I just watched this for the first time since December 1990 when it came out. I remember it being a decent movie then, but at that point I'm not even sure I had seen The Godfather, and I know I had not watched The Godfather Part II. I've seen The Godfather several times, but had never gotten through Part II the few times I had attempted it.

This year I decided that I would get through Part II. I did that about a month ago. Honestly, I didn't get it being Best Picture great. Yeah, it was good but I didn't care for the jumping around it did in time.

So with both movies watched in recent times, I had to return to Part III. I think this is a movie that has aged pretty well, although I would be hard pressed to identify what changed between the original theatrical version and this version. I have to wonder why this movie has been so hated? It probably did miss the presence of the Robert Duvall character, and while it was likely a tough role to portray, I thought the girl playing Mary did a good job nevertheless. And I know she was lambasted for her performance, but to my eyes, she looked the part and acted the part (of a young 20s girl trying to relate to and build a relationship with her dad).

Part 2 is better than Part 1 and Part 3 is terrible.
And "Mary" is the director's daughter. Only reason she got the job She is a horrible actress.

I can't wait for your glowing review of Ishtar.

But she's a pretty good Director.

OP, D- on the troll.

Godfather > Godfather Part 2

I have never understood why people disagree. I do enjoy Vito's backstory in Part 2, but that movie is not a must watch if I happen to catch it on TV, for me. If I come across The Godfather on TV, I know what i'm doing for the next 3 hours or so.

Because Godfather Pt II is better.

$240 Worth of Pudding said:

---

Part 2 is better than Part 1 and Part 3 is terrible.
And "Mary" is the director's daughter. Only reason she got the job She is a horrible actress.

I can't wait for your glowing review of Ishtar.

---

Your first statement is complete opinion.
Your second statement has one piece of truth, the rest is opinion.
Your third statement is irrelevant - never seen Ishtar and likely never will.

Part 3 being considered terrible feels like typical TexAgs group-think much like TA opinions on the Star Wars prequels or the fourth Indiana Jones movie.

Potcake said:

---

But she's a pretty good Director.

OP, D- on the troll.

---

So asking why the movie is so reviled is a troll? Got it.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

$240 Worth of Pudding said:

---

Part 2 is better than Part 1 and Part 3 is terrible.
And "Mary" is the director's daughter. Only reason she got the job She is a horrible actress.

I can't wait for your glowing review of Ishtar.

---

Your first statement is complete opinion.
Your second statement has one piece of truth, the rest is opinion.
Your third statement is irrelevant - never seen Ishtar and likely never will.

Part 3 being considered terrible feels like typical TexAgs group-think much like TA opinions on the Star Wars prequels or the fourth Indiana Jones movie.

---

They're opinions shared by nearly everyone and have been long before TexAgs and even the internet for that matter.

Shared by nearly everyone still does not change the fact that they are opinions.

No need to be so harsh. Does anyone know the difference in this directors cut? I haven't seen 3 and probably never will but I'm curious if it improves at all in the new version.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

This year I decided that I would get through Part II. I did that about a month ago. Honestly, I didn't get it being Best Picture great. Yeah, it was good but I didn't care for the jumping around it did in time.

---

I take it you hated Pulp Fiction.

Prosperdick said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

This year I decided that I would get through Part II. I did that about a month ago. Honestly, I didn't get it being Best Picture great. Yeah, it was good but I didn't care for the jumping around it did in time.

---

I take it you hated Pulp Fiction.

---

Saw Pulp Fiction once. Good movie but not one that I've had any inclination to watch again. Although I did just get a Tarantino set of movies that includes that one, so I'll likely watch it again eventually.

I'm a huge Godfather fan (I consider 1 and 2 the most perfectly made films of all time). It does take some level of maturity to really appreciate them [insert Family Guy "it insists upon itself " clip].

I have not yet had a chance to watch Coda, I've seen III several times. I don't believe it's a terrible movie, it's just not nearly as good as it's predecessors but that's a really high bar. I personally have it graded at a B- on it's own merits.

Sophia Coppola wasn't as bad as people think (again my opinion) but she wasn't great. I think that her story and the overly complex immobilare story were too much. The picture definitely missed Duvall as Hagen too.

That's not remotely true. The fandom is nearly split in half between Part 1 or Part 2 being the better one.

https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/

I am a huge Godfather fan and while Godfather I is my favorite movie of all time I think Godfather II is "better" - the layers of plots between Frankie, Hyman and Michael are just perfectly done, and Fredo's betrayal - and the aftermath - are searing, and the juxtaposition of Connie finally understanding Michael while Kay realizes she can't live with what he is anymore are so good. I could watch both movies over and over and often do.

Godfather III is overly complicated without being elegant, and the young characters aren't especially good (although I liked Andy Garcia). My biggest problem was with Michael. In the originals he was defined by a quiet, slow-burn deadliness that was chilling when it was turned on. In Godfather III he was simply Stock Mid-Nineties Al Pacino Character with lots of yelling and overacting. He didn't seem like an older version of Michael (the way Kay seemed like an older version of Kay), he was a completely different person. It took me out of the movie in every scene he was in. Speaking only for myself, that's the main reason I dislike it so strongly.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

This year I decided that I would get through Part II. I did that about a month ago. Honestly, I didn't get it being Best Picture great. Yeah, it was good but I didn't care for the jumping around it did in time.

---

I take it you hated Pulp Fiction.

---

Saw Pulp Fiction once. Good movie but not one that I've had any inclination to watch again. Although I did just get a Tarantino set of movies that includes that one, so I'll likely watch it again eventually.

---

Pulp Fiction is one of the greatest movies of all time. Miles better than The Godfather (ducks)

If you liked The Godfather even a little, I suggest watching The Offer on Paramount Plus. Great series with Miles Teller. It is about how the movie was created and filmed. It is a great series.

Matthew Goode's portrayal of Bob Evens, the producer, is some of the best acting I have seen on television. He steals every scene that he is in.

jenn96 said:

---

My biggest problem was with Michael. In the originals he was defined by a quiet, slow-burn deadliness that was chilling when it was turned on. In Godfather III he was simply Stock Mid-Nineties Al Pacino Character with lots of yelling and overacting.

---

Spot-on analysis.

$240 Worth of Pudding said:

---

Part 2 is better than Part 1 and Part 3 is terrible.
And "Mary" is the director's daughter. Only reason she got the job She is a horrible actress.

---

In defense of Sofia Coppola, she was put in at the last minute and she wasn't prepared - so it wasn't as much nepotistic as people think and instead was by definition of need and being available

"Sofia's performance was described by critics as "flat, amateurish, and unconvincing". The actor, who is now a successful filmmaker in her own right, had stepped in at the last minute to replace Winona Ryder in the role of Michael Corleone's daughter, Mary."

Now, I agree that her performance was flat and unconvincing.

Yeah, Sofia did a perfectly fine job when forced to step in, and probably gave a decently realistic portrayal of someone that age in that position who's been a little shielded from her family's past.

The cast was the least of III's problems. Aside from everything else already mentioned, the helicopter attack scene is just ridiculously out of place - for 1979 or any other time. At that point you're expecting Steven Seagal to walk in as the Turk and cockpunch everyone into submitting to his terms.

Coppola was also running out of Catholic sacraments to juxtapose with violence as evidence of moral hypocrisy. I was really looking forward to "Godfather IV: Confirmation Party." Maybe he'll get around to that after Megalopolis when he needs to get out of debt again.

3 as a stand-alone is not a bad movie. Compared to its predecessors, which are the numbers 1 and 1A movies of all time, it's a major letdown. The Pacino analysis is painfully accurate.

But Andy was amazing and is an absolute riot to be around in person.

JayHowdy! said:

---

If you liked The Godfather even a little, I suggest watching The Offer on Paramount Plus. Great series with Miles Teller. It is about how the movie was created and filmed. It is a great series.

Matthew Goode's portrayal of Bob Evens, the producer, is some of the best acting I have seen on television. He steals every scene that he is in.

---

This is dead on!

Even though a lot of people feel 3 was not good, it was nominated as Best Picture & Best Director - Academy Awards.

Hey Nav said:

---

Even though a lot of people feel 3 was not good, it was nominated as Best Picture & Best Director - Academy Awards.

---

Crash won best picture. Just saying.

The Best Picture nominations I found were :

Dances With Wolves (winner)
Awakenings
Ghost
Godfather 3
Good Fellas

(not saying you're wrong)

Edit: I now see where you were going with that