“But what was Coppola to do? Paramount won’t pay Robert Duvall what he’s worth, and the Corleone family need a lawyer.” Sounds like someone better call Saul.
@@EyebrowCinema You know how there are so many films "-- but in fantasy"? "What if cops but in fantasy"? "What if modern world but with fantasy"? Well, i present to you, what if modern bullshit but with Noire. Bring the old stupid codes of the mafia that believed themselves cleaner than criminals with the modern bussiness man like who believe themselves smarter than criminals.
Tom was a crucial cog in the wheel, like sonny...even fredo!! There was so much more substance in the characters and by the time it came to coda (#3) all the soul had been sucked out of the family because they were all dead!! (#2) held up as legendary because it had the origin story. (#3) should have gave Tom or sonny a timeline story during the Vatican/ religious core to give the story more depth imo
One aspect of Godfather III that has gone mostly unnoticed: early in the film some newspaper headlines indicate that the events are taking place in November 1979, but almost nothing in the film is appropriate to that period. Costumes, hairstyles, interiors - they're all contemporary 1990. Women have shoulder pads. Men wear double-breasted suits. Aside from some of the cars, nothing looks like 1979. I noticed this when I saw the film in theaters on its initial release. I wonder what Coppola's thought process was...
Brilliantly put. It's also worth noting that Coppola describes his original intention for the film as a face off between Michael and Tom, an idea which I would've loved to see, but I am content to die someday without that because the failures of the movie brought a great video from a great creator out of it. Keep it up.
I think a simple yet effective rewrite they could've made was making it so instead of Tom dying, he quit the Corleone family. Even if it's offscreen it could've been effective for Michael to remark how Tom Hagen, his last remaining brother, cut ties with him after he killed Fredo. Number 1. That'd be completely in character seeing as how Tom loved Fredo like a brother and probably wasn't privy to Michaels assignation plot. I can picture in my head just one of the characters saying something like "no wonder Tom abandoned you". It would make Tom Hagens absence a feature instead of a blight.
@@EyebrowCinema I doubt Tom, woulda left like dat. Fredo, DID btray Michael & Tom wuz well aware of da consequence of dat, just azz Fredo wuz. Bsidez, u can't quit La Costra Nostra. Once ur n, U R N & da only way ur leaving, iz n death. THUSLY.........
Disagree. Tom and Michael both loved Fredo, but both understood the harsh reality of their business. Recall that Tom was sent to deal with Woltz. It had to be Tom who informed Don Vito how to strike at Woltz. That resulted in the butchering of that magnificent stallion. Tom didn't lose any sleep over that incident. Tom loved Fredo, but he understood the penalty for betrayal and Fredo had conspired to kill Michael. There are no "let bygones be bygones" in a move like that.
Yes. Imagine if it began with their relationship being pretty much where the last movie left off, and then told the story of the breakdown of their relationship, with the ultimate irony being that Tom manages to achieve everything that Michael fails to. Tom’s children all love and respect him, following career paths that he hoped for them; he divests himself of all criminal connections and goes completely legitimate; and he becomes a respected, much loved member of the financial, political and establishment community. If neither character was happy, Tom because he’s lost the family that really matters to him and cannot forgive Michael’s betrayal in the form of Fredo’s murder, and Michael is unhappy for all of the reasons highlighted in part 3, this would add to the irony and make for a great, “Crime never pays,” parable. The climax would have to be centred around a showdown between the two characters, but an emotional one, rather than a violent one. One in which the two characters are placed in the same room for the first time in the movie, and which goes badly for both of them. Imagine that movie? . . .
I still remember the summary from NPR’s review at the time of its release: “While it may not be a masterpiece, THE GODFATHER PART III is clearly the work of a master filmmaker.” That pretty much sums it up.
Could not agree more with you regarding the lack of Tom Hagen in part three. Also, The lack of Duvall’s participation was seriously felt, since IMO Duvall is the true secret weapon of the first two film. Subtle, yet magnetic.
The secret weapon of the first two movies is the fact that Michael was moving the"family"in a different way his father did. Remember a lot of ppl including his sister & brother went against him, Connie telling him for yrs she hated him & his brother trying to have him taken out!
@@EyebrowCinema Isn't the premise of GF3 a/b Michael not being able to get the"family"from under the mystique of Vito🤔? As hard as he tried when ppl heard the Corleone name it was synonymous w/crime & criminal activity!!
It just occurred to me that Michael's final shot in the GF Coda being so similar to his final shot in GF2 might actually drive home an "It was all for nothing" theme. Anyway that's how I've decided to process it. All Michael's attempts at going straight and his attempts at redemption, finally, were "all for nothing." I don't know if that thought crossed Coppola's mind...but it works for me.
This is probably the best analysis of Godfather III/Coda I've ever seen. Most people just focus on Sofia Coppola's acting or Michael being (too much) of a different character. Your observation that the movie is torn between trying to be an epilogue and trying to be a grand gangster epic is something I had never really thought about to that extent. And it really makes sense. Yes, the movie does have streaks of brilliance. And through analysis one can really reach out and grasp what the movie is trying to say. It's just that at face value the movie delivers its themes more akwardly and in a less satisfying manner than the first two films.
@@DanielSong39 That's an opinion. And I personally don't think that's the case. Especially Sofia Coppola. Not defending her acting, but I don't think such a flaw is distracting enough to ruin a film. It's nowhere near as distracting as Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula. And more importantly, such criticism doesn't get to the heart of why a movie like Godfather III doesn't work as well as it should. This video on the other hand does get to that.
My biggest problem is Coda's ending because it is the same ending of 3 & I hated that they took away him dancing with apollonia & kay. The whole point was the woman all close to Micheal's life were destroyed. I didn't like connie's parts being taking out but you make a good point about za za's death. The new beginning is pretty cool & the best part about the Coda is we get the original glasses death which they were forced to tame In the original theatrical cut
Great video! I appreciate how you didn’t beat the dead horse that is bashing Sofia Coppola’s performance. IMO, she got a ton of undue flack from critics who used her as a means to vent their problems with the film, when, as you demonstrated, there were far more substantial problems with it than just her.
Thanks man. Sofia is a lot like Jar Jar in The Phantom Menace. Easy to point to as "the bad thing" but removing them doesn't magically fix everything wrong with the movie.
Although she was no olivier, she was actually OK. Jar Jar is actually a good example on how fans can actually shoot themselves in the foot. I heard rumors about how Lucas had planned to use the character in a more positive direction, but because of all the copious bitching and whining, instead of getting maybe a rumored Darth Jar Jar arc we wound up with a little less flavor in the sequel.
I agree that the film has a lot more problems that Sophia Coppola’s performance, but still that does not stop it from being a terrible performance. I cringe at most of the scenes she’s in. That said, she’s not alone and I find Andy Garcia’s performance just as bad. There zero chemistry between the two of them and I just don’t buy Vincent’s meteoric rise from cocky thug to head of the family. That’s one of bigger problems (one of many) that the film has.
I don't think Sofia was a problem or a mistake. She was very believable as a young woman in a relationship she should not have been in. Also I don't think Winona Rider was a good choice for the role.
I think the absence of Tom Hagen only emphasizes Michael's removal from the world of his "honourable" gangster father. He now has a more corporate lawyer who would probably work for anybody. It's not about rising from poverty or protecting the family, it's more about preserving the position they already have, morally dubious as it is. The thoughts, feelings, backstory, whatever, of his new lawyer are not important in Michael's powerful, lonely life and this is why I thought that character worked in Michael's later situation. Don't mean to be knocking. Please keep up the good work.
Frankie Five Angels was a BLAST and very well acted by Gazzo! I don’t think that Richard Castellano (Clemenza) would have been so dynamic like Pentangeli…
i recently rewatched the first two movies and saw godfather coda for the first time and i have to say i agree with literally everything in this video. exceptionally well said and edited
Great video! I agree that the sharper focus given by the new opening was arguably the most evident and effective change, and you illustrate the missed opportunities of Tom Hagan in Part III so tantalizingly!
The omission of Tom Hagen was my biggest pet peeve with this ending too. What a finale it could've been if they were just willing to pony up the dough!
I wish it had ended at the opera after Mary’s death. Jumping ahead to him years later I always found incredibly jarring. Michael crying over mary as you fade to black, would have worked a lot better I think.
I’m surprised this wasn’t mentioned in the video or the comments but the best improvement from GF3 to Coda is that we finally get to see the arterial blood spurt when Calo kills Don Lucchesi. I’m glad that all this gore was added back after being censored out. Edit: the video shows clips of it without comment.
@@xBINARYGODx I didn’t see it in THIS comment section until I posted this comment. Anything else nuance troll wannabe? Edit: You sub Majority Report and Carlos Maza, you clearly have mental issues.
THANK YOU for this vid! When I finally got around to watching coda (having never seen part 3) I saw a couple Coppola interviews beforehand where he gave context to the reasons behind the re-edit, name change, ending change, etc. So I loved it and think it’s really underrated, and is a shame everyone else hates it. I’m glad someone articulated this sentiment in a clean, well-made video essay analysis. Also appreciated the deserved critiques.
The Godfather and II are the best movies ever made. Nice work. Thorough. (I just watched a video on "Coda" and its creator admitted they had only seen III once in theaters). I agree completely on Tom. I found III predictable, ( Roth 2.0 etc.) and I was just waiting on the climax when all enemies were whacked. I knew it was coming. Lazy. The "Coda" ending I find interesting, as Michael is not allowed to escape his self imposed fate with death. He continues to have to live with it. Yes, He (Michael) and we have wasted our time...As hard as Michael tried, nothing will change. "You're gone, and it was all for nothing."
God damn it’s so fuckinf sad when his daughter gets murdered. Makes you realize that there is no peace of mind available when you live that kind of life always looking over your shoulder. “You can’t put a price on peace of mind” - Me
My father always thought that Michael, inconsolable and holding the dead body of his daughter, should have eventually pulled it together enough to ask his bodyguard for a gun (as if he is going to personally chase the shooter) and then Michael puts the barrel of the handgun in his mouth and pulls the trigger.
I never actually saw the Coda version, and I'm grateful to know that one exists, so thank you for that alone! Cutting away ties to parts 1 and 2 actually does a lot for this movie to stand on its own, and not be over-burdened by nostalgia. To me those references felt like actual devices to draw the viewer emotionally, and not points to advance the plot or develop the characters. That was a crying shame. That, and the performance of Many Corleone (though, of course, it's all subjective, and she does look like my ex-wife, so that might have made me overly biased against her; still, her delivery falls flat most of the time). Of course, no cut can ever fix that, since she is one of the main characters. That being said, Tom Hagen's absence didn't feel that awkward to me for some reason. His replacement was by no means a Frank Pentangeli move, where a new character is actually relevant -- no, instead Tom's absence is just part of the exposition to me. "Ok, Tom died, there's his son, he's a priest. Okay" -- that's what I thought when watching the movie (not the "Coda" version). Honestly, that is actually fine, in my opinion -- in fact, mentioning Tom LESS (and not showing his son) might have helped out in freeing the movie from the burden of part 1 and 2 legacy. That's because it clearly underlines from the get-go that it's a new story about Michael. In fact, I think that Al Neri and Connie work very well to underline Michael's situation in his twilight years. Connie, who has managed to center herself by finding purpose and helping out Michael, reminds us about the emotional fragility of the human being that Michael still is. Al, on the other hand, is mostly silent in this movie -- and he is also looking very tired. I noticed that nuance multiple times when watching the movie -- he is the manifestation of Michael's phrase: "... they pulled me back in" -- a worn-out weapon of a man. He frames the other side of Michael -- his ruthlessness and paranoia that have never dulled despite his age. And that, in turn, brings me to Vincent, who indeed does his best to act like Santino (which again draws the movie closer to the previous parts). For better or worse, he represents Michael's legacy -- one of disappointment, I guess (if we recall that Vito called Santino "a bad Don", and Vincent acted a lot like Santino). That is where the real problem lies, however. Vincent's character is not concluded properly. For all of Mary Corleone's faults, her character has an arc -- a formal one, terminated by her death; yet Vincent has no such arc, in my opinion. While we see Michael agonizing in one moment and quietly dying in the next, and Kay watching the murder scene with literally the same eyes as Michael watched her during the abortion scene in part 2 (which, I think, is brilliant btw), Vincent's reaction doesn't explain much. Was he supposed to be in love? Was he sad about Mary's death? Relieved that he wouldn't have to worry about leftover feelings? It's not obvious. Now, that's the point of this whole post. In my opinion, this movie (and its "Coda" version too, I guess) is missing a scene in-between the assassination attempt and Michael's death. The epilogue of the epilogue, if I may. I think that they could have bound this movie to the first two in this very instance. Part 1 has Vito's grand funeral; part 2 has Michael's mother's quiet funeral; I think part 3 could have used a funeral as the final scene. It could have been a subversion of expectations -- we see a funeral parade, and we immediately think about Mary -- but it's actually the funeral of Don Tommazino. In that moment we can resolve the arcs of both Vincent, Connie and Al. How could that be done is another question. Let's try a thought exercise. Suppose that we see Vincent with a shovel, burying the corpses of the assassin and Don Altobello alongside each other. There is no disgust on his face, only contempt. We then focus the camera on his ring finger, where we see a fancy diamond ring. Vincent gets called over by a woman's voice. That voice sounds like Connie's. He smiles and lights up a cigarette, then turns around. A young woman in an outfit that highly resembles Connie, walks in, complaining about the heat. "We'll be home soon, darling. This place is a dump" -- Vincent says scornfully, as he does his best to turn the lady away from the freshly dug grave. We then cut to the funeral. Connie is sitting there -- she dons the same shades as Michael used throughout the movie. She sees Vincent come in. Al is sitting beside her, drooping his head, sound asleep. As the priest heading the funeral continues his chanting, Connie whispers to Vincent, who sat down next to her: "I don't want Mary to be buried here. We need to fly her to New York". Vincent shrugs. "Who's Mary" -- his "girlfriend" asks. Connie hears that. She curtly stands up, then grabs the young woman by the collar and spits in her face. The funeral stops for a moment, with their attention drawn to this incident. Vincent stands up and says in flawed Italian that Connie is becoming senile. He then takes her's and his "girlfriend"'s hands and walks them out of the church. Vincent tosses a glance at Al, who is still asleep, and whispers to Connie: "It's all been taken care of", to which Connie replies in a rather disgusted tone: "And what about you?". She then jerks her hand away, and proceeds to leave on her own. We then cut to Al. It's evening, candles have been lit up in the church, the funeral long over. For some reason, no one pestered his sleep. We can see him smiling as he leans against the church wall. Then Al wakes up and instinctively looks at his watch. He looks around, startled, perhaps, for the first time in many years. He then quietly recalls something and reaches into his pocket. In there, he finds two sets of keys, labeled "Al" and "Mike". Al stands up and slowly walks out of the church, his pace sloppy. We see him later near a rather run-down mansion. He opens the gate with Michael's key. In the courtyard, we see Michael sitting, staring blankly into space. Al looks at Michael for a moment, but doesn't say anything and comes inside the mansion. We can hear the phone ringing. "Al, is Michael coming? We are going back" -- Connie shouts over the phone. Al says: "Some things came up". Connie doesn't say anything in response. "My condolences" -- says Al rather formally. "Thank you" -- Connie replies, as her voice gets drowned by the announcer in the airport. She puts down the receiver of the payphone and calls over Vincent in a stern voice. We cut to Al again. He walks to a guestroom and pours himself a drink. In the guestroom, two puppies are playing. With his hands unflinching, Al grabs one of the dogs and walks in the yard. He comes over to Michael. Whatever angst took him over, it's gone in an instant. Michael turns his head to Al, smiling as Al hands him over the puppy. Michael's smile is unnatural. He opens his mouth to speak, but says nothing, only nodding slightly. Al puts Michael's key into Michae's pocket and leaves, his face emotionless. As we see Al walking away from Michael, we hear Michael's murmuring: "We'll get there, pop. We'll get there". Then we can cut to the death / sleep scene. I personally think that the endings from part 2 and part 3, were they to be similar, would actually convey different messages. While in part 2 Michael essentially destroyed his family, he contemplates the future. He is alone, yet he is not dead, he is not broken, he is confused, as his life has taken on a turn that he never wanted for himself or his close ones. In part 3, however, there are no turns, no chances to fix anything, to change his life. I think having "Cent'anni" in the end is his final verdict, and answer to the question: "Was Michael able to turn his life around?" In my opinion, that ending is better, since it contrasts Vito's words, for it was ultimately Michael, who danced on the strings of others to find absolution. Those are my two cents, anyway, sorry about that, this review just got me thinking, that's all. Thank you for it, once again!
I do love Connie's character development as portrayed by Talia Shire. She makes an interesting contrast to the other two principal women in the family, Mama Corleone and Kaye. Mama knew Vito's business but she confined herself to domesticity, behaving as if she were deaf, dumb, and blind to the murder and mayhem. Her only form of rebellion was daily attendance at mass to pray for the forgiveness of Vito's soul. Kaye refused to comply when Michael committed to the family business. She rebelled on moral principal to the extreme of an abortion and encouraged her surviving children to seek another path. Young Connie expected the perks without the price tag "spoiled guinea brat". She berated Michael for Carlo's death, but I think she came to realize that her reckless imprudence was a major factor in both Carlo and Sonny's death. She became her father's daughter when she accepted that decisions have consequences. She ended her pursuit of self-indulgence and began to support the family interests. Connie even tried to ease Michael's burdens as something of a substitute for wife and mother, the two women he had lost.
I was also surprised there weren't more breakdowns of Coda and what it changed. Modest alterations or not I think they're significant enough that they warrant a look. Shooting new footage would be tricky without Storaro, but it would be interesting to see Pacino as an elderly Michael now that he actually is elderly.
@@EyebrowCinema I was more referring to unreleased footage being added back in, like the Apocalypse Now! redux. But actually yeah, getting Pacino back to play an elderly Michael sounds like a great idea.
You just earned a sub. Made me think about how cool it would be to see these films in cinema. I remember three being bad, you may have just made me go back and watch them :)
One of the things that really bothered me about part III was his hair. Like Pacino to this day has great hair and certainly did in the 90s, but they decided to give him a dried out buzz cut
Stuck between giving Michael a bad end and a good end. I can't help but imagine someone involved in making this film pitching the idea of a hit being ordered on his daughter and Michael taking the bullet, redeeming Michael, but also creating another loop of murders.
Part Three is my favorite of the trilogy. It always has been. Coda, just like Coppola's director's cut of The Outsiders entitled The Complete Novel, it's superior to the original screen release. I'm VERY glad we have Coda
I actually find the ending mirroring the ending of Part 2 to be more poignant and tragic. Because even after everything he did, working so hard to try and get out of crime, confessing the murder of his brother, trying to heal the wounds and estrangement between himself and Kay & his children...he goes nowhere. None of it worked and he's right back where he was and will be until he dies. Maybe that hits harder with age, but it hits hard.
GF3s biggest issue for me was that it was an 80s/90s fillm, the acting, casting, action scenes that beat you over the head etc, where as the previous 2 were filled with subtlety and restraint
I didn`t realize how similar the ending of 2 and 3 are, but at the same time Michael was still a young man that could turn things around, seeing him old and with no family surrounding him shows that he was feared but never loved, not even by those close to him. I don't know, i've always liked part 3 but i think nothing could've surpassed 2.
Credit where credit is due - the last cross-cut assasination is the nice continuation of first two movies, but it is also a unique take, since this time both parties make their moves and on the first watch you really feel that it can go both ways (it actually does go both ways). Not gonna lie, it does not capture the glory of the original Godfather's cross-cut and is not consistent in the tone in comparison to Godfather II's downer note, but it is definitely ambitious and unique.
Obviously I agree with you on Tom Hagen. That said "Godfather Coda" is a significant improvement over "Godfather Part Three" especially from a purely cinematic point of view. Coda is tighter and more coherent . It's still not able to measure up to the first two films because there are so few films that do. In time, I predict it will replace Three as the accepted version . As for the ending, you have to compare how Michael died in Three to how Vito died (in his garden playing with his grandson- an Italian's version of Heaven )- Two ends with Michael "wounded and not even dead" -Three ends with Michael dead- and Coda with Michael " wounded and not even dead" but this time mortally- now that he has been delivered what he construes as proof that his confession to Fredo's death has not been accepted by God. Even at the end of Two there still existed a hope of forgiveness- in a Catholic's heart.
I’m only a minute into this so I don’t know if you covered it later but I just wanted to comment now before I forget. You mentioned that parts 1 and 2 are collectively your favourite film. Have you seen The Godfather Saga? It’s a television version of the Godfather, part one and two edited together, chronologically, including all of its deleted scenes that Francis Ford Coppola created for television after selling it to TV in order to gather additional funds for Apocalypse now. I think it came out in 1978 or 977 or around that time. Personally, it’s my preferred version of pts one and two, and it’s my favourite version of any of the Godfather movies. I might be alone in that opinion, but it is genuinely a great experience, and if you’ve seen the Godfather, one and two many times, it is a refreshing change for a viewing experience.
@@EyebrowCinema that's not exactly my point here. For example, the sequel trilogy's horribleness is what took for people to realize there's nothing wrong with the prequels!
Ah. True enough. Distance allows people to accept their disappointment and notice the strengths easier, especially in the case of Star Wars where the newest films (for whatever their strengths) generally lack the personality Lucas's movies had and it really puts that into relief.
@@EyebrowCinema wich is why I believe channels such as this:m.ru-vid.com, should be more trendy! Because while people(apart from scraffarilas productions or whoever) go online and spread malicious and poorly thought out and researched lies, there's still ignorant disliking around for them. I mean the sequels are so bad even blind could see their faults, but the prequels are a harder nutt to crack for them!
The Godfather Saga can be summed up in 3 scenes... Vito arriving at Ellis Island, Michael asking his mother if he could lose his family and Michael's death. Vito came to America with nothing, his family having been murdered. he grew up strong and grew an empire. Michael was born into the beginning of an empire, he had no wants or needs, everything handed to him on a silver platter and was being groomed for greatness. Vito died happy - playing in his bountiful garden with his grandson. Michael kills his brother, cannot protect his daughter and loses his wife and son. He dies rich and powerful but alone and with nothing. Michael lost his family.
I’ve always enjoyed The Godfather: Part III. It’s not the best of the trilogy, but I thought it was a good epilogue to the trilogy as that’s what Coppola wanted it to be, so when viewing it that way I’ve been able to enjoy it more than when it was seen as just the third part of the trilogy. But the film being recut and viewing the new version is defiantly interesting and some of the editing choices make the film even better than before. Obviously it’s unfortunate that Robert Duvall wasn’t in the film. Would have been great to see how Michael and Tom would have interacted in old age with everything going on at that point in time. It’s not perfect, but it’s a fine film with a lot of good stuff in it. Al Pacino still gave an amazing performance as Michael Corleone and while he may not have won, I think he should have been nominated for Best Actor at the Academy Awards at the very least. Thank you for the video man, I hope you’re doing well. Take care!
That feeling of "what if" will always linger in my mind when I see this movie and I hate it. I liked "Coda" but I'm always gonna be little disappointed that Robert Duvall couldn't come back and how much of a masterpiece this movie could have turned out.
I agree with most of your points regarding the changes present in Coda ( and great video btw). However I feel the ending os more effective now and feels more thematically appropriate, and less a figurative "end". I also personally would have kept tye flashback at the end of Michael dancing with Kay and Appolonia. As I feel this truly encapsulated the depths of Michaels loss and that any love in his life is all but gone. As a few other commenters have mentioned it give it a The Irishman feel. Orbeit it's still limited due to what is available to work with. 100% agree with you regarding tom hagen but I must try to make mybpeace with this and accept it
I'm gonna see a special screening of this this week even though I prefer the original version however seeing the first 2 Godfathers on screen a few times. The second being my favorite & the original being my 3rd favorite. It's about time I get to see part 3 on the big screen though I wish it wasn't the Coda. But that will do
Michael dropping dead is so much better. It mirrors when his father just plopped in the garden. It’s subversive to pay off the title by him dying naturally. To leave him alive at the end is stupid. Why even include the scene?
@EyebrowCinema I absolutely did! I may give the Coda version a watch. Not anytime soon, but someday. I have only watched Part III once when I bought the Coppola Restoration blu-ray box set from 2008. I watched three of your Hitchcock videos last night. I'm looking forward to watching more from the channel.
I like the 1990 movie EXACTLY the way it was in 1990. It is a GREAT movie...PERIOD! There was no reason to mess it up 30 years later due to studio pressure so they could make more movies. Coppola should have let things be!
Thank you for this. I'm one of the only souls to actually love the original cut from Godfather 3, Coda taking away Michael's death kills the whole purpose of the movie for me 😢
I feel sad because they could have shot again the final scene, but with the real old Pacino. It seems that the age would fit. I think it could have made more impact
The character of Vincent is modelled on Sonny. So essentially Michael giving the family is him restoring order and giving the family back to his brother. Maybe Coppola didnt make it clear enough or Garcia didnt do a good enough job but it couldnt be any more obvious than if Coppola cross dissolved to a flashback of sonny at the moment vincent gets the family Also the whole story is about how you cant run from your sins ( theyll always find you). Pretty much the whole plot is Michael trying to a rid himself of past sins, in the literal sense, his confession, in the figurative sense, his quest for legitimacy. All to render the same response, both literal and figurative, you deserve to pay for what you have done.
how can you say Clemenza isn't an essential part of the story??? without Clemenza, Vito probably never enters the world / underworld of crime in the first place, much less becomes a Don. he remains a loyal, hard-working man devoted to his wife and children and finds other legitimate work after Genco's father is forced to lay him off. he probably never meets Tessio either... Clemenza is also the one who helps Michael plan Sollozzo's murder
He's essential to Vito's story, yes, but has a lot less relevance than Tom does to Michael's story, both as a son of Vito/brother of Sonny and as a lawyer in the efforts to move the family into "legitimacy"
In the original GF III, there's the scene in the chapel where Neri and Connie give Vincent the order to take Zasa out. Why isn't said scene in GF III CODA?
Very good video, I like your channel and your analysis, I agree with you that when I watched Coda I enjoyed it more than in previous times, Part 3 is a good movie, not as bad as it's reputation has mede us to believe, it got very good reviews at the time, though it will not have lived up to the same expectations as the first 2 films, which I always like to rewatch at least once or twice a year, I haven't seen Part 3 as much as the previous 2, but I genuinely like it, I can understand it's criticism, I always understood the dissapointment towards Tom Hagen's abscence, he said in an interview the reasons why he did not return and says he does not regret it, though he probably wouldn't have needed as much makeup as Al Pacino and Diane Keaton. Sofia Coppola's acting never seemed horrendous to me, but I can understand why many people dosen't like her in this movie, but later she became a tremendous director like his father, who knows what the character would have been like if Winona Ryder had played her (fortunately Coppola casted Winona as Minna Harker in Dracula which I rewatched it, she was at her best moment in late 80s and 90s), although now there are some who vindicate her, saying that her performance makes her look like a contemporary girl, although his relationship with Vincent has always made me uncomfortable. Don Altobello is a great character, thanks to the performance of Eli Wallach, I really like Joey Saza's character, though I would have liked to see more screen time of him. And I really all the opera sequence, the work name is "Cavalleria Rusticana" composed by Pietro Mascagni, I discovered that opera thanks to the movie, the Intermezzo used in the ending (also used in Raging Bull) made me cry, it's truly one of the saddest endings in cinema. Anyway thanks for the video, I was rewatching the trilogy recently, so this came reccomended on time.
I find it interesting to compare The Godfather Part III with other similar films like The Irishman or Once Upon A Time In America, the connecting thread being crime films featuring an ageing gangster who’s lived long enough to become filled with regret at his past. As previously stated on this channel, The Godfather Part III is like a feature-length version of the 1968 sequences from Once Upon A Time In America. Out of all them, The Godfather Part III is most narrative of this ‘old crime trilogy’ as the others are more about their themes and are even non-chronological to give more insights on the character. In my opinion, the original cut of The Godfather Part III (as I haven’t seen Coda) is a flawed film which could have been and should have been so much more. There is a good movie here, but it’s just bogged down with lame dialogue, all over the place acting (most are fine but then Joe Mantegna ruins it by being so over the top, and even Pacino is just kind of playing Pacino instead of Michael Corleone), and a story which is way too overly-complicated for its own good. And, ultimately, it’s just kind of boring. While I was moved by and really enjoyed the experience of watching Part I and Part II, I just didn’t feel it in Part III. Honestly, I just didn’t really see the point of Part III. Part II ended perfectly. I also don’t really like either version of Part III’s ending. The make-up just doesn’t work for me and the quote kind of ruins it. I kind of wish the film had just ended with a slow fade to black over Michael’s scream, hold on it for a good few seconds as his scream dies, and then credits. That’s kind of the whole film summed up, really. Things going over the top and going from moving and powerful, to a bit silly with hints of greatness. The film really should have continued from Part II a bit more instead of telling its own narrative like this.
There's a lot here I agree with, especially Part III's story being overly-complicated. The machinations involving Immobiliare are not very clear in the moment.
I felt that Michael had become all he could become, much as his own father had by that age. Life is beginning to strip him down and take things from him: his dreams of being legitimate, his relationship with his children and ex-wife, his position at the head of the family, his friends, his health, and finally his life. In contrast to this, we see his nephew and daughter attempting to settle into their own roles in the family, Connie is the chief advisor and gatekeeper to Michael m9re than capable of giving Al Neri the command to perform a hit against a dangerous enemy now that Michael no longer has the health or will to order, all while making an absolute killer cannoli. It is also interesting to watch the buzzards and jackals beginning to worry at Michael's organization, because they know that Michael is an old and dying king, and no monarchy is stable during the time of transition from one monarch to another. In this vein, I have always felt that the last scene should not have been of Michael dying, but rather him looking through the closing door as his nephew begins receiving the pledges of the his aunt, Al Neri, and other leaders in the family.
What really would have saved the Godfather 3, instead of just a minor re-edit would have been the addition of Jared Leto. he could have jumped in front of the bullet to save mary and then proclaimed "it's morbin time..... part 3" and then they all could have broke into a victory break dance. Sadly Coppola just doesn't have my genius though, oh well.
Bold choice. I'd tweak it slightly so that, instead of Leto pulling out his Morb, he instead was shot several times by the assassin, a throwback to the golden age of Jared Leto movies (The Thin Red Line, American Psycho, Fight Club) where Leto's primary purpose was to suffer horribly.
@@EyebrowCinema an interesting take. although I'd have to say starring in morbius is a much greater form of suffering than getting pummeled by ed Norton or axed by Christian bale.
I'm the guy who likes The Godfather 3 and Alien 3, always have, never saw why people disliked them, other than an unreasonable desire of the audience and not the quality of the film itself.
"It feels pointless" That's the point. It reminds you of the first two films, yes, but what's the difference? The difference is that "It's pointless" not the film, not the story, but think about it. Vito lives and dies, but he passes his legacy onto a family he loves, has pride in, and he feels secure in what he's built and has relinquished his title to someone he respects to carry on his legacy. What about Michael? Nothing. He loses most everyone he loves, the new Godfather taking his place is unworthy of the title, he's alone with no meaningful legacy to pass on to anyone. It's empty, he's reflecting on how all of his sacrifices, all of them, even the killing of his brother, in the end built an edifice for no one but people he would never have selected to give it to. The point is that it was all for nothing.
What if the movie ended with Michael's scream scene? Might have that been dramatic enough? A bit of a kicker ending like the end of Dirty Maray, Crazy Larry?
It's still a damn good movie (especially the updated version) but the real problem lies within the fact that the first two films are absolute masterpieces. So if you're gonna make a follow-up to two back to back masterpieces, you better make one on the same level or atleast something close to it. And they obviously didn't do that with the third entry, which is why I have to agree with you.
Agree about the ending. I felt that was the main problem with the film and that's being nit-picky as it was an amazing film, but the ending should have been cut. I think the ending should have been the steps scene, with the camera slowly panning out. The absence of Tom has never bothered me, honestly, yes it's a weaker film without him, but the film also still works seamlessly and doesn't make me draw on the fact he's not there. A great review, may have to sub.
You made me think of something I never thought of before. If Tom were in the movie, he and Connie could have worked together, against Michaels wishes even, to save the Family, put Vincent in as the new Don and save Michael from himself. Michael needed redemption and Tom and Connie were the only ones to do that.
Honestly not much of a difference except recutting and rearranging a few scenes. Also the finale… I originally prefer the ending of the original cut then the Coda ending.
Of all the problems with G3, (and there were so many), the biggest was how Pacino played Michael. There was no resemblance between the Michael Corleone of the first two and how he played him in G3. There was no continuity. I couldn’t get past that.
Would've been cool to see that he was not talking about fredo this whole time but tom. That Michael (and by extention Copola) killed Tom for progress in the Godfather project.
Just watched Godfather part 3, after avoiding it like the plague for years, mainly because I didn’t want such a good series containing 2 of my favorite films of all time sullied for me. It’s underwhelming for sure but certainly not in a boring or bland way. There are a lot of interesting themes and ideas present especially about Michael’s guilt and him attempting to wash his hands of his past and I think there’s potential for sure. It’s just really messy even going beyond the stumbling block of not being able to get Duvall back as Hagen.
Ah yes, because a movies reputation is stuck in time and cannot be changed. It's not like vindication by history is a thing, hmmm? 'The Thing' would like to have a conversation with you.
@@Onezy05 I think some things change with time, and some things stay the same. Even if I wouldn't necessarily hate the movie, I couldn't "learn to" love it either because it's just not great compared to the others imo. But if that guy learned to love it that is great for him.
Great video. Have you ever seen “BAD COMPANY” -1972- starring Jeff Bridges, Barry Brown and John Savage (Deer Hunter) ? It’s a great “western” made in the style of a Butch/Sundance or maybe Pat Garrett Billy The Kid style… I highly recommend, even if you don’t like “westerns.” It really isn’t your typical western, more akin to Butch/Sundance… thanks
