The overwhelming consensus is that the Godfather 3 paled in comparison to the Godather 1 and The Godfather 2. Still, the Academy Awards nominated the Godfather 3 for 7 awards, including Best Picture. Likely, these nominations came from the reputation of Godfather 1 and Godfather 2.
Do the 7 nominations prove that the Academy Awards is a sham?
I recently watched and thought the film was very good. Just because it is not as good as the first film, does not mean it was not better than most of the stuff in 1990. Remember Driving Miss Daisy got the win just the previous year. Godfather part III is so much better than that
sharethis movie was horrible.
Who took my toast?
No.
shareThis was a terrible film. Slow and boring. Al Pacino overacted and Sophia was what the Raspberry Awards were made for.
This movie would be terrible even if you don't compare it to the first 2 "Godfather Films"
Pacino did not overact. People who say he overshouted here are biased because Pacino shouted more in TGF2 than in this film. And even then, Pacino's kitchen loudness was due to a diabetic attack and his final scream was over grief at losing his favorite child before his eyes. And that silent scream in the end IMO was heart rendering and one of the best acting I've ever witnessed in my life.
share[deleted]
There is 'proof' that the academy awards is a sham every year in plenty of categories.
Given that Godfather III is a very good drama, I don't know if this applies.
Regional Manager
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls008200422/
It doesn't prove they are a sham. Just because you disagree with the Oscars does't mean they are a sham. The Godfather Part III gets compared with the first two films (which are out standings). Is Part III terrible? Definitely no. There are also multiple critics who suggest that even Part II cannot even compare with I.
Part III is a very well written film. And keep in consideration that Mario Puzo and Francis ford Coppola only wrote this film in six weeks while they had six months! This is a very intelligent film considering it only had six weeks to be written. ANd they started from scratch even though there were some previous drafts written.
The only thing that is completely panned in tis film is Sofia Coppola's acting (which is terrible - we would probably agree on that).
It deserved every nomination it got. And what else should have been nominated in 1990?
I'd rather had seen Pacino win an Oscar for this than "Scent Of A Woman"
shareMe too.
----------------------
http://viverdecinema.blogspot.com.br/
I used to think Saving Private Ryan losing to Shakespeare in Love was the best proof. Then the other day I read Apocalypse Now lost to Kramer vs Kramer. Priceless.
shareI used to think Saving Private Ryan losing to Shakespeare in Love was the best proof. Then the other day I read Apocalypse Now lost to Kramer vs Kramer. Priceless.
No, Godfather Part III is an excellent film and deserved its nominations.
shareCome on! i think you were kidding or were drunk when you wrote that statement. This movie is not good. First of all, that opera (in which there are no, IMO, memorable songs) goes on forever and ever. Second, that massacre in Atlantic City is quite far-fetched, especially since it was supposedly planned by Joey Zaza, who was basically a street hood with some power. Could Zaza put that kind of attack off? Doubt it. And where did Eli Wallach's character come from? Didn't he say--and I'm paraphrasing -- "Your father and I have done business for many years"? OK, where was he in the first two films? This film is almost a parody of the first two great films. Too long, very over indulgent.
shareI'm not kidding or drunk. In my personal opinion, Godfather Part III is a great film.
shareA lot of people like myself consider TGF3 to be a good film. Believe it.
shareThere is no "sham" involved. You seem to be confused about what the Academy Awards are. Here's how it works.
The "Academy" is a private club. Appearing in motion pictures in speaking roles does not automatically get someone membership. You have to be approved by a committee.
Anyway, every year this private club gives awards to its members for their work in the various disciplines that make up the motion picture industry. These awards frequently have little or nothing to do with box office numbers or what the professional critics say or what the public thinks.
It's the Academy's business to present these awards to whomever they see fit. If they want to give Liza Minelli an Oscar because Judy never got one or give John Wayne a career Oscar and say it was for True Grit, then they can. Clark Gable didn't win for Gone With The Wind because he already got one for It Happened One Night. The list is endless and includes Jack Lemmon, Art Carney and of course Marisa Tomei.
In short, it's their club, their awards. There's no sham.
It's the Academy's business to present these awards to whomever they see fit.
OK. When you put it that way I see your point and I have to agree. They say one thing and frequently do another.
If anyone out there wants to weigh in on how Art Carney's performance in Harry & Tonto was "the best performance by an actor" that year, please join in. I remember how the presenter, John Huston seemed to know Carney was the winner before he even opened the envelope and gave a disclaimer before he looked.
[deleted]
Bashing GF III because it wasn't as good as the first two is like bashing hamburger for not being filet mignon. Yeah, the latter is better, but that doesn't mean the former can't be good.
III was definitely flawed-- it wasn't as great as its predecessors-- but it was a good movie.
It's been said: III suffered in part because of its title. I think if it'd been called "The Death of Michael Corleone" as originall intended it wouldn't get the flak it received.
At the same time, though, Sofia Coppola's acting was awful no matter what title the move had.
Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment. -Michael Corleone
Did it deserve it to be nominated? Absolutely. It is a good and fascinating film.
Did it deserve to win? No, because it wasn't that good. There were better films that year.
Of course it pails compared to the first two but as a film on it's own terms it is really good and only Coppola could do a sequel with such a high standard.
The story is fascinating but it has a few fatal flaws: Sofia Coppola is a useless actress and she alone is a huge fatal flaw..
The other flaw is that the story at time feels as a soap-opera. The other films also had soap opera connections but there everything was so detailed you didn't really notice it. And the characters were deep and multi-faceted.
But here it becomes to distracting sometimes. Some of the plot elements were to unbelievable to believe and the characters are shallow.
Overall though a really good film.
Give the Academy some credit. The film didn't win a single award.
The Academy nominates the best films of that year, regardless of the overall quality. If the year 1990 only released bad movies, they they would nominate bad movies.
Are there any films that you would have nominated for the categories were The Godfather III was nominated other than the ones that were already there?