The Godfather Trilogy
The Cat
Where Blofeld is!Posts: 711MI6 Agent
Question for beginners: Do you like the Godfather trilogy? I personally love it!
Question for advanced fans: Which is the best one of the three? I think third is the weakest, but still worth watching. It is only weak compared to the two previous ones, but hey, that's cinema at its best (apart from Bond movies, of course
)! But I can't decide between I and II! What do you think?
Question for advanced fans: Which is the best one of the three? I think third is the weakest, but still worth watching. It is only weak compared to the two previous ones, but hey, that's cinema at its best (apart from Bond movies, of course
)! But I can't decide between I and II! What do you think?
Comments
As a student of Judeo-Christian scripture, i.e, the Bible, particularly the Old Testament book, 1st Kings, there are parallels in the passing of the monarchy between David to Solomon, and Don Vito to Michael Corleone. Like the end of all the movies, some of David's enemies were from the inside, and because he lacked resolve or was bound by an oath of sorts, he did not deal with them judiciously, and went even as far to obligate his son and heir, Solomon to do the same. However, after David died, just like when Don Corleone passed on, Solomon used shrewd means to nullify his oath and had David's enemies killed, and Michael Coreleone did the exact same thing. In both instances, the son had his brother killed, as well as the father's once trusted yet trecherous advisor. I found it striking how Solomon had these killings dispatched in quick succession, just like the execution montage that ended each Godfather film. I've always thought this to be either a great coincidence, or that it was intentional on Mario Puzo's part.
III was not very good. It was made because Coppola needed the money, and he made two poor tactical decisions:
1 - Casting his daughter in the central role.
2 - Making it seem like the Corleone's actually influenced a real-life event such as the death of John Paul I. In the other two films, the Corleone's were a backdrop to such events, such as Castro's revolution and the rise of gambling in Nevada.
All in all, though, there are very few films outside the Bond series that I have a limitless appetite to watch, and I and II are two of them.
Godfather 1 is probably my favourite.To watch the transistion of Micheal was just genius on Al Pacino's part and the ending in at the christening was astounding.
All the actors were just perfectly cast,James Caan,Robert Duval and of course Marlon Brando.The
only one I didn't like was Diane Keaton,she just didn't do it for me as Kay.I never felt sorry for her or understood her.As a chracter I just cant take to her and that is after countless viewings.
Godfather 2 is also great.I love the whole Micheal/Fredo story.Brilliant again.
If you haven't read the book I would advise anyone to as it is also great.Believe it or not you can get even deeper into the characters.
That's the same with me but, I have to say part 2 is better!
Cause :
-The beginning of part 2
-Vito Corleone as young Immigrant
-Robert de Niro
Part 2 goes deep in the parts of part 1 we did not see in part 1 itself.
If it was one movie it would have been the best movie ever!
They could have make it a 5 hour long movie : like the masterpiece Gone with the wind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9lnq-am15E
Kinda funny. Captures the spirit of the film, eh?
Godfather II is also brilliant but somewhat less of an entertaining film for me as the Cuba section sometimes drags on. Again, I love the juxtapositions, watching Vito Corleone rise to power as Michael slowly destroys everything and everyone he holds dear. The sections with young Vito Corleone (especially the murder of Fanucci) are priceless, some of my favorite film moments ever.
Godfather III is OK at best. You see flashes of the old Coppola brilliance, but the story's basic premise (Michael looking for redemption) is IMHO deeply flawed. Right or wrong, Michael always felt he was doing what was best for the family. Even if he never admitted his mistakes (except maybe during those final moments in part II when he's all alone and clearly haunted by the ghosts of all those he had killed) he always thought he was doing the right thing. Part III makes him question this belief. That diminishes him and the movie never recovers from there. Still, there are some great scenes: the murder of Zaza, and the opera at the end and the subsequent tragedy.
I borrowed the trilogy from a family member. I love the series! XD I also have the Godfather Game.
Of course, Evans may have had a taste for self-aggrandisment and bigging up his contribution, looking at the reception of Part III however, and you do start to wonder.
It's a bit like when Dennis Potter flogged his last masterpieces to both the Beeb and Channel 4, and they were both duds! Apparently, The Singing Detective had been heavily reedited at script level by the producer...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Godfather III was a disaster, Sofia was awful and all the Vatican stuff boring.
The reason for that, is because, in Coppola's own words, parts I and II are essentially one movie. The story of The Godfather is these two movies. PART III is not the story of the Godfather, or rather, to make my point clear, is not the story of Michael becoming and stableizing himself as The Godfather. The Godfather story is simple: Its Michael Corleone's descent into darkness, and as a side story, its Vito's rise and parallel nature with his son's personal fall. The story ends with Michael sitting, older, in Lake Tahoe, contemplating on the promise he never kept: Not to be involved in the business.
PART III, is that character's attempt, for redemption, which is not the same point with the other two. Here, it has been some time. Here, Michael wants to truly repent for what he has done, and tries to reclaim the conscience that he, willingly, lost when he became Don. He tries to repent, with the ultimate price being his own daughter's death...
One could say, that parts I and II are one movie, and PART III is essentially the sequel, with a new story. Yet it all ties together to the greater tragedy, of Michael Corleone.
Also, excellent points by all members, particularly superado's. Nice metaphor on Solomon. Very nice, indeed.
What a great movie!
Anywho, he needed Tom to take the Family into cleaner directions... In PART III, its easy to assume that he, along with Tom, started a cleasing process in which Michael sold the casinos and all business having to do with gambling or other illegal activities.
My favorite is the first, it is the most classic of the 3.