CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › The Godfather Trilogy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Godfather Trilogy

post #1 of 49
12/18/03 at 8:19am
Thread Starter 
The first two are classics, that fact is undisputable. The third one, although a good film, still feels like there's something missing but I thought the ending fit godfather perfectly even if everything leading up to it was either hit or miss.

The Godfather was a perfect introduction to the family and how Vito's way of doing things were slowly dying out. It also established the beginning of Micheal Corleone's descent into his own personal hell. I always thought it was hypocritical of Mike to go back to Kay after the death of Appollonia but I guess that was just part of his character. The moment he killed Solozzo, he damned himself so he has no-one but himself to blame, I think that's what the series is about, a man trying to justify his actions to himself even though he knows deep down in his soul, he can't be saved.

Godfather 2 expanded on Michael's internal conflict and how he justifies his actions to himself. I find it interesting how Michael becomes colder and colder and as the film progresses, even Tom Hagen gets the cold shoulder from Michael and Tom was the one person Michael trusted the most. His relationship with Kay suffered the most culminating in him cutting her off from her own kids. Kay telling Mike about the abortion is just brilliant in terms of acting. John Cazale's performance in this film was nothing short of riveting, his scene with michael at the lakehouse was a masterclass of acting. I'm still haunted by that scene at the end with Michael, sitting alone at the table while everyone else went to wish his father happy birthday, that scene alone forecasted his future. Fredo congratulating him on joining the marines was just the final touch, Fredo was the only one that did which made it even more sad. Just that scene of Michael sitting alone at that table with stay with me forever.

Finally, Godfather 3, I think it was more somber and reflective. It was a still a hit and miss affair but the ending was a perfect fit to the series.

There's so much depth to this series and Coppola orchestrates it like the master he was.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this series, I know it's all been discussed before I just can't resist talking about Godfather.
Reply
post #2 of 49
12/18/03 at 10:49am
No argument from me with any of this, but I'd just add--

even if they had actually made a decent out of the third one, it would still be an entirely superfluous movie. A movie that didn't need to be made-- hell, most of the interesting characters are dead by that stage anyway.

Wait, I'll go further: Godfather III is a movie that needed not to be made. The second one said everything that needed to be said in this particular saga, and did it so well that any addition could only weaken or diminish what was there.

A really bad idea. But I guess Coppola wanted his "trilogy" for some reason.

See The Matrix for a more recent, if less significant, example of how this endless push for "more" out of today's movies often results in something less than what was there before.
Reply
post #3 of 49
12/18/03 at 5:53pm
i think GFIII should have started with the death of Coppola's character, a few flashbacks of GFI & II, and then straight to credits, that would've been perfect...
Reply
post #4 of 49
12/19/03 at 3:25am
I think "Godfather 3" is pretty good until Mantegna gets iced. Once they go back to the old country the film falls apart. Obviously the first 2 are classics, I'll give the edge to part 2 because of its seamless juggling of 2 stories set decades apart.
Reply
post #5 of 49
12/19/03 at 7:22am
You're not going to believe this but guess what? I don't think much of The Godfather. I love the second one but the first just didn't do it for me. Can't put my finger on it. Between this, Seven Samurai and The Thing I'm going to be hunted down. It's been a while though so maybe another viewing is imminent.
Reply
post #6 of 49
12/20/03 at 9:02pm
Thread Starter 
Yeah, you'll be ambushed just like Sonny Corleone

I agree about GIII going downhill when it hits the old country. It seemed abit heavy handed having all that critiscism of the vatican and corruption and Michael trying to redeem himself. The attempted assassination as good, that old school assassin was badass. I was watching the extras on the Godfather series bonus disc, they interviewed Al, he said 'There's a thug inside Mike but he refuses to acknowledge it exists'. In G2 that thug seemingly takes over for most of the film.
Reply
post #7 of 49
2/3/09 at 4:58pm
I just finished up part II last night after watching both films for the first time this week, and I'm wondering: should I bother with part III? The ending of II just seemed so perfect, and I'd rather not sully it with an underwhelming add-on. Have the reissues given anyone new insight into the third chapter, for good or for ill?
Reply
post #8 of 49
2/3/09 at 5:10pm
For the most part, GF3 is unintentionally funny in its earnestness. Everyone is trying very hard (TOO hard) to make something that is the equal of the first two films. I kid you not, people were howling with laughter during the final few scenes.

The biggest sin is committed by Al Pacino. He doesn't play Michael in the same manner as before, and he overacts so badly to compensate for Sofia Coppola that he becomes a parody.

Talia Shire is quite strong in this, and Andy Garcia shows some promise as the new Don, but the movie fails them badly.
Reply
post #9 of 49
2/3/09 at 5:14pm
I think the biggest sin is the script. There's no story and all the themes are recycled. Give yourself a week or two, then watch it. It won't sting as badly.
Reply
post #10 of 49
2/3/09 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bendrix View Post
The ending of II just seemed so perfect, and I'd rather not sully it with an underwhelming add-on.
It is a perfect ending. And an underwhelming add-on is exactly how part III plays. Which is not to say it's a bad movie, but King Lear it ain't.

To be fair, despite the perfect arc from part 1-2, there probably was a worthy story there. A story about the third act in the lives of the Michael Corleones of the world. Seeking redemption, attempting to buy back their sins, and desperately clinging to the notion that they can repair the damage they've done to their family and the world around them. But Francis had lost it by this point, and this is not that movie.
Reply
post #11 of 49
2/3/09 at 5:17pm
I liked the first (second? It's been years) act interplay between Pacino and Joe Mantegna. The daughter subplot is wrongheaded from the start and does not get better, neither during the course of the film nor upon 18 years of reflection.
Reply
post #12 of 49
2/3/09 at 5:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark View Post
I think the biggest sin is the script. There's no story and all the themes are recycled. Give yourself a week or two, then watch it. It won't sting as badly.
This is a really good suggestion. Maybe I'll give it even longer--that way, it'll be an extra rather than canon, much like how I view the Star Wars prequels.

ETA: Not implying SW is as good as Godfather, etc, etc...
Reply
post #13 of 49
2/3/09 at 5:25pm
I think GF III went down a star and a half just based on the casting of Sofia Coppella. The best decision she made in her career was getting behind the camera and this film is proof of that. Her performance is beyond horrible. It could almost count as child abuse by her dad to cast her.

As mediocre as GF III was, I have to say that I wanted the series to continue with Andy Garcia heading the family into the 80's. There was some talk for a while that part 4 would have had the same dual story structure as part 2 where we see Vito going into the golden age of the family while we see Andy Garcia's story of the end of the Corleone family. Oh well, better left in the imagination I guess.
Reply
post #14 of 49
2/3/09 at 5:29pm
I honestly would not have minded a movie that followed up on Garcia's character. Garcia was great in the film and I liked what he did with the role, and his interplay with Pacino was quite good. I'd like to think that this 4th entry would somehow redeem the 3rd one.
Reply
post #15 of 49
2/3/09 at 5:45pm
It's already been said, so I'll just reiterate and emphasize... Godfather III is basically redundant. It tells us what we already know at the end of II.

The whole storyline of Corleone attempting to "redeem" himself is absurd. He is irredeemable. That's the whole point. What II shows us is that he was completely different from his father. His father rose to power through well-earned friendship and genuine respect. Michael rises in power through fear and destruction. In the end, he is powerful. But he is alone. His father was loved. And even his enemies respected him. Michael alienates everyone to the point that his power is meaningless.

So, what does III show us? The result of that? What for? They turn a powerful, iconic character into a pathetic caricature with an awful buzzcut that spends 3 hours over-emoting inside the pit of shit he shoved himself into... And, if you're not actually going to grant him redemption, what's the point? The whole film feels like a shaggy dog story. There are some good moments and I agree that Garcia is dynamic... I too would have seen a 4th film that paralleled his story with that of a young Sonny (even though this too would have been a redundant idea).

But I just can't get behind Godfather III anymore. There were years where I desperately tried to like it. But it has aged badly, whereas I and II just seem to get better with age.

That, plus the completely unoriginal factor... Coppola just ripped off Peter Yallop's brilliant piece of investigative journalism In God's Name, (Read that book... It's fascinating. But you'll clearly see it's Godfather III from beginning to end) stuck the Corleones into the middle of it and didn't even bother giving the poor guy credit.

That angers me on top of everything else.
Reply
post #16 of 49
2/3/09 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bendrix View Post
...that way, it'll be an extra rather than canon, much like how I view the Star Wars prequels.

ETA: Not implying SW is as good as Godfather, etc, etc...
Michael Corleone vs. Anakin Skywalker
Reply
post #17 of 49
2/3/09 at 6:17pm
You gotta watch GF3 for the helicopter scene alone. That's what the dull second half of the film really needed, more helicopters.
Reply
post #18 of 49
2/3/09 at 6:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erix View Post
Michael rises in power through fear and destruction. In the end, he is powerful. But he is alone. His father was loved. And even his enemies respected him. Michael alienates everyone to the point that his power is meaningless.
This is what immediately annoyed me about III -- nobody is afraid of Michael. He starts out like Our Kooky Uncle, and it doesn't get much better. It simply isn't the same character from the previous films, and certainly no one treats him with the deference and fear that that Michael had commanded.
Reply
post #19 of 49
2/3/09 at 6:27pm
"It's mah lucky coat GAAAHHH!"

Coppolla really brought the series into the action packed 90's when Garcia used that dude as a human shield.
Reply
post #20 of 49
2/3/09 at 6:42pm
I'm sure if GF3 had come out 3 year later that Garcia would have ended up shooting down the helicopter with twin .45s in slow motion.
Reply
post #21 of 49
2/3/09 at 8:39pm
It's true that Godfather III plays on some levels like a stupid action film. You guys are spot on in the staging of those scenes... It even has the evil cardinal being shot and falling to his death!

The scene with Garcia, Bridget Fonda and the thugs in the apartment (One of whom is the all but forgotten Rick Aviles) plays like a gritty action scene from a 90s gangsta picture.

In fact, as I recall, back when I watched these films like 15 years ago with an ADD buddy, I speculated that he would enjoy III the most because it was the most action-packed!

In terms of "Hell Yeah!" action-style satisfaction, though - Nothing beats the baptism scene at the end of I. Where we watch all the villains get their just desserts in epic fashion.

Especially "Richard Conte" tumbling down the cement steps.
Reply
post #22 of 49
2/4/09 at 12:12am
I'm gonna keep myself pure and never give III a shot. Seems like it's for the best.

I used to be a Part I guy. I'm gradually becoming a II guy.
Reply
post #23 of 49
2/4/09 at 8:07pm
At one point, early in the film, I had thought there was the kernel of a good story: the old neighborhoods that the Corleones were trying to leave behind in their bid to go legit were being preyed upon by the younger generation of criminals, who lacked any allegiance to the Old World values that had given rise to Cosa Nostra in the first place. Could/would Michael ingore that, would he meet the threat on his own terms, did he still have what it took to win such a battle?

And, yeah, then the Pope and the helicopter showed up. So much for that.
Reply
post #24 of 49
2/4/09 at 8:33pm
I preferred Part III over II for some reason. This is an honest statement, I'm just devising a way to express this realistically. Keep in mind that I've never been that enamored with any of these movies.

Mcnooj, it seems awfully silly not to see Part III for its reputation, especially if you love the last two. It isn't going to 'ruin' them for you. They'll still exist, don't worry!
Reply
post #25 of 49
2/4/09 at 8:34pm
Good luck. I mean that.
Reply
post #26 of 49
2/4/09 at 8:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreary louse View Post
I preferred Part III over II for some reason.
Malaria?
Reply
post #27 of 49
2/4/09 at 9:53pm
You're free to prefer III over II on a personal level. But, from a filmmaking point of view, there's just no way you can actually argue that it is, in fact, a superior film.

Though, if you've got the time, I'd love to see you try.
Reply
post #28 of 49
2/4/09 at 10:36pm
Anybody else bothered by the lack of period authenticity in Part III? The movie takes place in 1979, yet everything about it (fashions, hairstyles,etc.) reeks of the 1989-1990 period it was filmed in.

I liked the alternate opening of the film included on the dvd. Not only is it a cool way to echo Vito's opening talk with Bonasera from the first film, it flows better with the next scene where Michael gets crowned by the Pope.
Reply
post #29 of 49
2/5/09 at 1:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravi View Post
Anybody else bothered by the lack of period authenticity in Part III? The movie takes place in 1979, yet everything about it (fashions, hairstyles,etc.) reeks of the 1989-1990 period it was filmed in.
What's the phrase... that's like worrying about the curtains on The Titanic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravi View Post
I liked the alternate opening of the film included on the dvd. Not only is it a cool way to echo Vito's opening talk with Bonasera from the first film, it flows better with the next scene where Michael gets crowned by the Pope.
Huh. I got the box set a couple years back, but never bothered to check out III. Will have to take a look at that-- thanks.
Reply
post #30 of 49
5/18/11 at 11:47am

I know these films have been discussed a million, billion, times already. But I’ve literally just watched the films for the first time and have a burning desire for discussion.

I think what surprised me most about the films is that I kind of view THE GODFATHER as being an almost perfect film and I kind of think BOTH Part 2 and Part 3 feel like unnecessary  additions. Thematically THE GODFATHER is a closed movie, and THE GODFATHER II doesn’t really seem to expand on that. At the end of THE GODFATHER, when Michael shuts Kay out and assumes his father’s mantle that feels like the final statement on the character. He’s gone at that point, infinitely corrupted and all THE GODFATHER II does is kind of show us the depths of that corruption. We gain no real insight into Michael Corleone from part 2, we just learn the depths of his wrath and as such the film feels like it’s kind of dancing around its central character. Michael watching Fredo get killed is the ultimate baseline for Michael Corleone, but it’s essentially visualising something we can infer from the end of the first film.

 

It’s still an amazing film, the handling of Vito and Michael’s storyline is remarkably well done, full of amazing performances but it feels like an addendum.

 

THE GODFATHER PART 3 just sort of continues that muddying of the waters and I actually think that thematically it’s got a lot more to offer conceptually than the second film. Unfortunately it’s hampered by the fact that everyone seems to have forgotten what a GODFATHER film is like, it’s essentially a 1980s action movie stretched out to ridiculous length. It doesn’t help that the film has to introduce an entirely new cast, the loss of Fredo and Hagen meaning that we’ve got no real characters to connect with other than Michael (who is a shadow of his former self). I’m a fan of Pacino but this feels like a proto-run of all his worst traits. Compared to the Michael of the other films he’s practically a different man.

 

 The third film also suffers from a complete dearth of actual style.  Part 1 and 2 both feel like they’ve got their own style (Part 2 in particular does an amazing job of differentiating between two time frames with just its cinematography) whilst Part 3 is vaguely handsomely shot but ultimately generic. It’s the shortest of the three films but it feels absolutely longer than the previous films. Part 1 and 2 flew by, part 3 has all the pacing of continental drift.

 

The film also kind of made me hate Sofia Coppola  in a  weird sort of way. I love her films, but she absolutely sinks the third film every time she’s on screen and as the film goes on she becomes an increasingly major facet of the film.

 

The oddest thing about the films is that the one conceptual throughline seems to be people singing as an opening to the first act. It was weird watching all three films over the course of three nights and watching THE SAME musical number three times  in roughly the same part of all three films.

Reply
post #31 of 49
5/18/11 at 12:39pm
I have a great love for part I and part II, as I see them as one film. Just that decent into madness of Michael Corelone and the reactions of it all.

Part III on the other hand, feels out of place script wise and time wise, and the SW prequel comparison is spot on. The thing is, could Michael ever be redeemed? Hell no, so a film of him trying to undo his decent seemed hard to pull off. How can we truly sympathize about his loses he incurrs when he truly doesn't deserve it.

Is it funny I preferred his protrayal in Oceans 13 as a casino owner? I'm not a fan of flamboyant Al Pacino. When he is quiet and has violent character outbursts, I'm happy. Guess that's why I like the 2nd Godfather film slightly more. Still the scene in the 1st film when he decides how to kill the cop is my favorite scene. It was the turning point in my book, and like in the movie, utter shock.
Reply
post #32 of 49
5/25/11 at 6:33pm

 

Part I is better then Part II over all, but Part II has the best villain.

 

 

“ This the business we are in!” “we are bigger then US steel!”

 

 

Lee Strasberg is the man!

Reply
post #33 of 49
5/25/11 at 8:26pm

The GF pt III was made in my opinion to cash in on the Mob drama market even though it was started by the GF series was sensationnalized by the Goodfella's movie and other mob dramas that came out around that time. I think FFC felt like since everybody wanna make mob movies I did it the best so im gonna come with 1 more quick one to capitalize. One reason I remember why Tom Hagen(Robert Duvall) was'nt in the movie is becasue they paid Pacino so much more money to come back to the series and offered him peanuts in comparison, even though I think he was a important character. The movie was obviously thrown together with a couple of memorable lines and a more thought out ending.

Reply
post #34 of 49
5/25/11 at 10:54pm

Can anyone here explain to me the logistics of Fredo's betrayal in GF II?? Are we supposed to believe that Fredo is so stupid that he would let armed guys into Michael's compound not knowing they were going to try and kill him? What did he think they were going to do..scare him? Or is he simply lying in the scene where he swears he didn't know it was going to be a hit? 

Reply
post #35 of 49
5/25/11 at 11:51pm

The final shot of The Godfather II is unforgettable, but my favourite of the trilogy is the first one, James Caan as Sonny Corleone is my favourite character in the whole trilogy. Although I may be biased as I am named after Sonny Corleone.

 

Part III is okay, does anyone know why Duvall wasn't in it?

 

(And yes, I'm new to these forums).

Reply
post #36 of 49
5/26/11 at 5:01am

I've always preferred the first for just that reason. To use a horrible cliche, Caan is an absolute tour de force in this and I've always thought the series lost a bit of energy when Sonny bought the farm. He and Duvall had incredible chemistry.

 

Of course De Niro, Pacino and Brando give some of the most iconic performances in cinema but I've always liked Sonny and his enormous penis the most. Not sure what that says about me.

 

 

Reply
post #37 of 49
5/26/11 at 6:18am

Yeah, I like the second one as much as the next guy, but the absence of both Brando and Caan makes a huge difference to me. Some of my favourite parts of the Godfather saga are just small bits of acting from the two of them. For example, the smile on Brando's face when Pacino visits him in the hospital and says he'll take care of him and (probably my favourite moment in the whole trilogy), the way Caan bites his fist when he sees the beaten face of his character's sister. Such a terrific moment that's a perfect prelude to the beatdown he dishes out soon after.

Reply
post #38 of 49
5/26/11 at 9:15am

Just watching an episode of Cheers and ran across this exchange when the characters realize they may have pissed off a mafia-owned neighborhood bar...

 

FRASIER:  If I may interject, I think you've all seen too many Godfather movies!

 

WOODY:  I agree, they should've stopped at two.

 

FRASIER: That notwithstanding... 

Reply
post #39 of 49
5/27/11 at 3:03pm



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odo19 View Post

Can anyone here explain to me the logistics of Fredo's betrayal in GF II?? Are we supposed to believe that Fredo is so stupid that he would let armed guys into Michael's compound not knowing they were going to try and kill him? What did he think they were going to do..scare him? Or is he simply lying in the scene where he swears he didn't know it was going to be a hit? 


the scene at the boathouse pretty much explains fredo's betrayal.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg8jODlrka0&feature=related
 

 

Reply
post #40 of 49
11/6/11 at 6:07pm

Truthfully I think GFIII was made for money and money only. It was released when Mob movies were really popular and I think the studio's wanted to cash in. I still liked it but it did not have the same feel as the first 2 as if it was rushed.

Reply
post #41 of 49
11/30/11 at 5:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flossy White View Post

Truthfully I think GFIII was made for money and money only. It was released when Mob movies were really popular and I think the studio's wanted to cash in.


It may have been released when mob movies were popular (GoodFellas and Miller's Crossing came out the same fall), but that was pretty much by accident. At the time it was greenlighted there wasn't a whole lot going on in the genre except maybe The Untouchables.

 

You're right though, it was made for money, but it was pretty much Coppola who made it for money. That and there'd been talk of Stallone of all people making Part III, and Coppola must've figured if someone was going to fuck it up, it might as well be Coppola.

 

Reply
post #42 of 49
11/30/11 at 8:57am

 

 

Quote:
The film also kind of made me hate Sofia Coppola  in a  weird sort of way. I love her films, but she absolutely sinks the third film every time she’s on screen and as the film goes on she becomes an increasingly major facet of the film.

When I think of GF III, my first thought is of a gutshot Sofia babbling "DAD?!?" like a Valley Girl from 1984.

 

Recently traded in my GF box set with all 3 films and supplements for the 2-disc GF I & II Blu Ray package. No regrets. I agree with Spike that GF II may not be thematically necessary, but I think it's magnificent.

Reply
post #43 of 49
11/30/11 at 3:45pm

It's interesting that discussions of Godfather II pro and con (I suppose I don't really mean "con": more like "pro" and "pro, but" ) seem to be focused almost exclusively on Pacino and Michael's story.  Are we considering the DeNiro segments as just icing on the cake?

Reply
post #44 of 49
11/30/11 at 4:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeb View Post

It's interesting that discussions of Godfather II pro and con (I suppose I don't really mean "con": more like "pro" and "pro, but" ) seem to be focused almost exclusively on Pacino and Michael's story.  Are we considering the DeNiro segments as just icing on the cake?



Short of gushing hyperbole about how wonderful they are, what's there to say? Those scenes tickle me in a way few movies do, because I love all these characters so very very much. When Vito gets his revenge - man is it sweeeeet. Never gets old.

Reply
post #45 of 49
11/30/11 at 5:47pm

A local coffee shop has a food-truck that drives around and its horn is the godfather theme. Most awesome horn ever.

Reply
post #46 of 49
11/30/11 at 8:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Dylan View Post

A local coffee shop has a food-truck that drives around and its horn is the godfather theme. Most awesome horn ever.



We had an ice cream truck that played it over its...PA system, I suppose.  It was the best thing.

 

On topic, I rewatched 1 last night for the first time in a long time (and goddamn that Blu is gorgeous) and I was awestruck by it like it was the first time.  So many layers, so dynamic - I just fell in love with it all over again.  In terms of the other 2 - other than bits and pieces here and there on cable I haven't seen either of them.  However I plan on rectifying that with at LEAST 2 sometime this week.  But the way 1 ended and the things I remember about 2, I tend to agree with whomever upthread said that they're better seen as one complete film.

Reply
post #47 of 49
11/30/11 at 9:12pm

Spike, you make some excellent points regarding the themes of the 3 movies. In some ways 3 actually does have more interesting themes that expand the story past number 2.  But 2 is great for a number of reasons, the storytelling and the performances chief among them. The themes of a gangster movie are always the same, the corruption, the power, how it affects your loved ones and relationships etc. But Godfather told that story so well, we were drawn in and hooked. 2 continued the story by interweaving 2 beautiful period pieces while also presenting some wonderful character studies....the journeys of Kay, Michael, Fredo and Connie are just fascinating.

 

But 3 just feels like an abject failure, as people have mentioned before, Michael is no longer Michael. You would think that a shrewd ruthless man would know that there could be no redemption of his life and actions....you would think he would of realized it when assuming his father's mantle in the first movie. When he looks at Kay at the end of the first film and lies to her face you know he will never have a loving relationship, that he has sold his soul and knows it. Having him come grovelling to the church, fail to protect his family, and basically come off as a pissant in the end is a betrayal of the character and of the first 2 films. I think having tan man sub in for Duvall told the audience what they were in for early on. I wish this movie did not exist.

 

Reply
post #48 of 49
11/30/11 at 10:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3nnui View Post

.

 

But 3 just feels like an abject failure, as people have mentioned before, Michael is no longer Michael. You would think that a shrewd ruthless man would know that there could be no redemption of his life and actions....you would think he would of realized it when assuming his father's mantle in the first movie. When he looks at Kay at the end of the first film and lies to her face you know he will never have a loving relationship, that he has sold his soul and knows it. Having him come grovelling to the church, fail to protect his family, and basically come off as a pissant in the end is a betrayal of the character and of the first 2 films. I think having tan man sub in for Duvall told the audience what they were in for early on. I wish this movie did not exist.

 


Oh I think the idea that Michael would seek forgiveness via the Church is all too believable. Michael may be financially successful, but he knows his family does not love him (Sophia excepted) and may even hate him ("My god you hate me" he cries to Kay).  He is like any number of us who do things in our youth that we regret later on. For Michael that includes murdering countless people including his own brother.

 

And he's getting on in years, and sees Death approaching, and like all of us (sooner or later) he is wondering if he has to atone for his actions (that is why the Confession scene, along with the Helo attack, justifies this movie's existence for me).

 

 

 

Reply
post #49 of 49
12/4/11 at 7:39am

Yeah, I think his turning point is when he visits the corpse of some recently dead old guy* we barely know. Storytelling fail there. Though it's been years since I've seen it.

 

* Don Tommasino, I see through research. We still don't know him well enough for the scene to have the weight it seems meant to have.

 

Pauline Kael's review of Part III — she adored the first two — pretty much nails everything that's wrong with it and even what works in it.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › The Godfather Trilogy