Customer Reviews

The Godfather Part III - The Coppola Restoration

5 star:		(63)
4 star:		(49)
3 star:		(37)
2 star:		(34)
1 star:		(24)

 

 

I have seen this film several times, all the way through or in parts. Frankly, I have mixed emotions about it because, when discussing it, I want to be fair and focus on it as a discrete film, judging it on its own terms; however, for me at least, that is impossible because it is the third of three Godfather films and its two predecessors are masterpieces. I cannot exclude vivid memories of scenes and even comments from films I first saw 18 and then 14 years before seeing this one for the first time in 1990. OK, that's my challenge. I finally decided to try to rate it on its own terms, hence the Three Stars. What it has going for it includes Pacino's talent, several plausible conflicts, brilliant cinematography, and a tone of melancholy which is consistent throughout the narrative. After years of broken promises to wife Kay (Diane Keaton), Michael has almost completed a process by which to extricate himself and his family from organized crime. However, his marriage has ended, mortal enemies remain such as Altobello (Eli Wallach) and Joey Zaza (Joe Montegna), his negotiations with the Vatican encounter unexpected complications, and finally, his physical health is poor as pressures and tensions in his life intensify. It is no wonder that he suffers a diabetic attack in his kitchen ("Just when I think I'm out....") from which he never fully recovers.

However, the film has several problems. One concerns the lack of a primary plot to give the narrative cohesion. There are hundreds of individual episodes in The Godfather and Godfather Part II (as in other films such as Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago) but they are coordinated effectively. Not so of the episodes in this film. Sofia Coppola's performance as Mary Corleone has been savaged by most critics. In fact, she is reputed to be a late replacement for Wynona Rider, had no prior acting experience in films, and was given a role as trivial as Anne Archer's in the three Jack Ryan films. I will not join others in bashing her. Another of the film's flaws is director Coppola and the three screenwriters' failure to do more with the role of Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia). So many missed opportunities as Garcia's great talents are under-utilized, especially when on-screen with his obviously exhausted Uncle Michael. The illegitimate son of Santino ("Sonny") Corleone, Vincent is only occasionally allowed to show some of his father's passion, providing energy which this film desperately needs and otherwise lacks.

The jumpy plot and underdeveloped characters are, in my opinion, this film's major weakness but it has several fine moments as when Vincent challenges Zaza, when Michael meets with Cardinal Lamberto (Raf Vallone), the deadly sequence as the performance in the opera house proceeds to its conclusion, and the final scene when Michael reflects upon his empty life. Judged only on its own terms, Three Stars. Let's all hope that there will be no Part IV.

Some critics complain that Sofia Coppola was inexperienced for such a big role. I disagree. Ms. Coppola's inexperience helped her play the character of Mary more convincingly. While it is true she sometimes seemed rather "valley girl," this shouldn't be surprising. Michael did his best to shelter her from the harsh realities of life in the Corleone Family, and the upbringing and guidance from her father came across in her portrayal of Mary.

Another criticism is Michael's quest for redemption... that such a notion does not square with the character in Parts I and II. Again, I disagree. Recall Michael wanted nothing to do with the Family Business in Part I. His father had hopes he might become "Senator Corleone... Governor Corleone," but this was not to be. Michael had to step in for the sake of his family. This necessity does not change the fact that at one time he was a good son, who simply wanted to become a math professor, marry, and have a family. In Part II, he obviously put this notion behind him, but there must have been a part of the "old Dartmouth Michael" lurking somewhere deep inside.

In the years following the end of Part II in 1959, Michael took steps to legitimize the Corleones by getting out of illegitimate businesses. That done, he sought forgiveness for the wrongs he'd done. Had he not been betrayed in Part III, he would have likely found the redemption and peace he sought on a personal level. In addition, the Corleone Family would have been the legitimate family enterprise that would preserve and protect future generations of Corleones, as well as reform Vatican finances. This would have fulfilled his father's dream.

Some say the opera scene was too long. I disagree, and think it was both moving and beautiful. We're watching scenes from a violent opera that had a sub-theme of revenge. At the same time the opera is being performed on the stage, a real opera is about to take place in the audience. The music from "Cavalleria Rusticana" is perfect for this film - especially the final, moving scene in the courtyard of Michael's villa.

I'd say Part III is the "third best" of the series, but it is worth owning and watching, over and over again. The film should have received some academy awards, and I'll never understand why it didn't.

I confess it! "Godfather III" is one of my favorite movies. All right, it has less-than-perfect moments, but it also has memorable ones, such as the touching confessional scene between Michael (Al Pacino) and the Cardinal (Raf Vallone) in the cloister, and the reconciliation of Michael and Kay (Diane Keaton) in Don Tommasino's dining room.

I especially enjoy the Italian locations, and since I spent the `80s in Italy, amidst rumors about what was commonly regarded as the suspicious death of John Paul I; the scandals of the Vatican Banco Ambrosiano (with the banker Calvi hanging from the London bridge); the P-2 scandals in the highest posts of the government, not to mention numerous assassinations of judges in Sicily, the background of the story--the last half of which takes place in Sicily--rang true for me. Furthermore--and more importantly--Coppola's brilliant use of recurrent visual and thematic imagery renders the film outstanding not only on its own merits but also in respect to the first two films. Besides the well-discussed use of oranges whenever a catastrophe is imminent, Coppola constantly juxtaposes themes of religion and death, replicating the events of the story--the biting of the ear; the religious procession, the veiling of the head--with those of Mascagni's magnificent opera about death, revenge, and religion in Sicily: "Cavalleria Rusticana." Coppola intersperses scenes of the opera with scenes of actual vendetta, as the plans of Vincenzo--the new godfather--are carried to their violent conclusion. The part I love the best, though, is when Coppola transfers the tragedy taking place onstage in the opera, outside onto the steps of the opera house--life imitating art. That final choreographed scene, staged to the heart-rending music of Mascagni, gets me every time (Please pass some more Kleenex tissue!).

Al Pacino's silent scream on the steps of the opera house embodies the mask of Greek tragedy. And tragic irony renders "Godfather III" particularly powerful, when the film is viewed in the context of the whole. For instance, the preservation of the family is the device that moves the plot of the entire trilogy. The crimes committed first by Vito Corleone and then by Michael are committed in order to keep the family safe, even though the meaning of 'family' becomes distorted from its original significance during the course of the trilogy. In "Godfather III," however, the aging Michael, who is trying to become a pillar of society in order to preserve his immediate family, accomplishes the very opposite of what he intended. The final scenes of "Godfather I" and "Godfather III"--both set in gardens--emphasize the tragedy. Whereas Vito Corleone dies in the garden, alone except for the youngest member of the family--his toddler grandson--at his feet, Michael Corleone dies in the garden, alone--except for a dog at his feet. Classic examples of tragic irony!

I wish that Coppola would reprise his "Godfather Saga" which he made for television in the seventies. He reshuffled the scenes so that the narrative ran in chronological order from the funeral of Vito's father in Sicily at the beginning of "Godfather I" to the shooting of Fredo at end of "Godfather II." In combination with this particular format, "Godfather III" would make an especially effective tragic finish to the trilogy. The entire saga would then recall the Greek dramatist Aeschylus's trilogy. The original saga of family and its disintegration through revenge and murder, "The Oresteia" depicts the fall of the House of Atreus, just as the Godfather trilogy depicts the fall of the House of Corleone.

When I once made this observation to my daughter, she gave me a sarcastic look and said: "Mom, you're over-educated!"

Mea Culpa!

The Godfather Part III suffers from the marvels of the first two films. Brando, De Niro, Caan, Duvall, and many other stars are absent. The Mafia is no longer the central part of this story. And it's actually hard to understand this film without watching the first two films. But does that mean it fails to be a movie overall? Of course, not.

Despite being the weakest in the trilogy, The Godfather Part III makes for a powerful conclusion to this epic saga. It's now 1979, and Michael Corleone is diagnosed with diabetes. He's separated from his wife, and his children are estranged. For years, Michael has felt guilt from not only isolating himself from his own family, but also having his brother Fredo killed. Now, he wants to go perfectly legitimate with his risky business. As you can see, this has now become a tale of redemption and forgiveness.

Francis Ford Coppola does what he does best here. He moves the story along, with some interesting and powerful elements that have not been found in the first two films. The script is still brilliant the third time around; I don't think you can improve anything here. The music sounds reused, but they still become an important aspect in every scene that requires it.

Of course, we cannot forget the cast (whether good or bad). Al Pacino is as amazing as ever. He's still superior in the first two films, but here, we get to see more emotion and more skill. The last two scenes are especially powerful; it still gets me a bit teary-eyed. Diane Keaton is still spectacular as Kay; same goes for Talia Shire as Connie. Andy Garcia becomes a welcome addition in the cast. He's perfect as the late Sonny's son, Vincent. It's very amusing to see Joe Mantegna as Joey Zasa . . . especially if you try hard not to envision him as Fat Tony. Donal Donnelly as the Archbishop can be best described as extraordinary: he's believable alright. B.J. Harrison as the Corleones' new adviser isn't really as great as Robert Duvall in the first two films, but he can still manage to make us appreciate his performance. Finally, we come to Sofia Coppola as Mary. Countless people find her dull and wooden, easily the worst performance in the entire trilogy. While I do find her wooden, she really makes it more authentic. She is oblivious to what's going on in her father's business; she's more of a simpleton rather than an expert in the Mafia business. And I think Sofia pretty much fits that personality here.

It's true that The Godfather Part III is not in the same league as the first two classic installments, but this is still a fitting conclusion, and it is an extraordinary movie. Just make sure you've seen Godfather I and II before you see this one.

Grade: A-

It goes without saying that "The Godfather" and "The Godfather Part II" are two of the greatest films ever produced. It is the very power, majesty, and near-flawless production qualities of these two epics that render it all the more tragic that "The Godfather Part III" turned out so badly.

There's no sugarcoating the magnitude of the cinematic disaster that "Part III" represents. Everyone knows how poorly the casting is, particularly the unfortunate last-minute insertion of Sofia Coppola into Winona Ryder's planned role as Michael Corleone's daughter Mary. Her wooden performance and awkward screen presence by themselves deal a near-fatal blow to the film's prospects for success. Other casting blunders include the inclusion of the bland George Hamilton as a replacement for Robert Duvall as the Corleone legal adviser, and the use of Joe Mantagna to portray the supposedly dangerous gangster Joey Zasa.

Even with these problems, any "Godfather" sequel featuring such talented performers as Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, and Talia Shire should at the very least prove decent. That the film turns out so horribly reveals that the production problems extend to the plot concept, the writing, and the direction. The main premise of the film, that an aging Michael Corleone wishes to legitimize himself and put his violent, corrupt past behind him is certainly plausible, as is the notion that a "next generation" of gangsters (i.e., Sonny Corleone's illegitimate son Vincent) might be waiting in the wings. The resulting story, however, is muddled and unsatisfying. It is suggested that shadowy, murky kinds of corruption rattle the walls of the Vatican; we are introduced to entirely new and heretofore unknown underworld factions, which don't poke their nefarious way into the plot until midway through the film. Overall, the story is a kind of multilayered mess with countless loose ends, leaving viewers confused and with way too many "Yeah, buts."

Perhaps even worse than the tortuous story line is the film's presentation and pacing. Whereas first-rate dialogue, camera work, and editing caused the previous two "Godfathers" to sizzle from start to finish, this film exhibits a staid, plodding quality that by the last forty minutes or so has slowed to a veritable cinematic crawl. I swear that during the gratuitous scenes in Sicily in which Kay and Michael sit endlessly at a table reminiscing about the old days it's all I can do to keep from falling asleep. Part of the problem, in fact, is that so much of the film feeds shamelessly off the energies generated by the previous two releases. The endless recollection, reflection, and hagiographic dredging up of old Corleone family homilies permeates and nearly engulfs the entire project, leaving little that is new or distinctive that can be identified with the "Part III" production.

The film does have its moments, including a powerful final scene ... But such moments are too few and far between. Overall, this is a bloated turkey of a production which demonstrates that the sixteen-year interval between "Part II" and "Part III" was simply too long to sustain the creative energy that rendered the original "Godfather" films so successful. Frankly, it would have been better for the moviegoing public, for Francis Ford Coppola, and certainly for his daughter Sofia had "The Godfather Part III" simply never been made.

The first time I saw it, I felt disappointed. Several viewings later, I thought it wasn't so bad -not as good as the first two, but not bad. Last night I saw the trilogy non-stop, and yes, it is THAT bad. Here's what's wrong with it:

1.- Tom Hagen. He's crucial and he's missing. There's no Godfather III without him. And if Paramount didn't want to pay Robert Duvall whatever he wanted to reprise his role, they should quit show business altogether. Instead we get George Hamilton! What were they thinking, the penny-pincher idiots!

2.- Michael Corleone. Not the same guy. Sure, Al Pacino plays him, but unfortunately, he forgot everything about the character. Michael Corelone doesn't "love public speech"; he's a soft spoken, cold blooded, silent maniac who feels a fish out of water at weddings, first communions, baptisms, New Year's Eve, anything except funerals. A guy that seldom talks and never reveals his emotions. Here, he's a gregarious and bombastic party guy who yells all the time, talks all the time, curses, dances, mingles, counsels all the time. He's more Tony Montana than Michael Corleone. Not the same guy, I tell you. The hairdo doesn't help, either.

3.- Mary Corleone. Too ugly. Sorry; no offense, but that's it. Her character is a princess; it deserved a knockout beauty. Or... the part should have been changed to an ugly duckling in love with her handsome relative, a S.O.B. who uses her to climb to the top while fooling around on the side. But such as it is, both the part and the actress are simply not believable. And Ms Coppola can't act, by the way. I'm glad she turned out to be a magnificent filmmaker.

4.- Vincent Corleone. Too remote. Sonny's bastard boy. Mmmmmm, I dunno...too many heirs in front of him in line of succession. What happened to them? Coppola doesn't mention. Andy Garcia makes a terrific Corleone, but his part seems implausible. The obvious role was for him to play Connie's boy, Carlo Rizzi Jr, who happened to be Michael's first godson! Then everything falls into place: Carlo hates his godfather for having wacked his dad; Michael has a weak spot for him for the same reason, Mary has a fatal crush on her weasel cousin, he gets far too ambitious... see what I mean?

5.-Don Altobello. Altowho? Where was him in the previous films? If he was Connie's Godfather, why wasn't he at the wedding? And how come he knows Don Luchese? And who is Don Luchese? As for the actor, Eli Wallach plays the part with gusto; a coniving Sicillian Tuco. I loved it!

6.- The Vatican plot. Too murky, too preposterous. Coppola wanted to exploit the Banco Ambrosiano affair? Fine with me. Pope John Paul I strange and sudden death? Fine with me. Wanted to say that the Church is a bigger, meaner mafia than the mob itself? No problemo. But the Immobiliare thing gets far too confused, and one senses Coppola doesn't know where he's going or wants to. For such grand statements, he should have refined his story to perfection. By the way, both Pope Paul VI and John Paul I died in 1978, not 1979. Holy Blooper!

So there you have it. A movie made merely for the money, by people who have grown to hate the previous two. Not a good start by any standard. I heard Coppola was so fed up with the Corleones, he wanted to make "Abbott & Costello meet the Godfather". Well, if his heart was really into it ...Harvey Korman was around, Buddy Hackett was around, Marlon Brando was around ...he should have made it instead!

I have decided to cover both the pros and cons of this film
First off; Too many horrible reviews. I undestand the true fan's dissapointment, and if you are a true fan of ingeniously made films, you will not be dissapointed that much, if at all. Believe me I know what I am talkin about...

Part III, cannot fully measure to Parts I & II but it does come very close. The acting, on Pacino's part is excellent, as well as that of all the other actors.
Pacinos character performs a tremendous turn, to an aged man who repents his sinister life (Fredo...) and does his most to go legitimate, although the firery passion of the once notorious Michael Corleone often leaps out in him.

Andy Garcia, is a wonderful cast member. If we remember Sonny's affair (Part I) with his young mistress, Vincent (Garcia) is his illegitimate son, born apparently after Sonny's death. Garcia plays a foolish Hooligan in the beggining, but then guided by Michael(Pacino) ripens. His performance is unmistakeable and felt.

The film also includes real history in its plot, and sugarcoats it very well. This is of course the assassination of Pope John Paul I, whos death was a controversy.

Best Scene: The Ending cannot be mistaken for any others. The Great Masteful ending of Part's I & II left the viewer thirsting for more and the notion that they both were to be continued. However Part III not only shows that the story continues, but that also the saga ends. It accomplishes both!!! There cannot be a Part IV because of this ending.
To give you a hint without giving away the plot, recall Brando in Part I and then subsitute his character with Pacino's.
Without any overrating, Pacino's performance in the final scene was something that is present only in the best of the greatest films of all time.

And of course, it follows the classic Godfather pattern. Like all of them, it starts out at a celebration, there is the conflict in the middle which offers all the different questionable deaths, be it bussiness or vendettas, and the resolution is like in the first two, resolved in a blood(do not take literally or overread into it) bath.

Problems (minor):
1)Robert Duvall, is not present, without him we have only one legendary actor in the film.
2)Casting: Sofia Coppola: not the best choice in the role of Mary. However not catastrophic, although questionable.
3)Editing: every movie has its glitches, howevever you must be very, and I stress "very" perceptive to catch the few and minor(let alone debatable) editing errors in the story's timeline.

Finally, thank you for taking the time to read this, and on a final note, watch it with an open mind. Hopefully (it hasn't been a while since you've watched the other two, in which case I recommend you do first, since many of the characters, even those of the most minor importance show up throughout this one, to give it that "real life" touch.

The Bad: When they lost Winona Ryder and went hardline against Robert Duvall, they were dead before leaving the starting gate. I deducted one star for Coppola LEAVING his daughter in the film, when you know he realized her lack of ability early on. HELLO Francis ? Your daughter is GODAWFUL AND RUINED YOUR FILM!! Ryder, who was in her prime as an actress, could have elevated this tripe to Oscar status. A second star deducted for a ridiculous dismissal of Robert Duvall. If the producers were so distraught over Duvall's role demands, they should have wrote him into the script up to the helicopter hit. Now, that would have added an extra measure of depth, not only to that scene, but to the entire film. Duvall was the only character (left alive) that was missing from the first two films. I should deduct another star for some slow paced, crap editing, but I won't. The Good: Most fans don't appreciate this, but Coppola wove fiction and non-fiction expertly with the Immobilare/Vatican bank plot. The helicopter hit was a nice touch, as was Al Pacino as aging, remorseful don and Andy Garcia as fiery Vincent. Plus, the ending is one of the saddest most gut-wrenching in film history.

I don't hate this movie, it has several strong points, but in truth I can't say it's a great end to the Godfather series. I've come to the conclusion that Godfather II should have been the last Michael Corleone film. That's because every time I watch it I get chills during those last few moments, a piece of perfect and haunting cinema history. Somehow those last seconds sum up everything Michael might have had and everything he might have been - they are utterly heartbreaking. And they are enough. The message didn't need to be carried into a third film explaining about Michael's regrets - from the end of part 2 we already knew! Michael has had his brother killed and is emotionally dead, so we don't really need to see his physical death and deterioration in Part 3.

So what did I like about Part 3? Several scenes stick in my mind. When Vincent killed Joe Zaza there was a flash of Vito / Sonny / Michael from the old days. When Michael told Kay he'd always loved her and she said it back, I couldn't hold back the tears, although it did feel a little contrived since Kay had remarried and we weren't given a sense of who her new husband was. The ending was the best bit, symbolic and achingly sad. Al Pacino's final moments were heartbreaking, as I knew they would be.

The performances are generally good, particularly from Al Pacino, although his character unfortunately no longer requires him to use his remarkable quiet voiced anger that he displayed so chillingly in the first two films. I thought Andy Garcia was only OK as Vincent, his character wasn't really fleshed out enough to be truly compelling. Talia Shire's character, Connie, seemed to be a completely different woman, and it was strange how Michael suddenly let her sit in on business meetings. The main problem I had was that Mary, Michael's daughter, and Vincent, did not have any chemistry between them so it was impossible to see how they had fallen in love. Their romance was unrealistic because they never acted 'in love', there were no intense glances as there were between Apollonia and Michael in Godfather 1, for example. The whole 'forbidden romance between cousins' plot seemed unneccesary and a bit of a strange choice. I also would have liked more closure on Michael's first marriage to Apollonia, it wasn't clear if he ever told Kay before or how she found out or how she (or their children) felt about it, they didn't even seem surprised which didn't seem quite right.

Overall, the Godfather III is a difficult movie to review. It isn't a classic like part 1 and 2, but it's not terrible either. I just question whether it was ever needed in the first place. Perhaps 'Part 3' should have been left up to our imaginations, with Al Pacino's dark-eyed intensity from the final scenes of Godfather 2 forever etched in our minds.

I am a Godfather fanatic and watched each..to say that the third one is a total and complete disappointment is not right. I admit, there were times were the movie plot dragged on and the acting was confusing (mostly by amateurs NEVER Al Pacino)..EVEN thru all the flaws i have to say it was good because is was a continuation of the Godfather I and II, and it led us to see the whereabouts of our favourite and powerful Don Michael Corleone. Anyone who is a true Godfather fan has to give III some applause for the ending...Al Pacino was sooo good in the one, especially the last scene :)..totally oscar worthy...however his Italian dubbing was really crappy and they could have done a better job disregarding the fact he doesnt know any..

watch it