El padrino parte III

Having heard the endless amount of critique and insults that the last part of the Godfather saga carries.. I have to disagree. Although people seem to love to hate Sophie Coppola and say she ruined the film, I think her part alone wasn't that frail it'd ruin the entire cinematic experience. Saying that is just humorous. Also, the absence of Tom Hagen played by Robert Duvall is really a loss and even I think this film would've been a lot better if there was him in it.. but he got too greedy and couldn't make it into the movie, and that's that. I'm not going to judge a movie by what it could have been, but what it is and how good it ends up being.

Despite some shortcomings, Godfather Part 3 is a decent ending to the trilogy. While it may have been an attempt to cash off the audience, they still have Coppola bring us his finest directing. I found Al Pacino's performance extremely satisfying and even terrifyingly so. He embodies the mistakes and losses of his life with excellent skill, showing us a don that has lost his health, the loved ones of his life and even the respect for himself. While I never found Diane Keaton's performances in the saga that good, she still fills the spot required, same goes for Talia Shire, whose role in the ending finale of the film really came as a surprise to me - which was a good thing. I didn't find her role in Part 2 too appealing but in this one she has more character, more importance. Sophie Coppola was OK, like I said a lot of people have complained about her acting skills and I gotta admit she was a little "stiff" or sorts in some scenes but it's not notable all the time and it didn't spoil any moods for me. Andy Carcia was just excellent, my favorite add to the saga cast, playing the son of his father with excellence.

So, umm.. this film is perfectly fine. The ending finale was tremendously well shot and very climatic, filled with a lot of excitement. I'm telling you this movie is a great ending to the saga even because of that one particular scene so just go see it, despite what a lot of people have said about, badmouthing it for faulty reasons.. it brought a tear into my eye. It did.

Definitely not my favorite of the 3 but it's hard when the first 2 were just that good. It still portrays well, from my historical knowledge, much of the struggle of the mob families to legitimize their business dealings and try to enjoy life in the later age of the mafia in America. Al Pacino performs brilliantly and I enjoyed Joe Mantegna in his roll. Definitely worth the watch if you were a fan of the previous 2 films.

The Godfather: Part III is a good movie with a reasonably well developed plot and a terrific cast. It certainly stands out on its own, Al Pacino shines as Michael Corleone here, being his first time playing the character in 16 years, it is as if he never left the role. Francis Ford Coppola's direction is still on point, though the writing may not feel as passionate, he still manages to bring the world to life in s splendid manner, the only way he knows how.

The dialogue and overall story is far less inspired than the previous two, it never manages to make much of an impact. Having no Vito Corleone in this one was a big loss, I understand that his story came to a close in the second film, but he was the heart and soul, as well as the highlight, of these movies, there was a gaping whole without him. I was not a fan of Andy Garcia's character, merely a repeat of the same type of role Pacino had in the first Godfather, but never as effective. While its flawed and certainly not a pleasing finale to the trilogy, The Godfather: Part III is still a must watch for fans of the first two, you might as well form your own opinion of it.

Michael Corleone confesses his sins while trying to legitimize his business to keep his family safe as he ages.

Best Performance: Al Pacino / Worst Performance: Sofia Coppola

¿Why there is not The Godfather CODA as an standalone tittle in this platform?

Such as Justice League and Zack Snyder's Justice League. There is no big difference between the two, but Coda was generally received better.

Personally, I prefer Coda and I think it gives a more proper ending to one of the best movie trilogies of all time. Giving emphasis on the metaphorical dead of Michael Corleone, instead of his physical one.

While I still prefer the original ending, this version is better overall and make us wonder what would've been of it if they gave Coppola the time he demanded to make a better film...

Michael Corleone has sold his illegal business in an attempt to win back his family. However he must still contend with up and coming mobsters such as Vincent, who wants to work for him and Joey Zasa, who wants to fully take over the Corleone family's territory. When the Corleone family begin to deal with the Vatican and plan to buy out their share of an multinational corporation he finds that the Vatican is just as corrupt as his illegal operations were. Despite his best efforts he finds himself sucked back into the world he has tried to leave behind.

Easily one of the most hated films ever made – or at least you'd think it was by the critical mauling it got for a raft of reasons. However watching it now it isn't that bad and really it only suffers from comparison with the two films before it. But lets be fair, Coppola has made 3 or 4 of the best films ever made – did we really expect another one from him?

The film has a reasonable plot and brings the trilogy to a logical end. The plot however does have it's weaknesses – for example it starts well with Michael's attempt to `get out' being hampered by other families on their way up. But when it starts to get involved with money laundering through the Vatican and the corruption therein, it starts to lose it's way and it's focus on Michael.

The main weakness comes in the characters. Would Michael really go straight just to get his family back – and how come he managed to do it so easily up till the time of the film? Worse still is Connie who seems to have become some sort of Mafia widow when that was not part of her character in the previous films – would she really have got that twisted or influential? Little problems like these just bugged me and they also fed into the performances.

For such a great cast the acting was very average. Pacino is good but I sensed he didn't see Michael turning out this way and he didn't convince occasionally. Keaton has little to do and again I felt that her approach to Michael was too forgiving, although maybe I'm not allowing for time. As I Siad before Shire was doing some sort of `Bride of Frankenstein' act as Connie and I didn't buy it for a moment. Garcia was OK and faces like Wallach, Hamilton and the like helped. The two worst performances were sadly two of the main ones. First Joe Mantegna…..now it wasn't that it was bad – it was more that I've seen him do so much better. Here all I could think of when I watched him was how his character and his acting was very like his Simpsons' character of ` Fat Tony'. Bare in mind Fat Tony is meant to be a spoof of the Mafioso characters and you'll see why I didn't like it.

The worse performance was Sofia Coppola. Now she was vilified at the time for her role – a bit unfairly and cruelly but she was still bad. She has this strange scowl on her face for most of the film and she acts like a spoil little girl. She also has no realism in her voice and speaks in the same constant tone – that Vincent would fall for her was just a leap of faith too far to accept. The cast does have others who are unused or underused – Fonda being the best example. Why did she bother with that role!?

Overall, this is miles behind the other two Godfathers and it has plenty of weaknesses. However at it's heart it's a good try as the concluding part and the story is watchable. It's not bad, it just is average and it feels like the director and large sections of the cast felt they just had to turn up to make a third classic film.