MovieChat Forums > The Godfather Part III (1990) Discussion > I can't believe the sheeple who join the...

I can't believe the sheeple who join the absurd over-criticism of Sofia Coppola's performance


It wasn't a huge part and she did a fine job in the role. Does anyone seriously think Winona Ryder (who was too sick to perform) would have taken that peripheral part and done it any better?

I heard all the ridiculous criticism before viewing the film for the first time today and therefore kept waiting for a serious train wreck, but it never happened. Like I said, she did a fine job for a side character who's an unseasoned, slightly self-conscious, flirty teen.

To those who continue to rag on her performance: Get real.

reply

I think the criticism of this film is absurd and undue. Because it simply isn't as bad as people are making it out to be.

However Sophia was indeed cringe worthy especially when she was acting off Pacino who is a marvel as usual.

And yes, I think Ryder would've been infinitely better but still not good enough. I wish they had gotten Marisa Tomei instead who is:

1. Italian
2. looked like Pacino
3. a good actress
4. appropriate age to play the young Mary

reply

Yeah, I like this one more than Godfather II (of course the first one reigns supreme).

Marisa would've been great for sure, but Francis was in a tight spot after Ryder's unexpected sickness forced her to leave the production. Personally, I didn't have a problem with Sofia's performance whatsoever; I think she pulled off being an unseasoned, slightly self-conscious, flirty teen. Besides, it's a peripheral role, so it's not that important to the overall effect of the film.

reply

The thing about Sofia Coppola is that she has an extremely soft and breathless speaking voice. Her voice kind of reminds me of Liv Tyler's. I think that people immediately interpret Sofia as being unenthused and lacking in confidence when they hear her talk. And in return, Sofia is accused of giving a wooden and lackadaisical performance because she's so placid in her delivery.

reply

>>because she's so placid in her delivery.<<

Thus terribly miscast.

reply

In all honesty, I blame Francis Ford Coppola more than I blame Sofia. It's very hard to heap all of the blame on Sofia when she wasn't a trained actress to begin with and she was suddenly thrown into the frying pan by her father in this major, prestigious motion picture.

This is what Francis himself said:

https://etcanada.com/news/720147/francis-ford-coppola-reflects-on-sofia-coppolas-panned-godfather-part-iii-performance-my-daughter-took-the-bullet-for-me/

“Paramount had a list of many fine actresses who were older than I felt the character should be,” Francis added. “I wanted a teenager. I wanted the baby fat on her face.”


https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/hkefnh/why_was_sofia_coppolas_acting_in_the_godfather/

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Sofia-Coppolas-acting-in-The-Godfather-Part-III-so-bad

reply

Thanks for the insights.

reply

https://www.datalounge.com/thread/17306579-rebecca-schaeffer-was-supposed-to-audition-for-godfather-iii-the-day-she-died-true-tragic-on-many-levels

The part of Mary Corleone was originally very different from the how it ended up in the movie. The character was originally very Americanized, frisky, rebellious. Laura Giacomo was talked about as a possible replacement for Ryder, but she was passed over in favor of Sofia Coppola, who was not an actress at all, but WAS the daughter of Frances Ford Coppola. As played by Sofia Coppola (who had no ability to act) the character of Mary Corleone was changed into a passive turnip. Coppola said that he wanted to cast someone who looked like she could be the daughter of Al Pacino and Diane Keaton and his daughter certainly fit the bill, which proves what an insane case of nepotism that was. Anyway, casting his talentless daughter was a disaster and ruined the sub-plot concerning the love affair between Mary and her cousin Vincent, the illegitimate son of Sonny Corleone. As someone put it "they have fucked the love story."

I seem to recall hearing that Rebecca Schaeffer was in talks for a possible role in a Godfather movie. If she'd been cast as Mary Corleone I think she certainly would have been better than Sofia Coppola.

by Anonymous reply 16 February 10, 2019 2:38 AM

reply

his talentless daughter was a disaster


Yeah, right.

This is Exhibit A in overkill criticism. She simply wasn't that bad. I personally thought she fit the role, as already detailed.

As for being "talentless," she went on to write/direct greats (or near-greats) like "The Virgin Suicides," "Lost in Translation" and "Marie Antoinette." I'd hardly call that talentless.

reply

It was that love story between cousins that was cringe-inducing. It was unbelievable that Michael would know about it and not stop it cold as an infamnia.

reply

Please. Nobody uses the tired word "sheeple" anymore. So 90s

reply

"Please" and "nobody" are centuries older and yet you're using them.

reply

Her performance was not good but it doesn't destroy the film. It's a good film but not great. The first two films are among the greatest of all time so this film is a big step down. I still watch it and enjoy it, though.

reply

Yeah, her part is too peripheral to make or break the flick.

Part III is on par with Part II in tone and quality, but I give this one the edge in overall entertainment value. Michael (Pacino) has much more human dimension here as opposed to his one-note grim depiction in Part II. His scenes confessing his transgressions to a priest in a Vatican City garden and, later, Kay in Sicily are good examples. There are several other highlights amidst the drama, like the break-in scene at Vincent's abode, the Atlantic City massacre, the street festival hit, the entire closing opera sequence that juxtaposes the performances of the play with various violent attacks and the aftermath.

It doesn't rank up there with the first movie, which stands alone. But for anyone who's a fan of the first two films it's almost mandatory to see this one. It lacks the thrilling greatness of the first film, but it's about equal to the second, although I favor this one a little.

reply

I agree the role was way too small. On a sidenote, Im surprised no one talks about how stunning Sofia was in 1990.

reply

She was simply not a good actress and there is no shame in that. Convincing acting seems damn near impossible.

Sophia was stiff in her delivery, she felt awkward and I don’t think the script helped her at all.

She’s won or been nominated for a fair number of awards. I think being behind the camera is her ‘Captain’s Bridge.’ Not acting.

reply

Like I said, she did a fine job for a side character who's an unseasoned, slightly self-conscious, flirty teen. I had zero problem with her performance since Sofia fit the context. For those who do have a problem, it's not a big deal since her part is not a big enough to make or break the movie.

reply

******SPOILERS****

Her role was not peripheral, her demise destroyed Michael. They should have had a better actress, she was not good.

The script was pretty bad too.

reply

That's your opinion, Shogun. Story-wise, I prefer this one over "Godfather II," which means the script probably isn't quite as bad as you say.

How Mary's demise negatively affects a main character doesn't change the fact that she's a side character. Were Bruce Wayne's parents in the Batman storyline peripheral or not?

As you probably know, Winona Ryder was originally slated for the role of Mary, but had to cancel, which left Francis in a bind and so he chose his daughter because she was immediately available and he knew he could work closely with her. I'll take Sofia over Ryder. Respectable critics like Gary Franklin and Roger Ebert also had a positive view of Sofia in the movie, so I'm not alone in my perspective. By contrast, Ebert's coworker, Gene Siskel, lambasted her as being “out of her acting league,” as you did. Who's right, who's wrong?

The gross negative overreaction to Sofia's performance as Mary suggests that critics caught wind of her struggles behind the camera, smelled blood, and a critical feeding-frenzy naturally ensued. I hate to break it to them and you, but other more established actors sometimes struggle due to the pressure behind the scenes and even have total meltdowns. Why do you think Rick Dalton's meltdown in his trailer on set was included in "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood"? While these more iconic actors get a pass, Sofia is damned to suffer the full wrath of the press, no doubt because she just so happens to be the director's daughter and it makes for some good gossip in the biz.

I saw all three films back-to-back and was braced for Sofia's part being a total train wreck, but it never happened. It's a lie, a cinematic myth.

You obviously disagree and that's your prerogative.

reply

WELL SAID...I AGREE.

reply

Thanks, brah.

reply

I agree completely. She had two jobs and she did them well:

convince me she is Michael Corleone's loving daughter ✅

convince me she is a horned-up 19 year-old who lusts after the bad boy ✅

No, I think Francis Ford Coppola's ham-handed throwback references were a far greater problem in this film. And even that might have been Puzo's fault.

reply

Good points, Jack.

reply

100% agreed

reply

Her acting is cringeworthy. The whole cast in this movie are a+ including the little kids marching in the parade and her she comes, ruining everything when she is on screen. He motions and her speaking acting voice are like of that of a monotone cow. Her dad is one of the greatest directors of all time and he couldn’t direct his daughter to anything right in this film. It’s awful. There are so many actresses in Hollywood that are unknown or semi known that would have done leagues above her. It wasn’t that hard of a casting job for replacement. She literally ruined key moments in the film and had zero chemistry with Anthony Garcia who could have chemistry with a rabid swear rat. You could feel it from his side but her side was a white plaster board wall. It’s bad… I do feel bad for her and the criticism but she should have never agreed to be in a film that is a sequel to 2 greatest movies of all time with some of the greatest cast of all time when she had zero acting experience. She was stupid for doing this and so was her dad.

reply

Wow, overreact much? I thought she fit the role just fine and some key critics agree. I'll take Part III over Part II any day.

reply


I saw III once, which is enough for a lifetime. I won't watch it again. Different strokes they say..

But I agree about Sophia's acting. It was fine and not distracting one bit. When I saw the film, I was unaware of who she was.

I think people bitch simply because of nepotism. If she was not related to the director no one would have thought twice about her. The same thing happened on Everybody Loves Raymond with the character Amy. Turns out the actress is related to *someone* (not sure who) with the production of the show, and people say she was miscast. I thought she was perfect as Amy.

reply

Thanks for the input, strntz.

reply