Moviepro (www.moviepro.net)

We have taken some photos of "The Godfather: Part III". They represent actual movie quality.

• Unredeemable posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Absolutely inexcusable. Does anybody remember that this film actually was nominated for Best Picture of the Year? So blatantly crafted not to entertain but rather to leech a few more dollars off the audience. Utterly shameless. Andy Garcia tries to infuse some energy into the production, but how can he succeed when he has to battle the script, the uninspired efforts of every other actor on the set (who are merely there to cash in on the film's inevitable box office success) and, of course, ahem, Sophia.

• My Vote of 1 was generous.... posted on 30 Aug 2009

  As a person who is able to practically recite the entire script of the first two Godfathers, and has yet to tire of watching either one or both, my disappointment in III was near fatal. This disaster approaches biblical proportions...one plague after another. Contrary to popular thought, I found Sophie Coppula to be a breath of fresh air in this stinker. Katherine Hepburn, Meryl Streep and Glenda Jackson in their prime would have failed in this part as the daughter of Michael Corleone...so give Francis Ford's kid a break...Also, I loved Andy Garcia, but alas, even he could not save this sequel. Al Pacino has not aged well, and those of us who remembered Michael as the handsome, strong silent type, as displayed when he slammed the door on his ex-wife. His bad-hair and sunken cheeked ranting and raving, made me think that he was attempting to resurrect the snarling, spitting Scarface. The plot of this show was also way too convoluted and boring to keep my attention long enough to care who was wacking who. The Consumer Protection people ought to investigate the usage of the "Godfather" packaging. So, this is my story and I'm sticking to it.....

• Much better than part II posted on 30 Aug 2009

  I had the opportunity of seeing the Godfather trilogy in a roll, and it became clear to me that Part I was a masterpiece, Part II missed the chemistry and pace the former had, and finally, Part III became a grand finale for the trilogy.Of course, at the end of Part III, we see this trilogy could go on with the adventures of Vincent Corleone (Andy Garcia) heading the business in the family as the new Don. I doubt Francis would like to film it, but maybe Sofia Coppola will direct it someday. Who knows?Anyway, this third effort was much better than Part II, especially cause it brought back the rhythm, and suspense lost on the second episode. Plus, on Part I we had a man transformed against his principles to protect his family, Part II is how he lost his family and himself over power and greed, and on Part III he tries to come back to his inner wills and mend all the mistakes he had done in his life. Of course, there's a price to pay...The funniest thing is, if you listen to Coppola's comments in the DVD's extra audio band, you'll learn that on Part I he was being terribly pressured by the producers who even thought of firing him after the first week of shootings. On the other hand, on Part II, he had complete control of production, and maybe that lack of pressure tamed his direction. Also funny is the fact that Part II was the one that received more Oscars in tre trilogy. That's Hollywood! Or better, that's the way Awards are...

• A good movie posted on 30 Aug 2009

  I enjoyed this movie, and liked the way it was linked to real-life events and the second Godfather movie.*Possible spoiler Sofia Coppola is attacked for her performance in this movie. I didn't know whom the actress who played Mary was until AFTER I saw the movie, so I didn't have any preconceived notions about her performance. I thought she did an acceptable job, and brought an innocence to the part of Mary that made the ending even more tragic.

• Blew me away posted on 30 Aug 2009

  I will keep this short, but this film has been doubted my a lot of people who say it was a dissapointing end to two great classics, but i thought this film was fantastic, it had everything to become the classic end to a great story, the finale kept me on the edge of my seat and i think it deserves a place in our collection (it did in mine!!)

• Somewhere, there is a great movie in here... posted on 30 Aug 2009

  *Attention Spoilers*"The Godfather: Part III" is quite simply, one of the most misconceived films ever made. Its incredible the amount of love and effort put into a film that's so mediocre. It is like the black sheep of the family, much like the Fredo in the Corleone family. There is a lot to like about this movie, but it just doesn't jell together.So, what's wrong? Well, I think one problem is that Coppola should have trusted his original instincts when it came to approaching this film. Coppola originally didn't even want to make this film have "The Godfather" in the title. All he wanted, was something conoctating that this was a film about Michael Corleone and his redemption. That's it. While this film is epic in scale, with elaborate set pieces and beautiful scenes, it would have been better to make this film a lot smaller, more personal. Just about all the scenes where Michael deals with his enemies, although they are entertaining, have a been there/done that feel to them. They all feel like Coppola was trying to make an epic even greater than the first two films. Instead, he made a film that seemed strangely impersonal and distant (even though the true subject matter of this film is far from it).Case in point, take the first long scene, where we meet all the characters again in Michael's party celebrating his charity donations. In the first two films, the long opening scenes had a symbolic significance. The first film's wedding, demonstrated the great Italian cultural heiritage present in the Corleone life. The second film's party, showed Michael's continuing distance from his heiritage, through his acceptance and approval of typical American norms and behaviors. So, my question is, what significance does this first long scene in the third film have? It seems to me, that the only reason this was done, was just because it was done in the last two films. There's no need for a scene like this, it was well established in the last film that Michael destroyed his relationships in order to achieve absolute power. This film should have been about Michael trying to rekindle these fragile relationships (which, in a way it is). Therefore, the introduction of all these new characters, just get in the way of what the film is truly about.At least though, this first party scene is well filmed and entertaining. The final sequence, the typical montage of violent events that occurs in all these films, is so confusing and inept, that you kind of wonder if Coppola even cared about it.There are though, very many things to like about this film. It is pretty entertaining on a visceral level. I liked the villians of this film, they were well played, even though I feel that they were unnecessary to the story. Andy Garcia is wonderful as Sonny's bastard son, and Al Pacino and Diane Keaton are great together, and both give great performances. But...Man, Sophia Coppola is BAD. She is awful. Its strange, because she is such an important character. You have to give Coppola credit though, because she was a risk. By casting a nonactress in this role, Coppola was trying (I think) to show a person of complete innocence and their relationship with a father who they think the best of (which is far from the truth). She is like Jar Jar Binks in this way, a failure that is noble just because it was a risk, though misconceived she was. But, I wish I could say she was a bad actress, at least then there would be something to analyze. But she almost seems like an extra even when doing emotional lines. She doesn't even act, which is the worst thing you could ever say about a performance. I heard that Wyona Ryder was originally cast in this role. Obviously, that choice was a lot better, but what are you gonna do?Also, the actor that plays Michael's son fares little better. Its not really his fault though. The idea that he would become the star of an Italian opera, just getting out of school, is really ridiculous. Also, for a guy who's so important to the story, he sure has a small part! I wish there was some way they could have gotten Robert Duvall to come back, because Tom Hagen, really my favorite character in the whole Godfather saga, is sorely missed.Still, I'm giving this film a 6. I think its because it is entertaining, and the scenes where Michael comes into grips with his sins, and tries for reconciliation, are powerful moments overwise sorely missing in this film.Score: 6 Grade: B-

• Like watching paint dry. posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Whoa. It took me years to watch this film because so many people told me to avoid it. I should have taken their advice.Pacino should have been forced to watch the original Godfather films 100 times each to remind him what he was like when he was a real actor. The original Michael Corleone was scary because he was so controlled and introverted. His rage boiled inside. In Part III, Michael is a mugging scenary chewer who wears his emotions on his sleeves and screams at the drop of a hat.And the Francis Ford Coppola directing Part III isn't the visionary of the 70's, but instead the bored hack of the 80's and 90's. The script is a lazy B-movie script with large chunks of unnecessary expository dialogue. The actors seem to be left to their own devices, especially Sofia who seems to be either reading off cue cards or merely reciting her lines. She's so bad. I honestly think her performance her might be the worst acting I've ever seen, and I'm including school plays and community theater I've seen over the years. Diane Keaton looks like she just dropped in from her real daughter's PTA meeting (which isn't so terrible considering the role she has in the film) and Talia Shire shows the rust of a woman who really hasn't acted much outside her thankless turns in the later Rocky flicks.This film could have used a fresh idea or two, another couple of passes at the screenplay and whole lot less of the Coppola family. (Hell, even Nicholas Coppola er Cage got a friggen Exec Producer credit - what's up with that?)

• Easier to follow than the first two, but has a few flaws posted on 30 Aug 2009

  I finally saw this the other day, and I did find it much easier to follow than the first two, but one problem with this movie was Coppola's choice to put his daughter(Sofia Coppola) in the film, she's not bad looking, but she had hardly any prior acting experience, and her bad acting took away from the films quality. Everything else about the movie is great. ***1/2 out of *****

• Somebody please pull my intestines out through my eye sockets...or go to chapter 23. posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Since there is no real point in reviewing Parts I and II because everyone knows how phenomenal they already are, I'm doing the last installment in the trilogy.I cannot even begin to tell you how much I hated Sophia Coppola. She had this dull delivery of lines, coupled with an almost smart-alecky tone, which just about infuriated me. This is not to say, however, the entire movie is bad. Al Pacino is brilliant as the aged Michael whose dark past is finally coming back to haunt him. Ever since he ordered Fredo's murder I more or less had it in for him. And yet seeing the poor man cripple over in pain like that due to his diabetic seizure was so sad. I felt for him like I would my own father. That is probably why Mary made me irate through the whole film; I wanted to see more reaction from her instead of the stupid soap opera-like crush she had on her COUSIN Vinny! To me, that aspect was WRONG. The movie makers tried to beef up parts that weren't at all necessary. In my opinion, Andy Garcia was very good in a role that shouldn't have been in the movie in the first place. Too bad he wasn't around for I and II, because I would love to have seen a character thrown in for him somewhere. Passing him off as Sonny's illegitimate son just wasn't good enough for me (not to mention he doesn't look anything like Sonny).The conclusion. I recommend watching the DVD version because it'll spare you from having to see awkward cuz on cuz moments. Watch Michael's emotional outburst (chapter 23). As far as I'm concerned you can screw the rest of of the movie. It is by far, some of the best acting probably ever captured on film. I'm not kidding. (Just ignore Mary's idiotic swagger and fall on the steps.) Diane Keaton's work here too is superb. The very final scene is so short, so touching. Michael's death, unlike his life, has no complications. More than anything it gave me closure. If you do like the Godfather films it's worth it - for the final moments.

• A redemption for Michael Corelone posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Although I understand there were many people out there thinking that the third Godfather movie was nothing compare to the first and second ones, I still think the third one really got to me. The Godfather III is a good conclusion for Michael Corelone's descent to an endless life of Mofia and his attempt for redemption. His famous quote:"Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in!" is my favourite. I thought the death of Mary was a very cruel punishment for Michael who cherishes his daughter. It's as if it is a punishment for his guilt of killing his own brother. The all-mighty Don Michael Corelone fell with absolute anguish and sorrow seeing his own daughter dying in his arms. Al Pacino protrayed the desperate Michael right on target. Sofia Coppola is a lovely Mary, and Andy Garcia is a great addition to the cast as the bastard son of Sonny. I especially love the part when Michael was yelling at Vincent that he was just like his own father Sonny because of their temper. The third part of Godfather wrapped up everything and left us all with a hanging heart hoping for a Godfather IV...

• That final scene! (SPOILERS!) posted on 30 Aug 2009

  !!! SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS !!!Yes, this is a typical Part-3-Movie: The characters are hollow and mere shadows of Part I and II. BUT THIS FINAL SCENE!!! Michael's daughter dies, and his outcry will not leave his chest for what seems an endless time; everybody is paralysed with terror, not only because of the murder, but because Michael's soul is being ripped into pieces before their eyes; finally he is able to scream with his last ounce of strength and collapses... This overwhelming, terrifying expression of unbearable pain on his face! If this were the only scene with Pacino I know I would call him an immortal genius. It is equal even to Marlon Brando's performance in "L'ultimo tango" and, to me, the peak of Pacino's career. This scene alone is able to make Part III a worthy ending for the saga.

• The horror...the horror posted on 30 Aug 2009

  part 3 should have never been made. I dont like this movie for a very simple reasons, very little of the original story carries over to this installment. made up characters like vincent and marie and inconsistent ones like Kate, who after disaproving of michael's chosen career in the first 2 installments is now so accepting of the mob wife role. And what is with the whole Vatican issue, sounds more like international politics than the underworld power struggle of the two first movies were. Also gone are the mentions of real life famous characters with names changed from the first movies , for example famous singer and actor Johnie Fontaine,that gave the fictional story of the godfather a non fictional touch, i loved that. The only character from this movie that i liked was Joe Montagnia's; the only character that kept true to the original mafioso persona of the first installments. if you love the godfather like i do stick to the first 2 movies, you wont be sorry .

• An excellent achievement after 14 years away. posted on 30 Aug 2009

  I like this one but it won't ever compare to part 1 and part 2 but it's very good since the groupe's been away so long getting (back in the habit). Pacino is prepared for redemption he knows his place they made him look really old and it worked I still highly recommend it is a little to long but then again so was part 1 and part 2.

• sad end to a great trilogy posted on 30 Aug 2009

  While not without its great set-pieces, and providing a satisfying emotional conclusion to the Corleone saga, this film is a pale reflection of its predecessors.The continuity is bad -- we jump from scene to scene and get the feeling that connecting scenes have been junked -- and some of the acting is quite woeful. And what is Bridget Fonda's character all about?It's the work of a master, but far from his masterwork.

• Not as bad as everyone says – but suffers from the pressure of the first two posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Michael Corleone has sold his illegal business in an attempt to win back his family. However he must still contend with up and coming mobsters such as Vincent, who wants to work for him and Joey Zasa, who wants to fully take over the Corleone family's territory. When the Corleone family begin to deal with the Vatican and plan to buy out their share of an multinational corporation he finds that the Vatican is just as corrupt as his illegal operations were. Despite his best efforts he finds himself sucked back into the world he has tried to leave behind.Easily one of the most hated films ever made – or at least you'd think it was by the critical mauling it got for a raft of reasons. However watching it now it isn't that bad and really it only suffers from comparison with the two films before it. But lets be fair, Coppola has made 3 or 4 of the best films ever made – did we really expect another one from him?The film has a reasonable plot and brings the trilogy to a logical end. The plot however does have it's weaknesses – for example it starts well with Michael's attempt to `get out' being hampered by other families on their way up. But when it starts to get involved with money laundering through the Vatican and the corruption therein, it starts to lose it's way and it's focus on Michael.The main weakness comes in the characters. Would Michael really go straight just to get his family back – and how come he managed to do it so easily up till the time of the film? Worse still is Connie who seems to have become some sort of Mafia widow when that was not part of her character in the previous films – would she really have got that twisted or influential?
  Little problems like these just bugged me and they also fed into the performances.For such a great cast the acting was very average. Pacino is good but I sensed he didn't see Michael turning out this way and he didn't convince occasionally. Keaton has little to do and again I felt that her approach to Michael was too forgiving, although maybe I'm not allowing for time. As I Siad before Shire was doing some sort of `Bride of Frankenstein' act as Connie and I didn't buy it for a moment. Garcia was OK and faces like Wallach, Hamilton and the like helped. The two worst performances were sadly two of the main ones. First Joe Mantegna…..now it wasn't that it was bad – it was more that I've seen him do so much better. Here all I could think of when I watched him was how his character and his acting was very like his Simpsons' character of ` Fat Tony'. Bare in mind Fat Tony is meant to be a spoof of the Mafioso characters and you'll see why I didn't like it.The worse performance was Sofia Coppola. Now she was vilified at the time for her role – a bit unfairly and cruelly but she was still bad. She has this strange scowl on her face for most of the film and she acts like a spoil little girl. She also has no realism in her voice and speaks in the same constant tone – that Vincent would fall for her was just a leap of faith too far to accept. The cast does have others who are unused or underused – Fonda being the best example. Why did she bother with that role!?Overall, this is miles behind the other two Godfathers and it has plenty of weaknesses. However at it's heart it's a good try as the concluding part and the story is watchable. It's not bad, it just is average and it feels like the director and large sections of the cast felt they just had to turn up to make a third classic film.

• An offer you can refuse posted on 30 Aug 2009

  (May Contain spoilers)Even though, I loved the godfather movies, I have to say this moviestunk. Usually sequels are very dry and very annoying and this is a perfect example of why not to make a part 3 of a movie. (Here's where I get into detail. May contain possible spoilers)First off, is the love scenes between the cousins. I really believe that incest is icky so I couldn't sympathize for the characters at all when they said they were "In love." The acting Pachino was a good as ever, but you can only do so much for a plot that stinks. The ending, I thought was good because I really didn't want to see Pachino's daughter getting hooked up with her cousin because of reasons stated before.As stated before, this part is an offer you can refuse.

• Overall, I enjoyed it but............. posted on 30 Aug 2009

  there are two problems with this movie and its the same two most everyone here has mentioned. I was hoping Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen would reprise his role, and Sofia Coppola, despite being very beautiful, gives an extremely poor performance. She would not have had the chance to play in this movie if it was made 3 or 4 years after the 2nd one. The ending was very dramatic. 8/10

• A letdown posted on 30 Aug 2009

  This movie has some powerful scenes especially at the end but overall it was a letdown. I think the reason it was a letdown was because it was too predictable. After what happened at the end of 'Godfather II' everyone knew what was going to happen to Michael. So since the focus was mostly on Michael it was pretty predictable at times. It would have been a better movie if they would have combined the Michael scenes with Sonny's early days. **1/2 out of **** Stars

• Part three : The Anti- Climax posted on 30 Aug 2009

  You wouldn't think it was possible to make a three hour film in which very little happens, but Francis Ford Coppola succeeded with this decidedly average and woeful anti-climax to his Mafia saga. The flaws are glaringly obvious : a lack of characters from the first two parts (Robert Duvall being a prime example) looses the whole family feel of the trilogy. Andy Garcia (as Vincenzo) is brought in to bolster up the development of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) but the character never develops past an awkward romantic sub-plot involving his cousin... ..which brings us onto Sofia Coppola. Much has been written about her acting ability, or lack of, and this reviewer will only comment that if you don't know what she looks like - or which character she plays, you'll be able to work it out pretty quickly. The film starts promisingly enough, but loses it's way in the middle, which is overly-complicated. However it is the finale that lets the film - and the trilogy down. The murder of a principal character would be effective, but for the fact that the principal character is only principal to THIS film, and not parts 1 or 2Seemingly aware of this, Coppola jumps several years into the future for the supposedly dramatic death of Michael. But, there is little spectacle surrounding this either. In conclusion, if you have sat through Parts 1 and 2, this is pretty essential viewing. Just don't get your hopes up.

• Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit posted on 30 Aug 2009

  One of the great benefits of buying DVD is that in most cases you not only get the film itself but also loads of extras that can only add to the overall feel & premise of the movie itself.I recently bought the DVD Collectors pack of The Godfather saga which not only included the three original cinema versions but also the usual extras such as picture galleries, the Corleone family tree, biographies and additional scenes that only appeared in the TV versions.But the two best features of all were the Director's commentary overlaid for each film and also a separate documentary focusing on the rather difficult productions of all three Godfather films from inception in 1970 to the conclusion in 1990. When I viewed the video version of GIII some years ago I was rather disappointed by the rather bloated & totally unbelievable story concerning corruption and murder within the Vatican by the Mafia.Not only was a I disappointed by the story but also I felt the acting was weak compared to its two predecessors, with the film solely dependent on Al Pacino carrying the torch throughout the saga, while the supporting cast drifted in and out like passing ships in the night.However, now that I have viewed the DVD version along with the behind-the-scenes documentary I can begin to appreciate some of the problems director Coppola faced during the making of GIII.For years Paramount were very keen for GIII to be made, with or without Coppola behind the lens. So desperate were they that up to 15 initial drafts were put forward from different screenwriters but none ever saw the light of day. But on top of this Paramount were not even bothered whether Coppola directed or not since they felt confident that nearly any competent director could carry on the Saga Coppola had so successfully conceived during the 70s with I and II. There are many good directors who could have done this but when one reads that Sylvestor Stallone had been pencilled in by Paramount not only to direct but also to star, one has to consider the sanity of the studio execs at the time.And even when Coppola & Puzo were roped in they had to rush the scripts through in weeks rather than in months so it is not wholly surprising the screenplay looks half-baked.And then of course there is the inclusion of Coppola daughter Sofia as a last minute replacement to more accomplished actress Winona Ryder. It wouldn't have been so bad had her character been no more than a supporting role. But Sofia was asked to play Mary Corleone, daughter to Michael and heir to the entire Corleone business empire.Regrettably the task was to great for someone so young and with so little major acting experience and as a consequence was one of the major faults within the film with poor Sofia panned by both critics and fans alike. It seems strange that Francis cast his daughter for such a major role at such short notice but cast her he did and I guess his decision will forever haunt him.Another omission was that of Robert Duvell as Tom Hagen. GIII was in desperate need of some familiar faces from the previous movies to make the saga complete. However, with the exception of Pacino himself the only significant stars who reprised their roles were Diane Keaton & Talia Shire.Both Keaton & Shire give good solid performances with the latter having a far more significant role than before. But all the same I felt Pacino was very much on his own now that Duvell had been left out due to contract disagreements. I felt the inclusion of Tom (at any cost) would have added more gravitas to the movie. Duvell's character was very prominent & stong in the previous two movies and this was emphasised all too clearly by his absence in III.I liked the story; at least in part. Pacino was excellent as the elderly Don trying to shake off the ghosts & horrors of his past and his determination to go "legit" not only for himself but for his family (not his Mafia family on this occasion but his true family - his wife and children)This part of the story was well done & very moving but was let down badly with the main storyline of corruption and murder within the Vatican by Mafia henchmen over big business dealings & power sharing. This was so unbelievable that any passion & feeling I had for Pacino's wish to be a decent man again went right out of the window by this overblown and frankly stupid premise.However, putting this film in the context of what I have learnt from the documentary I have to say that Coppola shouldn't be blamed completely for this relative flop. The execs at Paramount should hang their heads in shame for trying to rush the screenplay through too quickly and not trusting Coppola's own judgement. I could understand their anxiety if they were dealing with an unknown director but to undermine Coppola with his own movie legacy is a disgrace.GIII is not a bad film by any standards. If one takes a huge pinch of salt then the Vatican storyline can be tolerated. But for the Godfather purists GIII ended up as a wasted opportunity and will always be consigned as the weakest of the three films. In addition one has to feel sympathy for Sofia Coppola for no matter what she does now or in the future she will always be remembered for her rather poor performance in Godfather III.***SPOILER*** I loved the ending, it was so underplayed and yet so moving that for a moment I completely forgot about the utter farce that had gone on minutes before. But to see Pacino sitting in his orange grove an elderly man, crippled & blind and subsequently dying was well done and very open to suggestion. For we are not told whether he died a free man or whether the guilt of his past misdemeanours went with him. But it was very touching of Coppola to continue the "orange fruit" symbolism significant throughout the entire saga ***END OF SPOILER******/*****