A pale reflection

Godfather III has often been accused of being a desperate gamble to salvage a failing career; and in many ways, this is correct. There was no need for this film; nothing in the coda of Godfather II demanded a furthering of the tale. As such, Godfather III feels like an exploitation. But there are other problems as well: the film suffers from the absense of Robert Duvall; Tom Hagan simply cannot be replaced. While the acting was a strength of the first two films, Godfather III features the disasterous decision to cast Sofia Coppola; whenever she opens her mouth, the movie loses credibility. But perhaps the biggest sin is that the movie is simply dull.

The first film featured the shadow of power cast by narcotics; the second film fell into the depths of a powerful and treacherous jew; the third film revolved around sleep-inducing corporate intrigue involving the Vatican. Had Godfather III told the story of an aging, suffering Michael Corleone within the fast paced, popcorn style of the 1930's gangster flick, it would have been a far better film. Instead, we get a bloated, portentous epic. Indeed, while gorgeously photographed, the classic feel of the first two films are gone. This is a modern setting. And it doesn't feel right. Interesting enough, Coppola acknowledges that he lost much of the artistic power he once had, and found himself at the mercy of a studio who had little interest in what made the first two films so great. That speaks volumes about the failure of Godfather III. And while there are powerful moments, they are too few and far between. Everything about this film is a pale reflection of what came before. Such a shame.

Not As Great As The First 2, But Still A Heck Of A Film

All right, if you want to compare this movie to the first 2, it comes up short. Godfather 1 had originality and masterful storytelling. In Godfather 2, the storytelling is perhaps even better. Godfather 3's biggest problem is that it's very blatantly a sequel. Godfather 2 masterfully goes backward and forward in time, comparing and contrasting Michael and his father Vito and showing the obvious degeneration of the younger Corleone. And for all those people who want to slam Mr. Coppola for casting his daughter - come on, he's made some of the greatest film masterpieces of all time...I think he knows what he's doing. Perhaps what makes this, in my opinion, as good as the first 2 is Al Pacino's performance. If anyone had any doubts about Pacino being one of the greatest of our time, those critics were answered. He was absolutely fabulous. All the other actors returning from the previous films were excellent in their character transformations. Sure, Andy Garcia wasn't outstanding in this movie, but his striking resemblance to James Caan helped, and he seemed to get better as the film went on. My only real complaint is Bridget Fonda. What the hell was she doing in this movie? She showed up at the beginning, played a small role in the development of Andy Garcia's character as a hot-head, but then disappears and is never heard from again. I think her character hurts more than helps the character of Sonny's son. He's portrayed as more of a James Bond type of character who woos the ladies (even his own cousin...whats wrong with this guy? incest is best?) or a precurser to Tony Soprano. All in all a very good film. Without Pacino, however it is forgettable. He carries this movie and makes it work as well as it does. While it's not everyone's favorite, it has a lot of competition and it's definitely worth watching if only for Pacino's performace and the evolution of his character. As much as we want to knock Coppola's girl, she's pretty hot and pulled off her role pretty well. I don't think the incest story worked very well though. That would never happen in an italian family. I had an Italian girlfriend once. If her cousin made a move on her, you could be sure her father would have cut the kid's nuts off.

Here is a man undone.

First of all let's get one thing out of the way. For those of you stumped, Variety wrote a bad review for this film in 1990. Three more reviews from various other newsgroups, who had most likely not seen the film, wrote similar reviews to be "stylish". What has resulted over the years is an obese, disgusting, and utterly grotesque demonstration of conformity by pretentious yahoos who like to call this film "boring".

If only Variety had not written that one review, which single-handedly lead to the largest onslaught of an American cinema masterpiece in the history of film, we would have not an underrated "underdog", but a universally accepted final chapter which is actually superior to the second installment of Francis Ford Coppola's gangster epic.

For those who have the capacity for abstract thought, present in human beings since the Stone Age, this undoubtably one of the greatest films of all time. Picking up many years after Part II, we are introduced to a new Michael Corleone, an older, more mature, guilt-faced man who faintly goes through life as a ghost, going through the motions but ultimately is so overtaken by the guilt of his brother's murder, he is unable to be involved in any form of organized crime whatsoever.

As crime seduces Michael back into the seedy underworld of crime, we see more than ever a message that was merely hinted towards in Part II. In many ways, Michael's destiny has been sealed since the beginning. His actions, although seemingly calculated, not only are written as a part of his own fate, but that of Vincent Mancini, Sonny's bastard son, who will ultimately go down the same road as Michael.

The grand finale in the opera house is absolutely masterful. The cinematography, acting, and pacing are all some of the best in existense. But it is Pacino's final collapse on the steps of the theatre which stand alone as the single greatest image ever captured on film. Here is a man undone. A man broken in half by the things he has done. Done to himself and done to his family. The choices he made, and the choices he should have made. Every mistake he ever made, leading to the final stab in the heart, come crashing down on him as he lets out a single, unwavering scream of regret and sorrow.

What was done to this film is unacceptable. Absolutely intolerable. What Variety did was cause a chain of events which would discredit a film which should belong to the ages. Instead, it is looked down upon for no better reason that to conform with the rest of the savages. Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece, however, is stronger than words, and hopefully the damage Variety has done will wear off over the course of the next 25 or 50 years.

One thing is certain. The Godfather Trilogy is the greatest work of story-telling the world has ever seen, and it will always be respected and cherished for generations to come.

-Sean Nichols Lynch
5/10/04