The Godfather Part III

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.

This film came out about the same time as Goodfellas, and pales in comparison with the Martin Scorsese effort. I know the two shouldn't be compared, but the fact that they are both gangster films begs some sort of comparison.

Does Godfather III "complete" Coppola's Godfather series? Only in the sense that we see what happens to Michael when he is an old man. In my opinion, we didn't really need to know that. To me, the Godfather films ended with Michael Corleone as a shell of a man after losing his wife and murdering his brother.

Besides, I'm of the view that the best American films of the 20th century were made in the 1970s.

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.

I stayed away from this film for a long time, doing a dumb thing: listening to the well-known film critics.

When I finally got around to it, I was very surprised. It was a good film. Not great, not intense as the first two Godfather flicks, but definitely a lot better than advertised.

Many people said this was filled with anti-Roman Catholic propaganda, but I didn't it find that way. Yes, the "Vatican bank," whatever that is, was portrayed as not on the up-and-up, but it was a little confusing to follow, maybe too confusing to get offended! Actually, there were some positive things, religious-wise, with Al Pacino's character, who sought forgiveness for his past sins and made a few very profound statements such as, "What good is confession if it isn't followed by repentance?"

Anyway, Pacino's acting talents are the main attraction in the lower-key, more cerebral Godfather film. There isn't that much action but when it occurs, it's pretty violent. As with the other two films in the series, it's nicely photographed with a lot of nice brown tints.

Finally, director-writer Francis Ford Coppola took a lot of flak for putting his daughter in such an important role but I thought she (Sofia Coppola) was fine and - like this film - unfairly criticized.

I finally saw it ! As a total devotee of the two previous installments, I avoided seeing the third one, on purpose, people I respect had told me about the disappointment and, quite honestly, I didn't go there. Last night I did and surprise, surprise, it moved me no end. Maybe because I haven't seen the other two in four years. Yes at times is more Ken Russell than Francis Ford Coppola and in my book that's not a bad thing. I was, however, a bit taken aback by the healing in Pacino's Michael as far as Keaton's Kay is concerned. As it nothing had ever happened, while in Diane Keaton the memory of that pain is always present. Talia Shire is a lot of fun as a sort of Madame Sin. Raf Vallone, superb as the doomed Pope John Paul I and then a bit puzzling casting choices that I think they me code for something. George Hamilton, for instance, takes over from where Rubert Duvall left off. Helmut Berger plays the head of the Vatican Bank. Helmut Berger! Just as curious as to find Troy Donahue in The Godfather Part II - All in all, I'm really glad I've seen it and I'm sure I'll see it again.