Pacino is the issue here

Psychologically, he's not the same man.

Not only because of the sheer passage of time, but the very final scene of the previous film (Part II) showed him with everything dying around him. He's alone, and all his efforts have failed.

The third film starts at that point. In many ways, his horizons have shrunk, and he's afraid to try anything in the vein of who he once was, because he doesn't trust the outcome and he doesn't trust himself to be able to manage it. Why would he, when everything else has failed? He's closed down everything from that former life -- the casinos, the hotels, the gambling, the prostitution -- and put his efforts into legitimate business. And succeeded ... for a time. Until he discovers that the same kind of opportunists, murderers and liars riddle the banks and the church as well. And then he really discovers how powerless he is.

I think Pacino does fine, charting a course through that, and I personally have no trouble believing he's the outcome of the same man we saw in the first two films.

The problem for me is the script. It's dreadfully wooden at times, so obvious, colourless and without the invention or verve of the first two. It's not hard to tell that Coppola's heart wasn't in it.



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

I couldn't agree more with everything the OP said. The film does have other issues though.


You want something corny? You got it!

[deleted]

Not only Pacino, but the movie itself, it didn't feel like a Godfather movie. It was a weak movie. In the first part we are introduced to the family and it's ways of running things. In the second part we see Michael in charge of things, in a very interesting plot. And how he compares with his father as the Patriarch. Then we have the third part, which depicts an aging Michael, who at times seems to have become someone else entirely, and the uninteresting plot doesn't help at all.

The first two set the bar too high and the third one didn't meet the lowest expectations.

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

Yes.

Somewhere in those 16 years between 1974 and 1990, he became Old Al. It’s like there are two Pacinos: the young, mesmerizing handsome one, and ... the other. Watching all three movies in succession, as I just did, made for a contrast so stark it gave me whiplash. I would have given him lead actor statues for the first two, but I don’t care for his work in this where he just plays some tired caricature of Michael.

Andy Garcia saved this movie. He’s fantastic playing a sensitive, furious little late-70’s Sonny. I agree that his is a much more interesting character than the fading Michael. A well-earned nomination.

I totally Agree, Pacino was out to lunch and ruined the whole film.

At this point, he had started playing the character he been playing for 25+ years

Yeah Michael was much more intimidating in 1 & 2. Quiet and sure. Like his father.

In 3 he was more like Sonny.