we was like the Roman Empire" line — the bath suicide was how Seneca the Younger died after betraying Nero in the Pisonian Conspiracy, the event that Tom Hagen alludes to. Clemenza being in Part II would have made that film basically flawless.

That said, I'm still of the opinion that Part II is better than Part I because it just has more to say about the nature of organized crime and American capitalism, the inherently corrosive impact of the Mafia on Italian cultural life, the immigrant experience, etc. than Part I, as well as both halves just being more interesting.

Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Aug 30th 2020 at 11:13:40 AM

I get what Coppola was going for. One thing that a lot of people seem to miss in Godfather 1 and 2 is that Michael's ultimate goal is not to take over the mafia but to get out of it. All of the horrible crimes and murders he commits is for The Determinator goal of separating the Corleone family from organized crime.

The thing that throws people is they essentially think of it as an impossible goal as he commits one Moral Event Horizon action after another that we assume that this is a impossible goal. That, at some point, he'll just go, Then Let Me Be Evil.

Weirdly, instead, The Godfather 3 begins with And It Worked. The Corleone family has been a legitimate gaming and real estate family for a generation. By the time the movie opens, Michael has been (effectively) out of the business for decades. Its just he can't shake the guilt for killing Fredo, which I suspect he's had decades to ponder was completely unnecessary even by mafia standards. But even then, he has benefited from a mind no longer at war to the point he's become a bit more of the man he used to be.

So he thinks he can dip his toes back into it to preserve his fortune and it gets his daughter killed.

Re: Fredo

I take it as absolute gospel that Fredo was involved in the plot against Michael but that it was his own Moral Event Horizon. He also didn't conceive of the plan or have much involvement beyond information and luring him in. He bitterly regrets what he's done and confesses to his brother in hopes of forgiveness but doesn't get it.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Aug 31st 2020 at 1:24:14 AM

Why was Tom Hagen written out of Part 3 again?

"Weirdly, instead, The Godfather 3 begins with And It Worked. The Corleone family has been a legitimate gaming and real estate family for a generation. By the time the movie opens, Michael has been (effectively) out of the business for decades. Its just he can't shake the guilt for killing Fredo, which I suspect he's had decades to ponder was completely unnecessary even by mafia standards. But even then, he has benefited from a mind no longer at war to the point he's become a bit more of the man he used to be."

Part of this is due to the Mafia itself, as depicted by the Godfather, being obsolete or in decline by 1979. In real life, the RICO Act had been in place for years and it was just before a string of high profile indictments in the 1980s. Coppola always used the Mafia as a setting to tell a family drama, so Michael laundering enough money to be a wealthy and more or less entirely legitimate businessman neatly extricates him from a story of watching for informants and being paranoid about wiretaps. I suspect this is why Coppola chose the Vatican bank scandals as a plot for Part 3, despite it being sort of remote. And it's still anachronistic. No one would have attended the commission meeting where all those dons got killed — after Apalachin, no one ever gathered that many VI Ps in one place ever again, and the helicopter attack feels like a live-action GTA mission.

Because the original script had Hagen with a huge role, and Duvall wanted to be paid more or less equally to Pacino, but the studio wouldn't allow it.

Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Aug 31st 2020 at 8:10:23 AM

One thing Copolla has stated in Word of God that the story lacks payoff on the Sonny's bastard, Vincent. The storyline there was supposed to end with him recreating the Corleone family during The '80s by getting heavily involved in the cocaine trade. This results in the family once more becoming associated with everything Michael hated and being unable to do a thing about it (apparently his heart attack crippling him).

Vincent's activities not only get him killed but also large numbers of the family's future generation arrested as well as destroying their business as assets are seized as part of RICO.

I feel like this would have been a much more interesting story than the one we got. Connie grooming Vincent to take over the family versus Michael who is certain the issue is settled and they're out—and doesn't even see the point.

Copolla apparently put Vincent's fate in the DVD.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 7th 2020 at 7:04:55 AM

Francis Ford Coppola presents The Godfather, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone, a re-cut of The Godfather Part III:

• Conceived in celebration of Part III's 30th anniversary.
• Restored picture and sound, made under the supervision of American Zoetrope (a privately owned studio established by Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas) and Paramount Pictures.
• Will be in select theaters on December 4th, with a Blu-ray and Digital release on December 8th.
• Boasts a new beginning and ending, as well as changes to scenes, shots, and music cues. What results will be seen as a proper conclusion to The Godfather saga as intended by not just Coppola, but also the author of the original Godfather novels, the late Mario Puzo.

Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Nov 20th 2020 at 11:47:13 AM

Honestly, if any movie deserved a recut like this, it would be this one.

I'm interested. Not sure how much can be done to improve the film 30 years later.

Honestly, just end it on Michael holding his dead daughter and the film is improved by about 10%.

The Vito homage was unnecessary to let us know Michael ruined his family.

Him Dying Alone was an important part of his character I think, however.

Its a bad impression then because Vito died at his home with his family in the house.

Presumably Michael will have no one because, well, unlike Vito, his family hated him and he destroyed what relationships they had.