I am sure everyone is aware that Mr Coppola has been tinkering with Godfather Part III, the quote states;
"'Mario Puzo's THE GODFATHER, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone' is an acknowledgement of Mario's and my preferred title and our original intentions for what became 'The Godfather: Part III,'" said Coppola. "For this version of the finale, I created a new beginning and ending, and rearranged some scenes, shots, and music cues. With these changes and the restored footage and sound, to me, it is a more appropriate conclusion to 'The Godfather' and 'The Godfather: Part II' and I'm thankful to Jim Gianopulos and Paramount for allowing me to revisit it."
The article further states;
Mario Puzo's THE GODFATHER, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone will have a limited theatrical release in December, followed by availability on Digital home entertainment platforms and on disc.
I am sure we will also see 4K discs for Part II and Part III in the coming months.
I very much hope we eventually see a box set of the complete and restored scores to all of the films. It really would be a travesty if these do not receive the tender, love and care which they deserve.
The more I see of Godfather 1 & 2, the more I am convinced that Coppola simply didn't write or shoot a worthy version of Godfather 3, so I don't see how all the editing in the world can help.
Thanks to Willis and Tavoularis it looks like a Godfather film, and it's got Pacino and Keaton, but for me it's about a worthy a sequel as Jaws 2 was to Jaws. Which is not much at all.
(Sorry, it's a current hobbyhorse of mine. I don't see how a new cut and a really terrible new title will change anything, except for those auteurists convinced that any new cut of a film brings it closer to the brilliant original vision, blah blah blah. And I say this as one who believes that The Godfather Part II is one of the genuine masterpieces of American cinema).
I totally believe that, which is why it feels like G3 has no important story to tell (except the transformation of Connie, a plotline which for me is the only vindication of the third film).
One of my biggest problems with G3 is the length. 1 & 2 have epic running times because they tell complex stories that span years and even decades.
G3 is long just because you expect a Godfather film to be long.
I feel like Coppola keeps seeing Internet headlines like "The One Simple Trick That Will Turn Your Flawed Film Into a Masterpiece" and clicking on them. The latest version of Cotton Club was enjoyable but it didn't seem appreciably better than it did in 1984, just different.
I haven't seen the latest cut of Apocalypse Now (the last one I saw was the Redux). Does it have the French Plantation scene, because in Redux that sequence stopped the film dead. I was thinking of it last week watching Paris, Texas (for the first time), where Aurore Clement, the actress from the plantation scene, plays Dean Stockwell's wife. She may be a wonderful actress in French (I've never seen Malle's Lacombe, Lucien, her breakout film), but when acting in English her scenes die on the screen. (I do love that she ultimately married Coppola's brilliant production designer, Dean Tavoularis)
(I know that the killing of Fredo in G2 is supposed to be the great tragedy that shows the final destruction of Michael's soul, but honestly, Fredo had it coming. I feel a lot worse for that prostitute they murdered just so they could use her death to frame and blackmail Sen. Geary. THAT is truly evil.)
I totally agree Part III is the weaker of the trilogy and I don’t believe cutting the film by 14 mins and adding a new beginning and a new ending which Coppola intends will elevate it compared to Parts I and II.
The problem is we all compare it with its predecessors and on that basis it always falls short, on its own, I personally believe, it is a impressive film in its own right.
I totally agree Part III is the weaker of the trilogy and I don’t believe cutting the film by 14 mins and adding a new beginning and a new ending which Coppola intends will elevate it compared to Parts I and II.
The problem is we all compare it with its predecessors and on that basis it always falls short, on its own, I personally believe, it is a impressive film in its own right.
This. The ending always has me in tears. Great film.
The ending of "The Godfather: Part III" could be improved immensely by simply removing "Cavalleria Rusticana" by Pietro Mascagni and replacing it with a Nino Rota cue. All I could think of when the Mascagni piece came up in the film was "Raging Bull," a far superior film.
For me, it's not even comparison to the amazing originals that makes G3 suffer. I just find it a dull and emotionally unengaging film on its own terms, to the degree that no amount of re-editing can make any significant difference. For the most part, I don't care about the characters in G3, and while it's hard to argue that Michael in G2 is likeable, his story is compelling.
G3 does look great. They spent a lot of money, and had Gordon Willis, Dean Tavoularis and Milena Canonero on board. And Coppola's films pretty much always look great (I still have never seen The Rain People or Twixt). With cinematographers like Gordon Willis, Vittorio Storaro, Bill Butler, Stephen Burum, Stephen Goldblatt, Jordan Cronenweth and Mihai Malamaire, one would expect nothing less.
(And even you separate G3 from the earlier films, it's still just a long and slow drama about a group of rich people whose problems I couldn't give a crap about. Rich criminals, actually, and without the backstories of G1 and G2, not especially interesting ones).
I feel like Coppola keeps seeing Internet headlines like "The One Simple Trick That Will Turn Your Flawed Film Into a Masterpiece" and clicking on them. The latest version of Cotton Club was enjoyable but it didn't seem appreciably better than it did in 1984, just different.
It feels like he's become an old man who can't get any new film projects going, or maybe doesn't want to, so he's spending his golden years puttering around with his old films: DEMENTIA 13, COTTON CLUB, APOCALYPSE NOW and now GODFATHER III.
I'm hardly a hater. Coppola is a brilliant director who has made some of the greatest American films of all time. (And arguably greatest of world cinema -- I have enormous gaps in world cinema knowledge so I'd hardly dare compare American films to those of cultures I know little of). And clearly has more talent than I could ever even dream of having.
I just don't feel his recuts have improved any of his films significantly. And I feel G3 is a lost cause, partly for the reason another poster stated -- that it was made because Paramount wanted a sequel, not because Coppola & Puzo had anything new and important they wanted to say about these characters.
I went into the theater in, what was it, 1990-91, rather open-minded. I refused to compare it with the two previous films, and considered it as a standalone film. And i really enjoyed the film. Performances (even Sofia isn't all that bad), photography, art-direction, etc are all top notch. Yes, the film is flawed, the story isn't strong enough for almost 3hrs of film, but it's still a good movie. Rather looking forward to this new cut.
Nice little bonus for the cast members... I assume. Anyone know how they work out the remuneration for something like this? Do they have to agree some kind of new contracts or 2020-level additional payments with the actors? After all, it's more than just a re-edit – its new title and new beginning/end makes it effectively a new film, doesn't it?
