Seriously.
Why does everbody hack this movie? This was a very good movie, definitly Oscar caliber.
Sure Godfather II and Godfather I were better movies, but if Godfather III was released on it’s own I’m sure it would not recieve as much flack as it does now!
MtM
I like it third best of the three, but I prefer it to many other “crime dramas” by other filmmakers. The choices Coppola and Puzo made in order to comply with Paramount’s insistence that the saga continue were reasonable.
The contumely heaped on Coppola for his daughter’s being cast was unavoidable (if you believe Coppola’s explanation) and I found her performance to be acceptable, though surely not a standout.
Garcia’s character was the best drawn, but I wish they’d been able to persuade Duvall to continue as Hagen. In spite of Harrison’s efforts, the lawyer role should have been Duvall’s.
I’m a big Mantegna fan and I though Joey Zasa (sp?) was a good opposing force. Same for the Eli Wallach role.
I would have rated it 3 stars out of 4.
Make that Hamilton and not Harrison, please.
I agree, MacD. The movie suffers terribly from inevitable comparisons to the first two. How unfair is that? Almost every movie ever made is not as good as those two movies.
GIII is an excellent film, with some beautiful camera work and a handful of stellar performances. Joe Montegna is wonderful, Andy Garcia undergoes a subtle but powerful transformation, and Pacino inhabits Michael like a pair of very worn but much loved shoes.
So why do people rag on it? Two words: Sofia Coppola. I have never seen her perform in any other film, but in this role at least she was terrible. Her acting pulled audiences right out of the imaginary world her father worked so hard to build. She was wooden and monotone in a role that should have been filled with passion.
In light of recent news developments it may be worth re-watching the film.
Thwartme
I’m glad I’m not alone!
MtM
Mostly because it entirely discounts the first two and makes Michael be an entirely different person from the man developed in I and II.
We saw Michael kill for love of family in the first one, then kill family for love of power in the second one, then just be basically a nice, if misunderstood, good old boy in the third; doesn’t work. His tragic arc was derailed with little or now artistic justification.
His daughter wasn’t the problem; Coppola had become a hack and was no longer capable of the kind of film the first two had been: he settled for surface over substance and made a weak film.
It’s … not horrible. There’s some very good stuff in it. And the good stuff does outweigh the bad stuff (forget about Sofia, there’s also George Hamilton, who manages to be both completely useless as a character and extremely distracting at the same time - Look! It’s George Hamilton in a Godfather movie for some reason! And if you can get past that, then there’s Father Guido Sarducci, doing the same thing.)
But it was a totally unecessary movie. Michael’s story was finished in Part 2.
lissener has it exactly right. The problem is, Coppola fell in love with the character, and decided he couldn’t leave Michael in the state he’d left him in Part 2. So he redeemed Michael, which utterly contradicted both parts 1 and 2.
This is quite common. Authors often pump out a few more stories with a popular character than they really should. If the public is sensible, they just forget about the unecessary sequels. Who remembers “Tom Sawyer Abroad,” after all?
I like it. I’d rate the first one a 10, Part II an 8, and III a 7.
Redeemed Michael? How? He loses his health, a bunch of money, and his daughter, he has to give up his power, and he dies alone, riddled with guilt.
I thought Sofia was…adequate, if not up to the rest of the cast. The actor playing Anthony shows almost as much inexperience. He was cast because he was an opera singer. (Why didn’t they just cast a better actor and dub him for the singing scenes?)
My choice for the worst performance goes to Eli Walach. With his shameless mugging, he’s all but shouting, “Look at me! I’m acting Italian!”
I agree that Michael’s character was done a disservice, he was turned into Johnny Fontane from the opening of GF1. Vito should have returned as a spirit with “You can act like a man! [slap] Whassamatta with you?.”
It may not be fair, but the mere presence of George Hamilton taints any project.
I liked GF 3, but again, it’s good compared to the Excellant first two. The biggest thing that bugs me about it is that it feels like a 20 years later cast reunion rather then a final part of an epic at times.That and it suffers from the fact it’s the most confusing of the three movies(I’ve seen it 3 or 4 times and still don’t quite understand how everything fits together).