Yes I agree. I did mean to base it around him, not on his story but as something that could be used as a framing device. I just can imagine his thoughts after he sits down and calms down, it must have been unbelievable

I haven't seen all the other DreamWorks films. But El Dorado also had blood. It's something that they do very rarely. But it has impact.

Glass Onion is getting a commentary track.

The first 2 Shreks are good. But I like TLW better.

They are all equally ridiculously amazing all time action films.

The biggest reason I’m not a fan (but it’s still not a terrible movie) is that Michael Corleone is gone and only Al Pacino remains. Now, I love me some Pacino, but Michael is such a unique role for him because he’s so cold, isolated, unpredictable, and calculating. By the end of “Godfather Part 2”, Michael has descended into a soulless husk of man who’s only filled with cold ambition and self preservation.

In Part 3, that haunting version of Michael is completely gone, and we’re just watching Al Pacino. He’s warm, he’s charming, he’s quirky, he’s sarcastic. Never once do I get the sense this is the same ruthless mastermind we saw not even 15 years ago.

I get that the film is about his attempt at redemption and trying to make his father’s empire legitimate, but it just feels too removed from the first two movies. The brazen brutality and mundane humanity is gone, and everything feels too much like every other gangster movie at the time.

It’s still watchable and has some decent stuff in it. Andy Garcia gives what I think is his best performance and Pacino’s breakdown at the end when his daughter is killed is pretty guy-wrenching. But it’s best chance at survival is viewing it as a stand alone gangster movie, and not a follow-up/epilogue to the films that redefined the genre.

[deleted]

first one is great!

I wouldn't make it exactly about the Will Smith thing, I'm not super into films about real event since they're almost always false and exploitative. I mean, he's still alive.

Maybe if they could pull it off like The Social Network, then sure. But I'd be much more interested in a movie BASED around this idea or inspired by such event. You can do a lot more with that without getting a lot of real life people involved with the event angry and it's probably less offensive.

What about the masterpieces that are Paddington 1 and 2. The main character is animated though.

Oh so she was only using Jack too? So if the titanic didn’t sink, Jack would have been heart broken. Wow. It’s probably best he died then.

Perfect description. It's probably the ultimate example of a sequel that doesn't justify its existence.

Emoji movie

Well Tarantino does use the difference between how the Americans show numbers on their fingers vs how Germans do in the movie as a sign of them not being true German officers, and it gets them killed. So he early cares to some extent and makes an effort so maybe that's why this guy cares.

It's complicated, but it basically had three things going against it:

1. The hype of the first two films, which were made with relative creative freedom.
2. Coppola hadn't made a big hit in several years, and it was becoming fashionable to hate on him.
3. The third film was made years after the first two, and Hollywood had changed. Seemingly the entire Hollywood machine was working against Coppola. He didn't get to make the story he wanted to make, he didn't have the time or the budget he needed, and Winona Ryder bailed at the last second, leaving Coppola to make a snap decision to cast his daughter, which was a mistake.

Personally, I also waited years to watch it because I heard bad things. And when I finally watched it... I thought it was actually pretty good. Not as great as the first film (still the best one, imho), but way better than people had given it credit for. The new edit of the movie, The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone, was even better. I think it's a good ending to the saga, although it could have been better if Duvall hadn't asked for too much money, and Paramount had let Coppola make the movie he wanted to.

I rewatched it the other day too. It is shockingly awful. All the subtleties of Michael are out the window. The scream at the end is laughable and his diabetic attack is laugh out loud funny. "FREDO".

What? Michael didn't die in Part2. That's why part 3 had him, right?

I don’t see how it’s a scam. The trailers show exactly what she movie is like, there’s nothing deceptive about it.

Because they compare it to G1 and G2. Any movie would fall short.

But it is important because (1) it rounds out the story and (2) it contrasts how Michael died with how Vito died.

Vito died like a peasant, in his garden with his grandson. Michael died alone on that windswept terrace.

Nice

[deleted]

eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. i went in fully blind after seeing jim carrey in the truman show and i obvs didn’t get that it was out of order and was so confused. really enjoyed seeing why some characters made some choices and how it was right in my face the whole time

Is it? I mean some of the most decorated films are about real celebrity's scandals.

This snobbish attitude is really embarrassing btw. Trying to brag about the films you watch while at the same time providing surface level criticism isn't a good look. How is "the title is stupid" criticism in any way and how is saying "you don't know much about film" trying to help your point? Instead, explain why it's boring, what parts you think is simple, how does the film fail cinematically since you know so much about film. Even a passing comment is more criticism than anything you've said.

i mean people in general