Hacker News Reader

People always say that about Godfather 3, I always wonder if it’s just a thing to say because he put his own daughter in a lead role. Like the critics, I liked it. Not nearly as much as II or I but still. It is a nineties movie though, it’s even different media wise, less grainy. Casting his own daughter when I think, Winona Ryder, dropped out was very nepotistic; and she’s a better director than actress. For me Garcia steals the show though, channeling Sonny and the ‘they pull me back in scene’ is amazing. I don’t know what my point is..

I also liked Godfather III, but not as much as I or II.

I see the third part as a portrayal of changing of times. Gone are the days of past, the time has changed, and so has characters and the story.

It’s a good movie if you don’t hold it up to part I and II.

I don't think it's because he put his daughter in it. Godfather I & II is based on the Book written by Mario Puzzo. Godfather III is not based on the book. Think of it from the POV of - wow, I & II were quite successful so let's milk it and see if we can make money with another sequel.

>Godfather I & II is based on the Book written by Mario Puzzo.

ever read the book? It's a dog.

I disagree, I thought the book was excellent.

It’s very good pulp with at least one pointless side plot. If you’ve never read something that’s actually bad you might consider that a dog.

Ok I guess dog is overstating it when there are Mack Bolan books out there, but on the other hand it is definitely not that you can point to the movies and say Well of course they're masterpieces! Just look at the book!

I don't think it's that bad, but it definitely gives the impression of having been written with the intention of it being made into a movie.

It's worth reading to appreciate the many modifications that transformed it from a mediocre novel into a brilliant movie.

Bingo. Gf3 is a good movie, the problem is Gf1 and Gf2 are to put it simply, masterpieces. Short of a masterpiece, there was no way for Gf3 to compete.

For what it is worth, the recent remaster of Gf3, Gf3: Coda improves the storytelling of Gf3 significantly and I would say makes the movie considerably better, but it is still not competitive with Gf1 and Gf2. That said, I really recommend everyone watch the Coda remaster at this point and do it with an open mind.

> Casting his own daughter when I think, Winona Ryder, dropped out was very nepotistic; and she’s a better director than actress.

While I'll agree Sofia is a much better director than actress (she’s a truly outstanding writer and director) and that Ryder would have been better (Coppola later did work with her on Bram Stoker's Dracula), I’m not going to be mad at him casting his daughter or even blaming it on nepotism. After all, all the previous examples of nepotism, like working with his father, his sister, his brother-in-law, his nephew, etc worked out quite well. Like, the whole Coppola family thing is that they all work together and hire each other. She wasn’t a great actress, but I don’t think she’s want sunk that film. The truth is, any film in a series coming 15 years after two of the greatest films of all time (and the rare sequel that is arguably better than the original, which was already a masterpiece) would have an impossible standard to live up to. Even if Godfather III was a perfect film, I’m not sure it could live up to the hype that the first two carried, especially after 15 years.

And it wasn’t a perfect film. It’s not a piece of garbage but it isn’t in the same league as the other two, which again, are two of the absolute greatest films of all time. But seeing how successful nepotism has been for the Coppola family, I think blaming his teenage daughter is fairly weak.

There have probably been better character analysis done, but I think Sofia did not have the time to "soak in" GF1 and GF2 to give her character any specific nuance that we could love. It's difficult to separate "blandness" and purity in her rendering of the daughter of the godfather, but consider also this: she was not a seasoned actress, and there were very few ways you could interpret this role in a great and memorable way (because of the unreachable success of GF1 and GF2, as others mentioned).

TL; DR: it was a hard first role for a young actress

Hard role or not, first-time actress or not, and all nuance aside, she just acted terribly, full stop. Her acting was very nearly the definition of high school theater mediocrity and simply awful in virtually every scene. It would have looked bad in a completely average movie with completely average (but not bad) actors. But to watch her "act" in scenes with people like Pacino and in the case of this movie, especially Andy Garcia, it's just actoral travesty.

I don't mind the Godfather III. It's not nearly the movie its predecessors were but it's also not nearly as bad as some claim, but during any scene with Coppola in it, I literally need to skip forward to avoid the sheer cringe effect she creates with her dialogue, facial expressions and gestures..

I didn't like her either, but I was trying to explain why it's not a good performance.

Should someone have spotted this and replaced her? Maybe, but her scenes were not crucial enough for anyone to care to tell the director.

> the two movies (really a single movie, broken into two parts)

Really? How so?

Godfather I tells a single coherent story about a power struggle.

Godfather II tells two stories, but neither of them relates to the story from I except in that they involve the same people at different stages of their lives.

I think part 3 really missed Robert Duvall. I don't think he gets enough credit for his role and always seems to get shadowed by the other big name actors. It's been a while since I watched it last, but I do remember George Hamilton as the (pseudo-)consigliere just wasn't it.

Every era is an era of horrible films. That’s Sturgeon’s law for you.

Looking at the 2010s as a whole, we got to watch some amazing films.

We got great hard sci-fi like Gravity, Arrival, Ex Machina. The coming of age genre saw entries like Ladybird, Eighth Grade and Booksmart. Animation reached new heights with films like Inside Out, Spider-Man into the Spiderverse, and Kubo and the Two Strings.

We got comedies like The Artist, Grand Budapest Hotel, Death of Stalin, and Jojo Rabbit. Dramas like Moonlight, Fences, Spotlight, Parasite, Blue Jasmine.

Even in the ever-popular comic book genre, we got Logan and Joker playing at a very different level.

But also, it was the decade of the MCU. Let’s not underestimate what Disney has achieved with that — one big overarching story spanning over twenty films, bringing much deeper character development and more serious themes than what we’d gotten used to from blockbusters.

Gravity is not hard sci-fi. It looks amazing in 3D but it violates the laws of physics in every way possible.

Yeah. Wall-E had more realistic use of a fire extinguisher to move in space.

I found it quite compelling. It’s common for sci-fi films to violate our current understanding of physics, but to just explain it away as a new discovery in physics (think star trek’s warp drive). Others like Star Wars don’t even bother to explain anything about how their ships fly, enter atmospheres, etc.

What was unique about Gravity was that it was sci-if but set it our universe and in our contemporary time period. It at least tried to operate within the constraints of current inventory of space hardware. You are non-space-enthusiast it was amazing.

Not to understate what Disney did, but I feel like most of their characters don't have much depth.

I recently rewatched 12 angry men, and was surprised at how quickly and efficiently they introduced 12 characters. Off-hand remark by one character, an expression by another, the way they stood and moved around; in around 5 seconds you knew the characters without even knowing their names.

Contrast to Marvel's characters, which have hours of development each, yet don't really feel alive. All of them have tragic backstory, all of them are heroic in the same way, most of the male characters are snarky/sarcastic/have big egos.

>We got great hard sci-fi like Gravity, Arrival, Ex Machina

Those were terrible movies and not hard sci-fi. Okay, maybe Arrival was watchable.

> especially in the current era of horrible movies

Isn't this always the case? Have we ever had an era when people thought "glad to be in the current era of great movies"?

I don’t know about movies, but a few years back, it seemed widely accepted that we were in a golden era of television. During the penultimate season of Game of Thrones maybe.

Yes, the 1970s. Even the uncompromising Pauline Kael recognized what was essentially the United Artists/auteur era as a sort of magical time. But it was relatively brief.

I distinctly remember feeling like 1995 was absolutely amazing year for cinema.

Toy story, Braveheart, Apollo 13, Usual Suspects, Heat, Casino, Seven, Clueless, 12 Monkeys, Babe, Get Shorty, Leaving Las Vegas, etc.

A great time to be going to the Cinema.

You remember the recent terrible films and forget the old terrible films.

Also works for TV, music, books, plays.

Imagine all the crap that was on at the same time as Shakespeare that no one remembered 5 years later, let alone 400

We must have seen different movies. Whose downfall?

Michael's. He's a different person by the end of the first movie.

He is different, but not worse.

I guess here's where we get into subjective territory :) But I think the moral downfall interpretation is supported by one of the final scenes where he lied to his wife about not having killed his sister's husband.