Average Customer Review:
 ( 210 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
65 of 74 found the following review helpful:
 Please, No Godfather IVApr 15, 2005
By Robert Morris
I have seen this film several times, all the way through or in parts. Frankly, I have mixed emotions about it because, when discussing it, I want to be fair and focus on it as a discrete film, judging it on its own terms; however, for me at least, that is impossible because it is the third of three Godfather films and its two predecessors are masterpieces. I cannot exclude vivid memories of scenes and even comments from films I first saw 18 and then 14 years before seeing this one for the first time in 1990. OK, that's my challenge. I finally decided to try to rate it on its own terms, hence the Three Stars. What it has going for it includes Pacino's talent, several plausible conflicts, brilliant cinematography, and a tone of melancholy which is consistent throughout the narrative. After years of broken promises to wife Kay (Diane Keaton), Michael has almost completed a process by which to extricate himself and his family from organized crime. However, his marriage has ended, mortal enemies remain such as Altobello (Eli Wallach) and Joey Zaza (Joe Montegna), his negotiations with the Vatican encounter unexpected complications, and finally, his physical health is poor as pressures and tensions in his life intensify. It is no wonder that he suffers a diabetic attack in his kitchen ("Just when I think I'm out....") from which he never fully recovers.
However, the film has several problems. One concerns the lack of a primary plot to give the narrative cohesion. There are hundreds of individual episodes in The Godfather and Godfather Part II (as in other films such as Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago) but they are coordinated effectively. Not so of the episodes in this film. Sofia Coppola's performance as Mary Corleone has been savaged by most critics. In fact, she is reputed to be a late replacement for Wynona Rider, had no prior acting experience in films, and was given a role as trivial as Anne Archer's in the three Jack Ryan films. I will not join others in bashing her. Another of the film's flaws is director Coppola and the three screenwriters' failure to do more with the role of Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia). So many missed opportunities as Garcia's great talents are under-utilized, especially when on-screen with his obviously exhausted Uncle Michael. The illegitimate son of Santino ("Sonny") Corleone, Vincent is only occasionally allowed to show some of his father's passion, providing energy which this film desperately needs and otherwise lacks.
The jumpy plot and underdeveloped characters are, in my opinion, this film's major weakness but it has several fine moments as when Vincent challenges Zaza, when Michael meets with Cardinal Lamberto (Raf Vallone), the deadly sequence as the performance in the opera house proceeds to its conclusion, and the final scene when Michael reflects upon his empty life. Judged only on its own terms, Three Stars. Let's all hope that there will be no Part IV.
29 of 36 found the following review helpful:
 A Classic -- like Parts I and IIJan 28, 2000
Some critics complain that Sofia Coppola was inexperienced for such a big role. I disagree. Ms. Coppola's inexperience helped her play the character of Mary more convincingly. While it is true she sometimes seemed rather "valley girl," this shouldn't be surprising. Michael did his best to shelter her from the harsh realities of life in the Corleone Family, and the upbringing and guidance from her father came across in her portrayal of Mary.Another criticism is Michael's quest for redemption... that such a notion does not square with the character in Parts I and II. Again, I disagree. Recall Michael wanted nothing to do with the Family Business in Part I. His father had hopes he might become "Senator Corleone... Governor Corleone," but this was not to be. Michael had to step in for the sake of his family. This necessity does not change the fact that at one time he was a good son, who simply wanted to become a math professor, marry, and have a family. In Part II, he obviously put this notion behind him, but there must have been a part of the "old Dartmouth Michael" lurking somewhere deep inside. In the years following the end of Part II in 1959, Michael took steps to legitimize the Corleones by getting out of illegitimate businesses. That done, he sought forgiveness for the wrongs he'd done. Had he not been betrayed in Part III, he would have likely found the redemption and peace he sought on a personal level. In addition, the Corleone Family would have been the legitimate family enterprise that would preserve and protect future generations of Corleones, as well as reform Vatican finances. This would have fulfilled his father's dream. Some say the opera scene was too long. I disagree, and think it was both moving and beautiful. We're watching scenes from a violent opera that had a sub-theme of revenge. At the same time the opera is being performed on the stage, a real opera is about to take place in the audience. The music from "Cavalleria Rusticana" is perfect for this film - especially the final, moving scene in the courtyard of Michael's villa. I'd say Part III is the "third best" of the series, but it is worth owning and watching, over and over again. The film should have received some academy awards, and I'll never understand why it didn't.
7 of 7 found the following review helpful:
"When they come . . . they come at what you love."Sep 15, 2009
By Eric S. Kim
The Godfather Part III suffers from the marvels of the first two films. Brando, De Niro, Caan, Duvall, and many other stars are absent. The Mafia is no longer the central part of this story. And it's actually hard to understand this film without watching the first two films. But does that mean it fails to be a movie overall? Of course, not.
Despite being the weakest in the trilogy, The Godfather Part III makes for a powerful conclusion to this epic saga. It's now 1979, and Michael Corleone is diagnosed with diabetes. He's separated from his wife, and his children are estranged. For years, Michael has felt guilt from not only isolating himself from his own family, but also having his brother Fredo killed. Now, he wants to go perfectly legitimate with his risky business. As you can see, this has now become a tale of redemption and forgiveness.
Francis Ford Coppola does what he does best here. He moves the story along, with some interesting and powerful elements that have not been found in the first two films. The script is still brilliant the third time around; I don't think you can improve anything here. The music sounds reused, but they still become an important aspect in every scene that requires it.
Of course, we cannot forget the cast (whether good or bad). Al Pacino is as amazing as ever. He's still superior in the first two films, but here, we get to see more emotion and more skill. The last two scenes are especially powerful; it still gets me a bit teary-eyed. Diane Keaton is still spectacular as Kay; same goes for Talia Shire as Connie. Andy Garcia becomes a welcome addition in the cast. He's perfect as the late Sonny's son, Vincent. It's very amusing to see Joe Mantegna as Joey Zasa . . . especially if you try hard not to envision him as Fat Tony. Donal Donnelly as the Archbishop can be best described as extraordinary: he's believable alright. B.J. Harrison as the Corleones' new adviser isn't really as great as Robert Duvall in the first two films, but he can still manage to make us appreciate his performance. Finally, we come to Sofia Coppola as Mary. Countless people find her dull and wooden, easily the worst performance in the entire trilogy. While I do find her wooden, she really makes it more authentic. She is oblivious to what's going on in her father's business; she's more of a simpleton rather than an expert in the Mafia business. And I think Sofia pretty much fits that personality here.
It's true that The Godfather Part III is not in the same league as the first two classic installments, but this is still a fitting conclusion, and it is an extraordinary movie. Just make sure you've seen Godfather I and II before you see this one.
Grade: A-
15 of 18 found the following review helpful:
The Fall of the House of CorleoneAug 19, 2007
By F. S. L'hoir
I confess it! "Godfather III" is one of my favorite movies. All right, it has less-than-perfect moments, but it also has memorable ones, such as the touching confessional scene between Michael (Al Pacino) and the Cardinal (Raf Vallone) in the cloister, and the reconciliation of Michael and Kay (Diane Keaton) in Don Tommasino's dining room.
I especially enjoy the Italian locations, and since I spent the `80s in Italy, amidst rumors about what was commonly regarded as the suspicious death of John Paul I; the scandals of the Vatican Banco Ambrosiano (with the banker Calvi hanging from the London bridge); the P-2 scandals in the highest posts of the government, not to mention numerous assassinations of judges in Sicily, the background of the story--the last half of which takes place in Sicily--rang true for me. Furthermore--and more importantly--Coppola's brilliant use of recurrent visual and thematic imagery renders the film outstanding not only on its own merits but also in respect to the first two films. Besides the well-discussed use of oranges whenever a catastrophe is imminent, Coppola constantly juxtaposes themes of religion and death, replicating the events of the story--the biting of the ear; the religious procession, the veiling of the head--with those of Mascagni's magnificent opera about death, revenge, and religion in Sicily: "Cavalleria Rusticana." Coppola intersperses scenes of the opera with scenes of actual vendetta, as the plans of Vincenzo--the new godfather--are carried to their violent conclusion. The part I love the best, though, is when Coppola transfers the tragedy taking place onstage in the opera, outside onto the steps of the opera house--life imitating art. That final choreographed scene, staged to the heart-rending music of Mascagni, gets me every time (Please pass some more Kleenex tissue!).
Al Pacino's silent scream on the steps of the opera house embodies the mask of Greek tragedy. And tragic irony renders "Godfather III" particularly powerful, when the film is viewed in the context of the whole. For instance, the preservation of the family is the device that moves the plot of the entire trilogy. The crimes committed first by Vito Corleone and then by Michael are committed in order to keep the family safe, even though the meaning of 'family' becomes distorted from its original significance during the course of the trilogy. In "Godfather III," however, the aging Michael, who is trying to become a pillar of society in order to preserve his immediate family, accomplishes the very opposite of what he intended. The final scenes of "Godfather I" and "Godfather III"--both set in gardens--emphasize the tragedy. Whereas Vito Corleone dies in the garden, alone except for the youngest member of the family--his toddler grandson--at his feet, Michael Corleone dies in the garden, alone--except for a dog at his feet. Classic examples of tragic irony!
I wish that Coppola would reprise his "Godfather Saga" which he made for television in the seventies. He reshuffled the scenes so that the narrative ran in chronological order from the funeral of Vito's father in Sicily at the beginning of "Godfather I" to the shooting of Fredo at end of "Godfather II." In combination with this particular format, "Godfather III" would make an especially effective tragic finish to the trilogy. The entire saga would then recall the Greek dramatist Aeschylus's trilogy. The original saga of family and its disintegration through revenge and murder, "The Oresteia" depicts the fall of the House of Atreus, just as the Godfather trilogy depicts the fall of the House of Corleone.
When I once made this observation to my daughter, she gave me a sarcastic look and said: "Mom, you're over-educated!"
Mea Culpa!
9 of 10 found the following review helpful:
Almost there! A review on Pros as well as, yes, Cons.Nov 05, 2004
By Evald
"EM"
I have decided to cover both the pros and cons of this film
First off; Too many horrible reviews. I undestand the true fan's dissapointment, and if you are a true fan of ingeniously made films, you will not be dissapointed that much, if at all. Believe me I know what I am talkin about...
Part III, cannot fully measure to Parts I & II but it does come very close. The acting, on Pacino's part is excellent, as well as that of all the other actors.
Pacinos character performs a tremendous turn, to an aged man who repents his sinister life (Fredo...) and does his most to go legitimate, although the firery passion of the once notorious Michael Corleone often leaps out in him.
Andy Garcia, is a wonderful cast member. If we remember Sonny's affair (Part I) with his young mistress, Vincent (Garcia) is his illegitimate son, born apparently after Sonny's death. Garcia plays a foolish Hooligan in the beggining, but then guided by Michael(Pacino) ripens. His performance is unmistakeable and felt.
The film also includes real history in its plot, and sugarcoats it very well. This is of course the assassination of Pope John Paul I, whos death was a controversy.
Best Scene: The Ending cannot be mistaken for any others. The Great Masteful ending of Part's I & II left the viewer thirsting for more and the notion that they both were to be continued. However Part III not only shows that the story continues, but that also the saga ends. It accomplishes both!!! There cannot be a Part IV because of this ending.
To give you a hint without giving away the plot, recall Brando in Part I and then subsitute his character with Pacino's.
Without any overrating, Pacino's performance in the final scene was something that is present only in the best of the greatest films of all time.
And of course, it follows the classic Godfather pattern. Like all of them, it starts out at a celebration, there is the conflict in the middle which offers all the different questionable deaths, be it bussiness or vendettas, and the resolution is like in the first two, resolved in a blood(do not take literally or overread into it) bath.
Problems (minor):
1)Robert Duvall, is not present, without him we have only one legendary actor in the film.
2)Casting: Sofia Coppola: not the best choice in the role of Mary. However not catastrophic, although questionable.
3)Editing: every movie has its glitches, howevever you must be very, and I stress "very" perceptive to catch the few and minor(let alone debatable) editing errors in the story's timeline.
Finally, thank you for taking the time to read this, and on a final note, watch it with an open mind. Hopefully (it hasn't been a while since you've watched the other two, in which case I recommend you do first, since many of the characters, even those of the most minor importance show up throughout this one, to give it that "real life" touch.
See all 210 customer reviews on Amazon.com
|
based on 210 reviews
