15 years later..is Godfather III acceptable now?

[Erik Lehnsherr]

It's been touted as the worst Godfather and for good reason. It has some VERY cringe worthy moments and the acting of Sophia Copolla was HORRID but now that time has went by and it's 15 years past it's original date...is it easier to watch this movie now in retrospect?

[Brian Cronin]

Sophia was bad, yes.

But I never hated Godfather III.

Also, I think folks really tend to forget that "Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in." is from this movie.

By the by, speaking of critical acclaim, the movie WAS nominated for SEVEN Academy Awards.

-Brian

[The Mirrorball Man]

Yeah, it's actually a pretty good movie. There's some bad acting and some excellent acting in there, the writing is very solid, and it's one of the last movies where Coppola brought his A-game. The only problem is that the sequel to one of the best pictures ever made can't just be "pretty good". But I have to admit I absolutely love the whole Vatican angle.

[Dennis K]

Godfather III, garbage then, garbage now.

[Tages]

I think one of the primary problems with G3's public perception was that it came out in the same year as "Goodfellas," so there was another mob movie to compare it to. Quite honestly, you can throw many stones before you'll hit someone who liked "Godfather Part III" more than "Goodfellas."

[Slam_Bradley]

While there are some major issues with Godfather III its biggest problem is that it pales so significantly in comparison to the other two movies. It probably also pales in the fact that Goodfellas came out the same year and is a much superior movie. The plot is pretty interesting, the direction is fine. Pacino isn't totally over the top as he is so often in his later movies. Andy Garcia gives the best performance of his career. It's a good film. It just isn't a great film, which both The Godfather and The Godfater II were.

[Tages]

It probably also pales in the fact that Goodfellas came out the same year and is a much superior movie.
Jinx.

(character limit dance)

[Buzz Dixon]

As Francis Ford Coppola himself remarked, "One of 'em had to be the third best in the series."

It was a good film, Sophia wasn't that bad, and only when compared to the greatness of GODFATHERs I & II does it seem lacking.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Yeah, it's actually a pretty good movie. There's some bad acting and some excellent acting in there, the writing is very solid, and it's one of the last movies where Coppola brought his A-game. The only problem is that the sequel to one of the best pictures ever made can't just be "pretty good". But I have to admit I absolutely love the whole Vatican angle.

I see. So the line of thought works best that two great classic movies like the first two demands to have a great sequel to finish up the series? "Pretty good" doesn't cut it, huh? Well I can see that. For a movie I never thought too highly of, I always tend to watch some of it when it comes on AMC and USA. I don't know why but I just do. Probably because I like how Sophia has progressed into a better decision maker in Hollywood.

[Jared]

Al Pacino has said he thinks part of the problem is that people don't want to see Michael Corleone crying over caskets.

I have yet to actually see Part III myself, because I've heard such bad stuff about it, and I'm worried about how much it might sully the whole saga.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I've tried to watch it again on numerous occasions but I've never managed to stay interested enough to finish it. So, yeah, that's a pretty bad sign...

[Calamas]

No. And my issues have nothing to do with the horrible work of Sofia Coppola. You have the combined talents of Pacino, Keaton, Andy Garcia, Eli Wallach, etc, to counterbalance her. My problem was: More of the same. They gave us nothing new, just the next generation repeating the previous. Now if that had been the point and they had explored this, it would have been a different, better movie. But “series” mindset had seeped in. It became a “Godfather” movie in the way the next installment featuring 007 is a “James Bond” movie. This, this and this has to happen. Well, just because it worked before doesn’t mean it’ll be interesting forever more. And it wasn’t.

Also this movie contained one of the most overbearing soundtracks ever produced. Sometimes it hurt to stay seated in that theatre. I’ll be willing to concede that it distracted me from the real focus of the movie, but upon re-viewing at home where I control the volume, the faults mentioned above still stand.

[Grant]

I thought it had some good moments it just didn't come together very well. And losing DuVall and having George Hamilton step in it didn't help things either. But it had some top notch performance and some Talia Shire's best acting in the series. I can't forgive the last shot with an elderly Michael just drops dead in a chair.

It's no Goodfellas though. Which really should have one best picture.

[LordEd1976]

Sophia wasn't that bad.

I'll admit i've seen worse but Sophia has proven she's better BEHIND the camera than in front.

that and the fact her character falls in love with her cousin is just wrong.

[cactusmaac]

The other Godfathers were long, but kept me interested till the end.

This didn't.

Although I didn't think Sofia Coppola was all that bad in it.

[The Mirrorball Man]

People, please don't forget that Sofia Coppola was a late replacement for Wynona Ryder. So even in the alternate universe version of the movie, Mary Corleone is nothing to write home about.

[ChrisII]

A few of my problems:


1) The whole Vatican/Altobello/Immobilari/Gazzo or however you spell it conspiracy seemed rather confused to me (Although I've been told parts of it are based on a true story). The first two films, when you boil it down, were mainly revenge flicks with Michael's need to protect his family making him more and more corrupt; here Michael just seems reluctantly caught in the middle.

2) Flashbacks to the other two films kind of cheapened things a bit..


3) The film's cinematography is too bright compared to the other two. Granted, this is partially because it's a 'newer' film...


Some interesting facts:

John Savage, who played Tom Hagen's son, was briefly Robert Duvall's brother-in-law in the 80's.

Sophia Copolla, along with Keira Knightley and a few others, was one of the handmaidens in The Phantom Menace, and was nominated for a razzie for the film...

[Davideaux]

I have yet to actually see Part III myself, because I've heard such bad stuff about it, and I'm worried about how much it might sully the whole saga.

Me too. I'll walk by it at Blockbuster and mull over renting it but usually I'm too afraid to give it a go.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Me too. I'll walk by it at Blockbuster and mull over renting it but usually I'm too afraid to give it a go.
It's a good movie, and although it doesn't measure up to the others, it won't "rape your childhood".

[Jared]

People, please don't forget that Sofia Coppola was a late replacement for Wynona Ryder. So even in the alternate universe version of the movie, Mary Corleone is nothing to write home about.


Are you deriding Winona Ryder's acting, or her beauty? I warn you that if it was the latter, then sir, we will have to duel.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Are you deriding Winona Ryder's acting, or her beauty? I warn you that if it was the latter, then sir, we will have to duel.
Naaah, she's cute. She's just completely useless as an actress.

[Tages]

By the by, speaking of critical acclaim, the movie WAS nominated for SEVEN Academy Awards.
Coppola could have filmed Al Pacino reading aloud random words from the Oxford English Dictionary for three hours, called it "Godfather Part III" and it would have been nominated for Oscars.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

Although I didn't think Sofia Coppola was all that bad in it.

Say WHAT? If that wasn't one of the worst cases of overacting, I don't know what is. She's EXTREMELY talented behind the camera and has become a student of her craft but that was just hard to watch at times.