Anyone catch FFC interview on TCM today? Very iteresting. Seems he really didn't want to make GFII, but they made him an offer he couldn't refuse He also readily admitted, as I have heard before, that he made GFIII strictly for the money, as his vineyard was approaching bankruptcy.

And it shows.

Glad things worked out with the vineyard, though .

Apple

His wines are quite good...."Cent'anni!"

In an interview around the time GFIII was released, he said that Paramount had always regarded GF and II as their gems, and continually pressed him to make III as a "prestige" film.

He also mentioned that, plus said something about sequels, that they are basically the originals, with only a few things changed around. I personally didnt see GFII like that, I thought it was brilliant follow up to GFI, while GFIII being a completely rehash of both I & II.

Making GFIII was a smart business decision on FFC's behalf. As mentioned above...his vineyard was approaching bankruptcy...he needed some quick cash...and he got it. Can't fault the man for that.

And eventhough GFIII isn't even close to being in the same league as the previous two films...I don't think it diminished the legacy of The Godfather in any way.

The subject of the quality of GFIII, has been discussed extensively on this board, and being a somewhat "Old Timer" here, don't wish to get involved, but possibly some of the newer posters might want to have a discussion concerning the merits or lack of merit of GFIII

I'll agree with that. The quality of the first two are so far superior that, except in the Trilogy dvd set (and on the Gangster BB), GFIII is virtually NEVER associated with GF and GFIII. On television it is always shown on a separate channel, never in combination as with the other two, never treated as some sort of special event.

Sort of like a black sheep cousin you want to keep at a respectable distance.

As it should be.

Apple

GF III is the Fredo of the franchise.

I still love III as a movie. I admit it isn't as good as its predecessors but I still value it highly as part of the trilogy. I watched it last night actually and each time I do, I like it more and more.

Which means to me that in order to enjoy the film, one must watch it many times to sort of understand what is going on. Not my idea of a good film.

Well put, Johnny!
I find a very big difference in viewing GF and II to catch new details each time and understand additional script nuances (I'm still amazed at the complexity of the Roth/Michael relationship, for example). But I wonder if I'll ever figure out some very basic plot stuff in III. III is an ok denouement to the Corleone saga and is a reasonably good movie on its own. But the weakness of the plot weakens the protagonists and makes the entire film feeble by comparison to the others.

It's really amazing that you bring this up. Just this morning Mikey Montana and I were talking about The Godfather 2 and I specifically pointed out to him that no matter how many times I watch it, I find that I learn something new about the Roth/Michael relationship because it goes so deep and as you say, is so complex.


And as far as GFIII, I've said before that I enjoy it for what it is, a third movie. I never had high expectations when it first came out and maybe that is why I wound up liking it. I enjoyed Michael's thirst for redemption, which while a hypocritical one, in a strange way still a sincere one. I also enjoy the Vatican scandal storyline.

I also get a kick out of the little inuendos made at times in the movie, lines or scenes that bring you back to GFI and GFII, lines such as " A temper just like his father," and scenes like when Anthony looks at the picture he made for Michael when he was a kid, the one that we see him give to Michael in GFII. I've always thought that FFC was brilliant to 'tease' us with indirect references to scenes and/or characters from the first two movies. Things to make us 'remember.'

And as you already know, the only thing that I deeply despise about GFIII is George Hamilton! They should have hanged him from the bridge!


Don Cardi

Thank you, Don Cardi. At last someone who thinks the same way I do about GFIII Especially George Hamilton.

I think that Eli Wallach gets a bad rap in this film - I thought his performance was excellent. Considering he's from Cuban descent (I think it's Cuban, but it could be Mexico or Puerto Rico - a Latino country anyway!) he did a fine job of portraying a Sicilian.

Wallach was born on December 7th, 1915 in Brooklyn, New York to Jewish parents, and subsequently became one of the few Jewish kids growing up in an Italian neighborhood.

As fine as an actor as he was, I found his portrayl of a don, almost laughable....

Excuse me. Can't seem to get anything right, can I Johnny?

Care to explain why you think his performance is so abysmal?

[Excuse me. Can't seem to get anything right, can I Johnny?

Care to explain why you think his performance is so abysmal?]


Please don't be offended by my opinion of Eli Wallach in GFIII, as it is no more then that "my opinion", and as such doesn't make either you or I right or wrong. If you enjoyed his performance, then I say "go in peace".

One of the great things about movies, is that they create so many conversations and debates, much like sports figures

To answer your question. IMHO his characterization of a old don, as a kindly old man is not what I expect of an "active" don. Compare him to Brando's portrayl when he told Bonasera "then they will fear you", to Wallachs acting like a little kid when he got his cannolli. Wallach should have used his portrayl of Calvera in "The Magnificent Seven" as a model for Don Altobello, and msde the aging don more believable.

Again, if you enjoyed the film, I sincerly say, great As that what movie watching is all about.

Heres a fact you might find interesting. In Philly there is a talk show host, who is called Mr. Movie:

http://thebigtalker1210.com/pages/17157.php?

The man is a virtual walking encyclopedia of films, and is proably one of the most passionate movie lovers you will ever meet. Once when driving home on a Sat night, I almost swerved off the road, when he said he didn't like "The Godfather"!!! I just had to call him and take him to task. He basically said that he didn't get it!!!!!

Go figure

Wasn't offended, Johnny. Just curious as to your opinion. Olive branch gladly accepted

I agree with you on a few points - he does seem to portray Don Altobello as a somewhat childlike character. However, I think that adds more to his appeal for me. I've long been an admirer of Eli Wallach (my personal favourite character of his is Tuco from The Good, The Bad and the Ugly) Don Altobello, at face value at least, is a kindly old man as you rightly put it but behind that facade is a scheming, wily old Don. In spite of this I couldn't help but feel sorry for him when he passed away at the opera.

I think if anything, it goes to show just what a versatile actor he is.

Who do you think should have played the part instead, Johnny?

I guess you're referring to Andy Garcia....who from what I've seen did give a very good performance considering what he was given to work with: A fabricated bastard offspring of a deceased Corleone brother who longs to elbow his way into the family business and despite falling in love with his 'cuz' the Don's daughter is taken under the wing of his Auntie Connie because he's the only one left in the family with her 'father's strength'.

Apple

[Who do you think should have played the part instead, Johnny?]

As much as I like to play casting director, I am not really that good at it. Off the top of my head, my second favorite and in some cases my favorite, "Mob Boss" type would be Chazz Palminteri. Did you catch him in "A Bronx Tale"? He played a great part, came off like nice guy, but was as brutal as they come.

Got to agree with that. I've enjoyed it more after watching it several times. Don't understand it all and it's certainly not on par with GFI and II but it's stil pretty good.
The worst thing about it IMO is that it is so self conscious
about being another GF movie.

I think, a deleted scene would show Neri and Clemenza going to FFC in Don Cicci's role sitting on his porch in a wheelchair, for the script to GF II and III. Don FFC says, " Clemenza, you're not in the movie because you want too much money, you never come to my house, you don't even call me Godfather. I must sell my wine instead, I need the money more than you do, I must say no, no script." At that point, Neri and Clemenza begin laughing and fill FF full of lead.

Yes, my sentiments EXACTLY!!!

Some of the lines are soooo overacted, especially the ones that are essential to 'Godfather' lingo. The script was written w/ some of the same type lines from I and II(chilling and haunting GF lingo) but the overall feeling of III does not allow those lines to have the believability that they have in the first two movies.

I don't expect III to have the same spontaneity and 'raw' acting that the first two had, I mean, obviously part I is going to be very original and very REAL and very RAW. But when you watch III it's painfully obvious that the actors know they are making the 3rd installment of THE GODFATHER, an all time classic, and they really over-do or over act a lot of the scenes.

I would include Pacino and Shire in that criticism. I thought Pacino still gave a solid performance despite his being 'self conscious about being another GF movie.' However, I thought Shire was painfully overacting and was VERY 'self conscious about being another GF movie.'


HOWEVER....Pacino does add some comic relief!!! An example would be the exchange w/ he and Connie...

Connie: 'Michael, now they'll fear you'

Michael:'Maybe they should fear YOU'.

I wonder if FFC put that there just to add some comedic relief. He has Connie deliver a line that would have been very chilling, very real, and very essential to the lingo of Vito Corleone. He had to know that it doesn't sound the same from Connie, and as I said earlier, part III does not really provide the context for these type lines to have the same effect of believability like parts I and II did. So..... I think he follows it with Michael's comic relief for that reason. I love the way Pacino delivers the comeback. A sure device of comedic relief to combat Connie's seriousness. Although the first two movies certainly have their funny moments, this particular kind of light hearted comic relief from Pacino was NOT seen in the first two movies, by ANYONE!

What about the priest on the bicycle scene giving the flowers to Kay? What was that all about? Were we supposed to think it was a hit?

I think that was what Hitchcock called a Maguffin -- something that is startling but has nothing to do with the story.

As for Michael being funny onlyu in GF III, I beg to differ. Michael is a regular comedian... a really loose and funny guy.
In I he has us rolling on the floor with his "sit down, finish my dinner" routine, and in II his sly way of telling Fredo that Spanish for Bannana Daquari is Bannana Daquari.

In the begining of Godfather I, we see a pretty loose, soft, care free and humrous Michael who gradually changes into this tight, hard, burdened and serious Michael.

In Godfather II we are shown the changed Michael who went from being this loose, humorous and care free guy who's now completely turned into this cold, selfish and power hungry guy. But at times, like the scene with he and Fredo in Cuba, we are given a sort of reminder of the Michael that once was, a small glimpse into the humor that Michael once had.

Then by the time GFIII rolls around, we are finally given the finished Michael, the remorseful guy who still has some of his selfish traits, but who is also turning back into that humorous, caring and soft guy that we saw in the begining of GFI. But unfortunately for him, it's too late.

The young and lonely Michael in the begining of GF I who was basically isolated from his family, by his own hand, completed the circle by now becoming the old lonely Michael, seperated from his family, because of his own deeds, who ended life basically the way that he began it, an isolated man.


Don Cardi

DC I was being somewhat facetious. I didn't ever see Michael being all that carefree and loose (except around Kay, and even then only sometimes). He was sullen in his rebellion against his father, and once he decided to kill Sollozzo he became more and more detached from everyone.

Yes, and that's how we are introduced to the character of Michael in the begining of GF. He kids around with her at the wedding, he's playful and witty with her at the hotel, and he's even loose and carefree when he's with her walking the streets in NYC. That is until she sees the headline and he realizes that his father has been shot. But I believe that showing Michael in this manner was FFC's way of laying the groundwork to make us see the drastic transformation that took place in Michael.

Don Cardi

Good point. One of the more interesting things about the Mike-Kay thing is that when Mike comes to New Hampshire to ask her to marry him he really looks the part of a Mafioso, whereas before he looked more like the "clean cut college kid" Sonny was always teasing. I wonder if that's what Kay means in GF III when she says she liked him better when he was just a "Common Mafia Hood"

That's a really interesting point, Johnny! I always thought Michael looked like a pint-sized, would-be banker in that scene. But then again, mobsters often try to look like bankers.

And, for the record, I believe Kay was being viciously sarcastic when she said he was a "common Mafia hood." He was never common.