“Why is Godfather III held in such contempt”: I ask myself this (hence I found this forum) and when I revisit, I hope to like it and not feel the shudders which echo through me at many points.
I agree with much of what I see on this forum.
I get a huge chuckle out of the request to ban the person who says 3 is better than 2.
We all have a right to our opinion, but that is hard to imagine.
The one complaint with 2 I can see, although I don’t feel this way, is that it wanders and the cutting between the eras is confusing. I think that it is brilliantly executed. I find myself drawn into 2 and wonder why on Earth I care about, for example, DeNiro stealing a rug for his wife in 1917. But it is so elegant and detailed and amazingly crafted that I can watch the entire 3.5 hours of the Restoration very frequently. The first one has my heart mostly because of Brando although it is equally as beautifully made although I can see how it was made a couple years earlier and on a much lower budget and with other constraints.
So Godfather 3…what happened?
Is it as bad as people say…no it is not and while there are atrocities in it, there are also many great moments. Acting wise, Joe Matagena definitely steals the show. I believe Eli Wallach is a gem in this and everything. (I see someone posted otherwise). Andy Garcia is very believable and irritating. Fonda is pretty and fine although not terribly strong. Definitely not a perfect role for her in the way her part in Jacki Brown was. Shire and Keaton do not seem to be that into it. Pacino to me goes back and forth which makes me wonder, as someone else touched on, is he doing a great acting job or is he somewhat off. It is certainly not the jaw dropping performance of 2 nor does it show the greatness which he needed to portray Correlone’s arc in one from “that droopy thing” to powerfully chilling mob boss. However, Pacino even at his worst is an amazing artist.
As for the film itself, where 2 elegantly dances around the world with grace and love and beauty, 3 is painfully stationary. More than a half hour is spent entirely indoors at the giant reception introduction. While we certainly are given a lot of information and see these characters years later (in their time and over 20 as viewers), it does not hold interest in the way the first two.
There are many moments and lines which are forced and just embarrassing.
For example: when Talia Shire says “now they fear you”. Jonny fontaine looks old but I guess he has to be there. The first 2 open with long parties but completely enthrall because of the scenery and the excellent cast across the board including character actors and even bit parts and background. Not the case with 3. Sadly, most of the actors in the key roles (michael’s son, Tom Hagen’s son, and others) are forgettable. No Harry Dean Stanton cameos in 3. The actor who plays Frankie Panteglie (sp) is terrific. Certainly no Lee Strasberg.
And now we get to the kicker - the thing that pushes mediocre to offensive - Sofia Coppolla. In addition to the obvious, I think the choice to cast her shows an arrogance which permeates the film. So the original actress fell through but about any actress of any age in the business would die to have been in Godfather 3 and this was perfect for a young actor. She is terrible and everyone knows it. She is unbelievable and forced and makes us feel badly for her, as an actress not a character. Just like with Haydyn Christensen in Star Wars, I hope each time we see her that she wont be there. The incest story is not interesting anyway, even if they had a good actor.
Again the arrogance, because it is hard to imagine why they didn’t fire her. Because family is the most important thing of course!
Anyway, there are still some classic cinematic moments but nothing to compare to the first 2. The bar was set high. Somehow Godfather 2 surpassed expectations which were very high.
As soon as Eli Wallach steps into the limo with Michael, things pick up. They get to Rome and it does become much more interesting.
I also feel we have to consider that the era portrayed is simply far less appealing. As Michael says in 2, times are changing. Two demonstrates with its intercutting how a certain elegance and respect that exist in Vito’s era in the teens in NYC is dying from the 50s onwards. So by the time we get to the late 70s, it is a less elegant world.
Seeing how they recreate early century NYC is jaw dropping. I drool at the beauty and intricacy. The colors (as dark and stark as they are). The light on a piece of fruit.
The era itself is bloated as is the film and the filmmaking.
In summary, is it as terrible as people say…no absolutely not. It does carry on the characters and arcs and lives in interesting ways. It sounds good on paper. Also when described it sounds much like the first 2: sprawling epic tale of a family and its business beliefs and practices. Majestic and lavish sets with extremely violent outbursts.
But in execution, it does not hit the mark in the way the first 2 did. One could also say that is hard to completely explain why those are so great. In the end, greatness and masterfulness are as inexplicable as failure and mediocrity.