MovieChat Forums > The Godfather Part III (1990) Discussion > Everything wrong with The Godfather Part...

Everything wrong with The Godfather Part III

posted 4 years ago by LiquidOcelot (2452)
3 replies | jump to latest

This could've been a great film if it wasn't for a few poor decisions.

1. Sofia Coppola - let's get her out the way. Awful in every scene. Winona Ryder would've been infinitely better in the role.

2. The singing in the beginning with Connie - goofy and cringe.

3. Michael Corleone didn't look the part - the Bart Simpson hairstyle, ill-fitting suits and hunched posture. The character lost its cool factor. They did a much better job with wardrobe in the 70's movies.

4. Michael Corleone didn't act the part - right from the beginning where he's making jokes about Tony Bennett I thought, this is not Michael Corleone. I get that there needs to be an evolution in the character, but not to this extent.

5. The whole sequence in the beginning with Michael and Kay talking about their son is poorly written with lines like - 'Tony knows you killed Fredo' and 'But you became my horror'. Just no subtlety or nuance at all.

6. Connie somehow becoming the vice Don, calling hits and assassinating Don Altobello. She was way too involved for someone who was just a side character in previous movies. It didn't feel natural at all. And that line 'Michael, now they will fear you'. Awful soap opera delivery.

7. 'My lucky coat!' - 'nuff said.

8. The use of the Raging Bull theme at the end - I know it wasn't an original piece but Raging Bull is such a well known and respected movie, it was a bit silly to use it here. All it did was remind me of a better movie.

Rant over.

[–] LiquidOcelot (2452) 6 months ago

Bump.

[–] redban (6754) 4 months ago

I just watched, or tried to watch (I shut it off at the 1hr mark). I agree with you . The movie just doesn’t feel like a Godfather movie. Pacino gives a performance that feels like an amalgam of his characters in Scarface, Carlito’s Way, and Scent of a Woman. I did not feel like I was watching Michael Corleone when I watched Pacino in this movie

Maybe the issue is that so much time passed between 1972/1974 and 1990. both Pacino and Francis Ford Coppola likely couldn’t recapture what they did in 1972 and 1974 because they themselves were so different from who they were 16-18 years prior. Pacino should have rewatched footage of his performance in the first two films to make sure he’s doing the same character on-screen, and Coppola should have rewatched to make sure he’s rendering the same Godfather universe

The other issue I had is that the story just seemed so dull. Michael sold off his casinos, he’s trying to go legitimate, and he has nothing to do with the criminal business. That story is just not as much fun to watch as his rise and fall as the Don, in Parts I and II. My impression is that Copolla told the story in Parts I and II, and there was nothing left to say or show us. So they strained themselves to conjure this story just to pump out a Part III

I thought Andy Garcia was good and had potential, but his efforts couldn’t save this movie.

[–] ak47wong (637) 4 months ago

Completely agree, and I'll add a few more:

9. The whole plot involving Immobiliare and the Vatican just isn't interesting.

10. Unlike the baptism scene in GF1, the intercutting opera finale of GF3 is a mess.

11. The donkey noises. What up with that??

12. The emotional climax of the movie played out on the steps of the opera house does not work for me AT ALL. I was never convinced by Pacino's performance here. That face he makes for a full minute while everyone else takes turns staring at him quizzically. The editing is so clunky and ham fisted it makes the scene comical instead of dramatic.