|Page 9 of 51:||               |
|Index||503 reviews in total|
As other reviewers have discussed, this movie opened to a fairly
unenthusiastic response upon release in 1990. Perhaps this is due to
the fact that it takes more time to grow on you than the first two
films; I actually didn't react very strongly to this one the first
time, it was only on a second viewing that I saw it as the great film
Sophia Coppola's performance as Micheal Corleone's daughter IS slightly underwhelming, but in the end she gets the job done, and her screen time isn't enough to make that big an impact on the overall quality of the film. Aside from a few weakly delivered lines by Miss Coppola and a plot that can be a bit tough to grasp on the first viewing, this movie is excellent. Vincent is a fantastic addition to the series and Al Pacino is compelling as usual as Micheal Corleone. The film's plot is perhaps the most emotionally captivating of the series--especially the devastating ending. Give this movie a chance--it's a worthy conclusion to the series.
The third chapter in this everlasting series of films is certainly the
saddest of the trilogy, because as well as being an impression of
characterizations and events from mob history, such as mob-related
conspiracy behind the death of Pope John Paul I and Joey Zasa (played
entertainingly by Joe Mantegna) being a creatively ironic amalgam of
two real-life gangsters who hated each other, it is also a study of
Michael Corleone, now a middle-aged man who did not foresee such regret
and remorse for his ruthless conquests in the previous films. In his
attempts to use the wealth and power he has gained from those bloody
triumphs, he tries to cleanse his family name, under the quietly
desperate delusion that it is not an exercise in futility. For if it
were not, there would be no opposition for his extensive criminal
history to the landmark international real estate deal he works to
seal. Nor would his old New York partners want in on the deal, an
affair that tips the first domino in a succession of violence,
betrayal, and scandal amongst the highest of statuses (stati?).
Though there was great reluctance from Coppola to make a third installment, which was greenlit for the sake of understandably anticipated box office returns, it becomes an important part of the story of the Corleone family, even if it does not measure up to its two immortal predecessors. We see the modern effects of the conservation of the preceding generations. Michael suffers for his father's legacy, and Michael's stubbornness to preserve his own, though it has grown weather-beaten by the time during which the film takes place, has created a barrier of communication between himself and his wife and children, a classic senior having planned a much different future than he's received. Even Talia Shire's character, Connie, Michael's sister, is a completely different person in this movie than she was in the last. It is not a poor characterization but a very realistic one, as a woman from that generation who has resigned herself to the life into which she was born. There is no mention from her of Michael's order of her husband's death, for instance. She is not the meek, vulnerable soul she was before but astonishingly transformed into a highly competent adviser to her brother.
However, even despite Mascagni's Cavalleria Rusticana being a cherry on top of the most beautiful musical theme in the history of film, the movie is inarguably the weakest of the three Godfather films. There is hardly a way of defending the idea that it surpasses or even equals its predecessors, which in the case of both had such a distinctly powerful touch not only at the helm but in the case of all departments. Here, the dialogue is weak with typical final-chapter-in-American-trilogy visibly scripted wisdom. I also have a hard time understanding why Andy Garcia, a Cuban, was cast as an Italian when so many hot-blooded young Italian actors could have played that role just as well as he did. Those are flaws some can accept and others have a difficult time accepting, and one cannot complain directly about Garcia's performance. (Besides, his father Sonny was played by James Caan and his grandfather by Marlon Brando, neither of whom are Italian.) The inextricable misnomer is one of the most well-known in contemporary cinema history, the casting of Sofia Coppola as Mary, Michael's daughter. I will not plunge into criticism because I know the poor girl suffered quite enough at the time, what with the Razzie awards, countless notices, and other such humiliating things. I am glad she was able to redeem herself by becoming a director like her father, a completely different style all her own, not plainly influenced by Francis, an unaffected subtlety as opposed to his inherent need to outdo himself, which brings me to another thought on this film's weakness.
The Godfather Part III, now that I've rewatched it as a grown person and refreshed my memory and understanding of it, has supplied me with a theory as to the striking inconsistency in Coppola's filmography. In the 1970s, he made the first two Godfathers and Apocalypse Now, showered with giant personal, political, and artistic obstacles that in some cases almost literally destroyed him. The Conversation was made entirely from scratch. These films are his great works. After Apocalypse Now, the quality of his films took a major nosedive and even now, as he has recently returned to the director's chair with Youth Without Youth, he cannot seem to regain his aim. Godfather III is very telling. In comparison to the danger, conflicts and drama throughout the first two productions, Part III was a walk in the park. He had to fight for those films and that passion is what made them so incredible. Part III was handed to him, and because it was the other way around entirely, he had a hard time committing to the project, thus the film is clearly made with much less ardor and feeling, though the set design and atmosphere are still not one ounce short of top-notch. Coppola must run on frantic drama, frustration, violence and seemingly nothing else to make a great film. However, considering the relatively peaceful circumstances of Part III's production, he succeeded to a good extent.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The problem with the film is not with what is included; Michael's last
attempt at salvation is certainly a worthwhile theme for the movie and
a completely logical one. Personally (SPOILER) I believe he actually
attains that salvation: Keeping in mind that the trilogy is immersed in
Catholic imagery and doctrine, I will put my neck out and say that the
death of his daughter is the penance he pays for his sins, and this is
realized in the long, drawn out scream he gives at the end. It seems
that even Kay realizes this as she watches him. I would also say that
in the concluding scene of the film, with Michael in Sicily as an old
man, there is a serene look on his face just before he dies. He has (in
terms of the film) come to peace with himself and God. His daughter was
the price he paid. I find this a fitting way to end the trilogy. (By
the way, I don't think the choice of Sofia Coppola was a bad one. She
has a waifish quality and an innocence that Winona Ryder would not have
brought to the film.)
However, it is what goes on before that makes this film disjointed. We are to accept this as a continuation of the story, but there are too many things missing. First, and most obviously, the film suffers from Coppola's inability to snag Robert Duvall to play Tom Hagen. George Hamilton is a poor replacement, although to his credit he tries valiantly. Second, although much is made of Vinnie's claim to the family as Sonny's illegitimate son, what about Sonny's multitude of legitimate kids? His widow? What are their positions in the Corleone family? And if they have no positions in the family, at least mention it. Do not pretend that they don't exist. This leads into another problem: Why is Connie so much Vinnie's champion? What about her own kids, who again don't receive as much as a reference in the screenplay. In fact, it is Connie's own son who is the center of the baptism scene in the first film. Wouldn't the irony of her own son now being "baptized" as the new Don make for more interesting fodder? What happened to them? Basically, the film cuts too many ties with the first two films and suffers as a result.
Although it wouldn't happen, I would like to see Coppola treat this film as Pam Ewing's dream and start over.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Critics cut this movie a lot of slack when it came out, because of its
pedigree. The other commentators here are doing it the same favor, I
think. In fact, Godfather III is a complete travesty. All the crime
family saga clichés that the first two movies sidestepped, but that
subsequently became encrusted on the genre, are sadly present in this
The greatest shame of all is Al Pacino's performance. Watching the first two movies today, it's hard to imagine how the powerfully subtle, minimal Michael Corleone he created in the early '70s could turn into the garrulous, scenery-chewing troll of 1990. His "tour guide" scene with Keaton in Sicily is the worst: Pacino seems to have completely forgotten what kind of a person he had played 16 years earlier. Andy Garcia does an OK job of channeling the young James Caan, but that's about it for acting honors. The rest of the cast come across as an over-the-hill ensemble of Acting 101 rejects, including Wallach, Keaton, Shire, Hamilton (no surprise), etc.
SPOILER: Even worse: As proud Italian Americans, how could Coppola and Puzo descend to concocting a plot that climaxes with the eating of a poison canole? The whole mishmash ends with a church-steps death scene that's like a parody of the most over-the-top-operatic Puccini rip-off you ever saw. The first two Godfathers were a milestone in depicting the American ethnic experience on screen, in all its ambiguities. The third turns it all to grotesque self-parody.
For relief, I suggest picking up The Freshman with the late Marlon Brando. Brando's slyly humorous take on Don Corleone in Andrew Bergman's film is a gentle send-up that respects its point of reference and even adds some grace notes to it. The scene of Brando, in pin-striped suit, just strolling through the streets of 1990s Little Italy is the closest we'll get to a real Godfather III.
Whether you love or hate this movie mainly comes down to whether you love or hate Sophia's acting, but I've always felt she did a half decent job. Others could have done better, but there is not point in moaning about what's been done. It is a great movie. The ending is one of the most tragic, moving scenes ever filmed, perhaps Pacino's greatest moment. It moves at a slower pace than its predecessors, echoing Michael's tired descent, and the message that family life cannot be separated from The Business is never clearer.fine, it is not as good as the first two, perhaps it should have been made 5 or ten years earlier. 9 out of ten
Winona Ryder was supposed to play the part of Mary, and Robert Duvall was supposed to come back as Michael's consiglieri, or at least as his attorney in place of George Hamilton. But Ryder left because of illness and fatigue, and Duvall held out because he wanted as much money as Pacino( a fact that has always really bothered me, being that Coppola pretty much gave Robert Duvall a forty year career by casting him in I). I think they would have made this movie much better; think about it, no Sofia Coppola who sticks out like a soar thumb, and could have had a genuinely provocative relationship with Vincent, and no George Hamilton, fresh out of the Mark of Zorro. But do you think they would have put it on par with the other two?
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
A week or so ago i felt the urge to watch all three Godfather movies as
i had not seen them before....well that's not true, i tried watching
the first one when i was 10 but it bored me stupid but now i am in my
late twenties i thought i would appreciate and understand them more. I
got all three Godfather films the other day and started watching them
in order one by one. The first still bored me but not quite as much.
The second i found to be much better and then finally the Godfather
that a lot of fans hate and say shouldn't have been made...Part 3! I
was half expecting this to be worse than the first one but no, i can
honestly say that it is slightly better than the first but not quite as
good as the second.
There is more action in this than the other Godfather's but it was obviously made for a 90's audience. Some of the story just like the previous two baffled me at times so there was plenty of rewinding to be done and maybe this one wasn't put together as good as the rest but i still found it mildly entertaining but just like The Godfather's one and two it was too bloody long. I didn't mind Goodfellas or Casino being this long because they were awesome but average movies shouldn't be near three hours long!!!
I did find it funny near the end when that assassin guy kept missing his opportunity to kill Mike but kills four people in the process of trying to and he is clearly getting annoyed at the situation hehe. When Mike got told that this assassin never fails then you knew he would hahaha. That assassin was the highlight of the film for me.
Just like at the end of the other Godfather's all the loose ends are tied up into a neat little package. The very last scene was a bit weak as the director has just skipped 20 or 30 years and in to a short scene with no talking and Mike as an old man is sitting there and just keels over (Presumably dead). Hmmm a very weak end for the main character of a trilogy that spanned 18 years. Either have him getting his head blasted off or don't have him die at all but not a weak end like that!
For anybody who has still not seen any of The Godfather Trilogy and has a notion to, BEWARE!!! If you have a short attention span or are hopeless at following a complex story then stay away because you won't even make it past the first movie. Watch them all alone so there are minimal distractions and have the remote at hand so you can rewind back to something you don't understand.
The Godfather Trilogy is vastly over-rated (mostly by bad boy wannabe's)and doesn't come close to the true brilliance of Goodfellas and Casino.
The Godfather Part 3: 7/10 The Godfather Trilogy: 7/10
..."The Godfather: Part III" is the last movie in one of the best (or the
best) dramatic trilogies of all time. As many already know, this one
focuses solely on Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) and his struggles for the
Corleone family to become legitimate (he's been longing for so since the
first film). Many bad things happen, including a corrupt Archbishop (Donal
Donelly) and hotshot enemy Joey Zasa (Joe Mentegna). Helping Michael is
Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia, in what may be his best performance) and
sister Connie (Talia Shire).
Of course, this isn't on the same level as the first two. There are many bad elements in the writing and some in the acting. For one thing, Puzo and Coppola really seemed to love making references to the first two films, most of which are unnecessary. Example: at one point Michael shows his son (Franc D'Ambrosio) the very same picture that he drew as a child in Part II. This had very little relevance to the plot, and put it this way, if this small part hadn't been included in Part II, do you think a similar scene would be written for III? I think no.
The acting, well, it has it's ups and downs. Pacino does well as always, but it's his worst performance of the trilogy. As many say, Sophia Coppola is "terrible" and "awful". Now, she's not by any means good, but I'd say the worst performance comes from both Mentegna (who never changes his facial expression or the tone of his voice) and D'Ambrosio. What was with D'Ambrosio's song? It was like "The Godfather: The Music Video".
There is some very good acting too though. As I said, Garcia does incredibly well. The way he acts, he sells the character perfectly. Also, Donnelly does a creepily good job. An underrated and very well-done performance is Eli Wallach's as the cunning Don Altobella. The man was seventy-five when he did this film, and yet he has so much energy and life. If Strasberg and Gazzo can be nominated for Part II, Wallach sure as hell can be for this one (not to mention he's been deserving since "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly").
The direction is also fine. Coppola's use of still cam and tan shading is admirable. The ending shots are flawless.
So, not the greatest film of the trilogy, far from it, but still quite enjoyable, 8/10.
Whilst never really reaching the heights of the first two films this
nevertheless still has its moments. A lot of the critics dislike this due to
Sofia Coppola and I suspect that has more to do with her parentage than it
does with her acting. Personally I think her acting is fair enough, but I
think the film is rather let down by the Vatican plot line.
Michael is still trying to achieve is goal by legitimising the organisation. This time it's the younger members of the family that are frustrated and their actions deny Michael's ultimate goal. Al Pacino puts in another fine performance that sees him become increasingly imprisoned in his position. Overall a good movie, but not a classic.
This movie is so disappointing compared to its predecessors. There is not nearly enough tie-in to the original movies. There are many names in this installment that would mean nothing to the viewer had they not been knowledgeable Godfather fans from the earlier releases. I'm not sure what the author/screenplay writer was thinking when this was written. It all seems a little too outlandish. Perhaps I should read the book to get a full understanding of this picture, although that was not necessary in the first two of this trilogy.
|Page 9 of 51:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|