|
|
Post by tommyvercetti on Jan 4, 2007 20:44:13 GMT -5
Alot of people said it sucks..alot of people said i wouldnt like it..but I didnt think it sucked at all and thought it ended the series quite nicely.
It's probably nowhere near the first two..but how many movies are?
Screw the critics, III was great.
|
|
EZ: Brainy Bae
King Koopa
I be like SHEESH
Posts: 12,519 
Member is Online
|
Post by EZ: Brainy Bae on Jan 4, 2007 20:47:57 GMT -5
I thought it was a good movie.
It just took a really different path from the first two. And I didn't really care for (or understand for that matter) Micheal's daughter and Sonny's son whole relationship thing. Not the most intriguing of actors either.
Compared to most movies, it was pretty damn good. But to the other two, it was kinda eh.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Jan 4, 2007 20:48:57 GMT -5
By itself, its a great movie, but compared to parts I and II...eh, not so much
|
|
|
|
Post by SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts on Jan 4, 2007 20:49:02 GMT -5
It wasn't terrible at all. It wasn't great at anything either.
|
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Jan 4, 2007 20:51:27 GMT -5
It's an ok film, but when you are trying to follow up 2 of the greatest films ever made after a 16 year gap, expectations are going to be extremely hard to live up to.
My main issues are the acting skills (or lack of) of Sofia Coppola and the fact that Robert Duvall (who I always thought put in the best performances of the first 2 films) was replaced by a slimy lawyer played by George Hamilton.
I still watch it from time to time though and when people say it's a bad film I always defend it.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Jan 4, 2007 20:55:37 GMT -5
It's an ok film, but when you are trying to follow up 2 of the greatest films ever made after a 16 year gap, expectations are going to be extremely hard to live up to. My main issues are the acting skills (or lack of) of Sofia Coppola and the fact that Robert Duvall (who I always thought put in the best performances of the first 2 films) was replaced by a slimy lawyer played by George Hamilton. I still watch it from time to time though and when people say it's a bad film I always defend it. Yeah, Duvall really help make the first two movies. People really don't notice it as much until they watch pt III. And lets not even talk about Sofia |
|
|
|
Post by tommyvercetti on Jan 4, 2007 20:57:02 GMT -5
Yeah..Sofia sucked hard.
It didnt help she played in the same movie with Al Pacino.
That'd be like The Boogyman wrestling Bret Hart.
|
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Jan 4, 2007 20:57:38 GMT -5
Duvall as Tom Hagen is in my top 3 Acting roles of all time. It is such an understated performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by amsiraK on Jan 4, 2007 21:37:20 GMT -5
And George Hamilton is SUCH a throwaway. It's like he might not even have shown up at all, he made so little impact on the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Playboy" Don Douglas on Jan 4, 2007 22:15:28 GMT -5
I've always considered III to be extremely underrated. The obvious flaws that have already been mentioned (Sofia, no Hagen) do take away from the film a bit, but as a whole, I think it's excellent.
|
|
|
|
Post by T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens on Jan 4, 2007 22:18:34 GMT -5
I agree with you guys here. Hagen was my favorite character and it's all a tribute to how Duvall played him. He doesn't speak much, but everything is written on his face. It's all lost on Mister Tan. I also feel that the choice to set it in modern times, and age the characters didn't help it very much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banned Member on Jan 5, 2007 12:47:36 GMT -5
Didn't they say that Hagen had died?
|
|
|
|
Post by T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens on Jan 5, 2007 13:05:43 GMT -5
Didn't they say that Hagen had died? Yes, but that was because they couldn't get Robert Duvall to sign on for the movie. Whatever the reasons were, I don't know. But when that happened, they had to re-write ALOT of the script to write Hagen out. |
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Jan 5, 2007 13:07:19 GMT -5
Didn't they say that Hagen had died? Yep. They mention it when Michael is speaking to Tom's son. He says "a hell of a Lawyer" and George Hamilton says "I know". Yep, they spend about 2 seconds glossing over the death of one of the pivotal characters. |
|
|
|
Post by T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens on Jan 5, 2007 13:12:17 GMT -5
Then again, Clamenza had to be written out of Godfather Part II because they couldn't get the actor that played him. They wrote him off with one scene, and then Frankie Pentangeli took over the part in the script that was reserved for Clamenza. I can't complain there, because Pentageli was an awesome character, and the actor was very good too. I guess it's all in the execution.
|
|
|
|
Post by amsiraK on Jan 5, 2007 13:15:17 GMT -5
I agree with you guys here. Hagen was my favorite character and it's all a tribute to how Duvall played him. He doesn't speak much, but everything is written on his face. It's all lost on Mister Tan. I also feel that the choice to set it in modern times, and age the characters didn't help it very much. I don't know how "modern" it was - it was set in the 1970s. (and ends in 1980) They really didn't do much in setting that time period in the third movie, though. And it was a big mistake not doing WHATEVER they could to get Duvall for the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Jan 5, 2007 13:19:57 GMT -5
Apparently, Duvall demanded a huge amount to reprise his role.
|
|
|
|
Post by SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts on Jan 5, 2007 13:21:37 GMT -5
Duvall wanted to be paid as much as Pacino and Pacino even threatened not to reprise his role unless he was paid 7 mill and percentage of the gross. Pacino accepted the originally offered 5 million when Coppala was going to rewrite it with Michael's funeral in the begining.
|
|
|
|
Post by amsiraK on Jan 5, 2007 13:30:58 GMT -5
It would have been worth it.
|
|
