The Godfather: Part III (1990)

I recently watched all three Godfather films again in sequence and was surprised at how bad GF III is when closely compared to the other two fims. There are characters in the film whose presence is never made clear (i.e. George Hamilton, Brigette Fonda and Don Novello - Father Guido Sarducci??) The major characters bear little resemblance to themselves from the previous films. Connie Corleone is now a major supporter of Michael even though she knows he had her husband killed? Michael now has a change of heart and tries to go "legit" even though he so eagerly immersed himself into the power and control of the Corleone family. And Kay continues to "hang around" even though she dreads Michael and all that he stands for. Why?? The movie drags on in parts and never really gains it's true identity untill the end of the film during the opera scene. Not even Winona Ryder who was scheduled to be cast in the part of Mary could have helped. It only serves to give us an appetite for the earlier two films. Both of which I consider masterpieces.

Fmovies: The Godfather Part three is a great movie but many would contest. This final installment of the greatest trilogy ever made is misunderstood by most because they do not see what this film is really about. G3 is not about hits and gangland killings, but rather, G3 is about the end of Michael Corleone's legacy of crime in America. This movie shows him stepping out of the gambling and the other rackets because they have hurt him so badly. This movie is a masterpiece because it shows the conclusion to an incredible story. There had to be an end to this trilogy and this thoughtful way to do it exemplified the trilogy as an unbeatable one. Just because it doesn't end with a violent scene like the murder of the heads of the 5 families does not make it a bad movie, but in this case, a beautiful one. Please, don't feel you have to agree with the common view by proxy, but think on your own about what this movie really means and how it concludes and consequences the first two.

Michael Corleone has sold his illegal business in an attempt to win back his family. However he must still contend with up and coming mobsters such as Vincent, who wants to work for him and Joey Zasa, who wants to fully take over the Corleone family's territory. When the Corleone family begin to deal with the Vatican and plan to buy out their share of an multinational corporation he finds that the Vatican is just as corrupt as his illegal operations were. Despite his best efforts he finds himself sucked back into the world he has tried to leave behind.

Easily one of the most hated films ever made – or at least you'd think it was by the critical mauling it got for a raft of reasons. However watching it now it isn't that bad and really it only suffers from comparison with the two films before it. But lets be fair, Coppola has made 3 or 4 of the best films ever made – did we really expect another one from him?

The film has a reasonable plot and brings the trilogy to a logical end. The plot however does have it's weaknesses – for example it starts well with Michael's attempt to `get out' being hampered by other families on their way up. But when it starts to get involved with money laundering through the Vatican and the corruption therein, it starts to lose it's way and it's focus on Michael.

The main weakness comes in the characters. Would Michael really go straight just to get his family back – and how come he managed to do it so easily up till the time of the film? Worse still is Connie who seems to have become some sort of Mafia widow when that was not part of her character in the previous films – would she really have got that twisted or influential? Little problems like these just bugged me and they also fed into the performances.

For such a great cast the acting was very average. Pacino is good but I sensed he didn't see Michael turning out this way and he didn't convince occasionally. Keaton has little to do and again I felt that her approach to Michael was too forgiving, although maybe I'm not allowing for time. As I Siad before Shire was doing some sort of `Bride of Frankenstein' act as Connie and I didn't buy it for a moment. Garcia was OK and faces like Wallach, Hamilton and the like helped. The two worst performances were sadly two of the main ones. First Joe Mantegna…..now it wasn't that it was bad – it was more that I've seen him do so much better. Here all I could think of when I watched him was how his character and his acting was very like his Simpsons' character of ` Fat Tony'. Bare in mind Fat Tony is meant to be a spoof of the Mafioso characters and you'll see why I didn't like it.

The worse performance was Sofia Coppola. Now she was vilified at the time for her role – a bit unfairly and cruelly but she was still bad. She has this strange scowl on her face for most of the film and she acts like a spoil little girl. She also has no realism in her voice and speaks in the same constant tone – that Vincent would fall for her was just a leap of faith too far to accept. The cast does have others who are unused or underused – Fonda being the best example. Why did she bother with that role!?

Overall, this is miles behind the other two Godfathers and it has plenty of weaknesses. However at it's heart it's a good try as the concluding part and the story is watchable. It's not bad, it just is average and it feels like the director and large sections of the

The Godfather: Part III fmovies. I finally saw it ! As a total devotee of the two previous installments, I avoided seeing the third one, on purpose, people I respect had told me about the disappointment and, quite honestly, I didn't go there. Last night I did and surprise, surprise, it moved me no end. Maybe because I haven't seen the other two in four years. Yes at times is more Ken Russell than Francis Ford Coppola and in my book that's not a bad thing. I was, however, a bit taken aback by the healing in Pacino's Michael as far as Keaton's Kay is concerned. As it nothing had ever happened, while in Diane Keaton the memory of that pain is always present. Talia Shire is a lot of fun as a sort of Madame Sin. Raf Vallone, superb as the doomed Pope John Paul I and then a bit puzzling casting choices that I think they me code for something. George Hamilton, for instance, takes over from where Rubert Duvall left off. Helmut Berger plays the head of the Vatican Bank. Helmut Berger! Just as curious as to find Troy Donahue in The Godfather Part II - All in all, I'm really glad I've seen it and I'm sure I'll see it again.

I stayed away from this film for a long time, doing a dumb thing: listening to the well-known film critics.

When I finally got around to it, I was very surprised. It was a good film. Not great, not intense as the first two Godfather flicks, but definitely a lot better than advertised.

Many people said this was filled with anti-Roman Catholic propaganda, but I didn't it find that way. Yes, the "Vatican bank," whatever that is, was portrayed as not on the up-and-up, but it was a little confusing to follow, maybe too confusing to get offended! Actually, there were some positive things, religious-wise, with Al Pacino's character, who sought forgiveness for his past sins and made a few very profound statements such as, "What good is confession if it isn't followed by repentance?"

Anyway, Pacino's acting talents are the main attraction in the lower-key, more cerebral Godfather film. There isn't that much action but when it occurs, it's pretty violent. As with the other two films in the series, it's nicely photographed with a lot of nice brown tints.

Finally, director-writer Francis Ford Coppola took a lot of flak for putting his daughter in such an important role but I thought she (Sofia Coppola) was fine and - like this film - unfairly criticized.

Having heard the endless amount of critique and insults that the last part of the Godfather saga carries.. I have to disagree. Although people seem to love to hate Sophie Coppola and say she ruined the film, I think her part alone wasn't that frail it'd ruin the entire cinematic experience. Saying that is just humorous. Also, the absence of Tom Hagen played by Robert Duvall is really a loss and even I think this film would've been a lot better if there was him in it.. but he got too greedy and couldn't make it into the movie, and that's that. I'm not going to judge a movie by what it could have been, but what it is and how good it ends up being.

Despite some shortcomings, Godfather Part 3 is a decent ending to the trilogy. While it may have been an attempt to cash off the audience, they still have Coppola bring us his finest directing. I found Al Pacino's performance extremely satisfying and even terrifyingly so. He embodies the mistakes and losses of his life with excellent skill, showing us a don that has lost his health, the loved ones of his life and even the respect for himself. While I never found Diane Keaton's performances in the saga that good, she still fills the spot required, same goes for Talia Shire, whose role in the ending finale of the film really came as a surprise to me - which was a good thing. I didn't find her role in Part 2 too appealing but in this one she has more character, more importance. Sophie Coppola was OK, like I said a lot of people have complained about her acting skills and I gotta admit she was a little "stiff" or sorts in some scenes but it's not notable all the time and it didn't spoil any moods for me. Andy Carcia was just excellent, my favorite add to the saga cast, playing the son of his father with excellence.

So, umm.. this film is perfectly fine. The ending finale was tremendously well shot and very climatic, filled with a lot of excitement. I'm telling you this movie is a great ending to the saga even because of that one particular scene so just go see it, despite what a lot of people have said about, badmouthing it for faulty reasons.. it brought a tear into my eye. It did.