Francis Ford Coppola

[Capo]

Wet Dog.

I think we've all given you long enough, Sunshine. Find time for the other requested Proviews should you wish; but this one isn't voluntary.

I'm still in shock at your rating of The Godfather Part II, a shock magnified to frightening proportions since seeing it ranked below Dracula. It has, without a lie, been nagging at the back of my mind since you posted your score for it, and I have been meaning to ask you about it since. My patience can't hold out any longer, I'm afraid...

[Michael]

admin said:

I'm still in shock at your rating of The Godfather Part II, a shock magnified to frightening proportions since seeing it ranked below Dracula. It has, without a lie, been nagging at the back of my mind since you posted your score for it

I feel the same way. EXPLAIN WETDOG!!!!

[Omar]

Now now now guys, lets not crucify him yet...

Seriously though, Wetdog, I remember you saying you felt guilty about not giving it a higher rating. Don't let that stop you from giving us your honest opinion. Because after all, that's all we want.

And believe me, you aren't the only one who isn't a big fan of it.... Roger Ebert didn't see much to it either.

[Capo]

Crucifixion is the last thing I want to happen.

But I do hold the nails...

[RNL]

I wasn't aware of Ebert's opinion, but I just read his review, and I basically agree with his sentiments.

"The stunning text of The Godfather is replaced in Part II with prologues, epilogues, footnotes, and good intentions."

The film is extremely novelistic (there's not even a single scene here that's close to being as cinematic--or as interesting--as the restaurant assassination in The Godfather). So I'll address the story.

Don Corleone is not in this film, he died halfway through the first. Why do we keep cutting away to the 1900s to see how he came to power? How is it relevent? How is it even interesting? It was fairly obvious from the first few scenes exactly how Vito rose to power, but we keep returning to it, piecemeal, as though it's providing a direct contrast to Michael's own rise.

Okay, so Michael's rise to power was pure nepotism, whereas Vito made his own destiny. Michael's power was given, Vito's was taken. Vito's position as Don was chosen, Michael's was fatalistically determined.

These are just incidental differences, though. Seeing Vito at the turn of the century, seeing his mother killed, seeing him return for revenge years later, etc. How does this interlace with seeing Michael strike deals with Cuban kingpins and slowly degenerate into a paranoid loner?

It strikes me as padding.

I think, formally, the film is a shambles.

My other contention is the difference between one star and none: Absolutely nothing in the film was interesting to me. The aforementioned wheelings and dealings with Cuban fat cats were about as far from compelling as material gets. Watching characters I don't like striking business deals I couldn't care less about is not my idea of a good film. The rest of the time is spent weaving a web of double-crossings, false forgivements, revenges, tit-for-tat. I just can't care. Michael has none of the charisma of his father.

Two hours into this film I was screaming inside my head.

Sorry guys.

I'm dreading Part III.

And I actually want to see Dracula again, which is more than I feel I'm ever likely to say for this.

[Vercetti]

I always hated Ebert's review of GFII, especially since he's praised so many other sequels and remakes that could apply to his criticisms.

[RNL]

He prefers the third film, seemingly.

[RNL]

One thing I'll say for the film is that the cinematography was very sophisticated, very deep and rich.

Oh, and the final shot of Michael alone at the table was clever, as Omar mentioned in his Proview.

[Vercetti]

I always felt part III was a great film ( ) but not in the same ballpark as the other two.

It could've been in that range had it not been victim to all of the "contract deaths" some of the actors faced and one of the subplots or two. I haven't seen it in a long time though.

[Omar]

Ok, I'm satisfied with this order:

1. The Conversation (1974)
2. The Godfather Part II (1974)
3. Apocalypse Now (1979)
4. The Godfather (1972)
5. The Godfather Part III (1990)
6. The Outsiders (1983)

[RNL]

Topical humour!

[Michael]

wetdog said:

Topical humour!

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

Hilarious.

[Vercetti]

Family Guy kicks ass.

[Omar]

"I like 'The Money Pit.'"

Hilarious!

[The Ghost of LLC]

1.) The Conversation (1974)
2.) The Godfather Part II (1974)
3.) The Godfather (1972)
4.) Apocalypse Now (1979)
5.) The Godfather Part III (1990)

[Michael]

3 stars for Apocalypse Now? Why not 4?

[The Ghost of LLC]

I loved it, but I didn't feel it was all it could have been. It's hard to explain. It's in dire need of a re-watch, actually, but from what I remember I just felt it could have explored the characters a tad deeper. I've always prefered The Deer Hunter for this very reason.

[jake]

1. Apocalypse Now (1979)
2. The Conversation (1974)
3. The Godfather Part II (1974)
4. The Godfather (1972)
5. Rumble Fish (1982)

Apocalypse Now will probably join my four star films list. The first truly transcendent film experience I had.

[Boz]

1. The Godfather Pt II (1974)
2. The Godfather (1972)
3. Apocalypse Now [/url] (1979)
4. The Godfather Pt III (1990)
5. The Conversation [/url] (1974)

[Vercetti]

Interesting.

In terms of his career, Coppola has stated that the films he made during the rest of the 1980's and most of the 1990's, such as The Outsiders, The Cotton Club, Jack and The Rainmaker, were done to pay off the debts incurred by the production of One from the Heart.