MovieChat Forums > The Godfather Part III (1990) Discussion > Anyone bugged by how painfully good this...

Anyone bugged by how painfully good this film is?

posted 8 years ago by Alex_Hodgkinson
4 replies | jump to latest

It bugs me that the first two films were pretty much perfect and captures Michael's character, winning everything and becoming a man of power and status, while losing everything that's important without realising. It's almost poetic. Then we have this film, that's just good. It's not a bad film at all, but it isn't close to the height of the first two. This means that I feel bad for ignoring it and it just sort of latches on the end of the story.

In my opinion, this film is rife with overacting and doesn't get any of the characters. As it's own film, it's pretty damn good, but it doesn't feel like The Godfather. For one, the general tone seems to have changed. But my biggest issue is Michael, subjectively the highlight of the films. He's an emotional wreck. I've always seen his character as being one who slowly let his narcissism engulf him, let his true self show. Him doing a u turn and just begging and pleading and crying for help at every turn doesn't feel like him. I understand that it was a story about an attmpted redemption and why people may like this, but it felt out of character. His arc ended perfectly with the second, and a story about Michael making a futile attempt to redeem himself could work if his character is approached correctly, but it isn't approached correctly, in my opinion.

Add to this that Pacino is essentially Scarface and Michael is gone. He's a new character. Then there's the rest of the cast. Most work and I actually think Kay is pretty much spot on, but there's at least a couple of stale performances that didn't work at all. The Corleones didn't feel right at all.

But it is a good film. A good story and, if it stood alone, great characters. The problem is that it doesn't hold up with the other two. The story of the rise of Don Corleone and the fall of Michael Corleone. This didn't feel necessary and I really didn't think it worked. I loved a number of scenes, especially the ending where he dies alone, but for the most part it was just a good film that didn't feel like the Godfather at all.

Just my two cents, which, for the most part, aren't worth *beep*

-

"It hurts, doesn't it? Being in pain." - Daredevil, a lawyer, 2015

[–] canaanlb 7 years ago

Keep in mind that this is years after part II. I'm pretty sure a lot has happened during that time, plus Michael is getting old and starts looking back at past decisions and starts regretting a lot of the thongs he did. I thought it was perfectly believable that he became an emotional wreck.

[–] jekporkins (1921) 6 years ago

You can tell by his face and posture he's so worn out and tired of it all. I mean, he literally says just when he thought he was out and they pulled him back in. I get the feeling he had been constantly trying to go legit and the past or responsibilities kept getting in his way. Even when he's getting an award from the Vatican he has to deal with BS from Joey Zazza and his nephew.

Michael is trying to find redemption and fails time and time again. He tries to bring his family back together and people die. He literally goes to the Catholic Church for salvation and it backfires. He constantly says how family is the most important thing in life, but the last shot is of him dying old, broken and very much alone. I love this movie - it shows how much of a Shakespeare tragedy his entire life is.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 6 years ago

QUOTE:
-------------
"Add to this that Pacino is essentially Scarface and Michael is gone. "
-------------

^^^Scarface? How is Pacino in any way like Scarface in this? Have you even seen Scarface?

And the change in Michael's character from TGF2 is due to Coppola, not Pacino. Even Pacino did not liek where the character was going in this and would call James Caan in the middle of the night complaining about it.

Michael here, according to Coppola, is meant to be Michael from TGF1, prior to his father's assassination. That was the intent.

And please don't say Pacino overshouted in this because he shouted more times in TGF2 than in this & his 2 supposed 'shouts here' was because of a 1. diabetic attack, & 2. the death of his daughter before his eyes.

[–] BooBooCat (652) 4 years ago

I agree here. As a stand-alone movie, it would have worked and would had been a very good movies (with flaws nevertheless). But as part of The Godfather franchise? The first to movies are ultimate masterpieces, so the barre is high, I must admit. Unfortunately, this one lacked in quality and, as you said, some characters simply don't fit their character like we knew them.