Godfather III - inferior sequel or just misunderstood? (MERGED THREAD) (1 Viewer)

[David Coleman]

G3 is actually quite good! Is it as great a film as the first 2-- no! On it's own it's a very worthy sequel. The best thing about the movie is that even though it has ancillary characters the movie is about Michael, which is what it should be.
Michael is a man that had lost everything in his assimilation of power and after years of looking at the cost has decided to try to restore some semblence of his life back! Remember, Michael didn't want to be part of that world but was forced into it! Now that his character is no longer power mad he wants to die with some piece of mind and restore himself. Unfortunately, his fate won't allow him to have that!
For all those that slam this movie I challenge you to look at it again and examine the character of Michael and see it from that character's perspective. You may find that you've been missing out on a great film!
David

 

[Greg_Y]

Please stop talking about these films. The DVD releases are 2 months away and I can't take the wait any more!

Gazzo did a good job with the character, but the story and its parallel structure would have resonated even more profoundly if it had been Clemenza.

That's an excellent point. The fact that we have no backstory on Pentangeli diminishes the impact of his character. Had Clemenza been there, the past loyalties would have given greater weight to the storyline. Instead, we have to take for granted the fact that Pentangeli was a trusted member of the family.
And I'll never agree that GFIII is unnecessary. Whether or not the resolution of Michael's character is done successfully or not is of course a matter of opinion, but I think they needed a resolution of some kind. He was too powerful to leave stew in his own juices. Coppola doing GFIII in the mid to late '70s -- one of the great "what if's" of modern cinema.

 

[PhilipG]

This past week I've had the pleasure of watching, for the first time, the three Godfather films.
Now the popular opinion everywhere (okay, all the reviews I've read, all the pop culture references I've heard) seems to be:
Pt 1 - Classic
Pt II - even better
Pt III - what the heck went wrong?
It was to my great shock that I discovered that Pt II wasn't nearly as good as Pt I, and it was Pt III that was even better. (and no, sarcasm fiends, I did watch them in the right order!)
I found Pt II a very good film, don't get me wrong on that point, but I thought it lacked the pacing and direction of the first, and I disliked the editing to the flashbacks, which reminded me of the great author's trick to write a book twice as long by interweaving chapters.
Part III's final act had suspense worthy of Hitchcock. Thoroughly enjoyable. While Pt I may have been technically better, I found the contemplative story of Pt III far more interesting.
So anyone else out there like Pt III as much, or more, than it's prequels?
Disclaimer: All this, is of course, in my humble opinion. I should know by now that the only review that ever counts is my own.

 

[Jesse Leonard]

I think that part III has gotten a bit of a bad rap over the years. It is better than many other movies that are out there, it’s just when you stand it next to the other two that it falls flat.
What made the first two so great were their original stories at the time and the way they dealt with the different relationships within the families. It took an absurd situation (a mafia family) and showed you the inner workings. Although the relationships were very caustic at times, they were very pleasing to watch mature and change throughout the films.
Part III just kind of missed that chemistry. Now everything was falling apart within the family. The major theme in the movie was how Michael was dealing with his past (had he made the right choices, where did he go wrong, could he have done more…..). I just think this more intellectual theme is more difficult to get across on screen and I don’t think Coppola did as good of a job as he could have.
Part III also seemed staged on a much smaller scale. In the first movies, everything seemed larger than life. The parties they had were outside and were huge. In part III the party was set inside a house, which made everything seem smaller and not larger-than-life. That is partly why III didn’t work for me; it just didn’t seem larger than life.
I enjoy watching III, but I always come away knowing that it could have been better.
[Edited last by Jesse Leonard on October 13, 2001 at 11:43 AM]

 

[JohnRice]

I think Part III is easily the weakest, but also underrated. As was mentioned, it lacks the scale or epic quality of the others. Mostly, I have two problems with it. First I felt it was mostly just a vehicle to set up a new "Don" and the opportunity for more sequels. Second, it was unfortunate they ended having to use Sofia Coppola, who was just painfully awful in the part. Her constant smirk really annoyed me and she was so awkward, I remember laughing when she was shot because it seemed like something out of a comedy.

 

[george kaplan]

I love these movies, but I have to say that I enjoy Godfather 1 much more having read the novel. Knowing not only who Al Neri is, but his background just adds immeasurably to the movie for me. The novel also helps a lot in understanding the flashbacks in Godfather 2.
In the rest of Godfather 2 (and in Godfather 3), there are lots of aspects to the stories that I find hard to follow in detail. I really wish there were novelizations of those. For example, I still don't know who attacked Pentangeli, Michael or Roth.
But to answer your question, I don't like 3 as much as the others by a long shot, but I still like it a lot.
------------------
13-time NBA world champion Lakers: 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001

 

[Scott Calvert]

George, I have the same problem with part 2. I feel it's the best of the series, but there are relationships and betrayals that after seeing the film several times, I'm still in the dark about.
Is there anyone reading who can explain who exactly ordered the failed hit on Pentegeli(sp?), and who was behind the assasination attempt on Micheal (aside from Fredo)?
------------------

 

[Joe D]

I prefer Godfather II over I and III. II has the most emotional moments for me. Michael struggling with himself and his family. The perfectly run business that his father had managed, with the family relation being very healthy, is now very fragile for Michael.
From the Godfather I, "Do you spend time with your family.. Good, because you can never be a real man without it."
Then in Godfather II, Michael, sitting on a park bench, by himself, without a family.
------------------
Joe Dahlen
"Take hold of the flame, you've got nothing to lose, but everything to gain."

 

[Sam Davatchi]

Definitely misunderstood! I agree with you. I saw Godfather III when it was released and thought that it’s an excellent movie and a great end to the trilogy. It’s in this part that everything gets real. Actually I think that Part III is the darkest of the trilogy. In the past movies, they always got away with their crimes and their life was somehow glorified. It’s in Part III that we see the tragic end.
Spoiler:When Michael realizes that he has chosen the wrong path and tries to get out of his life style, it’s too late and it’s time for his past sins to come back and hunt him down. He also loses her daughter. The last shot showing him dying alone in his chair was a perfect cinematic end to this tragic story. I can honestly say that with this part III, I enjoy the Godfather Saga even more.
[Edited last by Sam Davatchi on October 13, 2001 at 06:50 PM]
("Spoiler code" added - Cees Alons)
[Edited last by Cees Alons on October 13, 2001 at 07:59 PM]

 

[Chuck C]

"smaller piece"
------------------
Chuck
http://www.hometheaterinsider.com

 

[Jason_Els]

GAHH!!!!!! Sam, PLEASE put spoiler code over that remark about Michael. I have never seen Godfather III and was about to go home and watch my newly-arrived DVDs. I'm not mad, I suppose it's general knowledge but I would rather not have known.
Thanks,
Jason Ashley

 

[andrew markworthy]

The reason I dislike Godfather III can be summed up in two words - 'Sofia' and 'Coppolla'. Otherwise, I think it's (almost) up there with the first two movies.
Although I still think it's a great movie, the thing which bothers me about Godfather II is that you can quite easily watch the movie in chronological order (i.e. watch all the bits about Vito then Michael) and the movie still makes perfect sense. I know we're meant to compare and contrast Vito and Michael's lives, but I've never been able to do this except at a pretty superficial level.
About who attacked Pentangeli, Michael and Roth [warning - spoilers ahead]:
The attempt on Michael's life in his Nevada home was organised by Roth. He had persuaded Fredo to let the would-be assassins into the compound. Roth was mad at Michael for killing Mo Green (the casino owner in Godfather I - the one who got shot in the eye on the massage table).
Pentangeli wasn't supposed to be killed. The attack was arranged by Roth - the attackers deliberately said 'this is a present from Michael Corleone' and were supposed to leave him (barely) alive, making it look like a failed murder attempt. This was to make Pentangeli act against Michael.
Roth was murdered by one of Michael's own men.

 

[Sam Davatchi]

It's true that Sofia Coppola was the worst mistake in Godfather Part III. That's the problem when you hire your own daughter. You don't see the faults! Coppola should have used a real actress.

 

[Zack Scott]

Godfather 3 is in my opinon not as good as the first two but on it's own a wonderful movie. But the reason why I think this movie doesn't hold up to the other two is because Coppola didn't have as much control over it as he did with Godfather 2. Did you see the alternate opening scene in the bonus stuff. My God!!! It's the saga going around full Circle.
Also the Title. Coppola and Puzo didn't want to call it The Godfather Part 3. THey wanted it to be called The Death of Michael Corleone because they knew that the films aren't about this huge mob family anymore...it's about a man who wants redemption for his sins. It's about a man who realizes that he made a bad mistake. He's alone and he's tired of being alone. He want redemtion not only from God (hence the strond Catholic sub-plot) but also his astranged wife and his Son who believes that he is a monster.
I feel that The Death of Michael Corleone is a fine film on it's own.
And the Beef about Sofia playing Michael's Daughter...give it a rest.
Coppola was waiting on word from Wynona Ryder to play the daughter but pulled out a day before her scenes were to start shooting. So Coppola had a problem. TheStudio was going to let Him delay for 6 months so that he can find an actress to replace Ryder so he had to think back when he was writing the character of the daughter. WHo was Coppola's inspiration? Why his own daughter...Sofia. When you're in a Cath-22 situation you gotta think of something really quick.
Truly I wish that Coppola had gotten his way on this film because it could have been an equal to Godfather 2. But that's showbiz.

 

[bill lopez]

Sofia is o.k. but the guy who played the son was a wuss.
They should have made Andy Garcia the son.

 

[TheoGB]

I am watching III (I am seeing all three for the first time) and I have to say how disappointed I was with a lot of Part II. While the plot was interesting it broke no ground compared to the original.
Moreover, (flame suits on) I thought the acting of both Pacino and De Niro in these first two movies was pretty poor. Both took the emotionless auto-pilot approach and I could in no way connect De Niro's Vito to Brando's filled out version.
Watching Sofia Coppolla she ain't that bad. A little flat but really what's happened is everyone else in the films is far better and the characters are 'closer' to what we know.
I would certainly agree with the scope of the movies being bigger in I and II, though.
Theo
------------------
My band is @ http://www.mokita.net
My Novelty Coasters

 

[george kaplan]

Andrew,
That's the way I was leaning, but I can't tell for certain just from watching the film.
Another question. When the senator gets into trouble that Michael helps him out of, did he actually lose it, and fortunately for Michael it was someplace he controlled, or (as I think is more likely) was he drugged and set up?
------------------
13-time NBA world champion Lakers: 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001

 

[Brian_J]

GAHH!!!!!! Sam, PLEASE put spoiler code over that remark about Michael.

Jason, when you enter a Discussion Thread you do so at your own risk. There has to be spoiler talk. No way around it.
Brian
------------------
Zed's Dead Baby...

 

[Brian_J]

Moreover, (flame suits on) I thought the acting of both Pacino and De Niro in these first two movies was pretty poor. Both took the emotionless auto-pilot approach and I could in no way connect De Niro's Vito to Brando's filled out version.

Heresy!
Brian
------------------
Zed's Dead Baby...

 

[Jason_Els]

************* SPOILER WARNING!! SPOILERS ABOUND! **********
Had myself a Godfather marathon in one sitting and I have to say parts I and II are amazing.
Part III though was a mistake.
Lacking the epic scope of the first two how could it appear to be anything less as an addendum? Rather than devloping its own style it uses more conventional techniques but exploits elements of the first two (murder montages in particular) vitually guaranteeing direct comparisons. If Coppola didn't want to make GF3 an epic then he should have stayed away from the epic elements of one and two.
From the first scenes Michael looks awful. He is bent, pale, and has none of the regal ominousness of his first 2 incarnations. What happened in the intervening years? The film doesn't explain. For example, the opening scene after Michael's investiture shows a reception with an Italian band and people singing in Italian complete with Italian food and drink yet at Anthony's reception Michael studiously avoided having anything that related to Italian culture. Why this change? What has happened? It's a jarring beginning telling us things have changed in Michael. We're missing critical character development information and the film never explains why or how the change came about. It seems Coppola forgot that we come to this movie with a very thorough pre-existing knowledge of these people. We know them as well as we know some of our neighbors and like friends we haven't seen in a long time, we want, even need, to know what about them has changed and most importantly, why.
My biggest disappointment is Michael and Kay's relationship developing into a portrait of a modern divorced couple with enough sophistication to "remain friends". Michael's relationship with his own son borders on the ridiculous. Do we really believe he has no idea his son wants to pursue music as a career when Kay announces this to Michael? Why on earth is Michael so concerned about Anthony making a living when Michael is one of the richest men in the world? How did Anthony avoid the trap of perpetuating the mafia? In GF2 we see Michael in a rage telling Kay he would never allow her to leave with the children and yet by GF3 Michael is completely estranged from them and since he isn't on speaking terms with Kay how did this come about? The dialog in this scene is terrible. It's blunt, lacks irony, and borders on the over-dramatic, "He throws his life away, he throws greatness away." Blech. There's also an error. Kay refers to the Catholic church to Michael as, "your church", yet Kay at least attends Catholic church and in GF2 went to pray and light candles in one. If she doesn't like the Catholic church wouldn't she have chosen a protestant one instead?
Connie as a modern Lucretia Borgia is also disturbing; I find it hard to believe Michael's acceptance of a woman in the role of consigliare, much less his own sister who he was trained from birth to protect from such matters. If Connie came into such power she must have known Michael whacked Carlo. At the reception Kay tells Michael Tony knows about Freddo's murder so it must be somewhat general knowledge. And how did Connie come to be the bitter widow with a nearly incestuous love for her brother when she hated him for so long and then came to be emptily resigned to the role of caretaker for the children?
How on earth did Vincent move up so quickly?? Connie introduces Vincent to Michael yet Vincent is loud, brash, and hot-headed; a lot like Sonny but he has precisely the same qualities Michael worried about in Sonny. However Michael trusts him immediately even after Vincent openly defies Michael's wishes, bites off a piece of Joey Zaza's ear thus creating bad blood where none existed as far as Michael was concerned. Vincent and Connie then go after Joey Zaza half-cocked and Michael still trusts him even though it's painfully obvious to us that Don Altobello is behind the whole thing. Michael is showing none of the careful, unemotional consideration that he knew was important with the role of godfather. Nor is he surrounding himself with the same kind of people. Again, what happened to cause Michael to lose his business sense? Is this the Michael we're made to believe controls a world empire?
More atrocious dialog. Michael is then worried about Vincent whacking these two guy
Michael: "You had a gun, they only had a knife. You could have talked them into surrendering handed them over to the police." MICHAEL saying this???? Michael not realizing the nature of the business??? Totally unbelievable.
Vincent: "Zaza sent these guys I just sent him a message."
Michael: "Now he has to send you a message back." Uh, wasn't biting off a chunk of his ear enough of a reason to worry about getting a message back?
Connie: "He did the right thing! He got Joey Zaza's name."
Michael "What does Joey Zaza got to do with it? Joey Zaza is a parsnip(!?!).....alright. You are what you are. It's in your nature." Hello Michael?? Where the hell were you in the last two scenes? And then to blow off Vincent's major f___-up by attributing it to his nature?? Disbelief raises its ugly head.
Scene in New York between Michael and Mary:
Mary: "What is this really for? Why are you doing this? Why am I doing this?......Dad I want this to bring me closer to you." Sophia we're asking ourselves the same thing. This woman is supposed to be the head of a charity and she's asking her father why she's going this after the fact? Airheaded and so forced it hits you like a brick of month-old soda bread.
Haven't the five families learned by now that when the Corleone family calls a meeting everyone except the Corleones end up dead?
What the hell is George Hamilton doing in this film? He's not consigliare yet he's everywhere and Michael talks about mafia things in front of him. Is Michael that fond of his lawyers? He neither expands the plot or contributes to character development. A useless role that should have been filled by various bit players rather than an attention-getting big star you expect to have more of a role than he does.
I will say, Sophia Coppola's acting is atrocious but bad acting in a minor character doesn't ruin a film. This film is hurt by terrible dialog in an otherwise interesting plot and lots of unexplained character changes that make the main characters seem to be strangers. They're the right actors, but they're playing the wrong people. The editing stinks too (though I love the image of the bishop dropping down the stairwell) but I think that is merely the reflection of the director who had no idea where to take this film. It isn't a continuation of GF2 and it isn't really a coda in that it leaves lots of hanging threads.
Coppola should have gone for the third gold and done the film as a full continuation from GF2. Did he lose his nerve or his financing or was the studio reluctant to gamble on an epic? I don't know.
Thanks!
Jason Ashley