Il padrino - Parte III

¿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...

Being an optimistic fellow I wanted to enjoy The Godfather Part III the first time I saw it - this was easy, since its a competent piece of film making, generally well paced, acted, it's coherent, Al Pacino's in it, Coppola has made this film from A to Z and on its own terms the film doesn't have any inexcusable flaws. (Not even, I might add, the notorious Sofia Coppola; she's bad, but her performance is benefited by the character she's playing, which is also weak). So for a long time I was one of those guys going "Hey, Godfather part III isn't as bad as everyone says. Sure, its not as good as the first two but not many movies are!" Later in life, presumably with heightened standards and a better sense of criticism, I started to suspect that the opposite could be true - that part III was really nowhere near as good as I'd recall - and after seeing all three films pretty much back to back I have to be honest (an approach I think wouldn't hurt the more enthusiastic defenders of this film) and conclude that The Godfather Part III, despite certain qualities, simply doesn't work.

(Excluded passage due to word limit; concerning how Coppola did the film for the money, and that it actually makes the film a little easier to appreciate)

I think the film really, on a whole, is perhaps not 'bad', certainly not horrible, but definitely a failure. The plot is underdeveloped and not engaging - Michael Corleone suffers from guilt. Its not unreasonable to say he did that at the end of Part II already. Where does his search for redemption lead him? Do "they" really pull him in again? Does his character do or say anything really memorable? Once or twice. But the script really is a long filler-session. And while everybody seems to just automatically praise Pacino because, well, he's Pacino I don't think his performance in this film is particularly good either, at least not by his merits. He's a great actor, and this is as fine a performance as any other he's made, but when you consider how truly versatile Pacino can be (compare Godfather part II with Scarface, with Serpico, Devil's Advocate, you name it, he's right there in character) its a disappointment that the aged Michael Corleone has turned into... well, Al Pacino. Obviously the character is not the same man that he used to be, but I never once really believed that I was watching Michael Corleone. He looked, and acted, too much like Al Pacino.

Not to mention Andy Garcia being nothing more than Andy Garcia, Joe Pantanglio, Eli Wallach, Talia Shire in a strangely awful performance (she's not a bad actress at all, but whatever happened here?). And of course Sofia Coppola; she isn't the crucial problem, but in the end she does become responsible for a lot of misfiring. The only one still doing a prime job is Diane Keaton as Kay - truly an unsung hero in these films, and to me one of the main reasons the drama work - and the film's best scenes were the one's she shared with Pacino. Why? Because then I felt like I was even watching a Godfather movie.

Much of everything else simply doesn't work. Whereas the original films were subtle and ambiguous, part III filters the story with melodramatic punches that are un-inspired and obvious. Michael's son, played by Franc D'Ambrosio, seems taken from Days of Our Lives and so many of the questions we ask ourselves - what does he remember from his childhood? What does any of the characters feel about Michael's marriage in Sicily? Did Tom Hagen ever move to Las Vegas? etc - are left completely by the road, as if Coppola truly isn't interested in telling this story. There are instead near-insulting reminders to the audience that the other two movies still exist (like the pointless scene where Michael have kept the drawing Anthony left at his pillow when he was nine or so; "I remember this" he smiles, though I'm not sure if we are to understand this as "I also remember they shot up the bedroom that same night"; once again, it seems Coppola simply forgets his own story). There are also awkward attempts at creating dramatic highlights in line with the horse-head scene and that very shooting in the beginning of Part II, involving a shooting during a parade in Little Italy and a stupid and ugly scene involving a helicopter. Making a Godfather sequel formulaic is truly a depressing insult to the originality of the first two films. The attempts Coppola takes on the Vatican are also pretty flat when you think about how Italian cinema has been doing this for half a century.

There's no reason to watch this film have you not seen the first two. And there's really no reason to watch it if you have seen them either. When you think about it, I don't see why the film's few merits are worth talking about. Movie newbies having seen Part I and II will naturally see III too, and I think many of them will come to the same conclusion. It's not all bad, but so what. It simply doesn't work very well.

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.

I recently watched all three Godfather films again in sequence and was surprised at how bad GF III is when closely compared to the other two fims. There are characters in the film whose presence is never made clear (i.e. George Hamilton, Brigette Fonda and Don Novello - Father Guido Sarducci??) The major characters bear little resemblance to themselves from the previous films. Connie Corleone is now a major supporter of Michael even though she knows he had her husband killed? Michael now has a change of heart and tries to go "legit" even though he so eagerly immersed himself into the power and control of the Corleone family. And Kay continues to "hang around" even though she dreads Michael and all that he stands for. Why?? The movie drags on in parts and never really gains it's true identity untill the end of the film during the opera scene. Not even Winona Ryder who was scheduled to be cast in the part of Mary could have helped. It only serves to give us an appetite for the earlier two films. Both of which I consider masterpieces.

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.