The Godfather Part III

Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Godfather Part III,” released in 1990, isn’t just a disappointment, it’s a failure unlike any other. Undeniably, “The Godfather” I and II, which every says are among the greatest American films of all time, are a tough ones to follow. A very good film might be put alongside them and still not level them. Hal Hinson said in his review, “"Godfather III," though, adds little more than a sad footnote to those earlier works.”

The film completes the arc of Vito Corleone and his sons, bringing us from the part where the second film ended to the present day, from the look of a secluded Michael, reprised by Al Pacino, looking out from his boathouse office as he orders his brother be murdered, to the anticlimactic ending. However, when giving the final chapter of the story, it also spoils what came before. You just want this film never to exist.

Hinson noted, “Coppola's star has dimmed significantly over the 16 years since the last "Godfather" film, but to see this third installment is to watch it fall out of the sky altogether. "The Godfather Part III" is the work of an artist estranged from his talent, a lost soul.” Continuing the story of the Corleones, not only does Coppola fail to build on what he and his screenwriter Mario Puzo previously made. He also seems oblivious to what made his story so gripping to start with.

The characters that return from the earlier films have little resemblance to themselves. Hinson said, “The dread curve of Michael Corleone's life, which provided a dramatic spine for the family saga, has lost its sinister bend.” At the start of “Part III,” Michael has come very close to realizing his dram of a completely legitimate family business. At a ceremony in his New York penthouse, he receives the Order of St. Sebastian from the Catholic Church, a proud honor that may be connected to the $100 million donation given to the church by the Vito Corleone Foundation, a charity run by Michael’s daughter, Mary, played by Sofia Coppola. Hinson said, “But this first act doesn't have the dramatic resonance of the wedding scene in "Part I," or the celebration of Michael's son Anthony's first communion in "Part II," because Michael no longer sits like a malignant spider at the center of his Mafia web. Michael is a businessman now, and in divesting himself of his criminal interests he has lost what made him interesting, his murderous darkness.”

Hinson said, “It's nearly impossible to see how the relentlessly brutal middle-aged man at the end of "Part II" could have grown into the relaxed, polished, easy-moving older one we see here. In some scenes -- like one in which he urges Vincent (Andy Garcia), his brother Sonny's hotheaded illegitimate son, to make the peace with a rival, Joey Zaza (Joe Mantegna) -- he seems almost charming -- a smiling, glad-handing lightweight. The action here takes place past the point where there is anything at stake, and it has, at times, an almost meditative quality, an old man's summing up.”

With Michael missing from the film’s focus, the rest of the action looks ungrounded. Hinson said, “it loses its moral dimension and becomes just another mob story.” The two main plot points concern the Corleone family’s dealing with the Vatican, and Vincent’s rise as Michael’s replacement. The motives for Vincent aren’t split, the way Michael’s have been. Violence is natural to him. Hinson said, “He suffers no pangs of conscience when he takes revenge on his family's behalf, and in this he is supposed to be strong in the uncomplicated way Don Vito Corleone was. Garcia, as a result, seems to be the only actor in the film who knows what he's playing, the only one with a clear mission, and he gives a thrilling, feral performance.” That’s the film’s strongest.

For his part, Pacino thrashes around inside his character. Hinson criticized, “His makeup is superb, though if he had been allowed to sweep back his hair it might have connected him physically to Garcia (and to Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro, as well).” Sometimes his choices are interesting, and at times he does something interesting to the exterior of his performance. Hinson said, “For the most part, though, he busies himself by paying attention to the details of playing an older man -- Michael is around 60 -- and goes not much deeper than that.”

Some of Coppola’s choices – for example, having Michael suddenly faint into a diabetic coma when it was never mentioned that he was diagnosed with that condition – look to have been inserted out of desperation. Also, some of the story – particularly the handling of a conflict between the Corleones and the Luchese family over control of the Vatican’s giant corporate business – it caught beyond words. Some scenes – like the ones with Diane Keaton as Michael’s wife, Kay – are in the film because of studio politics, and not because Puzo and Coppola have anything of importance to say in them.

Hinson said, “Even though she is authoritative in the role, Keaton suffers tremendously from having no real function except to nag Michael for his past sins. (She's also anchored with some of the film's most painful dialogue.)” Eli Wallach has a few dramatic moments as Don Altabello, an old mob friend who turns out to be an enemy. Bridget Fonda, who plays a journalist, has only two small scenes that contribute nothing at all, and George Hamilton contributes a few appalling moments as the family’s PR man. Hinson noted, “Talia Shire's part as Michael's sister, Connie, has been expanded in "Part III," but the conception for the character seems to vary from scene to scene, so that at one moment she's a screaming crackpot and the next a power-hungry behind-the-scenes plotter.”

Hinson continued, “The romance between Mary and Vincent is one of the film's main subplots, and as Mary, Sofia Coppola is hopelessly amateurish.” Still, the part is a relatively small one, and her failure – contrary to a lot that has already been written – contributes very little to what is actually wrong with the film.

It may be that Coppola was right to delay this sequel all these years. From the evidence here, he had nothing more to say. Hinson said, “As an epic metaphor for the American dream, the first two "Godfather" films are nearly perfect. The connections they made go deep into the story of this country, deep into our sense of ourselves and the contradictions in our lives. As a generational story, they had the richness and scope of Shakespeare. But the man who made those two masterpieces is not the man who has given us this failed final chapter. Though he reassembled many of the members of his old team -- his actors, Puzo, cinematographer Gordon Willis and production designer Dean Tavoularis -- his talent for filmmaking is eclipsed now by his gift for self-destruction.” If that amazing earlier director ever had a chance to resurging, it was here. But he didn’t and you can’t help but see “The Godfather Part III” as his headstone.

Guys, I was really hoping for a great ending to the trilogy. However, just like a lot of trilogies out there, this last one is one of the greatest failures in cinematic history. This third part is boring. I felt like I was going to fall asleep when I saw this. If you liked the first two movies, I don’t recommend this last one at all. I know critics have given this film positive reviews, but I’m in the same boat as a lot of people when I say that this third part is the worst in the trilogy and one of the worst sequels ever made. Never see this one because there is nothing I can recommend about it that is good. You will be so bored by this one.

Alright everyone, we have now looked at “The Godfather Trilogy.” I had been wanting to talk about this trilogy for a long time now, but I don’t know why I never got around to it. However, better late than never, as they say. Still, we’re not done with “Francis Ford Coppola Month.” Next week, we’re going to end the month by reviewing a film that I like, but everyone else doesn’t. I think everyone might guess which one I’m talking about, but just wait and see.