MovieChat Forums > The Godfather Part III (1990) Discussion > Pacino is the issue here

Pacino is the issue here

posted 12 years ago by kgb383
52 replies | jump to latest

Did anyone get the feeling that Pacino had trouble capturing the essence of his performance from the first two films? In I and II, Michael had a sort of steely, remote nature. There was hardly any emotion at all coming from him. Even his body language was subdued and scarce. Pacino could pull that off then, but by the 90s, Pacino had moved into his loud and boisterous phase. He simply wasn't the same actor. You could tell that he was having trouble keeping it subdued in part III the way he did in the previous movies.

His body language is totally different in this movie. His dialogue is different (cursing, jokes, smiling, laughing, screaming, impassioned monologues). The effect is less Michael Corleone and more Pacino. I get that it's supposed to be an older Michael, perhaps worn out and more embattled with his own demons. It's still way too much of a difference in my mind. He doesn't feel anything like the Michael from the first two films.

Even more than Sophia's terrible acting, it's this thing about part III that really sets this movie apart from the first two.

[–] Adina_IMDb-March-2006 11 years ago

Did anyone get the feeling that Pacino had trouble capturing the essence of his performance from the first two films?

I came here just now to say exactly the same thing.

I bought the iTunes Bundle (all three in HD for $9.99) and I watched all three of them in a row.

In the third movie, Michael Corleone was just Al Pacino.

In the first movie, he had the haughtiness of a young Prince due to having a wealthy and powerful father. Then he became the dominant Don who was soft with his wife, children and father (unless his wife asked him about his business).

In the first movie, he was downright chilling when he told Carlo that he would have to answer for Santino. I'd be shaking in my boots if someone that powerful started speaking so chillingly quietly while probably plotting to kill me.

In the second movie, he was snapping at almost everyone including his closest employees.

In the third movie, he was Al Pacino.

I didn't really like the third movie much anyway so I hadn't seen it in a long time.

Now I'm remembering why.

[–] Zippo_123 9 years ago

In the first movie, he had the haughtiness of a young Prince due to having a wealthy and powerful father.

Are you kidding me? In the first movie, he starts out as this unassuming, humble, kind of nerdy kid that wants to do things his own way. There's absolutely no 'haughtiness'. His father and older brother want to keep him out of the army, but he goes anyway. He doesn't want anything to do with his family. He's sweet, quiet and unassuming, but also confident, headstrong and determinate. Those last three qualities will serve him well when he his to step in, against his own plans, after his father gets shot and he's the only guy with a plan. But he certainly didn't start out as a 'haughty' little prince.

[–] dkgambler 11 years ago

Good point, it does feel like he wants to belt out a HOO HAH! or perhaps a "*beep* YOU, AND *beep* THE DIAZ BROTHERS!"

[–] Mad-Max2 11 years ago

Exactly, and then snort from a huge pile of coke on his desk.

[–] teodormihai1997 9 years ago

Can I quote you on this? *beep* gold!

Ma-HAUUUUAAAHAGGHHH the French... champagne has always been celebrated for its excellence.

[–] An_Invisible_Dog 11 years ago

You're being far too harsh on Pacino here. As usual his acting was top drawer. He portrayed the character as the script called for it.

Coppola and the writers are to blame.

The directing and production is the reason there wasn't a believable performance in GFIII. The pacing of the story, the less attention to detail in the background, resulted in a lack of immersion and the characters became less believable.

The film was rushed and it really shows.

[–] krKOT 10 years ago

Agree totally.

I hardly view part III as a Godfather movie really. There's almost nothing in common with part I and II. And Michael is just totally different person. It's not Michael Corleone, it's Al Pacino.

This movie was just a cashgrab, and even Coppola recently admitted it. Sad really.

[–] XXXXshogunXXXX-1 10 years ago

Pacino was never the same after Scarface. He has an incredible need to shout. It definitely didnt feel like Michael Corleone.

[–] forthesafetyofpuppies 10 years ago

Coincidentally around the same time his voice changed, you mean? He's always shouted and had explosive moments, and he has a naturally loud voice, it just became less palatable after the 80s when his smoking caught up with him.

He explodes at least a couple of times in Godfather II ("Can't you just give me a straight answer anymore!!! Was it a boy!!!! and in the big argument with Kay scene). But nobody seems to mind.

___
There are two kinds of people in the world, those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

Not only does he explode in TGF2, he exploded more times in that film than he did in TGF3. Yet people rile on him for the explosions in TGF3 only and love his explosions in TGF2.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

Pacino is the same, seems like you missed out on his 70s films.

[–] eholzapfel26 10 years ago

My thought exactly. I just saw III for the first time (watching all three movies back to back).

And III seemed like Pacino playing Pacino rather than Michael Corleone. It's like he simply forgot who the character was that he played a couple decades earlier.

[–] Falconeer 10 years ago

Agreed. I couldn't connect Pacino with the character he played in the two previous installments. It just seemed like Al Pacino to me. This happens when an actor becomes really huge; they tend to become parodies of themselves. Like Brad Pitt. The audience can no longer forget that it's Pacino or Brad Pitt or DeNiro on screen. Another thing that separates this film from the other two, is it's completely different look. This movie looks garish, and quite phony. The first two films were incredibly beautiful to look at. I feel like this was just a "cash-in.."

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

[–] lailaahmed-24134 10 years ago

He is acting , twenty years older, twenty years wiser, regrets, thinking of the past and what cannot be undone!

[–] BenignPillows 9 years ago

I couldn't agree more.

People just don't change that much - right down to body language. An even if they did, with a movie character you'd want him/her to be recognizable across movies. Pacino wasn't.

-----------------------
"The best fairytale is one where you believe the people" -Irvin Kershner

[–] Elemental_Mind 9 years ago

I think people are just seeing Al Pacino instead of Michael Corleone, because they are relating Al Pacino's appearance, demeanor, and voice with the characters he portrayed in other movies filmed in the 90s. It is the viewer that has the disconnect with the actor, not the character.

I just watched all 3 movies, and Pacino played Corleone as anyone would expect a character who is going through self reflection and redemption. Like Vito, Michael began to further legitimize his business, and to do so requires a change in character. His father began losing his reputation with the other families, appearing soft, more humble, and lacking the enforcement he once had. Michael appeared the same with his age and past successes.

Throughout the 3rd movie, Michael questions why he was so feared as opposed to being so loved like Tommasino. Michael connects with his old self, and he feels revulsion for his cold history. He is not interested in the mafia life anymore, and he lost the trust and faith of Kay and his kids because of his past dealings. That changes a person when they reflect on their actions.

No one questions the change in character for Vito Corleone as an old man buying produce from a street side vendor in Godfather 1, when he used to be that young Don who stroke fear and retaliation to those who did not do his bidding, or were his sworn enemies. Such a change in character happened for Vito as it did for Michael. Appreciating that, makes Godfather III an enjoyable film.

[–] jingizu_z 9 years ago

Very good comment! Agreed.

[–] imadbasayev 9 years ago

Vito didn't change his manner of speaking or general behaviour, he just became an old man. Pacino's character seems like a different person altogether.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

People thinking that Michael Corleone in TGF3 is an exact replica/similar in any way to Tony Montana in Scarface are clearly biased and are not seeing things for what they are. These two characters in these 2 particular films don't have anything in common with each other.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] frank_zaal 9 years ago

I totally agree with you, I actually looked up this board to start a similar topic. He was so stylish in the first two movies, he looked good, awesome hair. He looks like a mad-man in part III, I think that a man of his stature (talking about Michael Corleone) would be able to afford a good hairdresser and find some value in looking presentable. anyway, I really disliked his crazy hair ;)

[–] jason-l-parker 9 years ago

The movie was just not street at all. That is the problem.

Let Al scream and yell. Who cares, just give a supporting cast to work with. He is a gangster, not a doctor. He is supposed to get a little crazy.

The whole thing was bad. It was a wasted performance. Al was not Michael, because he did not have the cast around him to be Michael. No familiar faces. All of the characters around him sucked. Connie is advising Mike? Seriously? And what is up the guy with the Florida tan and Marilyn Monroe mole? Is he
supposed to be the new Tom Hagen. Get him outta here. George Hamilton. C'mon...man. Is he really mafia?

All this whining with Kaye and his son and daughter. No dice with me. And Vincent? He sucked too. All these random villains. "Immobiliare", I am just figuring out what that is. Nephew dating his cousin. Who cares! Al acted great...but it was not well written, we wasted time in Sicily with Kaye and all that Church crowd. He wasted time with Vincent and Kaye and Connie. Kaye is mad at Mike. Do I want to see that on film? No! I get it, but put all that in the book and give me the good stuff.

Maaaaan, if I could redo that movie I take it back to the NYC baby, get back to the streets. GF3 should have had a Donny Brasco feel to it. A Bronx Tale, vibe. Tough guys...more Joey Zaza. More..."everytime I think I'm out...they pull me back in." More war. GF2 was awesome and sophisticated (but the streets were there)... GD1 was straight up street and hard. Take it back to the bricks. You can't do wine and cheese each time. Sometimes hamburger and fries is the answer.

GF3 should have been Mike as Big Paulie Castellano and some great young actor as Johnny Boy Gotti. Take GD3 back to the streets of NYC. Then you can deal with his personal demons.