The Godfather Part III
Grade: B-
Cast: Al Pacino, Andy Garcia, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna, Sophia Coppola, George Hamilton, and Bridget Fonda
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
No MPAA Rating for violence, mature themes, language

This review contains spoilers for all of the Godfather film. If you have not seen any of the films we strongly suggest that you not read this review.


"The Godfather" (1972) and "The Godfather Part II" (1974) are intricate tales of a mob family, the Corleone family. We begin, in the first one, with Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando, Oscar winner for this role) sick and dying, ready to hand the Don title to his son Sonny Corleone (James Caan). When Sonny is murdered, Michael (Al Pacino) steps up and becomes the Don, even though he has promised his girlfriend/wife (her title changes throughout the series) Kay (Diane Keaton) that he wasn’t going to have anything to do with this kind of life. The first film ends with Michael having his sister Connie’s (Talia Shire) wife-beating husband killed and lying about it to Connie. If "The Godfather" (the second-best film of all time) is intricately plotted and flawlessly directed and acted, there are a few questions left unanswered: Why isn’t Fredo (John Cazale), the oldest one, the next Don? How did Vito become the Don? Is Michael a worthy successor to the title? No worries, though: "The Godfather Part II" (the best film of all time) answers all those questions and more. It’s both a sequel and a prequel: one story line involves Michael and the mistakes he is making that lead to him becoming a weak Don; the other takes place when Vito was young (here played wonderfully by Robert DeNiro, who won Best Supporting Actor) and his rise to power after killing a cruel and arrogant Don, Fanucci (Gastone Moschin, very good).

Both storylines answer questions and open more up, as Michael is betrayed by Fredo (he ultimately kills him) and slowly begins to separate in his relationship with Kay after learning that what he believed was a miscarriage was really an abortion. The film ends with him, after killing Fredo, sitting, reflecting…then that great music kicks in. Fans of those two films (and they were numerous) wanted a sequel. How could there not be another sequel? If Francis Ford Coppola had those two masterpieces in him, he definitely had another great addition to the saga of the Corleone family, a film that could give "The Godfather" films the ‘honor’ of being called a trilogy. Right? Not really.

Sixteen years after The Godfather, Part II was released, "The Godfather Part III" was put into production. There were too many problems, though. Winona Ryder dropped out of the role of Mary Corleone, Michael’s daughter. Robert Duvall (whose Tom Hagen, the “adopted brother” to the Corleone family, as well as their lawyer, was admittedly taken for granted by me---he is missed here) didn’t return. Many of the interesting characters were killed off in the first two. The script was incomplete. I don’t mean that it was never finished; I just mean it feels like a rough draft from an illiterate fan of the series.

The film is about Michael, of course, here brilliantly played by Al Pacino again (the brilliance is rare in this film). The year is 1979, and the first scene of the film, after an odd but ultimately decent choice of flashback scenes from the first two, is Michael collecting some sort of award or honor or something. What it is isn’t the point, and my confusion is not a sign that I wasn’t paying attention---the film’s intention is to focus on getting the family together, not what award Michael is getting. But here is the film’s first miscalculation: Michael wants to get OUT of the crime business (the film’s best line, delivered hammily by Pacino: “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!!”). Yes, he has made mistakes, and should have learned from them, but this is not Michael Corleone. He is not a good man. He is more of a ‘bad guy’ than his father ever was, sort of an anti-hero, and we don’t want to see Michael otherwise for two reasons. For one, it is a cheap contradiction, a change of pace that is a slap in the face for the saga’s biggest fans. The second reason is that his evil was part of Michael’s appeal as a character. Why make a mob film about good guys? It’s an awkward oxymoron, emphasis on the ‘moron’.

The film’s best aspect is that it throws Vincent (Sonny’s illegitimate son), played by Andy Garcia, at us. Vincent is a tough guy who blindly seems to think he’s tough shit, and wants to get involved in the kind of stuff Michael used to be into. He’s also a hothead---he’s truly his father’s son. That Vincent is a cocky punk is no matter; Garcia is so electrifying in such a well-written role that the focus is more on him in some scenes. Vincent is, in another misstep (this one hilarious), deeply in love with his cousin Mary (Sofia Coppola, more on her later). At one point, Michael and Kay (why was she even in this film?) run across a puppet show where a man is stabbed with a sword for marrying his cousin, or something to that effect. I laughed out loud for about a minute or two, and then realized that the film was actually aiming at symbolism. Incest is a sick and strange thing, but when it’s “taken seriously” in a fashion as campy as it is here, it’s also kind of funny. Meanwhile, the Vatican bank is deeply in debt and is asking Michael’s help. In return, he will---ah, but who cares? I was distracted by the unnecessary inclusion of the Catholic church. Why is this here? I didn’t care for it, and it downright bugged me. But, uh-oh, Joe Magenta is in the way---will Michael’s deal fall through?

The worst part about "The Godfather Part III" (ultimately, it’s admittedly a solid film) is that it screws characters we know so well. I’ve already covered Michael---but let’s get to Connie. Talia Shire again plays Connie very well, but what we get is a new character, which is a problem. In the first film, she was a cowardly, abused housewife. In the second one, she seemed to be trying to stick close to the family, and was definitely becoming more loyal. In this one, she’s something of a matriarch, standing in the shadows, assisting Michael, and even ordering hits without his permission. It’s as if they were setting her up to be the star of "The Godfather Part IV" along with Leonardo DiCaprio (I thank the Lord consistently that this deal never went through). Connie’s personality is about as contagious as that of a statue; she’s a boring mother figure when the first two "Godfathers" never really had time for that type of thing. As Kay, Diane Keaton is good, and the character was wonderful in the first two, but she doesn’t quite fit in here. We remember the abortion scene with her line “I have no love for you right now. I never thought that would happen, but it has.” She comes back, and Michael is obviously trying to redeem his relationship with her (he also obviously still loves her), but we don’t buy it, really. But, despite these terrible bordering details, the biggest complaint has been about Sofia Coppola’s performance. Since it is rather unimpressive, it is thought that she only got the part because her father is the director of the film. This may be true. I don’t have the venom for her that most do, but her performance is admittedly weak (although, and I know I’m gonna get bashed for saying this, it is a little sexy at times). She did a good job playing the baby in The Baptism Massacre seen in the original Godfather, but, then again, maybe that’s because we didn’t have to hear her voice. It tells something about your acting ability when your work as an infant is superior to your work as a flirty teenage girl.

The makeup is good. Al Pacino/Michael Corleone looks terrible---as if a wasp nest has made its home in his cheeks---but I suppose that was the intended effect. His performance is magnificent here, worthy of a nomination for Best Actor---it actually could have been a win, he is so good, even though it is also bordering on camp with scenes like the one where he has a diabetic stroke, and what he yells out during that scene. You have to ask yourself: If "The Godfather Part III" (alongside "Goodfellas!") got nominations for Best Picture and Best Director, then how did Pacino get snubbed? The Pacino thing can’t be answered, I guess, but, since "The Godfather Part III" is a weak film, the nominations can only be explained by the fact that it had “The Godfather” in the title. This makeup I speak of also does a good job of aging Connie and Kay, and some of the supporting characters, like Johnny Fontane. Technically, the movie is pretty good. Perhaps my favorite thing about it is that classic musical score. I just love the theme song that has been used in all three Godfather films. Sure, the score in this film doesn’t try anything particularly new, and it shouldn’t (see "Halloween: H20" if you want to further understand my position).

The film tries at the end to match the abovementioned Baptism scene in the first one as the major players show up at an opera that Anthony (Franc D’Ambrosio), Michael’s son, has written, and many of those major players are assassinated. In the end, it’s a long and somewhat boring stretch, one that in no way delivers what it intends. Mary is shot, and that scene is a showcase for terrible and phenomenal acting at the same time. All Sofia Coppola can muster is a weak, pathetic “Daddy?” in one of the fakest voices I have ever heard, while Pacino wails in agony that his mannequin…er…daughter is dead. My reaction to the sequence is mixed, but I like to think of it as powerful. Then, after this, there is a shot strangely similar to the one at the end of the second and very beginning of this one: Pacino, even older with white hair and even deeper wrinkles, sitting in a chair reflecting.

We are meant to think that the trilogy has been presented as flashback to him. He then slumps over in a more cartoonish manner than I have ever seen a live action character outside of a Jim Carrey movie, and a small dog sniffs his dead body. Sadly, we feel little emotion that Michael is dead. In a more ambitious film, we would have, because we have been rooting for Michael for 18 years now---the least the filmmakers could do is make him go out in an honorable fashion. But by now, the film has screwed too much up to be a great movie.

I do think, though, that I am coming off the wrong way. I enjoyed "The Godfather Part III" and it does admittedly have some classic moments. The best is when Michael is giving a confession to some of his past sins. Pacino acts his heart out, and the dialogue is written tenderly---it’s the kind of portion that belongs in a better movie. I do think "The Godfather Part III" is probably the most disappointing film I’ve ever seen, but far from the worst. With the power and perfection of the first two films, we have come to expect something close to perfection, but "The Godfather Part III," in all its ambition to strive to be a great movie, concocts plot holes that can’t be ignored…the film is a little tedious and sometimes frustrating to watch. The plot isn’t interesting, the direction is merely good at its best, the acting is a mixed bag of brilliance and crap, and the screenplay is uneven. The setting of the film and the atmosphere created works. But "The Godfather Part III," to describe it best, is like watching someone solving a puzzle get short-term memory loss. They have all the pieces, but are constantly forgetting where to put them and what they are trying to accomplish. My metaphor speaks of Mr. Francis Ford Coppola, who made two great films and a mediocre resolution.

-Alex, June 2002