NationStates Jolt Archive


The Godfather Trilogy

IDF
19-04-2007, 01:15
Let's use this thread to discuss the greatest trilogy of all time, The Godfather.

The film adaptation of Mario Puzo's 1969 novel is perhaps one of the few rare occasions where the film version is better than the novel from which the story originates.

Godfather Part I was a landmark film full of amazing performances. The film resurrected the dead career of Marlon Brando and introduced the world to the masterful work of Al Pacino. Robert Duvall, James Caan, John Cazale, Diane Keaton, Richard Conte, and Abe Vigoda comprised what was possibly the single greatest collection of actors and actresses ever assembled.

The story presented on screen was simply amazing. Part I is the story of how the innocent character Michael Corleone gets sucked into the dark world of the family business.

The story is continued in The Godfather Part II. This film is perhaps the greatest sequel of all time. The film won twice as many oscars as the original did. Coppola was taking a great risk with many of the techniques used in the film. Many at Paramount feared the film would flop because of Coppola's decision to tell two stories in a single movie.

The two story format works perfectly for this film. The first story is that of the rise of young Vito Corleone. Robert DeNiro was amazing in this role. The second story takes place in 1958 and 1959. It shows us the downfall of Michael Corleone. While Part I showed us how an innocent person like Michael can become involved, Part II shows us how he loses all sense of humanity and becomes an evil man.

Vito was a man who would never have an innocent person killed. Michael had no problems with killing a hooker and staging a scene to make a Senator think he had killed the girl. This is something that Vito would never do.

Another thing we get see from the dual stories is how Vito always put his family first. Everything he did was for his family. Michael is the complete opposite. As a result of his actions, he loses his family in the film.

Part II's climax is somewhat like the one of Part I. Both movies have a climax filled with blood. While Part I's massacre of the five families was stunning, Part II left you numb. Michael committed the ultimate sin when he ordered the death of his brother Fredo. It was such a sad scene for Fredo had never truly intended harm on Michael.

The Godfather Part III is perhaps one of the more underrated films of the 90s. Based on how people talk about it, you would expect a piece of garbage. That is not the case. As a standalone film, it can be considered a good film. It isn't great, but it's certainly not as bad as people say it is.

My guess is that people rip the film because they were spoiled by Part II. Since Part II was as good if not better than Part I, audiences expected the same from Part III.

The film still delivers a great plot and features yet another great performance from Pacino. Most of the performances were great. The only exception being Sophia Coppola's portrayal of Mary. She wasn't supposed to get that role. It was supposed to be Winona Ryder's, but she got ill before filming.

Another way to improve the film would've been to pay Robert Duvall to be in the film. Had he been in it and Mary was played by someone else, then this could've been on par with the other two films.

Part III plays out more like a Greek tragedy and was an important part of the saga. Part II showed us the evil man Michael had become. We never really saw the man suffer or show regret. Part III was very necessary for it shows us this.

In Part III, Michael tries to become legitimate only to be sucked back into the world of the mafia. Michael is shown to be obviously troubled by some of his past actions, particularly the murder of Fredo.

The film ends with Michael paying the highest price possible. When the assassin's 2nd bullet misses him, it hits and kills his daughter Mary. It is without a doubt the worst thing that could happen to Michael for he loved his children. Pacino did an amazing job acting in the scene where Mary is killed. We truly see pain on his face.
Mikesburg
19-04-2007, 01:20
I quite enjoy the Godfather movies, if not to the extent that some people do. The first one is by far my favourite, with part II as an excellent companion piece.

Part III was horrendous, I'm sorry. Not the worst movie ever made or anything, but to cap off an otherwise excellent series with that mess is just criminal.
Dododecapod
19-04-2007, 01:27
I disagree with Mikesburg. 3 is not a mess; it just didn't work, not the same thing at all.

My favourite chocolate cake recipe warns, "Sometimes the cake will not rise." That's what happened to Part 3. All the ingredients were there, in their proper proportions; the baking time was right; but the cake did not rise.

To me, Part two is the zenith of the series.
Funky Beat
19-04-2007, 02:43
It is probably my favourite movie trilogy. What I find particularly amazing is that, after the triumph of the first movie, Francis Ford Coppola managed to follow it up with a movie deemed to be its equal or better, with little or no guidance from the book. I mean, the first movie is based largely on the book, already written by Puzo. But the second is just genius movie-making.
Neesika
19-04-2007, 02:44
Part II is definitely my favourite. Part III could have been so good...as has been mentioned...but Sophia Coppola is just a wooden, terrible actress. She had a big part in ruining that film for me.

Then again, it won't really stop me from watching all three over, and over, and over again.

I mean...young Al Pacino trumps wooden Sophia. Rawr.
Imperial isa
19-04-2007, 02:50
part I and II only as three was not good
The_pantless_hero
19-04-2007, 03:12
I had no idea what the fuck was going on in Part II
Mikesburg
19-04-2007, 03:18
I had no idea what the fuck was going on in Part II

I tend to think of it as two separate stories acting as bookends for the first movie. A great movie, but I prefer the completeness of part I.
The_pantless_hero
19-04-2007, 03:18
I tend to think of it as two separate stories acting as bookends for the first movie. A great movie, but I prefer the completeness of part I.

This reminds me, I need to get my posters laminated and put up. I have an awesome one of the Godfather that was a bitch to get.
http://www.oneposter.com/UserData/Poster/Poster_26287.jpg
IDF
19-04-2007, 05:16
It is probably my favourite movie trilogy. What I find particularly amazing is that, after the triumph of the first movie, Francis Ford Coppola managed to follow it up with a movie deemed to be its equal or better, with little or no guidance from the book. I mean, the first movie is based largely on the book, already written by Puzo. But the second is just genius movie-making.It didn't hurt that much of the screenplay for each of the three movies was written by Puzo himself. In most book adaptations, the author of the novel doesn't write the screenplay. Puzo played an active role.
IDF
19-04-2007, 05:18
I had no idea what the fuck was going on in Part II

It took me a few times through before I fully understood it.

After you've seen it once, then other things in the film make sense.
Siap
19-04-2007, 05:49
I actually liked the book better.