What movies are you watching?

[LoathedVermin72]

I feel like saying II is better than III is almost an indefensible position. It adds almost nothing of import to the narrative or themes in any meaningful way, especially given its bloated length.

[The Argonaut]

Thanks for having the wife and me to your dinner party.

[BurtReynolds]

he doesn't care about any of that stuff.

[LoathedVermin72]

But III is not even a competent movie. It's messy and overblown and full of bad acting.

Messy and overblown are subjective complaints which I would disagree with. I think it's extremely focused in terms of theme and narrative; every scene matters.

I don't think it's full of bad acting at all. Sofia Coppola is obviously the biggest issue there, but I think complaints about her performance are overstated. She's not a very good actor but she has an appealing presence on screen.

[The Argonaut]

Thanks for having the wife and me to your dinner party.

[BurtReynolds]

Also it looks like a tv show.

[The Argonaut]

Thanks for having the wife and me to your dinner party.

[VinylGuy]

Dog Eat Dog.

FUCKIN AMAZING. PURE CINEMA. NICK CAGE YOU FUCKERS.

[tragabigzanda]

Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

[lennytheweedwhacker]

nic cage is worth yelling about, though

[LoathedVermin72]

The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, but especially the first, are in many ways movies about male responsibility to family.

Ehh, I don't think that's interesting at all. I think the family themes are mostly superficial. To Coppola's credit, they create some moments of great drama and keen observation, which results in something that feels compellingly authentic, but I think they are far from the most important element of this series.

I find the parts with Connie being part of meetings having to do with family business and giving orders that Vincent then follows very wrong. It doesn't work with the way that the family works in the first two movies, or even with the way her character is in the first two movies.

It's been decades since the first two movies. Part of the whole point is that Michael is very different man now. Hell, he keeps saying so over and over. He doesn't want to be the one making those decisions. It's the worst part of his life. He hates it, and he hates that its sucking Vincent into it.

Connie was radicalized by the events of the first two movies, and didn't find the longing for redemption Michael did, which I think has a lot to do with him being in power and her not. It's a logical (and interesting) progression for her character.

Also, a helicopter comes and shoots everybody.

And? It's a good set-piece.

Also, Sofia Coppola's acting in this may be the worst acting I've ever seen in a real movie.

As mentioned previously, I don't think it's that severe.

Also, Robert Duvall is missing.

His character is irrelevant.

The most quoted moment from III, "As soon as I think i'm out, they pull me back in" or whatever, takes place in a little kitchen. The setting doesn't match the moment. It always felt off to me.

I think that's on purpose. The whole tension of the film lies in Michael's struggle between legitimate family life and his mob ties. The setting should be intimate and family-centered because that's where he wants to be. It's the perfect place for such a vulnerable lament. The movie is filled with moments of intimate, vulnerable fragility from Michael; the settings should reflect that.

[BurtReynolds]

I wouldn't call it a trainwreck, but there are some truly trainwreck decisions. The helicopter scene was like something out of a Chuck Norris movie and hilariously out of place. If that scene doesn't sound alarm bells, nothing does.

It does recover though, before collapsing again with the overwrought ending.

As a stand alone movie its ok, but would have been entirely forgotten if it wasn't a Godfather sequel (and as a sequel, its mostly useless accept to tack on the obligatory tragic ending). It's flat, uninteresting, and very sloppy.

Andy Garcia was ok though. I liked him and felt he deserved better.

[LoathedVermin72]

I wouldn't call it a trainwreck, but there are some truly trainwreck decisions. The helicopter scene was like something out of a Chuck Norris movie and hilariously out of place. If that scene doesn't sound alarm bells, nothing does.

It does recover though, before collapsing again with the overwrought ending.

As a stand alone movie its ok, but would have been entirely forgotten if it wasn't a Godfather sequel (and as a sequel, its mostly useless accept to tack on the obligatory tragic ending). It's flat, uninteresting, and very sloppy.

Andy Garcia was ok though. I liked him and felt he deserved better.

But the series is thematically incomplete without it! It's inextricably linked to the first two. And the ending is my favorite thing in the whole trilogy!

[LoathedVermin72]

And yeah, Garcia was great. A younger, feistier Sonny.

[lennytheweedwhacker]

shadows and fog is a lot of fun

[Simple Torture]

Will somebody just ban this guy?

I get sick and tired of "It's not a tumor" jokes just as quickly as the next guy, but that's no reason to ban trag.

[The Argonaut]

Thanks for having the wife and me to your dinner party.

[LoathedVermin72]

The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, but especially the first, are in many ways movies about male responsibility to family.

Ehh, I don't think that's interesting at all. I think the family themes are mostly superficial. To Coppola's credit, they create some moments of great drama and keen observation, which results in something that feels compellingly authentic, but I think they are far from the most important element of this series.

I find the parts with Connie being part of meetings having to do with family business and giving orders that Vincent then follows very wrong. It doesn't work with the way that the family works in the first two movies, or even with the way her character is in the first two movies.

It's been decades since the first two movies. Part of the whole point is that Michael is very different man now. Hell, he keeps saying so over and over. He doesn't want to be the one making those decisions. It's the worst part of his life. He hates it, and he hates that its sucking Vincent into it.

Connie was radicalized by the events of the first two movies, and didn't find the longing for redemption Michael did, which I think has a lot to do with him being in power and her not. It's a logical (and interesting) progression for her character.

Also, a helicopter comes and shoots everybody.

And? It's a good set-piece.

Also, Sofia Coppola's acting in this may be the worst acting I've ever seen in a real movie.

As mentioned previously, I don't think it's that severe.

Also, Robert Duvall is missing.

His character is irrelevant.

The most quoted moment from III, "As soon as I think i'm out, they pull me back in" or whatever, takes place in a little kitchen. The setting doesn't match the moment. It always felt off to me.

I think that's on purpose. The whole tension of the film lies in Michael's struggle between legitimate family life and his mob ties. The setting should be intimate and family-centered because that's where he wants to be. It's the perfect place for such a vulnerable lament. The movie is filled with moments of intimate, vulnerable fragility from Michael; the settings should reflect that.

Where were you in 2008 when I originally made that post?
http://archive.theskyiscrape.com/viewto ... 9#p2408904

i don't know

[tragabigzanda]

Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

[tragabigzanda]

Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.