 |
| An aging Michael Corleone makes an ambitious final effort to redeem his family name. |
Release Date: Dec. 20, 1990. Running Time: 162 minutes (theatrical), 170 minutes (director's cut), 158 minutes (re-release). Screenplay by: Mario Puzo, Francis Ford Coppola. Producer: Francis Ford Coppola. Director: Francis Ford Coppola.
Note: This review is based on the 1991 "Final Director's Cut."
THE PLOT:
The year is 1979 and, after decades of investment in legitimate businesses, Michael believes he has finally freed himself and his family from ties to organized crime. "We've sold the casinos, all businesses having to do with gambling. We have no interests or investments in anything illegitimate."
He plans to cement his turn from mafia don to respected businessman by purchasing control of Immobiliare, a company with deep ties to the Catholic Church. The deal is contingent on personal approval by the Pope himself, but Archbishop Gilday (Donal Donnelly), head of the Vatican Bank, assures him that this is little more than a formality.
Then the Pope falls ill, leaving ratification of the agreement in limbo. If the Pope dies, one of the corrupt executives smirks, "all bets are off" - with Michael potentially left with nothing.
Even as he navigates this mess, problems are brewing in New York. Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia), the illegitimate son of Michael's late brother Sonny, has come into conflict with gangster Joey Zasa (Joe Mantegna). Zasa has taken control of the territory once protected by Michael's father, and he has turned it into a crime-infested sewer. Michael extends his protection to Vincent, taking the hotheaded young man under his wing in hopes of teaching him patience. Outside of that, however, he refuses to get involved.
That isn't good enough for Joey Zasa. With backing from an unidentified enemy, he makes a move - one that threatens to pull Michael right back into the world he left behind!
 |
| Michael attempts to purchase a company with ties to the Vatican. |
AL PACINO AS DON MICHAEL CORLEONE:
My opinion of Al Pacino's performance in The Godfather, Part III is similar to my opinion of the movie itself. On its own terms, it's a good performance, suffering mainly by comparison to the two 1970s films.
Pacino is particularly good at capturing Michael's physical weariness. He walks with a stoop and seeming to be contracting into himself, diminishing before our eyes. He's uncomfortable even when he sits, as if he doesn't quite fit into the chair, and he regularly slumps his head or even entire body to one side. His visible exhaustion makes his moments of strong emotion more effective, notably a scene in which he falls into tears when confessing his sins to an honest Cardinal.
"I would burn in hell to keep you safe," he tells his daughter, Mary (Sofia Coppola) - and indeed, he believes himself to be beyond any kind of redemption, his only solace the hope that he's protected his children from the world he fell into. He protests to Kay that he never had a choice, that he had to act as he did to protect the people he loved, only to lose them anyway.
However - again, like the movie itself - there's no question that he isn't at the same level here as in the first two movies. In The Godfather and particularly The Godfather, Part II, Pacino didn't so much play Michael as inhabit him. Even now, when I rewatch the earlier movies, I don't see Pacino playing Michael; I see the character. By contrast, in this third entry, I mostly see Al Pacino.
 |
| Joey Zasa (Joe Mantegna) prepares to move against Michael. |
OTHER CHARACTERS:
Kay Adams Corleone: The opening scenes indicate that she's had minimal contact with Michael since their marriage ended, but they mutually agreed for her to take charge of their children's education... which is absolutely not inconsistent with him wordlessly slamming the door in her face while she was saying goodbye to the children at the end of the The Godfather, Part II. She still has unresolved feelings for him, rushing to his side when he has a medical emergency, but she remains wary of the danger surrounding him. Diane Keaton is good as ever, but she unfortunately gets stuck with some of the clunkiest dialogue, notably when she complains that Michael is more dangerous now than when he was "just a common Mafia hood."
Connie Corleone: One thing that can be said for The Godfather, Part III is that it gives a lot more to its female cast than the first two films. Nowhere is this more evident than with Talia Shire's Connie, a decidedly supporting character in the earlier entries who graduates to a central role here. She has retained contact with Kay, and she also brings Vincent to Michael. She is a direct advisor to Michael (almost certainly a case of Talia Shire inheriting some of what would have been Robert Duvall's role), authorizing Vincent to respond to actions against the Corleones while Michael is in the hospital and directly participating in the opera house climax. I'm not sure most of this is really a natural extension of Connie's established character, but at the very least Talia Shire plays her scenes well, convincingly making Michael's sister into a formidable presence.
Vincent Mancini: Andy Garcia's Vincent is a hothead, like his father, and Garcia even borrows a few of James Caan's mannerisms. I don't think Vincent's arc really works - not because of Garcia, who is perfectly fine, but because the script never makes him the focus. In the original movie, Marlon Brando's Vito was all but removed for the middle hour, allowing Al Pacino's Michael to emerge as the main character. The Godfather, Part III is centered entirely around Michael, with everyone else being a supporting character. This leaves little time for Vincent's transformation from short-tempered loose cannon to calculating leader, and as a result I'm unconvinced when he's given (quite literally just given) the title of "Don Corleone" in the final half hour.
Don Altobello: Eli Wallach as an elderly, retired-but-not-retired Sicilian don sounds like casting out of a Mel Brooks movie. I can't help but wonder if Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo couldn't have tweaked the character to make him a Jewish advisor who has gained power through sheer shrewdness; yes, that would be repeating Hyman Roth, but it would also allow the character to fit the casting. That dissonance aside, Wallach's performance is good, the actor turning the character's outward meekness into a thin mask. The more he protests his own powerlessness, his need to "please the world around me," the clearer it becomes that he is one of the most dangerous characters in the story.
Joey Zasa: A flashy mobster who enjoys public attention, winking at his mob status while dismissing it as "fantasy," he's basically a fictionalized John Gotti - and he is easily the movie's most entertaining character. Zasa swaggers into frame, all but openly disrespectful of the Corleones from his first appearance. Michael dismisses him as "small time" - even after Zasa makes his move, Michael knows that he could not have done this alone. In my opinion, Zasa should have been the film's most visible antagonist. Joe Mantegna is excellent, and his character's street-level crudeness is an effective contrast to the more formal demeanor of Michael, let alone the various Vatican officials and Immobiliare execs. This creates friction and energy when he's onscreen, qualities that the movie could have used more of.
B. J. Harrison: Robert Duvall declined to return after receiving what he felt was an insulting offer from Paramount. The new family attorney is George Hamilton's Harrison. The absence of Tom diminishes the movie, as without him there really isn't an equivalent voice to argue against Michael's decisions. Beyond that, there's the inevitable temptation to make fun of George Hamilton for... well, being George Hamilton. But honestly? I think he's pretty good here. Harrison isn't the focus of many scenes (I suspect Tom's role would have been larger), but he's often in the background, watching closely, ready to jump in to forestall awkward questions from a reporter or to express worries about the Immobiliare deal.
Mary Corleone: Winona Ryder was cast as Michael's daughter, only to drop out from nervous exhaustion early in production. This put Francis Ford Coppola in a bind - and he made probably the worst decision possible by replacing her with his daughter, Sofia. Even decades on, I feel bad about pointing out the stilted movements and wooden line deliveries of someone who, after, all, was not a professional actress. Still, this is a released feature film - a tentpole film of its year - and Sofia Coppola's performance harms every scene in which she's the focus. Her father seems at least to have recognized this while editing (even in the longest of the three versions, her total screen time is limited) - but in a story that strives to evoke King Lear, it's a bit of a problem that the dutiful daughter ends up being the weakest single aspect of the entire production.
 |
| Michael enjoys a peaceful moment with Kay (Diane Keaton) and their daughter, Mary (Sofia Coppola). |
THOUGHTS:
"The mind suffers and the body cries out... Your sins are terrible, and it is just that you suffer. Your life could be redeemed, but I know that you don't believe that. You will not change."
-Cardinal Lamberto, soon to become Pope John Paul I, hears the confession of Michael Corleone.
The Godfather, Part III has plenty of merit as a film. It's rarely less than entertaining; it's lovely to look at, making fine use of excellent studio sets and real-world locations; it is, with one notable exception, very well acted; and it features a handful of terrific set pieces. Taken on its own terms, this is a good movie.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to simply take it on its own merits. Any "Part III" will, by its very nature, be measured against its predecessors. In this case, both of the preceding entries were genuine American masterpieces. When that's the standard, failure to measure up is basically built in.
Granting that, then, it's almost remarkable how well the first half of this movie works. The script, once again by Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola, draws parallels between organized crime and business. Michael wants to purchase Immobiliare to wash clean his family name. Instead, he finds himself not only the target of criminal rivals, but the victim of a swindle by corrupt forces in both the business world and the Vatican. "They're the true mafia," he spits angrily.
The film is absorbing, sometimes witty, and frequently energetic - at least, while the primary setting remains New York. When the action shifts to Sicily, however, that energy drains away. It remains enjoyable, but it becomes too straight-faced. The characters fall into slow, self-conscious speaking styles. Michael's confession is a wonderfully effective scene... but it would be even moreso if it wasn't surrounded by so many other would-be Shakespearian soliloquies.
 |
| Cardinal Lamberto (Raf Vallone) reluctantly accepts his new role as Pope John Paul I. |
THEMES TOO BIG FOR THE STORY:
This film is not about its plot. Coppola is far more interested in Michael's regrets and his wish for redemption as he faces the price of the life he's lived. He wants his legacy to go through his biological children, for the Corleone name to be associated with business, charity, and art. However, events make it inevitable that his true legacy will run through Vincent, who is destined to carry on the Corleone crime family. It's intended as a Shakespearian tragedy, which is a worthy vision for the series' final bow.
Too bad, then, that these ideas are tied to this plot. I don't hate the Immobiliare plot. There's cleverness in the way Puzo and Coppola weave in the real-world Vatican Bank scandal and the deaths of two Popes, and it's amusing to see Michael be outmanipulated by so-called "legitimate businessmen." However, the mix of shady business dealings, organized crime, and Vatican conspiracy theories feels like the stuff of airport potboilers. It's like a Dan Brown thriller that got released a decade too soon: The DaVinci Don.
Also, because Coppola's focus really isn't on the pulpy plot mechanics, parts of the story feel underdeveloped, even arbitrary. Michael sends Vincent to his enemies to pretend to betray him. Echoes of Luca Brasi in the original, only Vincent actually manages to persuade them and is welcomed into their ranks. This should lead to scenes of him learning information while avoiding discovery - scenes that would also give a needed boost to Vincent's role and show him having to hold his emotions in check.
This does not occur. Instead, once Vincent enters the enemy fold, his subterfuge is... basically ignored until just before the climax, when he pops up with information - at which point it's been so long unmentioned that, on first viewing, I was actually momentarily thrown until I remembered the existence of this neglected plot point.
 |
| Vincent (Andy Garcia) becomes the true inheritor of Michael's legacy. |
VERSIONS:
After The Godfather, Part III's theatrical run, Francis Ford Coppola added nine minutes of deleted scenes for the 1991 home video release, labeling it his "Final Director's Cut." For a long time, this was the only version commercially available. It's the basis for this review for two versions: It's my preferred cut; and it's the one that I happen to already own.
In 2020, Coppola revisited it with The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone. There are various light trims throughout, and the ending scene is dropped. The most notable change, however, is that it re-structures the opening to start with Michael's offer for Immobiliare, a scene that the previous versions place 40 minutes in.
I can see the argument for this, as it establishes up-front both the story and Michael's hopes to use the business to wash clean his old sins. However, I think the 1990/1991 opening is a better tone-setter, with Michael making an appeal to his children for them and Kay to be more a part of his life. The true focus of the movie is on Michael's regrets and his desire to steer his legacy away from crime; the newer cut instead directs viewers to the plot, a plot that is often neglected by the movie that follows.
It should be noted that mine is a minority opinion: The Godafther Coda is widely regarded as more focused and better paced. It ultimately makes little difference, though, whether you're watching the 1990 theatrical cut, the 1991 director's cut, or the 2020 re-edit. All three are ultimately the same movie, with the same virtues and failings, in every variant.
OVERALL:
The Godfather, Part III is flawed, but it's far from the disaster some Godfather fans have labeled it. I think critics at the time had it about right: It's intermittently compelling with some terrific set pieces and worthy themes. It's rarely less than enjoyable, and it's extremely well-made. It simply has the misfortune to be an above-average crime drama trapped in the shadow of two masterpieces.
It's worth watching - but it's also a movie to watch with suitably tempered expectations.
Rating: 7/10.
Preceded by: The Godfather, Part II
Review Index
To receive new review updates, follow me:
On BlueSky:
On Threads:
No comments:
Post a Comment