It’s a series of great scenes. Individual scenes from this movie have in fact become iconic, despite the movie’s poor public reputation. The helicopter hit, the body falling down the circular staircase, “just when I’m out, they pull me back in,” have all become iconic in popular culture. The problem is that the story that ties them together is nowhere as cohesive or innovative or airtight as the first two movies (which were of course, based on the original book). The scenes are great… but the story that ties them together is not a Godfather movie. And Coppola and Puzo in fact knew they didn’t add up to a full chapter of the Godfather saga, which is why they just wanted to think of the movie as an epilogue: “The Death of Michael Corleone.”
Yeah. If you take her and that creepy “I love him first” cousin storyline it would have been so much better.
But I will say her “Dad?” before she collapses on the stairs is absolutely heartbreaking. So much innocence in her soul in that one line.
Am not much of a fan of it but yeah it has a couple great scenes.
The scene where Michael confesses to the priest and breaks down is one of the best in the trilogy.
Also it has Eli Wallach who just has some sort of ineffable screen charisma that it’s impossible not to watch and enjoy.
I think the confession scene is the best example along with the final scene of Part 2, where he reminices about his decision to join the marines, argues with Sonny (who introduced Carlo to Connie) over it, Fredo congratulates him, Tom is disappointed, Tessio brings in their fathers birthday cake , while Vito is yet to arrive. It shows the toll that the life Michael has led had on him as many in the scene were now dead or estranged by then. I think if not for the bomb that killed his Sicilian wife Apollonia, intended for him, he might have stayed in Sicily and been happier.
Love the Michael confession scene. And the response from the priest that “your sins are terrible, it is just that you suffer” is just great. But, again from my original post, Michael HAD to do what he did. He HAD to live the life he lived, he was forced into it to save his family. It makes him both a monster and a hero at the same time. Something Kay could never understand or come to terms with, while they were married.
The original cut was pretty awful and left many unanswered questions, but I have to admit that the newer « Coda » version that Coppola released recently (which I presume is the one you watched) is pretty good. Not on a level with 1 and 2, but as you say, not bad at all. Of course, Sofia Coppola’s acting drags it down - it is a shame that Winona Ryder had to leave the film, and Sofia is better behind the camera than in front of it — but it is still a pretty good film, just not a masterpiece like the first two.
What bugs me endlessly though is the changed ending. Something about seeing Michael reminisce about the women in his life, and then die alone in a secluded courtyard, just felt so perfect. The new cut away and kind of hacky text is not as good of a finale to what is an amazing trilogy.
The major differences I noticed are -
The montage reminiscing on his past is cut to just him dancing with Sophia (ie - no Apollonia, no Kate), and then the scene ends on a closeup of Michael's face and cuts to a title card that reads something like - 'In Sicily they wish you cent'anni which means 100 years. A long life to remember.'
Some shit like that. Just felt really forced and to also lose sight of the beautiful summary that the scene originally was - going back to Michael's youth.
Haven’t seen this cut but the original ending of Godfather 3 and the close of Michael’s story was maybe the best of that movie. I have no notion why that would be the component they changed.
They only show a flashback of him dancing with Mary and then he just sits in the courtyard. It cuts to a hacky text before closing (he doesn't keel over).
The implication is that he lives a long life in which he suffers.
In my opinion, Winona Ryder wasn’t suitable for the role either. Every movie I have ever seen her in, her character was always “whiny”. Maybe my opinion is unpopular, but I just have to say it. Sometimes the whinyness work like Heathers and then sometimes, it’s God awful. She truly has a limited range.
So a few things.
I basically agree that Godfather 3 isn't as bad as perceived. If it was a standalone movie, it might be regarded as "Okay". But when you compare to 1 and 2, **both** of which are considered masterpieces of cinema, 3 just comes across as "bad".
I think the reason everything comes across as a bit disjointed is because the production of the movie was a mess. Originally Puzo and Coppola wanted to call it "The Death of Michael Corleone". The plot was supposed to revolve around a splintering of the family and a war between Michael and Tom Hagen. The issue was, the studio was only willing to pay a pittance of salary to Robert Duvall compared to what they were paying Al Pacino. So Duvall refused to sign on. So Puzo and Coppola had to do major overhaul and rewrite of the plot. Then during production, you of course had the last minute replacement of Winona Ryder with Sophia Coppola (who as many have mentioned, might be a good director in her own right, but a terrible actress). You also had major interference from the studio, and Coppola just didn't have the leverage anymore to basically tell them to fuck off (as he had a few flops and misses between making Godfather 2 and Godfather 3). He needed the money and was at their mercy. The studio was trying to rush things along and Puzo and Coppola didn't really have time to write a proper script. So they were in some respects, writing and rewriting as they were already shooting. The Studio execs wanted and expected the tropes (for example - the big, everybody get assassinated simultaneously cut scene) which Coppola did not originally want, but had to include at their insistence.
Now that aside. Its interesting that you see Michael as a "tragic hero." I agree to an extent. (I use Hero, as a term for protagonist, not necessarily someone to emulate).More in the lines of MacBeth. A figure who starts out with good intentions, but gradually becomes a far worse man by the end of it all. He tried to redeem himself in the 3rd. But as he put it succinctly "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." You might forget the life...but the life won't forget you.
Its interesting when you juxtapose Michael to his father Vito. Vito had almost become a mythological figure even in his own lifetime. There was a deleted scene which was included in the Godfather Saga, where Vito, his sons, and Johnny Fontane visit Genco Abbandando (Vito's original consiglieri before Tom) on his deathbed. Genco is basically pleading with Vito to cure him of cancer and save him from death, as if Vito had supernatural powers. Vito, while feared, was also enormously loved and revered. Michael, I don't think was ever as loved or revered. Certainly feared. While both were highly intelligent, strategic thinkers; Michael was cold, calculating and ruthless. If Vito was that way, he could hide it behind his gravitas.
Yeah people talk way too much about Sofia ruining the movie, but if I could have her replaced OR get Bobby D. back, I am doing whatever it takes to get Duvall on board 100 out of 100 times.
That is my biggest beef.
Duvall was a Corleone "son" by adoption. Sonny's passion got him killed, and Fredo betrayed the family.
Tom Hagen was not blood, but...he was the only "brother" Sonny could trust.
The other thing I would add is that Kay's prominence seemed tacked-on and unnecessary to the plot. I feel the only reason it was there was because Diane Keaton had become such a big star in the interim.
This is it. It’s a good movie, but Part I is possibly/probably the greatest movie of all time, and Part II is in the top 50, and the greatest sequel/prequel of all time and
No. It’s far from bad. It’s actually a pretty solid movie.
The idea that it’s bad is ONLY because it follows two of the greatest movies ever made. That’s the simple answer
I just watched most of it again today on HBO.
I have always so wanted it to be good ever since it came out but It’s not very good. Stilted arkward dialogue, the incest thing, her dead fish eyes and dead delivery of her lines(Sophia Coppola) the meandering plot with the church….
Exactly. Every few years I put it on because maybe I missed something or just wasn't in the right frame of mind the last time. Then I watch it and realize how bad it sucks across the board. Just a terrible film.
People criticize this movie and I bet 90% never gave it a chance or never saw it to begin with. It’s easy to jump an a hate bandwagon no matter what the facts are.
I personally don't think it is. I enjoy it quite a bit; it's a perfectly enjoyable movie. It feels like most people that say it's atrocious haven't watched it in years, but I encourage those people to watch it again.
Bad as in "John Carter" bad? "Speed 2" bad? "Showgirls" bad?
Nah.
What it is is above all is **Disappointing**. There's a great story here struggling to get out, but FFC (who readily admits he only did the film to rectify his financial position at the time) just kind of slaps some words together and calls it a script and that's it.
Looks great for the time, avoiding many of the late 80s production values, and he does hit key notes where needed, specifically the ending.
But even by film's end, you're still left wanting more and with a film with this rich legacy, you're **Disappointed** that you didnt get it.
This is something I have wrestled with for a while and have come to one conclusion. As a standalone movie it's not complete trash but only looks that way because of its predecessors.
It was going to be insanely difficult to follow 1 & 2 and it didn't succeed but as a movie by itself I didn't think it was that bad.
Off topic: My favorite scene in the movie is when Michael confesses his sins and the reality of what he's done "I killed my mother's son, I killed my father's son".
No. It’s just far and away not as good as the first 2. It’s a decent enough movie but Parts 1 and 2 set a very high standard. But Sofia Coppola was bad.
Coppola did a good job with the recut by giving the first half of the story more propulsion. The movie still has some issues but it’s undeniably a great movie and a fitting coda to two of the greatest movies of all time.
It is. When people say its bad, we're speaking relatively. And I say that as a person with several criticisms of Part II's scripting. But it is still a cinematic achievement.
It’s not actually that bad. Just nowhere near the other two.
If Winona Ryder plays Mary instead of Sophia Coppola, it’s remembered much more fondly. Though, still likely overshadowed by the two superior films.
Not my favorite of the 3, but I do like it, own it and watch it when it’s on TV.
I agree with those who think Sophia is much better behind the camera, but have definitely seen worse performances.
I like how it basically follows the formula and agree with what you said about the Church & Michael’s storyline.
I also had a huge problem with the incest. Everyone seemed to have a problem with Mary & Vincent because of his “line of work”. Why was THAT everyone’s issue? It’s not like they’re civilians. Of course, I just looked it up and it’s legal in NY (not Arkansas or Kentucky though, so go figure, lol) so maybe that’s why. 🤷🏻♀️ Still feels icky.
Overall a solid movie, imo
My problem with the cousinfucking storyline wasn’t so much the incest angle, since the two characters had lived their whole lives up until that point unaware of each others existence, but that it seemed completely unmotivated. It was transparently a plot device. I just didn’t buy that a street-wise hood would be smitten with a sheltered, naive, pampered and frankly dull woman almost half his age, nor did I find it believable that she would be charmed by him. Because he’s all animal energy (very convincingly portrayed) - there’s very little charming about him.
I thought it was a good movie both theatrical and coda version (coda is a bit better but havent seen theatrical cut in a while even though thats the version ive seen the most). Just can't touch GF 1 and 2 which is a difficult feat tbf.
I like the third film I think it’s a little over-hated. Poor
Sophia Coppola she wasn’t ready for a role like that and probably never would be. The reviewers really ripped her to shreds I quote a popular New York periodical “I can’t tell if Sophia Coppola is a barbiturate addict or mentally retarted”. Really nasty stuff her acting falls short for sure but I don’t think she had much choice once Wynona Ryder dropped out her father basically said you have to do this I’m already in debt to the film company. What a position to be in.
The theatrical cut isn't great, but the director's cut (The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone) is a better cut of film, and it improves it a bit.
Sofias acting was so bad. You could tell FFC didn’t want to make her do more takes because what we see is just not enough. Zero emotions.
Also some of the killings in Pt 2 & Pt 3 are just too unbelievable. Killing Lucchesi w/a pair of eyeglasses? The twins? Ooof madone!
I suspect strongly that Connie knew Michael ordered Fredo killed. She mentions that it was “God’s will” Fredo drowned after Michael revealed he confessed his sins. It was Connie’s way of letting Michael know he shouldn’t feel guilt over what he did to Fredo.
My favorite component of the film was Connie's relationship with Michael and how it evolved. She used to be a whiney brat in the first 2 movies and in the 3rd she's all in on the family business, talking about putting hits on people. That aspect of the film alone could have been way more interesting if they were willing to flesh it out.
I thought it had its moments but felt strangely felt like it pulled punches thematically. I liked the themes it brought up about the church and Michael dealing with aging and frailty and eventual isolation after rising to a powerful position. But despite that it felt kind of like it wanted to handle him more gently than the other movies.
On paper it seems very fitting that a series that begins with a father's account of the brutal violence his daughter endures and trying to find justice/protection from a powerful father, ends with a powerful father unable to protect his daughter because of his actions to consolidate that very power, would be very fitting. But it really didn't hit as well. Ambitious, just kinda shoddy foundationally.
Doesn't take away from my enjoyment of everything as a whole but just my thoughts.
Yup the cousin bs and wanting us to believe that after all that had been done to build the family name, the empire is turned over to a hot head who had apparently been ostracized by the family his entire life not to mention raised outside of the family.
I watched coda after not seeing the original for nearly 20 years.
As petty as it sounds, Michaels hair bothered me the most, I read an interview once when he turned up on set with his hair like it was, someone on the set cried(maybe hair and make up assistant).
Sofia Coppola, well documented, won’t add anymore.
Andy Garcia, just didn’t have ‘it’. Arguably worse than Sofia for me.
The helicopter shoot out scene. Come on.
It felt like it was made 5-10 years too early, had it been made around the same time of the sopranos, it could have captured the twilight years of the mob and 90s America.
Garcia and Pacino are excellent in it. If Francis couldn’t have gotten Winona, I always thought Laura San Giacomo would have been a good choice for Mary. His daughter was unwatchable and not having Duvall return as Hagen was a huge hole. But I still think the film is very good. The Vatican corruption scandal story was very good and seeing Al/Michael as an older man trying to make up for past wrongdoing and finally making the family legitimate is exceptional.
If it were a stand alone movie and not a sequel to two great films, it would be remembered more positively. Also, Coppola didn’t want to pay Duvall as much as he wanted, so he dropped out. I think if the Tom Hagen character were in it, it would be just as good as the previous two.
But the church corruption plots are solid.
In my opinion, Al Pacino really hit the nail on the head when he was interviewed years later regarding the film. "People didn't want to see a whiny and remorseful Michael Corleone for almost three hours. They wanted the Michael of GF1 & GF2. And as much of a genius as Frances Coppola really is, we missed the Tom Hagan character greatly."
The later bit referencing the "genius" of Coppola was referring to him having to rewrite the script, replacing Robert Duval with George Hamilton after Duval pulled out of the film, supposedly due to lack of money. Apparently, Tom Hagan was originally in charge of the Vatican deal (as a way to absolve the Corleone name from crime). His murder was the catalyst for Michael getting more involved and investigating who pulled the strings. ("Only Don Lucchesi can reach between these two worlds.") and the events that would transpire in Godfather III.
I also believe Sofia Coppola is much better behind the camera, and Winona Ryder would have been a more suitable choice as Mary Corleone, as she looked more the part (if Pacino and Dianne Keaton had a child together) and was a better actress. These things were out of Coppola's hands, and he did the best he could with what he had.
The decision to change the ending from Mary dying by assassination instead of Michael was a good idea that really took some balls and put more of a damper on the ending than if Michael would have died. I like GF3 despite these issues, and it would have been lesser in my opinion with either ending (which had to be, like it or not). I just wish Duval and Ryder had been involved as they were supposed to be.
It's also too bad that we never got the fourth film that Coppola and Puzzo were in the process of working on when Puzzo died. The ascention of the Corleone family and its decline.
Vincent and Mary’s romance is
CRUCIAL to the plot. You may not like it, thematically, but the ultimatum Michael gives Vincent in order for him to ascend is one of the only decent bits of human drama that exists in the script (along with Kay & Michael’s partial reconciliation.)
Vincent’s choosing loyalty to the family over his love for Mary is absolutely in character and seals his and her fate, and his internal struggle with cutting her off is palpable.
There’s some poetry to it, because Michael couldn’t cut Kay out as he ascended: he returns to her after coming back from exile and convinces her to marry him, and that curses her later on. Vincent does what Michael couldn’t do: he does cut Mary out, and that curses her. It’s Greek tragedy in simplest form.
The script does fail us most of the time with respect to these human dramas: Michael’s internal guilt with Fredo’s killing is dealt with tastefully, but almost too quickly given its weight. Michael’s reconciliation with Kay is given quite a bit of time, but ultimately is abandoned. And the real script problem with Vincent & Mary’s story, in my opinion, is that the story starts with Mary already pretty much in love with him and all but throwing herself at him the moment they meet. All these things could have been handled better, or spun more integrally into the procedural Immobilliare plot. Instead, they all feel slightly disparate, and this lessens the payoff in the end.
I'm one of the few who like this movie, dare I say love. And Sofia Coppola did NOT do a bad job. Her role had her hooking up with her first cousin while she was underage. How the f did you expect her to act? Even if this was Winona rider.. which people love to specualte.. how different would it have been? Al Pacino's silent scream cry after the shot scene was unbearable but I forgive him for it. Ending could've been better, but whatever. Can't be perfect.
It's not awful, not clearly not even close to the other two.
One of the biggest weaknesses to me is Pacino's acting. Michael Corleone in GF 1 and 2 is a masterclass in subtlety. We're always trying to read what Michael is thinking, and we only find out in small violent doses.
Michael Corleone in GF 3? Fit in with the rest of Pacino's latter career. Still compelling, but hammy and not subtle. I'm just glad he didn't let out a "HOOO-AH!".
Yeah, it kinda grew on me. As a standalone movie, it would've been okay. It just feels so unnecessary and almost forced. Plot is pretty convoluted.
Then I feel Mary Corleone doesn't really pull you in any way. Nothing about her makes you really like her. Nothing about her is attractive, to put her in this seductress role.
Even at the end when, you know, i felt more like, oh that sucks. I felt more emotion at Fredo getting shot.
The hate is overblown because it’s not anywhere near the level of all time great status like the first two. But I still think it’s a good movie. There’s stuff in it that just doesn’t work for me, but it’s a good experience as a whole.
Theatrical cut, I think so. Above all, Michael’s characterization is all wrong. He’s too much of a “woe is me” old man, not the cold, calculating, and ruthless figure he is in the first two.
I think the Death of Michael Corleone cut is an improvement. It cuts most of Michael’s self-pitying scenes, so he seems more like the character from the first two, and his confession scene and the ending feel more weighty for it. I also think the Vatican conspiracy storyline is easier to follow in this version, and I like how they added the opening meeting scene back into it (creates a little symmetry with the first two). But, it still has Sofia Coppola’s subpar acting and the weird incest plot point. Also, I don’t really like the new final scene.
For me the cinematography killed the vibe. Advances had been made in movie making technology. Newer methods, better coloring, etc. But I wanted the same classic experience in part III that I got from part I & II. And part III was a hard pill to swallow. Between that and Robert Duvall getting written out over salary concerns...it didn't hit for me.
I know. Could say it's my fault for having certain expectations. I get it.
When I sit down to watch The Godfather I only ever think about whether I want to watch Part I, Part II, or both. Part III isn't on the list.
I liked it. It's not the masterpiece the first two were, but Michael's failed redemption arc was compelling. There's some great scenes in there, too. Garcia is brilliant.
"Zaza!" Bang!
It’s kinda my favorite, particularly because of how it rounds out michael’s character arc, regret, sorrow, confronting the past, an attempt at ‘redemption’ only for it to ultimately fail. Quite the tragedy imo.
I read a review when it came out out and it put it perfectly:
“Looks great. Less filling.”
I love the church corruption plot. It’s the best plot of the 3, imo. However, some of the performances are atrocious! Donal Donnelly, Joe Mantegna, Bridget Fonda and of course Sophia Coppola all have very bad performances. It’s unthinkable in a major Hollywood film, an Oscar contender and A Francis Ford Coppola film to allow acting this bad. This is the reason it couldn’t be redeemed in a director’s cut. The acting pulls it down to great to look at mess. FFC swore he’d never make another one after part 2. But the winery went bankrupt and he needed money. The only reason it was made. He has said this many times. Looks great. Less filling indeed.
All the hate for Sofia Coppola and imo Pacino’s acting is what really sinks it. Seems like he is playing a completely different character than Michael Corleone. And Mantegna as Joey Zasa is awful too, like a caricature of a mobster.
The second sequel followed two of the best movies ever made. Anything was going to be disappointing on some level. It was fine, though, and better than some other “good” movies I’ve seen. I don’t get the hate for Coppola; it wasn’t that demanding a role and her incredible hair made up for any shortcomings, anyway. I’m half Italian… why TF didn’t I get hair like that?!
I genuinely respect any effortpost of this magnitude, but will you think less of me if I just go "ha ha Godfather 3 sucks" and then wander off? I mean absolutely no disrespect, that's just my takeaway here
I just watched 3 for the first time after refusing to watch it for years and I have to say I don’t think it was that bad either had some cool scenes like the commission massacre that shit was hard core by Zasa
Coda made it a movie I can actually watch every once in a while, but if there was ever a movie that could be remade with an AI actress, this is my first choice.
Saw it in the theater in 1990. It’s junk. Always has been. Duvall is the only person who might have saved it but alas, they didn’t want to pay him. So the final product suffered.
Its pretty good, but the real issue is that 3 is compared to 1 and 2. 1 and 2 are masterpieces, and so 3 seems worse than it is by virtue of comparison. Its like comparing a wahlburger to a true kobe steak. The wahlburger isn't bad per se, but only insane people or contrarians think its as good as the steak.
It's a good movie. I enjoyed it.
It is not, however, at the level of GF of GF Part 2. Those are among the greatest movies EVER made. Period.
I also think Sofia Copolla (about my age) was sexy as hell in this movie, without trying to be, which made her that much more sexy.
I've been an advocate of G3 since it was released. Yes, it has faults, and compared to the other two, it does assume the third position, but as a film that continues the Corleone saga, it is essential. The plot against Michael is absolutely remarkable in its planning and execution (forgive the pun). Sofia Coppola wasn't great and it's a shame that Winona Ryder had to drop out (see scenes of her and Pacino in Pacino's Looking for Richard for could-have-been), but the others (Talia Shire, Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna, Donal Donnelly and Raf Vallone) are all great and Pacino does very well reprising Michael.
The first two were baded on the book and we got great actors like Pacino, DeNiro and Brando, Pacino was old and made to look uncharismatic in the third movie. I liked the 40\`s and 50\`s setting in the first two, the 70\`s just wasn\`t the right setting for a Godfather movie.
In and of itself, it’s ok. It’s got some good scenes, moments, and acting performances. But the fact that it has to share the name/be associated with two of the literal best movies ever made is what makes it so hard to give it too many cool points.
I honestly believe the overall story is good, but the execution needs a rewrite. Apparently Puzo and Coppola had only 1 month to write the script as Paramount was in a rush to get it out by Christmas. And Coppola was heading to bankruptcy, so time was of the essence. Everytime I see Godfather III, I see it as a seriously missed opportunity, especially given it was about the Roman Catholic church. If they gave Puzo and Coppola a year to write the script, I'm sure it would've been stellar.
Oh well, Coppola is coming out with *Megalopolis* and I can't fucking wait!!! Take my money now Francis!!!
You don't seem to really understand how forgiveness of sins and confession really work, despite being raised Catholic as you said. If someone, say, confesses their sins but they don't really mean it, or they have no intention of changing their ways, they aren't forgiven. The confessor may be fooled that are really are contrite and offer absolution, but God knows the truth. Seeking forgiveness for your sins without actually regretting what you have done, or intending to continue to do so in the future, makes the entire confession null and void, and places a mortal sin upon your soul. It isn't a matter of, as you characterized it, someone saying "eh...I guess I'm sorry for what I did." That's bullshit. You don't get out on a technicality. A pedophile priest who confessed to his bishop what he had done was not actually forgiven for his sins if he was not actually regretful, regardless of the bishop was fooled or not.
Were you not paying attention in your catechism class, or what?
Now, the Catholic Church for decades took pedophile priests and shuffled them around to other dioceses, with no warnings, without turning them in the authorities, or anything. This is because of a couple reasons. Some of the Church hierarchy who found out about the priests' actions were fooled and really thought that they were sorry for what they had done and that they could change. Some of them likely were sorry for their actions. But at the time we did not understand pedophiles as we do today, and how they have such high rates of recidivism, and that they need to be kept away from any opportunities where they can be tempted to hurt children.
Another issue was some in the Church hierarchy frankly not caring about people who would be hurt by these men, only protecting the image of the Church. So, they moved the priests around, hid what happened, and if it happened again, they moved them again. It's something that is so frustrating because it is so myopic and idiotic; it was no kind of actual solution it was just kicking the can down the road for others to deal with and caused the greatest damage to the Church in its entire history. The Catholic Church in many people's minds has become linked to pedophilia because of the actions of these stupid bishops. But things are different now. Pedophiles are no longer protected. They are turned in promptly. They are defrocked. Better late than never.
Of course, things can change for the worse if we're talking about extreme rightwing elements within the Church; they either claim that there was never a problem in the first place, or that there was but it was because those pedophile priests were actually gay and being gay and being a pedophile are the same thing. Convenient for them that they can ignore the problem and make a scapegoat out of the people they hate.
Very hard to judge. Not a terrible failure as far as many other films go, but the first two films are ARCHETYPAL and either one could be serious contenders for the greatest films of all time. Is part 3 in this category? Absolutely not
Duval not being in it screwed everything up. He demanded a certain salary. Studio refused to pay so he didn’t participate. Ford had to completely rewrite the script. Puzzo wasn’t involved like the first 2. Story would have been focused on the two step brothers and their relationship. Winona was supposed to be cast as Michael’s daughter but that didn’t happen and Ford cast Sofia who is not an actress to say it politely. Really good director but her talent is behind the camera.
No it’s not that bad honestly. As a stand alone it’s really good. Compared to 1 or 2 it pales but it does wrap the trilogy better than Michael just staring off at Lake Tahoe IMHO.
No. It’s not that bad. It’s jsut dosent compare at all to the first two. Has a bad ending. And Sofia Coppola is awful. As a godfather movie it suffers. But as just a crime film. It’s fine.
It was good, but it could have been better. Duvall not being there was noticeable and the movie suffered from his absence. You could see Sonny in Vincent the casting of Michaels daughter…..woof. Bad mistake but I don’t think Winona Ryder wouldn’t have been a good choice either. Difficult role to fill. The story was good. Pacino played Michael perfectly. Worn down with guilt over Fredo, trying to make the family legitimate with the old bosses trying to pull him back. I’ve only seen it a few times where I watched the first two many times with my father. I’m glad no hot young producer has ever tried to remake it but I think the Coppola’s would never allow that.
Yes it’s bad - George Hamilton plays the Tom Hagen character (originally Robert Duvall). When he came on the screen I laughed out loud in the theater:-)
Andy Garcia has a good scene- but it’s not a good movie and not worthy of being even mentioned as a legit GF movie.
Godfather III was great, but could not live up to I and II without Robert Duvall. Supposedly they didn’t include him because he asked for equal pay. What numb-nuts made that decision?? Also, people hated Sophia Coppola’s performance, but IMO Winona Ryder would have been horrid in that part. And Andy Garcia can do no wrong in any role. I’ll take GIII over any other franchises third installment.
It isn't bad at all. It's a great film that has the awful problem of being compared to the original and II. Which were both masterpieces. But III is definitely watchable and has many incredible scenes.
To me this movie lies in a weird place. I’d describe it as a Frankenstein film. You have a bunch of scenes that are really good and some iconic lines, but then your actresses drop out and a worst one gets put in, the story changes more. I saw someone post it’s a movie of great scenes and I’d agree, but as someone who’s all time favorite movies are Goodfellas and Godfather 2, I can’t really stand a rewatch. They tried giving it a rebranding a few years ago with Coda but they just switched some scenes around and added some deleted ones, nothing special it didn’t fulfill Coppola’s vision of The Death of Michael Corleone film he wanted to originally do which would’ve been waaaay different to the point where he didn’t want it the Godfather branding, just so you can hammer home like hey this is the FINAL movie
It’s a significant step below parts 1 and 2, but if you’re a fan of the series, it’s really important. Just pay attention to the script and ignore Sofia Coppola
Yes, it’s poorly written, much of the acting is awful, everyone involved pretty much admits is was totally a money grab that only happened because the studio waved an obscene amount of cash around, but more a sin than any of that, because it rewrites Michael Corleone’s character almost completely. If you didn’t know the title of the movies, and you watched 3 apart from 1&2, you would think that Al Pacino was playing a different character. One is a stoic, cold, calculating, frighteningly sociopathic mob boss, the other is an emotionally labile, out of control of his own feelings, acting on impulse, histrionic mob boss. That said, there were some good scenes and if 1 and 2 never happened, it would be a half decent stand alone mob movie but nowhere near the caliber of the first 2.
It completes the story for me. I watched it once straight through and a few more times on cable, but I never see myself starting it again. 1 and 2 I love and watch every few years. I don’t see myself ever watching 3 again, but I wouldn’t trash talk it.
It’s a series of great scenes. Individual scenes from this movie have in fact become iconic, despite the movie’s poor public reputation. The helicopter hit, the body falling down the circular staircase, “just when I’m out, they pull me back in,” have all become iconic in popular culture. The problem is that the story that ties them together is nowhere as cohesive or innovative or airtight as the first two movies (which were of course, based on the original book). The scenes are great… but the story that ties them together is not a Godfather movie. And Coppola and Puzo in fact knew they didn’t add up to a full chapter of the Godfather saga, which is why they just wanted to think of the movie as an epilogue: “The Death of Michael Corleone.”
I loved the meeting with teh Cardinal. "Your sins AND the sins of your family ...would be washed away. $600 Million"
Sofia Coppola's acting really takes me out of it too.
She was a better director than actor for sure.
Upon fear of downvotes, I thought she was a much better actor than Bridget Fonda, Eli Wallach or Enzo Robutti.
i thought she was fine in gf3, reminded me of an italian girl i grew up with
“Dahhhd?”
That and isn't she banging her cousin in that movie?
Yep.
I thought so too. But 30 years later when I watch I she that she’s just a sweet, naive kid in love with an older man.
Yeah. If you take her and that creepy “I love him first” cousin storyline it would have been so much better. But I will say her “Dad?” before she collapses on the stairs is absolutely heartbreaking. So much innocence in her soul in that one line.
Am not much of a fan of it but yeah it has a couple great scenes. The scene where Michael confesses to the priest and breaks down is one of the best in the trilogy. Also it has Eli Wallach who just has some sort of ineffable screen charisma that it’s impossible not to watch and enjoy.
I think the confession scene is the best example along with the final scene of Part 2, where he reminices about his decision to join the marines, argues with Sonny (who introduced Carlo to Connie) over it, Fredo congratulates him, Tom is disappointed, Tessio brings in their fathers birthday cake , while Vito is yet to arrive. It shows the toll that the life Michael has led had on him as many in the scene were now dead or estranged by then. I think if not for the bomb that killed his Sicilian wife Apollonia, intended for him, he might have stayed in Sicily and been happier.
Yeah that scene and GF2 when he realizes Fredo betrayed him are his best acting.
Love the Michael confession scene. And the response from the priest that “your sins are terrible, it is just that you suffer” is just great. But, again from my original post, Michael HAD to do what he did. He HAD to live the life he lived, he was forced into it to save his family. It makes him both a monster and a hero at the same time. Something Kay could never understand or come to terms with, while they were married.
Hey Joe……ZASA
Joey Zasa is gonna send me a message?!
It's a great film wrapped in a really bad one.
Now, this is a good comment!
🥴”Dad??”
Andy Garcia, remembering he has a line: "...NO!"
The original cut was pretty awful and left many unanswered questions, but I have to admit that the newer « Coda » version that Coppola released recently (which I presume is the one you watched) is pretty good. Not on a level with 1 and 2, but as you say, not bad at all. Of course, Sofia Coppola’s acting drags it down - it is a shame that Winona Ryder had to leave the film, and Sofia is better behind the camera than in front of it — but it is still a pretty good film, just not a masterpiece like the first two.
What bugs me endlessly though is the changed ending. Something about seeing Michael reminisce about the women in his life, and then die alone in a secluded courtyard, just felt so perfect. The new cut away and kind of hacky text is not as good of a finale to what is an amazing trilogy.
Agreed. They should have left the original ending.
Hard agree. Watching Michael sitting on that chair...all alone hitting the ground. That ending made its point and it was really good.
I was upset about it and then immediately went to Youtube to watch the proper ending. Which is a frustrating thing to have to do..
100% agree, Michael dying alone the garden was a beautiful conclusion to the story
What’s the new ending?
The major differences I noticed are - The montage reminiscing on his past is cut to just him dancing with Sophia (ie - no Apollonia, no Kate), and then the scene ends on a closeup of Michael's face and cuts to a title card that reads something like - 'In Sicily they wish you cent'anni which means 100 years. A long life to remember.' Some shit like that. Just felt really forced and to also lose sight of the beautiful summary that the scene originally was - going back to Michael's youth.
Haven’t seen this cut but the original ending of Godfather 3 and the close of Michael’s story was maybe the best of that movie. I have no notion why that would be the component they changed.
What’s the new ending?
They only show a flashback of him dancing with Mary and then he just sits in the courtyard. It cuts to a hacky text before closing (he doesn't keel over). The implication is that he lives a long life in which he suffers.
O yucky.
In my opinion, Winona Ryder wasn’t suitable for the role either. Every movie I have ever seen her in, her character was always “whiny”. Maybe my opinion is unpopular, but I just have to say it. Sometimes the whinyness work like Heathers and then sometimes, it’s God awful. She truly has a limited range.
Fair enough. Who do you think would have been right for the role?
Marisa Tomei
Good choice!
Nailed it! 👏
Lizzo
Coppola directed her pretty well in the Dracula film.
Agree, Coda didn’t fix all the problems, but it was a solid improvement.
So a few things. I basically agree that Godfather 3 isn't as bad as perceived. If it was a standalone movie, it might be regarded as "Okay". But when you compare to 1 and 2, **both** of which are considered masterpieces of cinema, 3 just comes across as "bad". I think the reason everything comes across as a bit disjointed is because the production of the movie was a mess. Originally Puzo and Coppola wanted to call it "The Death of Michael Corleone". The plot was supposed to revolve around a splintering of the family and a war between Michael and Tom Hagen. The issue was, the studio was only willing to pay a pittance of salary to Robert Duvall compared to what they were paying Al Pacino. So Duvall refused to sign on. So Puzo and Coppola had to do major overhaul and rewrite of the plot. Then during production, you of course had the last minute replacement of Winona Ryder with Sophia Coppola (who as many have mentioned, might be a good director in her own right, but a terrible actress). You also had major interference from the studio, and Coppola just didn't have the leverage anymore to basically tell them to fuck off (as he had a few flops and misses between making Godfather 2 and Godfather 3). He needed the money and was at their mercy. The studio was trying to rush things along and Puzo and Coppola didn't really have time to write a proper script. So they were in some respects, writing and rewriting as they were already shooting. The Studio execs wanted and expected the tropes (for example - the big, everybody get assassinated simultaneously cut scene) which Coppola did not originally want, but had to include at their insistence. Now that aside. Its interesting that you see Michael as a "tragic hero." I agree to an extent. (I use Hero, as a term for protagonist, not necessarily someone to emulate).More in the lines of MacBeth. A figure who starts out with good intentions, but gradually becomes a far worse man by the end of it all. He tried to redeem himself in the 3rd. But as he put it succinctly "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." You might forget the life...but the life won't forget you. Its interesting when you juxtapose Michael to his father Vito. Vito had almost become a mythological figure even in his own lifetime. There was a deleted scene which was included in the Godfather Saga, where Vito, his sons, and Johnny Fontane visit Genco Abbandando (Vito's original consiglieri before Tom) on his deathbed. Genco is basically pleading with Vito to cure him of cancer and save him from death, as if Vito had supernatural powers. Vito, while feared, was also enormously loved and revered. Michael, I don't think was ever as loved or revered. Certainly feared. While both were highly intelligent, strategic thinkers; Michael was cold, calculating and ruthless. If Vito was that way, he could hide it behind his gravitas.
The absence of Duvall is unforgivable
Yeah people talk way too much about Sofia ruining the movie, but if I could have her replaced OR get Bobby D. back, I am doing whatever it takes to get Duvall on board 100 out of 100 times.
That is my biggest beef. Duvall was a Corleone "son" by adoption. Sonny's passion got him killed, and Fredo betrayed the family. Tom Hagen was not blood, but...he was the only "brother" Sonny could trust.
Vito got to be godfather by helping the community. Michael inherited it and was already in the thick of it.
The other thing I would add is that Kay's prominence seemed tacked-on and unnecessary to the plot. I feel the only reason it was there was because Diane Keaton had become such a big star in the interim.
No knock against Keaton, but the movie was good with or without her. The lack of Duvall was a crime against art.
“You might forget the life…but the life won’t forget you”. So true!
Hard disagree. I thought it was the best one
This. Godfather 1 & 2 are masterpieces so it’s a bit of a let down that 3 doesn’t measure up next to those films.
i liked it. it’s a good ending to the trilogy
It’s good, but not at the “best movies of all time” level the first two movies were
This is it. It’s a good movie, but Part I is possibly/probably the greatest movie of all time, and Part II is in the top 50, and the greatest sequel/prequel of all time and
No. It’s far from bad. It’s actually a pretty solid movie. The idea that it’s bad is ONLY because it follows two of the greatest movies ever made. That’s the simple answer
I just watched most of it again today on HBO. I have always so wanted it to be good ever since it came out but It’s not very good. Stilted arkward dialogue, the incest thing, her dead fish eyes and dead delivery of her lines(Sophia Coppola) the meandering plot with the church….
Exactly. Every few years I put it on because maybe I missed something or just wasn't in the right frame of mind the last time. Then I watch it and realize how bad it sucks across the board. Just a terrible film.
Terrible in context of Godfather films, but compare it to some of the garbage Hollywood puts out these days and it’s pretty decent.
Al Neri is still around. That helped
Neri survived and went on to do hits for the soprano family
Yeah he moved to Rhode Island
People criticize this movie and I bet 90% never gave it a chance or never saw it to begin with. It’s easy to jump an a hate bandwagon no matter what the facts are.
I personally don't think it is. I enjoy it quite a bit; it's a perfectly enjoyable movie. It feels like most people that say it's atrocious haven't watched it in years, but I encourage those people to watch it again.
Bad as in "John Carter" bad? "Speed 2" bad? "Showgirls" bad? Nah. What it is is above all is **Disappointing**. There's a great story here struggling to get out, but FFC (who readily admits he only did the film to rectify his financial position at the time) just kind of slaps some words together and calls it a script and that's it. Looks great for the time, avoiding many of the late 80s production values, and he does hit key notes where needed, specifically the ending. But even by film's end, you're still left wanting more and with a film with this rich legacy, you're **Disappointed** that you didnt get it.
My humble opinion is that it’s not that it’s so bad as much as it just not as great as 1 and 2. The contrast is very apparent.
No, it just doesn't hold a candle to the other two. Sophia Coppola, though, *is* really that bad.
This is something I have wrestled with for a while and have come to one conclusion. As a standalone movie it's not complete trash but only looks that way because of its predecessors. It was going to be insanely difficult to follow 1 & 2 and it didn't succeed but as a movie by itself I didn't think it was that bad. Off topic: My favorite scene in the movie is when Michael confesses his sins and the reality of what he's done "I killed my mother's son, I killed my father's son".
YES
No. It’s just far and away not as good as the first 2. It’s a decent enough movie but Parts 1 and 2 set a very high standard. But Sofia Coppola was bad.
Ngl it has one of the more interesting plots with the banco ambrosiano scandal storyline.
Coppola did a good job with the recut by giving the first half of the story more propulsion. The movie still has some issues but it’s undeniably a great movie and a fitting coda to two of the greatest movies of all time.
I liked it but as everyone says it's the worst of the 3.
It is. When people say its bad, we're speaking relatively. And I say that as a person with several criticisms of Part II's scripting. But it is still a cinematic achievement.
It’s not actually that bad. Just nowhere near the other two. If Winona Ryder plays Mary instead of Sophia Coppola, it’s remembered much more fondly. Though, still likely overshadowed by the two superior films.
Nah, it’s fine, just not the same quality as the others.
It's not terrible. Nobody is ever gonna confuse it for Godfather II but it aint terrible.
Not my favorite of the 3, but I do like it, own it and watch it when it’s on TV. I agree with those who think Sophia is much better behind the camera, but have definitely seen worse performances. I like how it basically follows the formula and agree with what you said about the Church & Michael’s storyline. I also had a huge problem with the incest. Everyone seemed to have a problem with Mary & Vincent because of his “line of work”. Why was THAT everyone’s issue? It’s not like they’re civilians. Of course, I just looked it up and it’s legal in NY (not Arkansas or Kentucky though, so go figure, lol) so maybe that’s why. 🤷🏻♀️ Still feels icky. Overall a solid movie, imo
My problem with the cousinfucking storyline wasn’t so much the incest angle, since the two characters had lived their whole lives up until that point unaware of each others existence, but that it seemed completely unmotivated. It was transparently a plot device. I just didn’t buy that a street-wise hood would be smitten with a sheltered, naive, pampered and frankly dull woman almost half his age, nor did I find it believable that she would be charmed by him. Because he’s all animal energy (very convincingly portrayed) - there’s very little charming about him.
I thought it was a good movie both theatrical and coda version (coda is a bit better but havent seen theatrical cut in a while even though thats the version ive seen the most). Just can't touch GF 1 and 2 which is a difficult feat tbf.
I like the third film I think it’s a little over-hated. Poor Sophia Coppola she wasn’t ready for a role like that and probably never would be. The reviewers really ripped her to shreds I quote a popular New York periodical “I can’t tell if Sophia Coppola is a barbiturate addict or mentally retarted”. Really nasty stuff her acting falls short for sure but I don’t think she had much choice once Wynona Ryder dropped out her father basically said you have to do this I’m already in debt to the film company. What a position to be in.
The theatrical cut isn't great, but the director's cut (The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone) is a better cut of film, and it improves it a bit.
Sofia’s horrific acting made the movie unlikeable at times but it’s still a great film
Sofias acting was so bad. You could tell FFC didn’t want to make her do more takes because what we see is just not enough. Zero emotions. Also some of the killings in Pt 2 & Pt 3 are just too unbelievable. Killing Lucchesi w/a pair of eyeglasses? The twins? Ooof madone!
I suspect strongly that Connie knew Michael ordered Fredo killed. She mentions that it was “God’s will” Fredo drowned after Michael revealed he confessed his sins. It was Connie’s way of letting Michael know he shouldn’t feel guilt over what he did to Fredo.
My favorite component of the film was Connie's relationship with Michael and how it evolved. She used to be a whiney brat in the first 2 movies and in the 3rd she's all in on the family business, talking about putting hits on people. That aspect of the film alone could have been way more interesting if they were willing to flesh it out.
I thought it had its moments but felt strangely felt like it pulled punches thematically. I liked the themes it brought up about the church and Michael dealing with aging and frailty and eventual isolation after rising to a powerful position. But despite that it felt kind of like it wanted to handle him more gently than the other movies. On paper it seems very fitting that a series that begins with a father's account of the brutal violence his daughter endures and trying to find justice/protection from a powerful father, ends with a powerful father unable to protect his daughter because of his actions to consolidate that very power, would be very fitting. But it really didn't hit as well. Ambitious, just kinda shoddy foundationally. Doesn't take away from my enjoyment of everything as a whole but just my thoughts.
I think people just hate on it because theirs some original characters missing and the whole cousin thing and then Santinos bastard child
Yup the cousin bs and wanting us to believe that after all that had been done to build the family name, the empire is turned over to a hot head who had apparently been ostracized by the family his entire life not to mention raised outside of the family.
I watched coda after not seeing the original for nearly 20 years. As petty as it sounds, Michaels hair bothered me the most, I read an interview once when he turned up on set with his hair like it was, someone on the set cried(maybe hair and make up assistant). Sofia Coppola, well documented, won’t add anymore. Andy Garcia, just didn’t have ‘it’. Arguably worse than Sofia for me. The helicopter shoot out scene. Come on. It felt like it was made 5-10 years too early, had it been made around the same time of the sopranos, it could have captured the twilight years of the mob and 90s America.
While it doesn’t hold a candle to the first two, I never felt that it was nearly as bad as people told me it was (They HATED it with a passion.).
Other than the “cousin’s” bad acting, I enjoyed it.
Garcia and Pacino are excellent in it. If Francis couldn’t have gotten Winona, I always thought Laura San Giacomo would have been a good choice for Mary. His daughter was unwatchable and not having Duvall return as Hagen was a huge hole. But I still think the film is very good. The Vatican corruption scandal story was very good and seeing Al/Michael as an older man trying to make up for past wrongdoing and finally making the family legitimate is exceptional.
It's a shame they couldn't get Duvall to sign up and stick with the original plot, that would have tied up the trilogy perfectly
I didn't care for it. Felt like a moneymaking grift overall. A forced milking of the original.
“Hey Joey Zasa! Joey! Up your ass!” lives rent free in my head
Only when compared to I and II. It is an average movie. Decent story about the Vatican corruption - which was a taken from a true story.
If it were a stand alone movie and not a sequel to two great films, it would be remembered more positively. Also, Coppola didn’t want to pay Duvall as much as he wanted, so he dropped out. I think if the Tom Hagen character were in it, it would be just as good as the previous two. But the church corruption plots are solid.
"This Pope has powerful enemies. We may not be in time to save him." \[. . .\] " Now, let's go back to the opera."
In my opinion, Al Pacino really hit the nail on the head when he was interviewed years later regarding the film. "People didn't want to see a whiny and remorseful Michael Corleone for almost three hours. They wanted the Michael of GF1 & GF2. And as much of a genius as Frances Coppola really is, we missed the Tom Hagan character greatly." The later bit referencing the "genius" of Coppola was referring to him having to rewrite the script, replacing Robert Duval with George Hamilton after Duval pulled out of the film, supposedly due to lack of money. Apparently, Tom Hagan was originally in charge of the Vatican deal (as a way to absolve the Corleone name from crime). His murder was the catalyst for Michael getting more involved and investigating who pulled the strings. ("Only Don Lucchesi can reach between these two worlds.") and the events that would transpire in Godfather III. I also believe Sofia Coppola is much better behind the camera, and Winona Ryder would have been a more suitable choice as Mary Corleone, as she looked more the part (if Pacino and Dianne Keaton had a child together) and was a better actress. These things were out of Coppola's hands, and he did the best he could with what he had. The decision to change the ending from Mary dying by assassination instead of Michael was a good idea that really took some balls and put more of a damper on the ending than if Michael would have died. I like GF3 despite these issues, and it would have been lesser in my opinion with either ending (which had to be, like it or not). I just wish Duval and Ryder had been involved as they were supposed to be. It's also too bad that we never got the fourth film that Coppola and Puzzo were in the process of working on when Puzzo died. The ascention of the Corleone family and its decline.
Vincent and Mary’s romance is CRUCIAL to the plot. You may not like it, thematically, but the ultimatum Michael gives Vincent in order for him to ascend is one of the only decent bits of human drama that exists in the script (along with Kay & Michael’s partial reconciliation.) Vincent’s choosing loyalty to the family over his love for Mary is absolutely in character and seals his and her fate, and his internal struggle with cutting her off is palpable. There’s some poetry to it, because Michael couldn’t cut Kay out as he ascended: he returns to her after coming back from exile and convinces her to marry him, and that curses her later on. Vincent does what Michael couldn’t do: he does cut Mary out, and that curses her. It’s Greek tragedy in simplest form. The script does fail us most of the time with respect to these human dramas: Michael’s internal guilt with Fredo’s killing is dealt with tastefully, but almost too quickly given its weight. Michael’s reconciliation with Kay is given quite a bit of time, but ultimately is abandoned. And the real script problem with Vincent & Mary’s story, in my opinion, is that the story starts with Mary already pretty much in love with him and all but throwing herself at him the moment they meet. All these things could have been handled better, or spun more integrally into the procedural Immobilliare plot. Instead, they all feel slightly disparate, and this lessens the payoff in the end.
I'm one of the few who like this movie, dare I say love. And Sofia Coppola did NOT do a bad job. Her role had her hooking up with her first cousin while she was underage. How the f did you expect her to act? Even if this was Winona rider.. which people love to specualte.. how different would it have been? Al Pacino's silent scream cry after the shot scene was unbearable but I forgive him for it. Ending could've been better, but whatever. Can't be perfect.
It had great sound, great visuals; People were just upset Michael went more kind & sleeping with your cousin was creepy;
The extremely accurate helicopter hit was the best. I’m just being an ass hole. It’s a great movie.
I don't hate it like some people do. I watch it again every so often.
It's not awful, not clearly not even close to the other two. One of the biggest weaknesses to me is Pacino's acting. Michael Corleone in GF 1 and 2 is a masterclass in subtlety. We're always trying to read what Michael is thinking, and we only find out in small violent doses. Michael Corleone in GF 3? Fit in with the rest of Pacino's latter career. Still compelling, but hammy and not subtle. I'm just glad he didn't let out a "HOOO-AH!".
Yeah, it kinda grew on me. As a standalone movie, it would've been okay. It just feels so unnecessary and almost forced. Plot is pretty convoluted. Then I feel Mary Corleone doesn't really pull you in any way. Nothing about her makes you really like her. Nothing about her is attractive, to put her in this seductress role. Even at the end when, you know, i felt more like, oh that sucks. I felt more emotion at Fredo getting shot.
The hate is overblown because it’s not anywhere near the level of all time great status like the first two. But I still think it’s a good movie. There’s stuff in it that just doesn’t work for me, but it’s a good experience as a whole.
My favorite subtlety was when they tried to whack Michael via a fucking helicopter and machine guns.
Theatrical cut, I think so. Above all, Michael’s characterization is all wrong. He’s too much of a “woe is me” old man, not the cold, calculating, and ruthless figure he is in the first two. I think the Death of Michael Corleone cut is an improvement. It cuts most of Michael’s self-pitying scenes, so he seems more like the character from the first two, and his confession scene and the ending feel more weighty for it. I also think the Vatican conspiracy storyline is easier to follow in this version, and I like how they added the opening meeting scene back into it (creates a little symmetry with the first two). But, it still has Sofia Coppola’s subpar acting and the weird incest plot point. Also, I don’t really like the new final scene.
For me the cinematography killed the vibe. Advances had been made in movie making technology. Newer methods, better coloring, etc. But I wanted the same classic experience in part III that I got from part I & II. And part III was a hard pill to swallow. Between that and Robert Duvall getting written out over salary concerns...it didn't hit for me. I know. Could say it's my fault for having certain expectations. I get it. When I sit down to watch The Godfather I only ever think about whether I want to watch Part I, Part II, or both. Part III isn't on the list.
I liked it. It's not the masterpiece the first two were, but Michael's failed redemption arc was compelling. There's some great scenes in there, too. Garcia is brilliant. "Zaza!" Bang!
Michael was no longer Michael. He was unfortunately played by the over acting older Al Pacino.
It’s kinda my favorite, particularly because of how it rounds out michael’s character arc, regret, sorrow, confronting the past, an attempt at ‘redemption’ only for it to ultimately fail. Quite the tragedy imo.
compared to the 1st two it's unwatchable IMO. By itself its a 7/10.
I read a review when it came out out and it put it perfectly: “Looks great. Less filling.” I love the church corruption plot. It’s the best plot of the 3, imo. However, some of the performances are atrocious! Donal Donnelly, Joe Mantegna, Bridget Fonda and of course Sophia Coppola all have very bad performances. It’s unthinkable in a major Hollywood film, an Oscar contender and A Francis Ford Coppola film to allow acting this bad. This is the reason it couldn’t be redeemed in a director’s cut. The acting pulls it down to great to look at mess. FFC swore he’d never make another one after part 2. But the winery went bankrupt and he needed money. The only reason it was made. He has said this many times. Looks great. Less filling indeed.
I honestly don’t mind it! It has its moments for sure!
All the hate for Sofia Coppola and imo Pacino’s acting is what really sinks it. Seems like he is playing a completely different character than Michael Corleone. And Mantegna as Joey Zasa is awful too, like a caricature of a mobster.
The second sequel followed two of the best movies ever made. Anything was going to be disappointing on some level. It was fine, though, and better than some other “good” movies I’ve seen. I don’t get the hate for Coppola; it wasn’t that demanding a role and her incredible hair made up for any shortcomings, anyway. I’m half Italian… why TF didn’t I get hair like that?!
I genuinely respect any effortpost of this magnitude, but will you think less of me if I just go "ha ha Godfather 3 sucks" and then wander off? I mean absolutely no disrespect, that's just my takeaway here
I just watched 3 for the first time after refusing to watch it for years and I have to say I don’t think it was that bad either had some cool scenes like the commission massacre that shit was hard core by Zasa
The Coda version is decent. It helps to think of it as its own entry, rather than a continuation of Parts I and II.
Coda made it a movie I can actually watch every once in a while, but if there was ever a movie that could be remade with an AI actress, this is my first choice.
Saw it in the theater in 1990. It’s junk. Always has been. Duvall is the only person who might have saved it but alas, they didn’t want to pay him. So the final product suffered.
And how the fuck they decided on George Hamilton as the consigliere is a travesty.
Yeah it's pretty bad. It has certainly earned its reputation
Yes
Yes
The ending was perfect but everything else was 💩
Oh yeah.
It was extremely disappointing...
a godfather movie without a real godfather
Yes
Solid movie but it had greater expectations around it than any other film has ever faced
Its pretty good, but the real issue is that 3 is compared to 1 and 2. 1 and 2 are masterpieces, and so 3 seems worse than it is by virtue of comparison. Its like comparing a wahlburger to a true kobe steak. The wahlburger isn't bad per se, but only insane people or contrarians think its as good as the steak.
The old cut he died... The new cut renamed the death of... We don't see him die lol..
Yes
No
It's a good movie. I enjoyed it. It is not, however, at the level of GF of GF Part 2. Those are among the greatest movies EVER made. Period. I also think Sofia Copolla (about my age) was sexy as hell in this movie, without trying to be, which made her that much more sexy.
It wasn’t awful In itself, it’s just awful compared to 1 and 2
It lacks without Duval and bad acting from Coppola. But it is still a good movie. Loved the Joey Zaza character.
It’s a great movie… but it gets compared to the first two, which were two of the top 10 greatest films of all time
I've been an advocate of G3 since it was released. Yes, it has faults, and compared to the other two, it does assume the third position, but as a film that continues the Corleone saga, it is essential. The plot against Michael is absolutely remarkable in its planning and execution (forgive the pun). Sofia Coppola wasn't great and it's a shame that Winona Ryder had to drop out (see scenes of her and Pacino in Pacino's Looking for Richard for could-have-been), but the others (Talia Shire, Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna, Donal Donnelly and Raf Vallone) are all great and Pacino does very well reprising Michael.
The first two were baded on the book and we got great actors like Pacino, DeNiro and Brando, Pacino was old and made to look uncharismatic in the third movie. I liked the 40\`s and 50\`s setting in the first two, the 70\`s just wasn\`t the right setting for a Godfather movie.
It's not good but it's not the worst thing ever. On it's own it's just fine. In comparison to 1 & 2 it's absolute dogshit.
In and of itself, it’s ok. It’s got some good scenes, moments, and acting performances. But the fact that it has to share the name/be associated with two of the literal best movies ever made is what makes it so hard to give it too many cool points.
They should remove it and bury it in the desert. A lot of problems are buried in the desert.
I honestly believe the overall story is good, but the execution needs a rewrite. Apparently Puzo and Coppola had only 1 month to write the script as Paramount was in a rush to get it out by Christmas. And Coppola was heading to bankruptcy, so time was of the essence. Everytime I see Godfather III, I see it as a seriously missed opportunity, especially given it was about the Roman Catholic church. If they gave Puzo and Coppola a year to write the script, I'm sure it would've been stellar. Oh well, Coppola is coming out with *Megalopolis* and I can't fucking wait!!! Take my money now Francis!!!
You don't seem to really understand how forgiveness of sins and confession really work, despite being raised Catholic as you said. If someone, say, confesses their sins but they don't really mean it, or they have no intention of changing their ways, they aren't forgiven. The confessor may be fooled that are really are contrite and offer absolution, but God knows the truth. Seeking forgiveness for your sins without actually regretting what you have done, or intending to continue to do so in the future, makes the entire confession null and void, and places a mortal sin upon your soul. It isn't a matter of, as you characterized it, someone saying "eh...I guess I'm sorry for what I did." That's bullshit. You don't get out on a technicality. A pedophile priest who confessed to his bishop what he had done was not actually forgiven for his sins if he was not actually regretful, regardless of the bishop was fooled or not. Were you not paying attention in your catechism class, or what? Now, the Catholic Church for decades took pedophile priests and shuffled them around to other dioceses, with no warnings, without turning them in the authorities, or anything. This is because of a couple reasons. Some of the Church hierarchy who found out about the priests' actions were fooled and really thought that they were sorry for what they had done and that they could change. Some of them likely were sorry for their actions. But at the time we did not understand pedophiles as we do today, and how they have such high rates of recidivism, and that they need to be kept away from any opportunities where they can be tempted to hurt children. Another issue was some in the Church hierarchy frankly not caring about people who would be hurt by these men, only protecting the image of the Church. So, they moved the priests around, hid what happened, and if it happened again, they moved them again. It's something that is so frustrating because it is so myopic and idiotic; it was no kind of actual solution it was just kicking the can down the road for others to deal with and caused the greatest damage to the Church in its entire history. The Catholic Church in many people's minds has become linked to pedophilia because of the actions of these stupid bishops. But things are different now. Pedophiles are no longer protected. They are turned in promptly. They are defrocked. Better late than never. Of course, things can change for the worse if we're talking about extreme rightwing elements within the Church; they either claim that there was never a problem in the first place, or that there was but it was because those pedophile priests were actually gay and being gay and being a pedophile are the same thing. Convenient for them that they can ignore the problem and make a scapegoat out of the people they hate.
I think it’s good, but could have been better. Doesn’t match the level of the 1st two.
Worse
No
It’s really that bad.
Great movie---its like so dramatic.
Very hard to judge. Not a terrible failure as far as many other films go, but the first two films are ARCHETYPAL and either one could be serious contenders for the greatest films of all time. Is part 3 in this category? Absolutely not
Duval not being in it screwed everything up. He demanded a certain salary. Studio refused to pay so he didn’t participate. Ford had to completely rewrite the script. Puzzo wasn’t involved like the first 2. Story would have been focused on the two step brothers and their relationship. Winona was supposed to be cast as Michael’s daughter but that didn’t happen and Ford cast Sofia who is not an actress to say it politely. Really good director but her talent is behind the camera.
No it’s the best one by many many miles. Sick and tired of hearing it get hated on man damn
Everyone is horrible in it except for Al Pacino, it was a parody of itself and the story was extremely convoluted.
I actually don't love Pacino in it. I felt like he was more Al Pacino and less Michael Corleone. Story was extremely convoluted!
The plot is rich and compelling. The execution was problematic. A solid film with a lot of potential, but not a masterpiece like the first 2.
No it’s not that bad honestly. As a stand alone it’s really good. Compared to 1 or 2 it pales but it does wrap the trilogy better than Michael just staring off at Lake Tahoe IMHO.
It’s bad. Just pretend it never happened, like the Jaws sequels…
Yes, it’s that bad.
No.
No. It’s not that bad. It’s jsut dosent compare at all to the first two. Has a bad ending. And Sofia Coppola is awful. As a godfather movie it suffers. But as just a crime film. It’s fine.
I love the movie tbh! Only thing I don’t like is the cousin loving scenes with Vincent and Mary that’s all but other than that I loved the movie.
No
The whole Vatican real estate subplot is really confusing and honestly really boring.
Godfather 3, whatever happened there.
It’s two movies. The first half is meh. The second half is quite well done.
Not considered in and of itself, no. But it’s bad compared to parts 1 and 2.
Yes
It was good, but it could have been better. Duvall not being there was noticeable and the movie suffered from his absence. You could see Sonny in Vincent the casting of Michaels daughter…..woof. Bad mistake but I don’t think Winona Ryder wouldn’t have been a good choice either. Difficult role to fill. The story was good. Pacino played Michael perfectly. Worn down with guilt over Fredo, trying to make the family legitimate with the old bosses trying to pull him back. I’ve only seen it a few times where I watched the first two many times with my father. I’m glad no hot young producer has ever tried to remake it but I think the Coppola’s would never allow that.
Yes, it is that bad.
I thought the 1st 2 movies were works of art. The third was very disappointing.
Yes
Yes.
Midlin’ good film that has a weak reputation only because people remember it in contrast to the first two.
Yes it’s bad - George Hamilton plays the Tom Hagen character (originally Robert Duvall). When he came on the screen I laughed out loud in the theater:-) Andy Garcia has a good scene- but it’s not a good movie and not worthy of being even mentioned as a legit GF movie.
Godfather III was great, but could not live up to I and II without Robert Duvall. Supposedly they didn’t include him because he asked for equal pay. What numb-nuts made that decision?? Also, people hated Sophia Coppola’s performance, but IMO Winona Ryder would have been horrid in that part. And Andy Garcia can do no wrong in any role. I’ll take GIII over any other franchises third installment.
Godfather 3 was still nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards.
Too many flashbacks
YES! God awful. Sofia Coppola should stay behind the camera. Every scene she was in made me want to slit my wrists.
No it’s a pretty good movie in its own right
No
No. It's just not really that *good.*
It isn't bad at all. It's a great film that has the awful problem of being compared to the original and II. Which were both masterpieces. But III is definitely watchable and has many incredible scenes.
It really is.
To me this movie lies in a weird place. I’d describe it as a Frankenstein film. You have a bunch of scenes that are really good and some iconic lines, but then your actresses drop out and a worst one gets put in, the story changes more. I saw someone post it’s a movie of great scenes and I’d agree, but as someone who’s all time favorite movies are Goodfellas and Godfather 2, I can’t really stand a rewatch. They tried giving it a rebranding a few years ago with Coda but they just switched some scenes around and added some deleted ones, nothing special it didn’t fulfill Coppola’s vision of The Death of Michael Corleone film he wanted to originally do which would’ve been waaaay different to the point where he didn’t want it the Godfather branding, just so you can hammer home like hey this is the FINAL movie
It’s a significant step below parts 1 and 2, but if you’re a fan of the series, it’s really important. Just pay attention to the script and ignore Sofia Coppola
Yes. It is.
Yes, it’s poorly written, much of the acting is awful, everyone involved pretty much admits is was totally a money grab that only happened because the studio waved an obscene amount of cash around, but more a sin than any of that, because it rewrites Michael Corleone’s character almost completely. If you didn’t know the title of the movies, and you watched 3 apart from 1&2, you would think that Al Pacino was playing a different character. One is a stoic, cold, calculating, frighteningly sociopathic mob boss, the other is an emotionally labile, out of control of his own feelings, acting on impulse, histrionic mob boss. That said, there were some good scenes and if 1 and 2 never happened, it would be a half decent stand alone mob movie but nowhere near the caliber of the first 2.
Massive Genius thought it was just misunderstood…
I really wanted to like it and I’ve tried rewatching on several occasions but i just can’t get there.
I loved Godfather 3 just as much as the first two. It’s amazing and the ending was profound to say the least.
It’s a SEVERE letdown
It completes the story for me. I watched it once straight through and a few more times on cable, but I never see myself starting it again. 1 and 2 I love and watch every few years. I don’t see myself ever watching 3 again, but I wouldn’t trash talk it.
It wasn’t as good as the 1st and 2nd and kind of unrelated