Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,185
  • Total Topics: 106,348
  • Online Today: 752
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 05:57:38 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Coppola re-edits The Godfather III

Started by Custard, October 23, 2020, 08:37:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Custard

Has there been a thread? Couldn't find one

Could be interesting. Bit of a clunky title, mind!

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/09/the-godfather-part-iii-death-of-michael-corleone-cut

Can it be saved? Or at least be a little bit better? Does Coppola have too much time on his hands? Will it be better than Justice League? All or none of the above?

Gulftastic

Does he remove the helicopter gunship attack?

Custard

Apparently it's 14 minutes shorter than the original version, so that's gone. And the giant squid taking over New York

Glebe

Quote from: Shameless Custard on October 23, 2020, 08:49:48 PMApparently it's 14 minutes shorter than the original version, so that's gone. And the giant squid taking over New York

Hardly worth watching now!

Shit Good Nose

Chopper attack I can deal with, it's Sofia that needs getting shot of.


bgmnts

The original title was always meant to be The Death of Michael Corleone right? So he says in the commentary.

Should have just paid Duvall his money for starters.

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: bgmnts on October 23, 2020, 10:50:13 PM
The original title was always meant to be The Death of Michael Corleone right? So he says in the commentary.

Yes, because he thought (and still does think) that 1 and 2 are complete, with the third one being an epilogue specifically for Michael, so in many respects a separate entity.  That plus he never originally intended to actually make the thing.


QuoteShould have just paid Duvall his money for starters.

It's a much less meaty role because of Duvall's absence, granted, but I think George Hamilton acquits himself pretty well, especially considering the type of stuff he was typically doing at that point in his career.


FFC has stated that this version will "justify" the casting of his daughter, which has prompted some to speculate that he might be using alternate takes, possibly even some latter day ADR.  Yeah, alright Jimmy Hill.

chveik


Shit Good Nose

Well yeah - she is by far the worst thing about the film.  And I'm a long-time staunch defender of 3.

Ominous Dave

For me the main problem with Part III is that Andy Garcia's character arc doesn't work. This isn't because of his performance, as I think he's really good in it, but the script never convincingly justifies his journey from snotty rebellious kid to the new Don. I don't think Sofia Coppola is as bad as people say: her character is intended to be a bit of a spoilt brat and I think she's actively playing it that way, she just overdoes it and maybe her dad had a bit too little perspective to see that. (It's really bizarre that Madonna was campaigning for that role at one point.)

The helicopter attack scene is truly shite. I get that it's meant to signify the insane escalation in violence and weaponry that's taken place in organised crime over the course of the story, but in practise it just looks like a shitty ripoff of Scarface. But I still maintain the opera sequence is as good as anything in the first two films, and the final scene is perfect. But tbh I'd be more interested in a much shorter director's cut of it than a longer one.

(The one bit of Part III that I'd like to see expanded is Connie's character, whose apparent transformation into an iron-faced matriarch is a really interesting underdeveloped story thread - though who knows if there's any actual cut footage of that.)

rjd2

Could be wrong but didn't Winona Ryder turn this down for Edward Scissorhands?

Her and Duvall in this definitely would have made it much more tolerable.

Also think Pacino wasn't great in this either, felt like a somewhat phoned in performance.

Ant Farm Keyboard

Winona Ryder was suffering from nervous exhaustion and was a wreck when she arrived, days before she was supposed to shoot her part, hence the quick replacement. Then, Coppola still wanted her again as Mina on his Dracula, even if she couldn't master the accent, so there was no bad blood between them.

For Robert Duvall, it happened much earlier, before a script was completed. They considered at one point making Tom Hagen the antagonist, Duvall wanted a little more money to fill the gap between was he had been offered and what Pacino was paid, but Coppola refused. Duvall, who most likely assumed the sequel wouldn't be in the league of the original movies, signed for Days of Heaven instead. Coppola then kept a consigliere in the script but didn't leave much to the part.

El Unicornio, mang

I've never had a problem with Sofia in this film, and as a standalone thing it's not bad, it just looks weak when you compare it to the first two. But it is lacking in class, parts of it are right out of dumb 80s action movies.

The Culture Bunker

Quote from: Ant Farm Keyboard on October 24, 2020, 09:10:40 AMDuvall, who most likely assumed the sequel wouldn't be in the league of the original movies, signed for Days of Heaven instead.
I was a bit confused over this for a few minutes, till I worked out you must have meant 'Days of Thunder'.

Custard

I remember quite liking the film the first time I saw it. Though I rewatched it a couple years back, and it bored the absolute arse off me.

It just doesn't have the timeless feel of the first two. Maybe it's that 80s aesthetic, but it looks quite garish in places, and I found it hard to stay focused

Though it does feel like there was a better film trying to get out, underneath it all. Maybe that's just wishful thinking. But I am very interested to see what Coppola has changed and/or removed in this version

Dr Rock

I had a dream about Al Pacino the other night. He was the big boss of this massive building that was part huge shop like Harrods or Liberty, and all these bounty hunters were trying to kill him because there was a price on his head. And some of the bounty hunters were human, like Brad Pitt, I think he was in it, and some were aliens or monsters, and they all tried to kill Pacino, whose acting was as it is these days, all over the top, but he was good at fighting all the killers, using objects from around the shop. It would be a good film but I'd maybe recast Pacino.

Shit Good Nose

^
Fuck it - write the script and send it off, you never know.  Worst that can happen is they say no.

Ant Farm Keyboard

Quote from: The Culture Bunker on October 24, 2020, 11:15:33 AM
I was a bit confused over this for a few minutes, till I worked out you must have meant 'Days of Thunder'.

My bad. It is indeed the Tom Cruise hmmmm... vehicle Days of Thunder.

Hand Solo

Quote from: Dr Rock on October 24, 2020, 11:58:40 AM
I had a dream about Al Pacino the other night. He was the big boss of this massive building that was part huge shop like Harrods or Liberty, and all these bounty hunters were trying to kill him because there was a price on his head. And some of the bounty hunters were human, like Brad Pitt, I think he was in it, and some were aliens or monsters, and they all tried to kill Pacino, whose acting was as it is these days, all over the top, but he was good at fighting all the killers, using objects from around the shop.

"I'm Al, and you're Fayed!" BOOM!

greenman

Separating if off like this hopefully means when it comes down todo a UHD release its just the first couple boxed together.

lipsink

I don't think you can really even save this film by re-editing it. It looks like a TV movie. Pacino isn't playing Michael Corleone, he's playing Pacino. I'm not sure he'd even be able to play Michael anymore as in the 80s Pacino's acting became bigger whereas with Michael it's all about those dead eyes. The only bit I do find quite powerful is the ending and the silent scream.

itsfredtitmus

He can re-edit all he want but I won't be re-watching!

Shit Good Nose

#22
Quote from: greenman on October 25, 2020, 08:31:14 AM
Separating if off like this hopefully means when it comes down todo a UHD release its just the first couple boxed together.

I think Paramount have already confirmed that there will be a UHD box set of all three for the 45th anniversary, but I'm not sure if they've said anything about individual releases.  I'd be VERY surprised if they didn't release them individually, though, given it's what they've done with every single home video release on every format.  I'm still waiting for the proper chronological edit (1901-1980) that has only ever been released on laserdisc and VHS which restored all of the bits chopped for the TV version whilst retaining all the extra character stuff.  Properly good and it flows pretty well into 3.

McChesney Duntz

All I know is that every day brings us one day closer to the inevitable six-hour version of Jack. A reason to wake up in the morning.

Shit Good Nose

Apparently he's putting back in the Tibetan rebellion sequence.

Menu

A few years ago I bought the DVD boxset and watched them all in quick succession. On that viewing I couldn't make head nor tail of it until I played it with the commentary track. Had no idea George Hamilton was supposed to be a replacement for Hagen. And, like some else said, AG's arc just confused me. My reading of his character at the end was the polar opposite of what FFC intended.

I agree Ryder would have been better but I didn't think Sofia stood out as particularly bad. And, yes, Michael Corleone isn't played like the Michael Corleone we knew from the other films. I think the reason it was such a failure comes down to the fact there were very few characters that we knew from the other films. It just didn't seem like a Godfather film at all. I'd be interested in the opinion of people who saw it WITHOUT seeing the previous episodes - I suspect they may have enjoyed it more than the rest of us.

The opera sequence is brilliant though.

Ominous Dave

I actually don't mind Pacino's late-period melodramatic acting so much, as it's sort-of believable that Micheal could've become paranoid and neurotic enough to be that sort of character by that point. But as lipsink said, much of it does look like a TV movie (and isn't remotely convincing as taking place in the late-70s, in contrast to the first two films which are quite good at evoking their time periods).

Ominous Dave

Quote from: Ominous Dave on October 26, 2020, 02:45:40 AM
I actually don't mind Pacino's melodramatic acting so much, as it's sort-of believable that Micheal could've become paranoid and neurotic enough to be that sort of character by that point. But as lipsink said, much of it does look like a TV movie (and isn't remotely convincing as taking place in the late-70s, in contrast to the first two films which are quite good at evoking their time periods).

Ominous Dave

Yup, quoted my own entire post there. I did that on purpose, for reasons you will never fully understand.

Replies From View

They could make Godfather III quite substantially better by adding Godfathers I and II to the start of it, squishing the amount of Godfather III in Godfather III to a total one-third of Godfather III.


Same strategy if you want to reduce the amount of fly in Brundle-Fly, by the way x