Pacino is the issue here

Don't forget also that about 20 years passes between II and III. A lot of blood has gone over the bridge, a lot of anxiety, and a lot of uphill walking toward the salvation that is always just out of reach.



The Fabio Principle: Puffy shirts look best on men who look even better without them.

I sort of agree with you, and what was very telling to me was Pacino's own Italian-American personality coming thru the character more than the subdued Michael Corleone we saw in Godfather 2. To me the GF3 doesn't add up in terms of Michael's motivation for redemption. The entire grand scheme of buying into the Catholic Church seemed like an odd choice considering the well publicized corruption of the Church itself at this time, so I don't see how Puzo figured that the audience would appreciate Michael's foray into owning a Catholic conglomerate as some sort of "new direction" for him.

The real aging Michael Corleone is shown at the end of GF2, with greying hair as he quietly reflects on his past. GF3 was nothing but a bad dream Coppola had after eating too much linguini.

You, my friend, have hit the nail on the head.

My wife and I were eager to see this movie when it opened on Christmas day, and when the film was over, there was only dead silence from the packed theater. The wife and I were speechless, we refused to talk about what we just watched.

Over the years, I have re-invested time into this 3rd installment, hoping that time and age on my part would make this film any better...it has not.

All of the minor annoyances or changes are tolerable, however, it is Al Pacino's performance that sinks this movie; as KGB states it's more Pacino than Michael Corleone.

What a pity...

http://everydouchebagandtheirmom.tumblr.com/post/64532853066/the-only-good-scene-in-the-godfather-3

I've always thought that If they would have followed the godfather novel on - this third instalment wouldn't have been half bad - but you're right - Pacino really hammed it up and although I realise now it was not entirely Sofia Coppola's fault that she sucked so bad in this movie - her death scene is still the best part of this movie (see the gif above)

It's apparent that you aren't a long-term Pacino fan; that or you just aren't incredibly observant. You wrote: "But by the 90s, Pacino had moved into his loud and boisterous phase. He simply wasn't the same actor." Al Pacino's "loud and boisterous phase" is actually Al Pacino's entire film career! Have you NEVER seen The Panic in Needle Park, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, ...And Justice for All or Scarface?! Al Pacino is one of my favorite actors and he is known for his explosive, impassioned performances. I can't think of any actor that does "boisterous" or "loud" any better than Al Pacino. Pacino's long-time friend, teacher, colleague and great professional influence Lee Strasberg, as well as Pacino himself have made no secret of the fact that Pacino absolutely loves performing those big, loud, over the top, explosive scenes and characters. He loves it and I believe it's one of his greatest trademarks as an actor. It's especially noteworthy because most actors do not do it well. It can very easily come off as "over-acting," so the fire and heart simply must be authentic to the actor that's performing it. Per Dog Day Afternoon, does the dialogue, "Attica! Attica! Attica! Attica!" mean nothing to you?

If you'd watched any of his absolutely amazing performances in any of the aforementioned films (from the 70s up to and including Scarface in the early 80's), you'd know that Pacino's work in The Godfather films is notable because of the amount of restraint demonstrated by Pacino. I imagine that, for Pacino, playing Michael Corleone has been one of the most challenging and exhausting tasks of his career. With exception to a few scenes in the first two Godfather films, Pacino didn't have the luxury of using to his benefit his strong voice and great physicality. He had to hold back, using mostly his eyes to portray such stoic, quiet power. When Michael came into leadership, the soulful innocence in his eyes was replaced with a steely detachment so palpable that it creates a constant, eery tension. It's that tension that makes the second film both enjoyable and uncomfortable for me to watch, as I feel as though I'm holding my breath for the majority of the film. As a person that lives for Pacino's more outrageous, loud performances, I can say that Michael Corleone is NOT among my favorite characters, but Pacino's work as Michael IS some of the most admirable, balanced and brilliant work of his career.

If not for Pacino's dedication and efforts, the character of Michael Corleone could have easily fallen flat and one dimensional. A great example of this is James Caan's performance as Sonny Corleone. Where Caan is an otherwise fine actor, he failed to make Sonny real. Rather than be complimented, James Caan was handicapped by the masterful work of his peers. The contrast is so blatant that it makes Caan's Sonny seem like an awkward caricature. In Caan's defense, many actors have been best served to simply play quietly in the sandbox opposite Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. Not everyone can be as astute as John Cazale, an actor that shined with performances that seemed effortless. In The Godfather I and II, as well as his few other films, Cazale was both a compliment to and complimented by the powerhouse actors with which he played alongside.

I too always felt Pacino phoned it in for GF3. It's possibly he tried to get into character as Michael, and just wasn't able to, considering it had been over twenty years since he played him, and that the last time he played him, he was younger and he was playing a younger character. First you have to get into character as Michael, then you have to think about what Michael would be like in his fifties, then you have to portray it as realistically as possible. Who said acting was easy? lol.

I have GF3 on my netflix cue. I'm going to get it one more try. This time, I'm going to try to watch it as a stand alone movie, and try not to connect any of it to GF 1 and 2. I'm going to watch it as Puzo and Coppola's take on an aging mob boss in the 1970s trying to go legitimate and get involved with the church.

I think you are spot on about Pacino.

He is probably trying to suggest that Michael is turning into his own father, but this consists largely of imitating Brando's rasping voice. It is a performance that makes sense in its own terms, but is too big and too demonstrative for either Michael or Vito Corleone.

I don't entirely agree about Sofia Coppola. It is not that her performance is bad, but that it is inappropriate.

She isn't an actress, so she doesn't give an actressy performance. Her unusual features and her natural, unaffected line delivery would work well in the context of a drama-documentary, but in a movie where everybody else is chewing up the scenery she does looks a bit out of place.