The Godfather, Part III (Widescreen Edition)

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT., 2008-12-14
The first time I saw it, I felt disappointed. Several viewings later, I thought it wasn't so bad -not as good as the first two, but not bad. Last night I saw the trilogy non-stop, and yes, it is THAT bad. Here's what's wrong with it: br / br /1.- Tom Hagen. He's crucial and he's missing. There's no Godfather III without him. And if Paramount didn't want to pay Robert Duvall whatever he wanted to reprise his role, they should quit show business altogether. Instead we get George Hamilton! What were they thinking, the penny-pincher idiots! br / br /2.- Michael Corleone. Not the same guy. Sure, Al Pacino plays him, but unfortunately, he forgot everything about the character. Michael Corelone doesn't "love public speech"; he's a soft spoken, cold blooded, silent maniac who feels a fish out of water at weddings, first communions, baptisms, New Year's Eve, anything except funerals. A guy that seldom talks and never reveals his emotions. Here, he's a gregarious and bombastic party guy who yells all the time, talks all the time, curses, dances, mingles, counsels all the time. He's more Tony Montana than Michael Corleone. Not the same guy, I tell you. The hairdo doesn't help, either. br / br /3.- Mary Corleone. Too ugly. Sorry; no offense, but that's it. Her character is a princess; it deserved a knockout beauty. Or... the part should have been changed to an ugly duckling in love with her handsome relative, a S.O.B. who uses her to climb to the top while fooling around on the side. But such as it is, both the part and the actress are simply not believable. And Ms Coppola can't act, by the way. I'm glad she turned out to be a magnificent filmmaker. br / br /4.- Vincent Corleone. Too remote. Sonny's bastard boy. Mmmmmm, I dunno...too many heirs in front of him in line of succession. What happened to them? Coppola doesn't mention. Andy Garcia makes a terrific Corleone, but his part seems implausible. The obvious role was for him to play Connie's boy, Carlo Rizzi Jr, who happened to be Michael's first godson! Then everything falls into place: Carlo hates his godfather for having wacked his dad; Michael has a weak spot for him for the same reason, Mary has a fatal crush on her weasel cousin, he gets far too ambitious... see what I mean? br / br /5.-Don Altobello. Altowho? Where was him in the previous films? If he was Connie's Godfather, why wasn't he at the wedding? And how come he knows Don Luchese? And who is Don Luchese? As for the actor, Eli Wallach plays the part with gusto; a coniving Sicillian Tuco. I loved it! br / br /6.- The Vatican plot. Too murky, too preposterous. Coppola wanted to exploit the Banco Ambrosiano affair? Fine with me. Pope John Paul I strange and sudden death? Fine with me. Wanted to say that the Church is a bigger, meaner mafia than the mob itself? No problemo. But the Immobiliare thing gets far too confused, and one senses Coppola doesn't know where he's going or wants to. For such grand statements, he should have refined his story to perfection. By the way, both Pope Paul VI and John Paul I died in 1978, not 1979. Holy Blooper! br / br /So there you have it. A movie made merely for the money, by people who have grown to hate the previous two. Not a good start by any standard. I heard Coppola was so fed up with the Corleones, he wanted to make "Abbott Costello meet the Godfather". Well, if his heart was really into it ...Harvey Korman was around, Buddy Hackett was around, Marlon Brando was around ...he should have made it instead! br /

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

THE GODFATHER PART 3 LEAVES 1 AND 2 FANS IN TEARS, 2008-12-04
THIS MOVIE IS TERRIBLE. The first 2 were excellent. If it's not bad enough waiting 16 years for a 3rd movie, then the movie itself is just horid. I mean like Michael is like in his 50s and Kay, Al Neri and all the others look they were about to croak any second. There are a few cameos from the first and second movies, like Michael's daughter looking through a scrapbook with pics of Appelonia(Michael's first wife who died in a car explosion in part 1), and a picture hanging on a wall showing Michael and Kay in a scene from part 2, and even a reference to Santino when Michael's daughter ask's a friend of Michael's 'What Was Sonny(Santino's nickname) Like?' Other than that THIS IS A DISGRACE TO ALL GODFATER FANS. AVOID.

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

A good third entry., 2008-11-24
I'm so tired of people parroting the view that this installment of the 'Godfather' franchise is terrible. Generally speaking, I find it to the the most intriguing of the three films. It exposes you to the realm of the super powerful international cabals, which includes the Catholic Church. We're not talking about drugs, prostitution, and casinos anymore, but instead world wide corruption and power with roots a thousand years old. The mouth breathers who slam this film perhaps can not grasp the scope of the drama unfolding in front of them. I guess there aren't enough hits or something? By the way, the assasination of Joe Zaza is probably the best action sequence in the entire trilogy. Yes, Copolla's daughter is wooden. Some of Connie's scenes and dialog are awkward. But, Andy Garcia and Pacino are just outstanding, and the plot is thick and juicy enough to make this a very good film.

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Hit men, where are you?, 2008-11-24
I kept wishing the hit men would show and take out this movie after about an hour and a half. It was just plain bad. Long and boring. Bad sequence after bad sequence, it just kept getting worse. I finally gave up after 2 hours. I like most of the viewers am a Godfather fan and just wanted to complete the trilogy. I'll probably go back and finish the movie in a week or so just to know I did my duty as a fan of the first two great movies. As far as I can tell though this movie should have never been made.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Is it worth it?, 2008-11-13
The Godfather Part III is a great movie if you have watched the other two parts. As a stand alone movie, I can see why some people were not happy with it. br / br /My sweetheart and I (reluctantly on my part) watched all three parts in a row for the first time this summer. It was a spellbinding story, that is remarkable not for the evil it portrays, but in that it shows the small moves toward evil that lead us on a course that ends up in a personal hell. br / br /For me Part III is an essential part of the story, showing that there is no good to come from a deal with the devil. Karma, Fate, what have you, will require payment sooner or later, and the Godfather ends up as a wonderfully poignant tragedy, rather that a cops and robbers kind of crime story. br / br /For me the crux of the whole trilogy comes with Don Michael's confession to his ex-wife that all he ever wanted was to protect his family, and in the end he lost them anyway, paired with the final tragic event in the story, the heartbreaking reality, that in the end, someone always has to pay. br / br /So here's the deal, don't bother to watch Part III without seeing the other two parts first, preferably in a marathon viewing, but if you watch it as part of the whole, you will probably find it a moving end to the saga. br / br /