MovieChat Forums > Francis Ford Coppola Discussion > Did anyone in Hollywood have as good as ...

Did anyone in Hollywood have as good as run as he did in the 70's

posted 5 years ago by looper007 (1126)
13 replies | jump to latest

The Godfather, the Conversation, The Godfather II and Apocalypse Now. Damn that's just a run of pure genius.

Even his 80's work although not as awesome as those four films deserve a lot more love.

One From The Heart (underrated Musical)
The Outsiders (a film that's grown in Stature over the years)
Rumble Fish (a masterpiece imo)
The Cotton Club (not as bad as some think)
Garden of Stone (not bad)
Tucker The man and his dream (his most underrated film)

In the 90's he produced Godfather III (just not as good as the two films it followed) and Dracula (a great Dracula film). After that it got bad.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8292) 5 years ago

I've thought about Coppola several times in the context of wondering what happened to his career.

His last great film, in my opinion, is The Rainmaker. And that really is a hell of a film. I think it's as entertaining as any other film that he's made.

For some reason, however, he disappears after that and doesn't make another movie for 10 years. And when he finally does come back and makes Youth Without Youth, it's to little fanfare and poor critical reviews. He has made three films since then, all of which almost no one has heard of and which have been a mixed bag in terms of their reception from viewers.

It really is strange. It's like he just sent himself into a self-imposed exile and when he came back not only was he not the same, but it also seems that producers weren't interested in giving him the money for big-budget projects despite the fact that he's fucking Francis Ford Coppola.

[–] Lampedusean (498) 5 years ago

People don't age in your world?

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8292) 5 years ago

Sure, they age. But there's more than enough evidence that just because a director ages it doesn't mean he can't continue to make great films.

Spielberg is 72 and still working at a very high level. Martin Scorsese is 76 and doing the same. Clint Eastwood, amazingly, is 89 and still regularly flirting with Oscar contention. Robert Altman was 81 when he made A Prairie Home Companion. Sidney Lumet was 81 when he made Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Coppola was only 68 when he made his comeback with Youth Without Youth.

[–] ebhaynz (3528) 5 years ago

I think he was at his happiest in the 70's when he was in control and could bully his way to getting extra money during production. I believe he wanted to leave Hollywood and make his own version of Hollywood in SF, he started his own freaking studio and lost everything. He tried to make a huge comeback with Godfather III and when that failed he stooped low to make Dracula just so he could get out of bankruptcy once and for all.
But yeah, I think once studios starting taking more control of their films at the end of the 70's FFC just had an awful time dealing with that. He's had a lot of success in other ventures such as his winery, his Italian style resorts, cafe, restaurants, and his studio for writers and producers. I gotta give him credit, Francis Ford Coppola is basically one huge corporation.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8292) 5 years ago

Why was Dracula "stooping low"?

It's a pretty cool film, especially visually.

[–] GrowingFamily (271) 5 years ago

I like this film, too. It’s a bit campy in pats but it’s scary and fun.

[–] ebhaynz (3528) 5 years ago

I think I may be wrong, for some reason I thought FFC said he only did Dracula for the money.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8292) 5 years ago

I'd be interested in hearing more on that, if you can source it.

According to Wiki, it was Winona Ryder who brought the script to him and it got his attention because he already had an interest in the story.

I think it's possible that you are mis-remembering and it was actually The Godfather III that he made mostly just for the money, because I have heard that too, from multiple sources.

[–] kwestmo (4114) 5 years ago

Dracula is a great movie regardless of the reason he made it. It transcends a horror movie. I'll give you it's not timeless and not one of his better works, still it is a great piece of cinema. Few directors could have done what he did with the source material.

[–] Wuchak (8110) 3 years ago

He tried to make a huge comeback with Godfather III and when that failed

Actually it was modestly successful at the box office, costing $54 million and making $137 million worldwide with $67 million of that domestically. Personally, I prefer it to Godfather II.

[–] christomacin (4529) 4 years ago

Hal Ashby had a pretty solid run in the 1970s:

The Landlord (1970)
Harold and Maude (1971)
The Last Detail (1973)
Shampoo (1975)
Bound for Glory (1976)
Coming Home (1978)
Being There (1979)

Ashby also had a good run as an editor in the late 1960s:

The Cincinnati Kid (1965)
The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming (1966)
In the Heat of the Night ( 1967)
The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)

[–] Jones70 (6195) 3 years ago

Maybe Robert Altman, Sam Peckinpah or Sidney Lumet.

[–] Wuchak (8110) 3 years ago

In the 90's he produced Godfather III (just not as good as the two films it followed) and Dracula (a great Dracula film). After that it got bad.

He only made two other films in the 90s: "The Rainmaker," a John Grisham drama/thriller, was quite good while "Jack" was at least half-good; it needed a rewrite to flesh out better prospects, particularly in the problematic comedic segments. That leaves us with the three films he made after his ten-year hiatus...

"Youth Without Youth"
"Tetro"
"Twixt"

...all of which have their points of interest, although not in the same league as "Apocalypse Now" or "The Godfather" when he was a hungry film maverick. By the time he returned in 2007 he had lost the public hype and few people noticed what he was doing beyond his devotees.