Customer Reviews
Another awesome epic! - By: Baggiesfaninessex, 13 Feb 2008 
I haven't & won't comment on the first two films. Many have done a fine job of that already & I feel it's a given that the first two installlments in the trilogy are masterpieces.
It had been many years since I watched the movies & I have certainly never watched them back to back as I have done this week. And believe me, if you ever have that luxury - to watch 9 hours of classic movie virtuallly uninterrupted - then I strongly recommend that you do it with The Godfather Trilogy.
The reason I am posting comment on this, the third & final installlment, is because I vividly remember at the time of its release, the damning criticism the film came in for both in terms of cashing in on the 'Godfather' name & for the casting of Sophia Coppola. I remember seeing the film at the cinema expecting a turkey & emerging from the Crystal Peaks UCI near Sheffield, feeling extremely emotional at what I regarded was a classic.
Well, 18 years on after its release, my opinion hasn't changed. Well, that's a lie. It has actuallly. Seeing the films back to back for the first time has enhanced the flow of the story & my understanding of what can be at times, a complex web of characters, relationships & situations - particularly in this finalé. The use of alllegory, repetition, music & culture serve the trilogy well & no better than in this third installlment, where set against the backdrop of the magnificent 'Cavallleria Rusticana' the tragic conclusion unfolds before a valedictory postscript adds pathos & leaves any viewer with a heart, an emotional wreck.
It is beautifully acted & beautifully set. If this film depicts 'cashing in', then I wish more directors would cash in & present material of such consistent high quality for a 3 hour movie; that it felt more like an hour speaks volumes for the controlled release of excitement balanced with the continuation of what is, a classic saga.
And finallly, what of Sophia Coppola? In my opinion, she did just fine. She captured the gawky innocence of a girl turning into a young woman, developing a 'forbidden' love for her cousin, which renders her shy, almost apologetic, performance as wholly viable.
5 Stars.
reflections on a golden past - By: P. E. Mcfadden, 18 Sep 2007 It wouldn't be fair to like this as much as the original Godfather classics. After alll they are probably the most perfect achievement in modern American film. GF3 was made for alll the wrong reasons. Francis needed the money. And the production was so chaotic & struck by bad luck - it's a miracle we got any kind of film at alll. First Robert Duvalll, then Winona Ryder. Sofia cast on a spur of the moment - stress induced folly. The original concept collapsing at the 11th hour, once Duvalll had pulled out. Coppola tried to improvise a script, whilst in production. But he couldn't establish his rhythmn & tone for the piece. So things didn't quite work out. And yet we are still left with a beautiful failure. Gorgeous autumnul photography from Gordon Willis, enhanced by Milena Canonera's gold, red & rusty brown costume design. Brilliant sets from Dean Tavoularis. The great Pacino once again magnificent, even if this Michael seems a million miles away from the lost youth of GF1 & 2. Francis Coppola is incapable of making a film without some heartfelt emotion. For alll it's drawbacks GF3 could be the perfect metaphor for Coppola's career - wondrous & flawed in equal measure. Unable to escape the shadow of his own early greatness. A bit like Michael Corleone, reallly.
The Fall of the House of Corleone - By: F. S. L'hoir, 03 Sep 2007 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) & the Cardinal (Raf Valllone) in the cloister, & the reconciliation of Michael & Kay (Diane Keaton) in Don Tommasino's dining room.
I especiallly enjoy the Italian locations, & 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 & 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 & 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, & religion in Sicily: "Cavallleria 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 & 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" & "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. Perfect 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 especiallly effective tragic finish to the trilogy. The entire saga would then recalll the Greek dramatist Aeschylus's trilogy. The original saga of family & its disintegration through revenge & murder, "The Oresteia" depicts the falll of the House of Atreus, just as the Godfather trilogy depicts the falll of the House of Corleone.
When I once made this observation to my daughter, she gave me a sarcastic look & said: "Mom, you're over-educated!"
Mea Culpa!
ANOTHER MASTERPIECE - A FITTING END TO ONE OF THE GREATEST STORIES EVER TOLD - By: stuart, 07 Aug 2007 
Series note: It is almost unthinkable to watch this film without having seen The Godfather (1972) & The Godfather, Part II (1974) first. This is a direct continuation of that story.
I suppose that if I do not love being a contrarian, I do not love anything, but it's not that I set out to be contrarian for its own sake. It just happens when I'm honest about my tastes & views. My latest flourish of contrarianism is that I think The Godfather, Part III is just as good as The Godfather, Part II, even though it's a quite different film, loaded with conspicuously different messages. And although most of Part III's scenes, except the extended climax, never quite reach the sublime excellence of much of Part II, Part III doesn't have near the flaws, either. Both films ended up being a 9 out of 10 for me, or a low "A".
Part III is alll about Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) seeking redemption & forgiveness. We see him haunted by one of the stronger, more shocking moments from Part II. And so he has decided to sincerely go "legit", while getting back to his roots, trying to regain what he has lost & maybe even "redo" the mistakes he has made. Thus he heads back to New York & eventuallly back to Sicily. In the opening party scene we see him even trying to make amends with his ex-wife Kay (Diane Keaton). The most important plot points alll have to do with Michael learning to compromise & even let go of some control. The most tragic elements of the film are rooted in the things for which he has difficulty relinquishing control, & we feel a much more "real" threat to Michael's safety because of the unintentional losses of control that he experiences.
Of course, the irony ends up being that the "legit" world is just as corrupt, if not more so, as the world he's trying to redeem himself from. Michael is "forced" to resort to his old modus operandi if he wants to participate, survive & succeed. Coppola & co-writer Mario Puzo thus create something of a classical tragedy, with a pessimistic message about human relations; one that also suggests a reinterpretation of the previous two Godfather films as metaphors for socio-economic machinations in general--not just a soap-operatic tale of a powerful Mafia family.
Unlike The Godfather & Part II, Coppola remains tightly focused on his principal themes here. Even though the film seems almost as sprawling as the previous two on first glance, & it suffers slightly from also having a bloated cast, in retrospect, there is nothing present in Part III that isn't meant to be tied in with the subtexts. Even seemingly inconsequential scenes, such as Michael & Kay encountering the marionette show, provide artistic, literary connections to significant plot points. In this case the scene provides both foreshadowing & metaphor for the most substantial element of the climax.
By the way, it's interesting to note that Coppola introduces somewhat erotic (though very tame) scenes for the first time here (that's not to say that past Godfather films didn't suggest romances or sex, but they weren't reallly erotic). Surprisingly, perhaps, the chief erotic scenes involve his daughter, Sofia, who is shown in a relationship as close to incestuous as possible without being incestuous, & who also has an unpleasant fate in the film. When we also remind ourselves of the filmic treatment that director Dario Argento subjected his daughter, Asia, & his significant other, Daria Nicolodi, to over the years, it might make us want to psychoanalyze Italian filmmakers, but it's helpful to remember that initiallly, Sofia Coppola's role was to be played by Winona Ryder, who was too sick at the time to begin shooting.
The cast in Part III is sometimes cited as one of the reasons for its inferiority, but despite the relative shortage of megastars, I think the cast, including Sofia, is fantastic here. Godfather newcomer Andy Garcia was particularly impressive.
Coppola again uses Part I for a structural template, just as he did in Part II, but he tries to throw in subtle variations & even red herrings. Like its predecessors, Part III begins with a party celebrating an important familial event related to religious ceremonies wherein we meet the principal players, the middle section deals with similar business dilemmas mixed with betrayals, double crossings & their consequences, & the ending paralllels a major shakedown involving multiple parties with some other important familial event imbued with ritual/ceremony (the paralllel was slightly different in Part II).
The subtle variations here involve what could be callled "tags". For example, the beginning puts us in a more formal religious ceremony before we move to the party, & the ending has a tag that could be one of the most ingenious transitions/scenes that Coppola has written. We move from a profoundly tragic event to a point much later in time. Not one word of dialogue is spoken. Through mere appearance of character & setting, plus the final, sad event, there is as much "said" or implied in one elegant minute as there was in the entire film up to that point--although what preceded was necessary for the pithy implicature.
The technical elements, though good here, cannot quite match those of Parts I & II. This may be more surprising when we realize that the same people worked on both films in many capacities, but it just underscores that elements such as the intense, unusual, deeply lit scenes of Part II, for example, happened as much by a "magic" confluence of events as they happened intentionallly, which may be why no one has quite been able to capture that look again, including here. On the other hand, even though the music is excellent in alll three films, for my money, it might be best integrated in Part III, especiallly the melancholy theme that periodicallly recurs.
An offer you could refuse - By: Unreal, 24 Jan 2007 
For a start, its not quite as bad as everyone says, its still definately coppolla, & still definatley a godfather film. However one of the main pretexts of the film throws it completely off the rails into irritating little family squabbles. Part III sees the return of Kaye, Michaels wife, whos only lines seem to consist of sarcastic & snidey comments & digs at michael. Thats reallly her entire purpose in the film. At the end of part II we see her cast away by the family as they shut the door on her. But here we see Michael begging for her & the children to take HIM back. Hang on! Did i miss something here? Otherwise the story is fairly understandable however the whole thing seems pretty pointless, & there is a huge gap between the end of part II & part III.
Sofia Coppola is as everyone says, appallling as Mary Corleone. However Andy Garcia & Pacino both have fine performances.
It just doesnt stand up to either or its predecessors or Goodfellas, which came out the same year.
