Should I see The Godfather Part III?

You've got to see it. It's not a terrible movie by any stretch of the imagination (Sophia Coppola's acting and Robert Duvall's absence aside) and, perhaps most importantly, it won't hurt your opinion of the preceding films. You can take from it what you enjoyed and leave the rest behind. And I, for my part, enjoyed Old Pacino... all 2 minutes he was on the screen.

It's pretty bad in comparison to the first two. Sofia Coppola's a terrific director, but she's really awful in this. Andy Garcia's pretty good.

But Michael's arc in this film is totally bogus. At the end of GODFATHER PART 2, to my feelings, at least, he's pretty much irredeemably evil. In this one he tries to redeem himself, and after the second film, I just don't buy it. This one's far more of a soap opera.

Watch it. It's nowhere near as good as the first two but it's nowhere near as bad as many make it out to be. You'll never look at a cannoli the same way again.

Yeah, I agree with the folks here -- see it. It's not a great film, or even very a good one, but it's not atrocious. The biggest problem (other than Sofia), is that it's the sequel to two of the greatest films of all-time, and suffers a lot by comparison.

Anyway, I will say this -- I was really glad when they made the DVDs available individually.

Still looks gorgeous and has some great hits. Mantegna is good and I like what they did with Connie's character. But it feels like fan-fic.

Nailed.

Basically there was no more story to tell.

I always wanted to see Michael's war years, but yeah, after II, Coppola said pretty much everything.

There's always DTV!

That's the fundamental problem, I think. Part I and II give a complete tragic arc for the character of Michael while at the same time charting the rise of the mafia in America. Part III just plays like an odd add-on.

On one of the commentary tracks, Coppola mentions his original title for Part III was "The Death of Michael Corleone (sp?)" and that he considered the story more of an epilogue than a continuation. In that context, I can understand what he was going for but the storyline just doesn't feel convincing - certainly not when held against the first two.

Of course, it doesn't help that Duvall wasn't interested in reprising his role (at least, not at the offered price), causing the storyline had to be completely reworked. Anyone know what Hagen's role in III would have been like?

And, yeah, casting Sophia was a huge mistake. I know Winona Ryder was originally cast but had to back out for some reason. Too bad. I'm not a huge Ryder fan (are there any) but she would have been a vast improvement.

It's been a while, and this one doesn't stick like the other two, but I thought some of Duvall's functions in the story were shifted to George Hamilton's character.

If that's the case, then no wonder Duvall wasn't interested in reprising the role of Tom Hagen.

I mentioned in another thread that my biggest hang-up with the film isn't Sofia Coppola. It's Al Pacino. I just couldn't connect with his performance and was unable to reconcile the Michael in part III with the Michael in the first two films. His whole demeanor in the film just screamed Al Pacino rather than Michael Corleone.

Godfather IV: Rise To Power coming to a DVD player or A/V kiosk near you!

Nah, it would be Michael Corleone Rising.

Hagen's role was rewritten after Duvall wanted too much money into the George Hamilton character (cheesy!), I believe.

If you made it this far without seeing Part III, then go further. You might as well go see The Two Jakes and any other franchise that Paramount resurrected to make money.

Imagine if APOCALYPSE NOW-era Coppola made a Michael Corleone world war movie... fuck. I'm getting all fan-fic in my head. If Coppola did it, I'd want to see it, though.

Oh, hell yes.

If you have any sympathy for Michael Corleone, the ending might hit you hard. But yeah, fanfic.

It's a good story (Michael's attempt at redemption/legitimization through a relationship with the Vatican), but the incestual sub-plot was cringe-worthy.

Right, cous'?

I don't want to ruin the last shot for SAIRUS, but does anyone like it? I know plenty who laugh at it any time they see it. I think it's done beautifully. It's quiet and the frame is empty. Very tragic.

The last shot does what the series does.

If such a project had been attempted, the world's cocaine supply would've been completely exhausted.

Well, I think he was going for some kind of parallel there. The mafia and the vatican being so closely related to each other that any attempt to merge will not work out. It can only end in death and Patented Pacino Wailing.

Its definitly worth watching, I dont even think the movie really sucks that bad, just is nowhere near as good as the first two. It always gives me the feal like it was an HBO spinoff series jammed into one movie.

You could say too much money, but in a very nice Coppola biography I read that, essentially, he wasn't too interested in doing it in the first place. He asked to be paid the same salary as Al Pacino, and when Paramount said no, he understandably got a bit offended and walked. The film suffers for it.

Still, I like it. Andy Garcia is worth the viewing alone, and while it is definitely inferior to the originals, there's still enough of the old Godfather charm to make it an enjoyable movie.

I love the last thirty seconds of this movie so much that it makes the rest of it almost not painful. Hell, you don't even need to watch it, just skip to the end.

It's just kind of...off. I'd like to see Coppola do an hour long half-movie about Andy Garcia in 1991, running the family straight into the crack gutter, New Jack City-style. Then, intercut that with the good stuff from III. So Michael 's high hopes for "redeeming" the family and dealing with the highest levels of power are crosscut with his nephew taking it right down the tubes. "Godfather 3-Redux."And it wouldn't cost any more than a typical Sopranos episode.

I read an interview with Duvall where he made an argument that the first film was Vito's, the second film was Michael's, and he thought the third film should be Hagen's. He's altogether wrong, but that was his stance back in 1990.

"Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in." That goddamn ad campaign made that a line everyone knows from a movie almost no one likes.

pfft.

This movie stinks.

Watch it if you've got the time allotted but there are better movies out there to see. It won't damage your love or feelings for I and II but it'll soon be forgotten. Basically two point whatever hours gone from your life...

You'd be better served going out for a delicious Cuban sandwich.

What I'm saying is you won't be any better/worse off for not having seen it...

I agree with Bob Clark... It's not as bad as it's rep–it's the sequel to 2 of the greatest movies ever so it's got an uphill battle... but, eh, it's not so good either.

YOU'RE MISSING NOTHING.

Seriously, go eat a taco or something instead. Read OUR BAND COULD BE YOUR LIFE... there's plenty better things to do...

I think he was wrong from a marketing standpoint (a Godfather movie in which Pacino is a suporting character?), but I don't that he was altogether wrong from a story standpoint. This movie revolves around the Corleone family finally breaking away from the mafia and into the legitimate world, and finding that as Michael says, the legitimate world may be even more crooked. Hagen was the one pushing this way all along, so I think with him in the story, it becomes a lot more compelling. At the very least it should have been a fairly equal Pacino/Duvall starring film.

God damn it Stew. Always with the valid shit.

I think he was more wrong in thinking Godfather was Vito's story and Part II was Michael's. Both films were Michael's journey, and Vito (in flashbacks) probably had an even bigger story arc in Part II. But yes, he may have been completely correct in thinking a film about Hagen would be a better film than what we got for Part III.

That would be more of a spin-off, though, which doesn't really make all that much sense for a story that's always had that shared core of Michael and Vito. I remember a lot of the press pegged Godfather III as sort of a King Lear thing - that sort of works. There's a contentious relationship with his daughter, he's an older patriarch who realizes his mistakes all too late, etc.* This is an excellent foundation for the final story of Michael, but I think what hurts it more than anything is that it's missing half of that core. Garcia's character gets to share the spotlight, but he's no Michael, no Vito.

The first movie is the simultaneous end of Vito and the rise of Michael. The second movie has those amazing parallels of young Vito and mid-period Michael; if they could have snagged DeNiro for another period of Vito's life to parallel Michael's end, I think they would have been on to something.


* It also makes one wonder what the Shakespearean models for I and II might be. Perhaps Henry IV Part I for the first movie, although Vito's great love for Michael makes him want to keep him out of the family business while Henry IV wants to bring Prince Hal into the family business, but finds him a disappointment. Both Michael and Hal end up equaling or surpassing their fathers eventually. Godfather II has a Macbeth or Othello vibe with ambition getting the best of the main character and leading him to (spiritual, in the movie) death.

I've always liked Part III. I get why some people hate it, but not to this absurd point that makes it out to seem like it's an atrocity on celluloid. Andy Garcia, and Joe Mategna are great in it, and this is going to sound really strange, but what's the big deal with Sophia Coppola? I don't get all the hate.

Aside from that, as said before, it's not as great as the first two, but it's still decent. The helicopter massacre is tops too.