Family Guy I Did Not Care for the Godfather
Disppointing, simply not equally bad as it made out to be
Offset off, I adore the first ii Godfather films. They were wonderfully fabricated, scored, directed and acted with compelling elegiac stories. However, while I do non think it is as bad as it is fabricated out to be, The Godfather Function Iii is a disappointment. I did like it in general, only in comparison to the first two it is similar a distant relative.
Starting with the good things, it does look splendid. The cinematography is cute and the settings are superb. The music is also outstanding, and the management is expert. The interim is uneven, only non all of it is bad. Al Pacino does have a lot of fine moments as a more gentler Michael, while Andy Garcia is electrifying also.
Nevertheless, I didn't like the story every bit much here. Information technology lacked the elegiac feel of the starting time ii, it has a lot of loose ends and there was a number of times I didn't know what was going on. The script isn't equally thoughtful, intelligent or every bit sophisticated here, instead some of it is quite stilted. As much as I do love Diane Keaton I personally don't call back she was necessary here, she served her purpose perfectly in the starting time 2. Finally I accept to concur about Sophia Coppola. She never convinces as the "symbol of innocence", and only comes across sometimes as embarrassing. Much has been said nigh the climax in the opera house, some loved it, others didn't. I recollect it was a mixed bag. I had no problem with Pacino, the way it was shot and the music just information technology did come up across every bit very protracted.
And then all in all, not awful, not swell. 6/ten Bethany Cox
fourteen out of 20 institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mother Of Mercy, Is This The End Of The Corleones?
The Godfather Trilogy may have reached its stop with The Godfather: Part Iii. Only was there enough room to allow for yet another film based on some other generation of the Corleones? Time and public need will but tell.
I liked The Godfather: Part Iii right upwardly to and including Sofia Coppola's much maligned performance as Mary Corleone daughter of Don Michael Corleone, the one and but Al Pacino. I think she was unjustly criticized. In her operation she set out to play 1 of the innocent children of Al Pacino.
There's a moving scene in The Godfather where we saw Al Pacino and Marlon Brando talking for the last time. Brando'southward hopes were for his son to go Governor Corleone, Senator Corleone to attain that level of respectability that was out of the Don's attain. Pacino tells him, possibly the next generation.
Flash forward to the late seventies where Pacino has slowly divested himself of the illegal interests of the Corleone family. Only the other crime bosses don't like the idea of him going completely legitimate. He also has some opposition within his ain family. His surviving sibling Talia Shire thinks he ought to proceed a hand in and his illegitimate nephew, Andy Garcia is having a running feud with another family head, Joe Mantegna.
Andy Garcia got the merely acting nomination for The Godfather: Part III as Sonny's son out of wedlock. And he'due south every chip as wild and hot tempered as Sonny was from The Godfather. Garcia brings a lot of passion to the role. Just he does prove able to acquire from his uncle and eventually not repeat the mistakes of his father. Garcia lost to some other hoodlum portrayal, Joe Pesci for Goodfellas for Best Suppporting Actor.
Probably Al Pacino has gotten all he could out of the character of Michael Corleone. He'due south gotten real respectability now, he's been conferred with a Papal Knightship for the expert works of the Corleone Foundation at present. He's high up the criminal globe too. Only people and circumstances won't allow those worlds mix and as he ruefully remarks, "just when I think I'thousand out, they drag me back in again."
Merely four characters made information technology through the iii Godfather films, Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, and Richard Bright as Al Neri. All except Neri seem to grow in character, Neri is nonetheless push homo in primary since Lucabrazzi started sleeping with the fishes in The Godfather. Keaton'south character is nevertheless the outsider. Separated from Pacino in The Godfather: Part Ii, she still loves him and regrets as much as he has the outside forces that caused their separation.
Although Talia Shire got an Oscar Nomination for All-time Supporting Actress in The Godfather: Part II, I think she really comes into her own in this one. Had it non been for male person chauvinism implicit in the Sicilian culture, she'd be taking over the family unit business organisation from Pacino. She'southward changed so dramatically over the course of the three films. In The Godfather she's the innocent daughter about to embark on spousal relationship to a wife beater. In The Godfather: Part Ii, she's now inbound middle age, overindulging in excesses, unhappy as a many fourth dimension married widow, her first married man being killed in the original Godfather. She lives on the sufferance and tolerance of her brother. Now in The Godfather: Function III she takes an active interest in the family business organization and the family legacy. She realizes more Pacino there'due south no escaping the Corleone roots. She champions Garcia equally the new Don, she knows he'southward got the chops for the job, she hopes he can develop the smarts as does Pacino.
Eli Wallach contributes a fine performance every bit another aging crime Don who's got a lot more to him than when we showtime meet him. Raf Vallone plays Pope John Paul I and the urban legend of his sudden demise afterwards a one calendar month papacy is woven into the Corleone story. As is Joe Mantegna who plays an undisguised version of Brooklyn mob dominate Joe Columbo.
I'm certain if the money's right and a workable screenplay is developed we may not have seen the terminal of the Corleones. At that place was one talked about a few years ago. All the same if it never develops, The Godfather: Office Three is a fine film to terminate the saga.
56 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fitting decision to the series
THE GODFATHER: PART 3 may not exist the best film in the world, only it does serve as a plumbing fixtures decision to the Oscar-winning series. The story (equally well as the managing director and actors) have now moved on 20 years, allowing the narrative a modify to explore the differences that age and fourth dimension take had upon them, making a story that in some aspects feels superior to the 2d film, which didn't really add much that we didn't know from the original.
Coppola's direction is assured as always, and there are enough returning actors from the original series to make this a joy to watch. The newcomers are too pretty interesting, in item Andy Garcia, who seems to be channelling Pacino'due south spirit from the outset ii movies. I didn't find Sofia Coppola to be distracting in the least, only that the camera is clearly in love with her, which you'd await given that the manager's her male parent.
What I enjoyed most is that the film gets dorsum to the series origins: this one's about corruption in high places, religion, betrayal and fierce murder. The characters visit some dark places, which is what nosotros the viewer wish to sentinel, and the extended opera set-piece works nicely along with the helicopter assault. Information technology too doesn't experience as slow every bit the admittedly superior 2nd role, which is also a point in its favour.
three out of half dozen found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ghost of not bad movies past
This starts with a recap of the previous two movies. It's an opening montage indicative of this movie. It's a shadow living off the ghosts of by greatness.
It'south 1979, the new characters include Mary (Sofia Coppola) daughter of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), and Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia) the illegitimate son of Sonny Corleone. Michael is trying to go legit, just the Corleone family crime partner Joey Zasa (Joe Mantegna) is disrespecting Michael. All out fighting breaks out between Vincent and Joey. "Just when I idea I was out... they pull me back in." It is the only quote worth quoting.
The third generation doesn't have information technology. Only Andy Garcia has any acting prowess. He has the cockiness of a street punk. Sofia Coppola is just a symbol of the lack of depth in the cast. It's shocking since I would await that all of Hollywood would exist jumping through hoops to become a bit role or some background work in this iconic franchise. Francis Ford Coppola doesn't have anything left in this franchise. Even Pacino looks dried upward. Instead of muscle and threats, Michael does concern deals. It doesn't have the aforementioned power and menace.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
beauteous work
I admitt, for me remains the best function of serie. For the realistic portrait of near reality. For decent task of Sofia Coppola and for Raf Vallone as Pope John Paul I. And, no doubts, for Al Pacino beauteous work. An impressive part, more profound and more defended to explore, in non comfortable - just precise style- the life of Romano - Catholic Church.
three out of 8 establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not equally bad equally anybody says – but suffers from the pressure of the first ii
Michael Corleone has sold his illegal business organization in an attempt to win back his family. Yet he must nonetheless contend with upwards and coming mobsters such as Vincent, who wants to work for him and Joey Zasa, who wants to fully accept over the Corleone family unit'south territory. When the Corleone family unit begin to deal with the Vatican and plan to purchase out their share of an multinational corporation he finds that the Vatican is but as decadent as his illegal operations were. Despite his best efforts he finds himself sucked dorsum into the globe he has tried to leave backside.
Hands one of the most hated films always made – or at least you'd think it was by the disquisitional 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 information technology. But lets be fair, Coppola has made iii or 4 of the best films ever made – did nosotros actually expect another one from him?
The film has a reasonable plot and brings the trilogy to a logical end. The plot nevertheless does have it's weaknesses – for example it starts well with Michael'southward attempt to `get out' being hampered by other families on their way up. Merely when it starts to become involved with coin laundering through the Vatican and the abuse therein, it starts to lose it'south way and it'due south focus on Michael.
The main weakness comes in the characters. Would Michael really become direct just to get his family back – and how come up he managed to do information technology and then 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 function of her grapheme in the previous films – would she actually accept got that twisted or influential? Trivial problems like these just bugged me and they too fed into the performances.
For such a great cast the acting was very average. Pacino is good simply I sensed he didn't see Michael turning out this fashion and he didn't convince occasionally. Keaton has little to do and again I felt that her arroyo to Michael was too forgiving, although maybe I'one thousand not allowing for fourth dimension. As I Siad before Shire was doing some sort of `Bride of Frankenstein' deed as Connie and I didn't buy information technology for a moment. Garcia was OK and faces similar Wallach, Hamilton and the like helped. The two worst performances were sadly two of the main ones. Showtime Joe Mantegna…..now information technology wasn't that it was bad – it was more that I've seen him do so much ameliorate. Here all I could recollect of when I watched him was how his graphic symbol and his interim was very like his Simpsons' character of ` Fat Tony'. Bare in mind Fatty Tony is meant to be a spoof of the Mafioso characters and y'all'll run across why I didn't like it.
The worse performance was Sofia Coppola. Now she was vilified at the fourth dimension for her role – a chip unfairly and cruelly but she was withal bad. She has this strange scowl on her face for most of the moving picture and she acts like a spoil fiddling girl. She likewise has no realism in her voice and speaks in the same constant tone – that Vincent would fall for her was just a spring of organized religion too far to accept. The cast does accept others who are unused or underused – Fonda beingness the best case. Why did she carp with that part!?
Overall, this is miles behind the other two Godfathers and it has plenty of weaknesses. However at information technology's centre it's a practiced try equally the concluding function and the story is watchable. Information technology'southward not bad, it simply is average and it feels similar the director and large sections of the bandage felt they simply had to turn up to make a 3rd classic moving-picture show.
156 out of 213 institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Aftermath
sixteen years after the 2nd Godfather came out, finally the long awaited sequel arrived. And information technology was received well by the academy, when information technology comes to the nominations. It didn't win anything, but only the sheer amount of nominations are proof, that they must have done something correct. And the flick is skillful. Al Pacino returning again and playing infrequent as he did in the other movies likewise. You do wonder why he never won an Oscar for the character of Michael Corleone.
Andy Garcia is a welcome addition (even if he mirrors his father Sonny) and not the only matter that reminds or is supposed to exist a throwback to the first Godfather. In that location are many hints at what Pacino does or where he goes that connect this film to the other movies (fifty-fifty the second one, with the oil company mentioned by Garcias character). And so if y'all have been following the movies, there are many treats for yous to be found here.
It still concludes the sage that started with the first picture show, for better or worse. So while people wanted some other movie (and peradventure notwithstanding urge for that), I would tell them to sentinel the Sopranos. The fact that it's a Idiot box show works for it, considering it has more fourth dimension to develop characters and show you stuff that is tough to put in a picture (even a long ane as this here, with virtually 3 hours running time). The ending might not exist to everyones gustatory modality, but I think it suits the trilogy to go out like that ... Whatever that ways to y'all
two out of five found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Simply when I idea I was out, they pull me back in."
Alert: Spoilers
I didn't care much for this movie when I first saw it, simply I watched it today from a different perspective. I put the continuity of the first two pictures out of my mind as best as possible, and tried to watch "Godfather III" as a stand alone movie. Non entirely possible of grade, but you lot go what I'k proverb. After all this time, the film holds upwardly pretty well, as the aging Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) tries to accept the family business concern legitimate by cashing out the casinos and racketeering ventures. The business with the European conglomerate Immobiliare got a scrap too intricate, but the tie-in with the Roman Cosmic Church and the historical reference to the expiry of Pope John Paul I was an interesting story element.
What I liked well-nigh Michael Corleone was the way he kept his graphic symbol subdued while plotting his side by side move. The contrast Andy Garcia provides every bit nephew Vincent Manicini is a polar contrary to Michael, just like his hot headed father Sonny who's quick temper got him killed in the first installment of the franchise. Vincent watches and learns, and capably fills in as the new head of the Corleone Family when Michael takes ill.
If in that location'due south an issue I would take with the picture, it would be the drawn out opera scene that drags the resolution of the story in the final human activity. I think back to the brilliant revenge sequence of the original Godfather, and this one was somewhat anti-climactic in comparison, though for shock value, the death of Mary Corleone (Sofia Coppola) was a twist I think most viewers wouldn't take expected.
Every bit an aside, and basically unrelated to the story per se, the opening scene with that shot of the World Trade Center had me doing some quick math, and while this film came out in 1990, the Twin Towers would only survive the picture past a mere decade, and now another decade has gone past since then. Putting things all in perspective, information technology really boggles the mind.
ii out of half dozen institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not as bad as most people would take you believe.
With many years having passed since "Part two", Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is now divorced from Kay (Diane Keaton), and is still trying to hold his mafia empire together. The new characters in this installment are Sonny's illegitimate son Vincent (Andy Garcia), Michael's daughter Mary (Sofia Coppola), lawyer J.B. Harrison (George Hamilton), and some others. Michael is going to the Vatican to repent, but he gets the shock of a lifetime when he arrives.
"The Godfather: Role III" has been regarded by apparently almost people as the worst installment in the trilogy, but I actually didn't find it then bad. Granted, it might not accomplish the quality established past its predecessors, but it was a practiced end to ane of filmdom's well-nigh famous trilogies. And as well, I didn't think that Sofia Coppola was such a bad actress; I've certainly admired her piece of work as a managing director.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Great Sequel, Retains the Await and Feel
In the midst of trying to legitimize his business dealings in 1979 New York and Italy, aging mafia don Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) seeks to vow for his sins while taking a young protégé nether his wing.
As hard every bit information technology might be to take a good sequel, and harder still to accept a skilful follow-up to that, I think this film has succeeded. Past retaining the look, feel and cast -- while introducing strong new actors -- we take the "Godfather" story continued on fifty-fifty further. Perhaps even a fourth might have worked?
There is something most redemption that takes the gangster story and makes information technology real, and particularly in the 3rd human activity of an epic series. Does Michael Corleone apologize? Is he faking? Tin he purchase his way into Heaven? I am not the 1 to judge, but if a mafioso can become legit, Michael volition try his all-time to do it.
4 out of six constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Godfather Role Three
Warning: Spoilers
I had spent a few years believing that this third moving picture in the nigh famous gangster series and trilogy was one of the worst films I'd ever seen, so I had to confirm this with a second viewing, from Oscar and Gilt Globe nominated director Francis Ford Coppola (Apocalypse Now, Bram Stoker'due south Dracula). Basically ageing Don Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) wants to settle family differences, having pretty much retired from the Mafia, putting all crime to remainder and seemingly giving up the underworld for skilful. He is withal doing business concern with shut people, only he wants to concentrate more on spending time with his family, girl Mary (twice Razzie winning Sofia Coppola), and a niggling flake of time in the Vatican. Obviously Michael withal has his enemies who want to finish him for good so he cannot have any power, this includes an assassination endeavour with some motorcar gun burn down blasting through a building from a helicopter, killing many merely him and Sonny's son Vincent Mancini (Oscar and Aureate Globe nominated Andy Garcia). At one point at the Vatican we see him finally confess his biggest sin to a holy man, that he has his own brother Fredo killed, and not long later this we run across him suffer diabetic stroke putting him in hospital. Recuperated and covered Michael returns to spending time with all around him, family unit or not, business and not business, and he enjoys the debut of his son Anthony Vito (Franc D'Ambrosio) in the opera. Of course this is where we see the last assassination attempt, a rifle human being is hiding in the box ready to fire, simply he does non manage to shoot until later on on the stairs. Michael is hit with one of the bullets, but the one who actually dies is daughter Mary, and years after he is much older nosotros see Michael die naturally in his chair and collapsing on the floor. Likewise starring Diane Keaton equally Kay Adams Michelson, Rocky'south Talia Shire every bit Connie Corleone Rizzi, Eli Wallach as Don Altobello, The Simpsons' Joe Mantegna as Joey Zasa; I'm a Glory, Get Me Out of Here! star George Hamilton as B.J. Harrison, Bridget Fonda as Grace Hamilton, Raf Vallone as Cardinal Lamberto and John Fell as Father Andrew Hagen. Pacino does get his many practiced scenes, and may of the supporting members, especially Garcia, do as well besides, there are some reasonably skillful moments, plainly continuing out are the helicopter and opera scenes. The merely embarrassment is indeed Coppola's daughter Sofia, who did much ameliorate every bit director of Lost in Translation, she replaced Winona Ryder who left to concentrate on Edward Scissorhands, I don't think it would have made any difference if she hadn't. It is obvious that all the years without a third instalment didn't do whatsoever favours as all the best ideas were used upwardly, and it does seem like information technology was fabricated purely to complete the trilogy, and not even the same feel as the two much superior predecessors, I practice still think this follow upwards is a little slow and boring, merely it'due south not an admittedly terrible crime drama. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, All-time Moving picture Editing and Best Song for "Promise Me Yous'll Remember" (also nominated the Gilded Earth), and it was nominated the Gilt Globes for Best Motion picture - Drama, Best Original Score for Cherry Coppola and All-time Screenplay. Adequate!
5 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dead Cease.
Alert: Spoilers
Coppola really didn't want to make this movie but the studio prodded him and provided a lavish upkeep and then he took some other stab at information technology. All the same, he was now unable to become the cast he wanted. Duvall asked for too much money, and then the role of consiglieri was reduced to that of George Hamilton'southward infrequent appearance as a plain legal adviser. Coppola could now shoot on diverse locations without fear of being fired just information technology was no longer The Family he'd been so proud of.
I don't really have too much to say nigh this venture. Information technology's a little sad. Coppola is a sensitive family man. He loves babies. And he blames critics for condemning the movie because he cast his girl. I don't know whether he'southward right or non. She looks proper for the part of the virginal Italian girl, not exotic or spectacularly beautiful but innocent. Her performance is hard to judge from one part. She comes across as natural rather than as a seasoned actress. It fits her role but it's hard to tell what her range might be. Diane Keaton was available, probably considering non many parts were coming her way, merely at that place is no spark betwixt her and Pacino, only a wan regret without moment.
Just Coppola is incorrect in believing that the movie failed because of Sofia. The movie failed considering it was a watered-downwardly and meandering story that seemed without point. The material -- Al Pacino, his family relationships and his intrigues -- is no longer fresh. There is no novelty in it.
And sometimes information technology seems every bit if the elements that are important to the director are more than personal than portentous. He may find information technology shocking that a newly elected Pope could be assassinated. I doubt that most people intendance equally much equally he does, especially since we inappreciably go to know Raf Vallone. The whole Vatican provides not much more than a backdrop for colorfully robed figures having business meetings and enacting rituals.
I'm happy for Coppola that he was able to bandage his begetter equally the local band leader in Sicily. And I like Coppola'due south personality. He's growing wine at present in Napa or somewhere. And when I lived in San Francisco he owned a small-scale underground restaurant, Tomasso'south, where the customers waiting for a tabular array could tap the wine barrel in the dark, tiny room as often every bit they liked and get one-half lit during their look. The wait was worth while. The clams cuscus were a rarely encountered care for.
I wish I could recommend the movie equally highly as the restaurant.
51 out of 84 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unjustily Criticized
I stayed away from this movie for a long fourth dimension, doing a dumb matter: listening to the well-known picture show critics.
When I finally got around to it, I was very surprised. It was a proficient film. Not neat, not intense equally the first ii Godfather flicks, merely definitely a lot amend 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," whatsoever that is, was portrayed as not on the up-and-up, merely information technology was a little disruptive to follow, maybe too confusing to go 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 equally, "What practiced is confession if it isn't followed by repentance?"
Anyway, Pacino's acting talents are the chief attraction in the lower-key, more cerebral Godfather film. In that location isn't that much action but when it occurs, information technology's pretty violent. As with the other 2 films in the series, information technology'southward 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 of import role just I thought she (Sofia Coppola) was fine and - similar this motion-picture show - unfairly criticized.
317 out of 425 plant this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Easily the worst of the trilogy.
In this, the third (and hopefully concluding) Godfather film, mafia boss Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), wracked with guilt over his past sins, is ane pace closer to condign a legitimate businessman. He'south already earned respectability in the eyes of the church building, who honour him the holy gild of St. Sebastian, only, to paraphrase Michael himself, just when he thought he was out, 'they' pull him back in.
Sofia Coppola cops a lot o' the blame for the failure of The Godfather Function III, merely it's non all her fault: certain, her emotionless delivery of her lines is painful to suffer, simply no more so than Pacino's uncharacteristic performance, Andy Garcia'due south smug face, Diane Keaton's horrible hair, and the dreary script that forces the viewer to sit through hours of boring business deals, an unconvincing romance between first cousins Vincent (Garcia) and Mary (Coppola), several crushingly boring Catholic ceremonies, and lots of operatic singing, with simply the faintest hint of mafia shenanigans to still authorize it as a Godfather moving-picture show.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
like the Star Wars prequels, this film is marked by some as a 'never should have been made'. I wouldn't hold with that
In giving a wrap-upward, a conclusion to two of the most powerful crime and family stories to come out of the seventies, Francis Ford Coppola took a risk that many feel didn't pay off. I almost wish I didn't know what criticisms people had before viewing it once more recently (I had seen the movie when I was in my early teens, but forgot near of it). Some of them, such as the mis-casting of Sofia Coppola, the long, drawn-out scenes, the heavy-handed dialog, are not entirely un-founded. And I would hold that this is my least favorite of the trilogy. But I practise not feel that information technology is a failure, or a mis-calculation by Coppola and co-writer Mario Puzo.
In fact, right from the get-go and throughout the film, I was very intrigued by the direction of the story that was being taken, equally well as with the characters. At the cadre, Coppola cares deeply most the Corleone family, in detail Michael (Al Pacino, his almost infamous offense functioning alongside Tony Montana), despite the sins that have been committed. It'south a tale of redemption, of loss, and of what matters in a life dominated past greed and corruption in the legitimate as well equally illegitimate places. Coppola understands this world, or at least the dynamics of it, and that'southward what makes Godfather iii at the least a fascinating grapheme written report.
Not to mention, much of the assembled cast (with the loss of Robert Duvall being the merely set-back) is still highly dependable- Pacino is neat at being tragic, and his subtleties in some scenes rank with his best work (i scene that stuck with me was his confession to the priest almost Fredo). Keaton, for her scenes, is alright because her dialog. Andy Garcia makes an impression fast in one of his early performances. Eli Wallach is an interesting choice for the Don (once again, like with Tuco, an effective accept on a clichéd character). And Sofia Coppola, while understandably forced in some of her emotions (or, indeed, under-cooked), is non every bit bad as some have made her out to exist. After all, she is supposed to be merely a regular daughter, not inside the overly dramatic landscape of the criminals and politicians.
And the story, which follows Michael'southward chances at achieving legitimacy at the plough of the end of the seventies while his nephew tries to discover the line of a "good" made guy, keeps a viewer on edge with the fashion too. To put it as such, Gordon Willis keeps a consistency with his masterful piece of work in the first ii films (at least, all three in the trilogies are masterpieces of lighting and compositions, and Willis was reportedly more responsible for the look of the films than Coppola, who focused on the actors and theatrics). And such a wonderful, operatic music score by Carmine Coppola is a plumbing fixtures swan song, if missing the Nina Rota touch. For me, The Godfather: part 3 (a.k.a. The Death of Michael Corleone, Coppola's original championship) is only a disappointment in how at that place isn't (arguably) the level of appetite in regards to the others. And the violent content, although original in its tactics, may not pack the wallop one might look. Only as a moving-picture show past itself, this is a drama of considerable merit, and wouldn't spoil the flow if watched right afterward the offset two in i sitting.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Despite some possible flaws, I highly enjoyed The Godfather Part III
Having previously watched The Godfather, Part I and 2, I had to eventually watch this, Function Iii. It was great to see Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, and fifty-fifty Al Martino again, here once once more playing singer Johnny Fontane. Too bad Robert Duvall declined to reprise his function as Tom Hagen but I thought George Hamilton was as good a replacement as possible. And Andy Garcia was likewise aces as the son of James Caan'south part from the offset 1 and deserved his eventual Oscar nom for the role. As for Sofia Coppola, well, at least her office didn't have also many scenes which meant whatever her deficiencies as an actress, her father didn't make her look too bad. I still was shocked past her concluding scene. And if I didn't know when the very concluding ane is supposed to take identify, I might take been puzzled by it. In summary, The Godfather Function III was as good a final take on the series as information technology possibly could be.
iii out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Godfather Part Iii: The Greatest Underrated Moving-picture show Ever Made
Alarm: Spoilers
Many have trashed the third part of The Godfather.Many fans of the commencement 2 movies have called it that the movie should accept not been made.Some have said that this flick does not concord a candle to the first two movies as Parts I and 2 are considered American masterpieces as both take established a standard for movie theater excellence.While others have coldly stated,"This movie is just an offer you lot can refuse".LOL
Anyway,The Godfather Part Three stars Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, and Andy GarcÃa, and information technology features Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna, George Hamilton, Bridget Fonda, and Sofia Coppola.It is about an aging Don Michael Corleone,who seeks to legitimize his crime family's interests and remove himself from the fierce underworld. Unfortunately,he is kept back by the ambitions of the immature namely Joey Zaza and hungrier gangsters. While he attempts to link the Corleone's finances with the Vatican, Michael must deal with the machinations of a hungrier gangster in both Don Licio Lucchesi and Don Altobello,who are seeking to upset the existing mob order.Aside from that,information technology as well involves Vincent Mancini,a immature protégé of Michael who gets involved with a beloved affair with his daughter,Mary.The motion-picture show likewise weaves into its plot a fictionalized account of existent-life events—the 1978 death of Pope John Paul I and the Papal banking scandal of 1981–1982—and links them with each other.
Director Francis Ford Copolla said the first two films had told the complete Corleone saga. In his audio commentary for Function 2, he stated that only a dire financial situation acquired by the failure of New York Stories compelled him to take up Paramount's long-standing offer to brand a 3rd installment.Coppola and Mario Puzo,author of The Godfather, requested six months to complete a first draft of the script with a release engagement of Easter 1991. Paramount agreed to give them half-dozen weeks for the script and, lacking a holiday movie, a release date of Christmas Solar day 1990. Given the atmospheric condition together with the casting of neophyte actress and the director's daughter,Sofia Copolla,whom many fans accept vehemently criticized for her poor portrayal of Mary Corleone,I still believe that Function Three is still a great picture.
Office 3 still has groovy acting from the cast except from Sofia Copolla,whom I must actually say deserved the Razzies he got from this pic.Worthy of mention is of course,Al Pacino,Andy Garcia and Eli Wallach.As well,the flick's story nevertheless works despite missing Robert Duvall and his graphic symbol,Tom Hagen,whom I believe was really essential in story as he plays an important function in the family. The screenplay was likewise good BUT one cannot fully encompass this movie without watching the first two.And of course,other great features from the previous Godfather movies are still present in this moving-picture show like the peachy writing of Copolla and Puzo,the music of Carmine Copolla and Nino Rota and the direction of Copolla.Overall,information technology is still a swell movie although not a masterpiece as compared to the outset 2.
Subsequently viewing The Godfather Function III once once again after and then many years earlier writing this review,I would say that if The Godfather is the greatest film ever made and The Godfather Role II is the greatest sequel ever made,this movie is definitely the greatest underrated film ever made.It is a slap-up movie although it may non be comparable to the first two in terms of critical and commercial success.The Academy Honour nominations it got attest to that.
15 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Brilliant trilogy
Warning: Spoilers
I barbarous comatose and missed most of information technology but if the first two are annihilation to go by, both brilliant, this must be the best 1 of the lot
1 out of 9 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Sins of the (God)Father
Payback is a Bitch. Or to put it another way, the Sins of Father. In this instance The Godfather. He pays dearly for his past as this Moving picture is desire to present, and it does then in a fashion that is the Tertiary Act of a tragic and epic Saga.
The charm and allure of Mafia Life are abandon here, much to the chagrin of Movie Audiences and Critics, for Corporate Intrigue run by Crooks more than mortiferous than Street Thugs, and this is a far more hard matter to present as Entertainment. Nothing here is attractive or appealing to Gangsta Wannabes or those looking for some sort of Pulp presentation.
This is an unwelcome merely necessary conclusion if anything remotely resembling Reality is to be role of its conceit. All the Coin and Power in the Globe cannot sanitize the corruption that is the foundation of the "Family unit" and the Church.
An underrated Pic with a willing Bandage and sumptuous Product. This was non an easy thing to pull off and information technology works on the level of Conclusion. Zilch happens hither that could be considered a Fairy Tale catastrophe. It is an ending to a Movie Trilogy and as Entertainment cannot compete with the beginning 2 Movies. As a stand lonely it would be unbearably gloomy and sardonic, only as a Terminal Human activity to the Opera that is The Godfather it is not only satisfying it was inevitable.
0 out of 2 establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For the Love of Money
Let'southward be honest: this movie wasn't needed. It doesn't detract from the showtime two movies but it wasn't something Coppola should have made. It's not a terrible movie only manifestly in the shadow of the start two, it looks similar a complete turd. It doesn't take any of the iconic scenes those movies did. There's really only ane remotely memorable line and that's Pacino'south "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me dorsum in" line. The acting is mostly fine but nothing to write home about. The worst is Sofia Coppola, in a textbook example of nepotism in casting. She'southward terrible and doesn't "look" like she belongs. It's similar taking somebody off the street and sticking them in a Hollywood production. Even if they are bonny, they just don't fit somehow. It'due south a watchable enough movie merely not a corking one by whatsoever stretch. Like I said, it didn't need to be made. Why was it? Well The O'Jays had a song called "For the Love of Money" that pretty well covers that.
0 out of 4 plant this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unnecessary and overwrought simply reasonably interesting and entertaining
It is 1979, nearly 22 years since the events of The Godfather Ii. For Michael Corleone, the move to legitimacy is complete: the New York law-breaking business has been handed over to Joey Zasa and all elements of the Corleone business empire are legal, non-criminal enterprises. Michael, budgeted 60, is now thinking about his legacy. His clemency, run by his daughter Mary, has but handed over $100 million to the Cosmic Church. Michael as well intends buying a large stake in International Immobiliari, a Vatican-run belongings company. Things are peaceful and stable but then Vincent Mancini, Sonny Corleone's illegitimate son, starts a feud with Joey Zasa. This has far- reaching, deadly consequences, including for Michael's bargain with the Vatican.
Unnecessary, as The Godfather Ii didn't need a sequel. Francis Ford Coppola has stated that he simply did it for the coin.
The product itself is a bit hit-and-miss. Plot has some intrigue, with a Robert Ludlum-like Vatican conspiracy woven into a more conventional mafia story. This does hateful a departure from the feel of the get-go two movies, and I'one thousand annotation certain it's a good departure. The plot becomes unnecessarily complex and overwrought, making it less tight than the first two movies. Coppola also unnecessarily draws out the movie - every scene gets stretched to the limit and there'southward a lot of padding. He could hands have lopped 40 minutes (at least) off the pic without us losing any information or engagement.
And so there's the performances, which are mostly skillful, with 2 notable exceptions. The quondam guard - Al Pacino, Dianne Keaton, Talia Shire - put in solid performances. The change in Connie, from passive to assertive and decisive, was one of the positive features of this flick and Talia Shire is neat in that role.
The new faces include some pretty big names: Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna, Andy Garcia, George Hamilton, John Savage, Bridget Fonda. Andy Garcia is bully every bit Vincent Mancini, a worthy (potential) successor to Michael. Bridget Fonda is cracking only criminally underused, specially as it appeared that she would take a bigger role. Eli Wallach and Joe Mantegna are solid as Don Altobello and Joey Zasa, respectively, and John Savage has footling screen time.
George Hamilton is badly miscast every bit BJ Harrison, Michael'south attorney. He really didn't fit the office and comes off as somewhat unconvincing. He was stepping into Robert Duvall's shoes - Tom Hagen was meant to keep into The Godfather III but the character was dropped when Robert Duvall pulled out over a pay dispute - so he does suffer due to the comparison with Duvall.
Then we take the performance which near single-handedly wrecks this motion picture: Sofia Coppola. She is absolutely awful every bit Mary Corleone, well deserving her 1991 Razzie wins for Worst Supporting Extra and Worst New Star. Her dialogue delivery is incredibly flat and unconvincing and even when she has no dialogue she seems awkward, like she doesn't know what to practice with herself when she's on camera.
Her flat delivery results in lack of appointment with her character, and this ruins the climax of the movie. And so, there are greater consequences to her terrible performance.
It's a proficient matter she took upwardly directing - she'south conspicuously better at that.
Apparently she wasn't get-go choice for the part, as Julia Roberts and then Winona Ryder were bandage for the office merely then had to pull out. Then at least Francis Ford Coppola could say she was hired more than out of desperation than existence his daughter. All the same, he really should have kept looking...
(Aside: Winona Ryder equally Mary - how awesome would that have been? The heed boggles. And yes, I am a large Winona Ryder fan.)
Overall: not bad, but non that good either.
4 out of 8 institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Definitely the to the lowest degree one out of the serial simply nonetheless a more than than cracking movie.
It all isn't quite good enough to considering this movie a true classic, specially when yous compare this ane to its previous 2 predecessors. Out of the Godfather-trilogy this moving-picture show is likewise definitely the least great one but that of course really does not mean that this is a bad movie. Far from it of grade actually.
I still see "The Godfather: Part III" as a great moving-picture show to end the saga. It ties up the loose ends and shows how the characters from the kickoff two movies end up somewhen, in the more than modern earth and historic period of the belatedly 'seventy's.
Information technology'south quite amazing that this flick got made 14 years afterwards the previous Godfather movie but it still manages to maintain the same type of atmosphere and overall cinematic style, even when this movie is set in an entirely different time frame likewise, as from the previous two movies. I think that's also manner there is simply no way hating this movie when you've already loved watching the previous ii movies, even though when this however remains a much hated and criticized movie, which just seems to be merely because of the fact that this movie isn't quite as good as the previous 2 masterpieces out of the series.
Information technology was also great to see that after 14 years basically every player was willing to reprise his role once again from the previous- or the first 2 movies. Even persons who played some very small-scale roles return in this movie once again, except for Robert Duvall equally Tom Hagen, who was demanding as well much to reprise his role again. His character is being replaced by a new i, played by George Hamilton. Hamilton is of course not the only new large name in this movie. Andy Garcia, Joe Mantegna and Eli Wallach are all some welcomed new additions to the cast. Garcia fifty-fifty earned his, so far, only Oscar nomination for his role in this movie. And yes well about Sofia Coppola. She merely is no actress and at that place should had been no way that she should had been in this movie but her character and her plot line with the Garcia grapheme all play a adequately modest part, because that the story is build up out of many different story lines, which all brilliantly come together in the final sequence.
"The Godfather: Role III" is well written and it has a great main premise of the Corleone family trying to legitimize their concern. But just when they thought they were out, they get pulled dorsum right in, when different characters from unlike corners try to take advantage of the situation, business and money-wise. Possibly it's due to the fact that this is the first Godfather movie that is not existence based on a Mario Puzo novel but I feel that out of the 3 Godfather movies the story in this one works out the best, from a cinematic perspective. It's definitely actually a movie written for the screen, which had still Mario Puzo involved as the writer of the screenplay, along with the managing director Francis Ford Coppola.
Only like the previous the previous two movies, this picture show too as some great memorable sequences in information technology, which non in the least are due thanks to the nifty interim in the flick. Information technology'southward a picture show that got nominated for 7 Oscar's, including best pic, but eventually information technology won none. Information technology was upward against movies like "Dances with Wolves", "Goodfellas", "Ghost" and "Awekenings" that twelvemonth, then information technology's no large shame that it won none. Information technology at least says zip about the slap-up qualities of this movie.
A nifty fitting movie to end the Godfather trilogy.
8/x
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
four out of vii found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not as good as the first two parts, just a good enough film
While I loved the kickoff, thought the 2d was equally equally practiced, though a bit redundant and unnecessary(apart from Vito'southward back-story, and perhaps the further development of Kay and Michael's human relationship), this one just didn't reach the loftier level of the start two. Information technology obviously tries, but I don't really think there was that much left to tell of the Corleone family. The cast members who were in the previous ii films(that don't appear in this 1) are sorely missed; the first had Marlon Brando himself, the second had Robert De Niro... what does this 1 have going for it, really? Just a few new characters, none of them particularly memorable, and simply a few of them well-acted. I'll say it right at present; I do not consider Sofia Coppola an extra. I've heard she did a great job directing Lost in Translation(which I oasis't seen nevertheless, merely will see equally before long as possible), just she can't human action. Luckily, there aren't that many scenes that require her to, simply still, the ones that practise crave her to put some emotion into it she totally screws upwardly with her lack of interim capability. The few actors who reprise their onetime roles give as great performances every bit they did in the first ii, Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire and Richard Vivid; all great. I liked the improver of Andy Garcia, he did a great job also. So did Bridget Fonda, simply she didn't have very much screen time to prove her talent. The script is decent enough, I merely found myself questioning it a picayune too much; information technology seemed similar they were running out of ideas for starting mob wars, and just figured they'd put a lot of characters in the film, have them interact, and finally kill them off. I'thousand not saying it's downright bad, the script(or the film, for that matter), I'm simply saying it's not at all equally good equally the scripts of the kickoff two parts. The plot is decent, but it halted too much, peculiarly the final half hour; I had near entirely lost interest by then, and the climax was just slightly anti-climactic, at best. The actual end was proficient, only the unabridged climax sequence was far too long and disruptive to be genuinely exciting or thrilling. The acting was mostly good, with the iv leads being great(Pacino, Keaton, Shire and Garcia). The characters were reasonably well-written. All in all, the movie is worth watching, I guess, just but for those who want closure to the Godfather story. I recommend it pretty much only to the biggest fans of Godfather, as it tin can be hands ignored with no large loss. Besides, you could watch it and just consider it a stand up-alone film, with no relation to the far superior first two parts. 8/10
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oh, Those Corleones...
No American filmmaker has had a more disappointing trajectory to his film career than Francis Ford Coppola. To accept directed four of the most influential films of the 70'due south (the outset two "Godfather" films, "The Chat," and "Apocalypse Now") and then to spend the final two decades churning out i stinky product after another ("Peggy Sue Got Married," "Bram Stoker's Dracula", the third "Godfather") earns Coppola my honor for Most Promising Manager Who Well-nigh Miserably Failed at Establishing Himself equally an Of import Effigy of American Cinema. Just before "Jack" there was "The Godfather." While I feel the whole "Godfather" trilogy has been lauded into oblivion and is somewhat overrated, who am I to argue with the bulk? People think these are neat movies, and they've certainly implanted themselves permanently in our cultural consciousness.
And don't get me incorrect: these films have moments of greatness (at to the lowest degree the first two installments exercise). But I think "The Conversation" and "Apocalypse At present" are ultimately more interesting films, and I think Coppola stretched himself more than artistically in those two films than he did in the entire "Godfather" trilogy combined.
Of the trilogy, the first film is past far the all-time. It shows Coppola'due south flair for being able to craft a story with extreme mainstream appeal while staying faithful to his artistic vision. "The Godfather" doesn't look or sound quite like whatever gangster film before information technology, with it'southward muddy lighting and sound. It's also much more than ambiguous morally than the usual Hollywood gangster picture, at least whatsoever produced up to that bespeak. The line between crime and justice is blurred sometimes beyond distinction, and the Corleone family at times acts with more honor (in its own way) than the institutions charged with upholding freedom, justice and morality. In this mode, "The Godfather" offered a scathing critique of the foundations on which America as a country was built.
Coppola, yet, drives this point into the ground over the class of three films. There'south really not much more to say afterwards the beginning film (it's already apparent that Michael Corleone'south style of dominion is different from his father's, his coldness and ruthlessness necessitated past a irresolute time), just nosotros take to sit through a nearly 3 1/ii hr second installment that does nothing merely reiterate this point over again and again. Part II at to the lowest degree is saved past the back story of Vito Corleone (played past Marlon Brando in Part I and Robert De Niro in Part 2), and that story alone keeps Part Two afloat. Merely Role Three is wholly unnecessary and mars the whole enterprise, turning the franchise into the stuff of parody and military camp.
Al Pacino is the mucilage that holds the trilogy together, though his grapheme really isn't equally complex as a showtime viewing would have you believe. The major disharmonize facing him is resolved in the starting time moving picture, and the 2nd and third films give him nothing to do but replay what are essentially the aforementioned scenes over and once more.
Other standouts in the cast include Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton and Talia Shire (who alone makes the third affiliate worth watching).
Obviously a must meet for cinema buffs, or even casual fans, merely don't feel you have to characterization this trilogy as great just because of the reputation that precedes it.
My Class: Function I: A Role II: B Part Iii: C-
one out of five plant this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unnecessary chapter to a fine franchise
THE GODFATHER, Role III (1990) ***1/2 Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, Andy Garcia, Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna, Bridget Fonda, George Hamilton, Sofia Coppola, John Savage, Richard Bright, Don Novello, Al Martino. In my view an unnecessary third affiliate to what was a brilliant one-two punch, but never-the-less an interesting accept on the familia Corleone with a faded Michael (Pacino {"But when I idea I was out, they pull me dorsum in!"} a decidedly Shakespearean turn on his iconic role) facing retribution, redemption and ultimately tragedy the likes the Greeks accept never seen equally he wheels and deals past trying to by salvation with The Vatican (!) Garcia (Best Supporting Role player nominee) breathes life into the series as the bastard son of Sonny Corleone, Vincent Mancini whose bloodthirst for family unit acceptance is the film's shining star. However there are indeed vital flaws, including perpetual lord's day-tan/skin cancer candidate Hamilton filling in for consigliere Tom Hayden(!) {incidently Robert Duvall wanted more than dough; can't arraign him} and what the hell is Novello, aka Father Guido Sarducci (!) doing in this motion-picture show!! But two words all-time sums upwards the harsh reality : Sofia Coppola!!! Arguably the worst acting ever in contempo history. {The sad fact is Winona Ryder was originally tapped but had to begrudgingly drop out when she passed out during a rehearsal from exhaustion and ordered past her doctor to rest} Best sequence: the homage to the first chapter's baptism of fire with like results during the opera/Vatican killings at the pic's climax (ok I admit I was glad Sofia gets killed off) and without a doubt the worst final scene in whatsoever film; Pacino old and alone doing a Benny Loma-ish decease! Nominated for six Oscars including Best Picture show and Director, this version contains 9 minutes of footage never shown in its theatrical release.
iii out of 7 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099674/reviews?ref_=tt_urv