If you've been on the fence about what Blu-ray can do, the just-released The Godfather: The Coppola Restoration will make you a convert. It's not that the restoration looks shabby on regular DVD—it most assuredly does not—but the The Godfather Trilogy on four Blu-ray discs screams the word "definitive." Suddenly, scenes from the first two Godfather films that looked bathed in mud instead of light take on the burnished glow of something freshly minted. I had doubted that the brownish tones and murky shadows that director Francis Coppola wanted from cinematographer Gordon Willis would ever be possible to reproduce on disc. No more. "I believe in America" is the first line uttered in The Godfather trilogy. Well, I believe in this restoration. The DVD is a monumental achievement that preserves the film’s resonant mood, stirring storytelling, haunting Nino Rota score, and gallery of career-defining performances, including Marlon Brando as the iconic Don Vito Corleone and Robert De Niro as the younger Don. Both deservedly won Oscars. In adapting Mario Puzo’s novel about a Mafia family, Coppola turned Mario Puzo's pulp bestseller into lasting cinema art. Parts 1 & II remain indisputable American classics. The fact that the trilogy's major competition for your DVD dollar this week is Sex and the City: The Movie— adding 12 minutes of deleted scenes to a film that was already punishingly long—is laughable. The Godfather Trilogy is the keeper, and it raises a question that needs to be asked.
What about The Godfather III? Does it belong in the same class or even the same DVD package as its predecessors? Since its release in 1990, Part III has always been the whipping boy, the one that got in on its pedigree. Seeing it again nearly two decades later, I'm beginning to cut it a break. Sure, the plot strands keep unraveling as Coppola turns Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) into a Mafia King Lear, hungry for respectability and forgiveness but heading for madness. “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in” is the line Michael famously utters. But some sequences have aged into distinction, such as Michael leaning for support on his bastard nephew Vincent (Andy Garcia in the film’s best performance), who makes the mistake of falling for Michael’s daughter Mary. The received wisdom is that Coppola made the mistake of casting his unprepared daughter, Sofia, in that pivotal role. The way I see it, Mary’s final words and her father’s scream on the steps of the opera house is everything that’s right and wrong about this movie. Also right, in a film that often substitutes flourish for substance, are the flickers of humanity that Pacino lets us see in Michael. Let’s face it, Pacino gives the performance of his life in this role.
OK, enough of me. Do you have an impassioned defense of The Godfather III or would you like to see it banned from the new DVD package? Are there scenes you recall with special admiration or abject embarrassment? The floor is yours.
Share
Email
Stumble
AIM
Del.icio.us
DiggThis
Fark It!
- Portions of Album Content Provided by All Music Guide © 2009 All Media Guide, LLC.
Get RS Mobile
RSS
Gavo | January 22, 2009 3:26 PM
Certainly the less of the three. It built slowly and payed off in grand Godfather fashion. That said, I always wondered, what if Duvall agreed to have himself inserted into the story with a little cinematic wizardry. Some new scenes would have to be shot and actors come back. Hmmm. Coppola would have the chance to largely create the story he may have originally wanted. It would be an experiment, but hey, they did it with the Donner cut of Superman 2.
TN | January 4, 2009 8:49 AM
I actually liked it more than the other two. The first two parts are so over-hyped, over-dissected and over-referenced, that you sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about when you watch them again. Yes, they are good, but in retrospect they lack the dramatic scope the third part has. That part is staged like a greek drama. The end, which I count among the greatest I have seen in movie history, is so dramatic because you don't know whether you should feel sorry for Michael, or whether the 'sacrifice' was deserved for all the bad things he did. It's heavy stuff, but that's what movies are there for, or not?
Dally | January 2, 2009 2:06 PM
This movie was awful i agree with some other people it should not have been made. I think this movie should have been alot simpler just tying up loose ends from the first two. I think there should have been more reflection from the past. I do think the montage scene at the end with all the women in Michael's life was brilliant. I also think Michael's son should have taken over as don not his nephew. I always think back to the scene in part 2 before he leaves for Miami when he says "Some day you will be able to help me" perfect forshadowing but nothing ever comes of it. They should disregard the third movie and make a NEW third one now
BobB | October 27, 2008 2:38 AM
For whatever reason( partly perhaps because of what has happened within the Catholic church since its release),it has aged very well and now comes across as a necessary, operatic coda to the first two. A good film on its own merits; just not a masterpiece as the other two were.
Dave | October 17, 2008 9:35 PM
The third film has always stuck in head as it had flashes of brilliance combined with absolute disappointment.
The scene in the car was Coppola at his best. The casting of his daughter was the death nail to this movie. It was not believable that Andy Garcia (brilliant performance) would sell his sole for this girl. The final scene is so brutal it is ridiculous.
I hate to admit it but after watching it again the good scenes out weighs the bad. No matter how much I try to dislike this movie it pulls me back in!
John | September 29, 2008 5:07 PM
The first two can't be touched, the third one is pointless and should never have been made. I and II, two of the greatest movies ever, should be in their own box set.
joe | September 27, 2008 12:27 AM
I don't mind Part III, but it wasn't even the best gangster movie to come out THAT YEAR. The Coen Brothers released "Miller's Crossing", Phil Joanou released "State of Grace", (a cruelly overlooked film with Sean Penn, Ed Harris, and a never better Gary Oldman), and, of course, Martin Scorsese released "Goodfellas", one of the few gangster movies that can rival Coppola's first two (and, in my opinion, is the equal of both of them).
By the way, I always felt sorry for Sophia Coppola due to the cruelty (no other word) of some of the reviews. Yeah, she wasn't good, but she didn't ruin the movie; the movie shouldn't have been made in the first place. That is was is due to the power of the almighty dollar and the fact that Francis Coppola was bankrupt and hadn't had a hit in a decade. With Michael alienating everyone at the end of the second part and bunkering himself a la Nixon, the true ending was the end of Part II.
kjkeefe | September 25, 2008 5:24 PM
Well, I think it's a lesson in the fragile chemistry needed to make a great movie. Duvall said no; Winona Rider dropped out due to exhaustian (she had made three movies back to back) and Sofia took her place. If those two things hadn't have happened, you get a different movie. I do think Pacino had morphed from the subtle actor who gave us a silky-steely Michael into the "whoo-ha!" actor Pacino became. The subtle power of his earlier Michael was gone, and it did not seem to be the aging version of the same character. Sorry Al. I do agree with those that say that the film does work on a certain level but suffers greatly in comparison to the other two. Part I: "A"; Part II: "A+", Part III: "B-". It belongs in the box set because the artist still known as Francis put it in the box set. He gets to decide.
Roger Faso | September 25, 2008 3:36 PM
Over the top, piece of crap.
I deny it's exsistence. The same way I deny Super Bowl XXXVII, KISS Dynasty and Scrappy Doo.
Adam | September 25, 2008 12:58 PM
Part 3 should have been the tragic fall in all its real, human form- the final reckoning between Michael and Tom Hagen. Those two finally coming to grips over what Michael did in the first two movies (and, presumably, the intervening years) would have been the perfect end for this trilogy. Part 3 should have finally focused on the business and the new generation (led by Andy Garcia, of course) coming up like Sollozzo in Part 1 with his forward-thinking deals with drugs.
Michael lost his family in Part 2 by being too concerned with business. As we saw in part 1, Michael is capable of hardening himself against any onsluaght- by the time he's back from Sicily, he IS the Michael Corleone of the second movie. We don't need the sentimental family man he was in Part 3 because we already know what happened to him. Good for him trying to go legit, though- even if he did have to do under-the-tables deals with the Vatican. Part 3 was too big for itself.
Borracho | September 25, 2008 12:23 PM
The third is actually the best one in the trilogy.
Operatic mafia glory unto the heavens.
This is basically one movie split into three parts.
Abdulnasir Imam | September 25, 2008 9:53 AM
it was aiight, but seriously andy garcia was the star of the flick, al just had the best line.
Ziggysnotdead | September 24, 2008 11:30 PM
We judge GFIII largely in comparison to its famous predecessors, much as how we gauge a sophomore effort to a fantastic debut album. It is difficult to make a successful sequel to these films so long after the fact, and while all the usual considerations do come into play - we can harp on the casting of Sofia Coppola to death, plus Pacino's overacting and Hagen's absence, and so on - the film stands alone as an excellent story that deserves to be told, and any other director would have done it a greater disservice. The background events were real, proper succession is a problem in any dynasty, and Talia Shire deserves a standing ovation for her informal ascension to a ruthless consigliere. There is room still for more of this great saga, and it does not end with Michael.
Z | September 24, 2008 9:54 PM
to be honest...i couldnt finish watching part 3. i got so pissed off at how soft micheal became. sophia coppalas acting blew and the old characters just seemed way too different... get part 3 out of there and drop the price!
Jerk | September 24, 2008 5:22 PM
III is the end of the story-that's all it has to be!
David | September 24, 2008 5:15 PM
One fond memory of Godfather III was seeing "Tuco", from the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, play Don Altobello.
Kevin | September 24, 2008 3:55 PM
One thing, and one thing only was to blame for horridness of The Godfather Part III: Al Pacino's HAIR!
MegaSudz | September 24, 2008 3:37 PM
Robert Duvall summed it up best, they all did if for the money. It was a shame they did not offer him the right amount. We all had to know how flawed this movie was when they recast the part with George Hamilton, tan and all! Then explained it away with Tom died of a heart attack years back. That never sat right with me. What right did they have to bastardize the great American saga over dollars and cents.
The film felt hurried and incomplete.
I also recall that Paramount needed this for the Christmas 1990 release, the only other movie they had ready was a Paul Hogan vehicle.
Cory | September 24, 2008 3:14 PM
I think the whole godfather series is overated. Watch the departed or goodfellas instead. They ard god honest better movies. If I hear that marlon brando line one more time I will puke.(The cant refuse offer in case you didnt know what the fuck I was talking about)
Christian | September 24, 2008 3:13 PM
Travers said it best originally: "It's like looking at a masterpiece done by a clumsy forger." Harsh words, but there is some truth there. The Vegas massacre should have wieght and tragedy. Instead we get blood and noise with no sense of consequence. As for Michael's death, it just comes off as (god help me) funny. That said, watch the great scenes, and there is enough there to rank with the best in the trilogy. Michael's confession, the murder of Joey Zaza, the rise of Vincent as the Don, these are great scenes to be remembered. Unfortunately, they are in a film forever compared to ones whose every shot and moment have been dissected and studied and never forgotten. Does it deserve to be in the trilogy. Well, does your tough-to-love but nevertheless endearing cousin with the knack for saying the wrong thing not belong in your family? Right. Bring him around every now and again, but don't get too comfortable.
saad | September 24, 2008 3:11 PM
the third movie doesn't even nip at the heals of the other two, but it deserves to be there because its the third movie and it was a good movie none the less
Karl | September 24, 2008 1:12 PM
There were some moments in Godfather III that I would refer to as "Godfather moments"; scenes that could stand on their own with the best scenes of the previous two films (most notably the scenes where Michael confesses his sins and later turns over control of the Corleone family to his nephew). But there were too many other parts of the movie that were burdened by unnecessary dialog, questionable casting (George Hamilton and Brigitte Fonda?) and the sense that Coppola was trying much too hard to recreate the magic of the first two movies: an undeniable American classic film, followed by a sequel that stands can stand on its own merits as being another American classic that just happened to be a sequel.
gia | September 24, 2008 12:55 PM
I liked III a lot more than a lot of people. While the Shakespearean tones do resonate and the scope and the tragic fall all evident, it doesn't translate as well as the first two. I do enjoy watching it, though. What bothers me about III the most is - what happened to Sonny's kids? His wife? What happened to Connie's kids? Both are mentioned and/or seen in I and II.
Delvis | September 24, 2008 12:45 PM
We can mention many things that make III suffer - the kissing cousins, the over the top story line concerning the church, etc. - but what hurts the movie the most is the performance of Michael.
I do not know whether to blame Pacino or Coppola for this. In I & II, Michael Corleone is flesh and blood and believable (similar to Gandolofini's Tony Soprano). The audience, without having to stretch their imagination, watches him command the family with cold calculation. In III, however, Michael sounds too much like the Pacino stereotype. This may have been because of the decade that had passed since II, but Pacino carries himself differently as Michael.
No longer does he move elegantly or hold himself up with dark confidence. Even the absence of his trademark leg crossing is noticeable.
But like so many have already said, III is not a bad movie. I personally think they should have scratched Vincent out of the story.
Dago Red | September 24, 2008 11:57 AM
The first two Godfather films are masterpieces that could only have been made in the context of experimentation and rebellion that existed in both Hollywood and our culture at that time. There is a sense of effortless grace about them -- a flow that supports and enhances the experience. The third film is a good movie but standing against the others it is bound to come up short. The only version of the films that I have is the "Godfather Saga," the sequentially cut version that Coppola released on laserdisc many years ago. Even in that format, the transition to the third movie is abrupt. I always have loved Andy Garcia in that role (the cold-blooded way he hisses "Zasa" as he plugs Joe Mantegna -- does anyone remember the early rumors of a sequel starring John Travolta as the next generation godfather?). I never had as much of problem with Sophia Coppola as others (I believe that controversy is largely an issue based on the perception of nepotism). I was really put off by what I perceived as overacting by Pacino (an issue I have with many of his later movies -- the only real exception being "Heat"). I could not come to terms with the fact that the presence that was so powerful in the first two movies (just look at his face as he closes the door on Kate during their encounter as she is leaving from a visit with her children in the second movie, or as he indicates that his instructions regarding Fredo now be carried out during his mother's funeral -- no words are necessary). In the third movie there is way too much temper, shouting and angst -- melodrama vs. substance. It may be operatic and even Shakespearean, but it didn't ring true to me -- it just seemed like someone acting a role. It also suffered by the loss of the Tom Hagen story line. Also, the movie seems very episodic and lacked the grace of the previous films. The bottom line -- I'll probably wait and purchase the first two films individually. I may even have to buy a Blu-Ray player (just as I bought a laserdisc player when "Fantasia" was released and a DVD player when "Yellow Submarine" was issued in a restored Dolby 5.1 version).
Kevin | September 24, 2008 11:34 AM
I can enjoy part III now, but not at first. The really maddening part is that Tom Hagen is missing. There were power struggles alluded to in the first two films between he and Michael that I thought could have been very easily mined to fill some alternate part III that I was really hoping for. And it isn't as though III is as atrocious as something like the pre-Nolan Batman series where a fresh filmmaker can step in and say, "well, let's just try that again..."
BJ | September 24, 2008 11:22 AM
The 3rd film has some good things going for it-particularly the plot, which is intriguing and operatic. The parallel of Michael's personal struggles with his conscience against the corruption of the Vatican is wonderful.
But the movie reeks of corporation and compromise, and just as Michael is looking back on his life and yearning for the time before he took over from the Don, Coppola's freedom as a filmmaker is far behind him at this point. I can only imagine the meetings with executives, trying to "skew" the movie younger-all that crap with Bridget Fonda and Garcia just doesn't belong in the beautiful Shakespearean web that Coppola is trying to spin. I can also imagine the actors demands and egos being a much different thing to work with in 1990 compared to '71.
And the movie seems like it was written in the editing room-which indicates a rush job. Conversations don't quite makes sense, and some of the rhythms feel more soap opera than drama.
But it has it's moments-it's flashes of what could have been-but they really only make me more sad. Michael's confession, his pain and guilt over Fredo still so close to the surface after all the ensuing years, is the greatest moment in the film, and one of Pacino's best in the series, but it only serves to illustrate how badly everyone involved should feel about betraying the past.
Al D. | September 24, 2008 10:49 AM
I remember living in NYC and going to the opening on Christmas Day with a friend. It was brutal to watch. Granted I haven't seen it since, but it was painful to watch Sofia act, as it was hard not to laugh when Pacino falls off of his chair in the last scene and dies a broken man. The first two are the greatest movies of all time.
Phlegmingway | September 24, 2008 10:17 AM
Godfather III was awful. Everytime Sophia Coppola was on screen I wanted to slit my throat she was so bad. Pacino began his downslide into acting oblivion with this one, and he's gone full circle with the recent Deniro debacle. They both better get back to making good movies or they're going to be rememebered more for for the bombs they've made then the classics. Kind of like McCartney after the Beatles. 8 years of recording with the Beatles, but 38 since!
Ola | September 24, 2008 6:37 AM
I agree with most people here. It´s not as good as the first two parts (but what is?), yet it remains to be one of the most underestimated films ever. Pacino and Garcia have a good chemistry.
Michael | September 24, 2008 1:07 AM
GFIII is one of the worst third movies in a trilogy ever made. Compared to the first two, it is not just bad, it's awful. As a stand alone movie, it is average at best. Shire gives the only really good performance here, sorry Al. Robert Duvall, where were you when we needed you?
tom in vegas | September 24, 2008 12:31 AM
I always thought III got a bad rap. It is a good, (not great) movie, but compared to I and II anything would look bad by comparison. You are comparing it to 2 of the best movies ever, what chance do you have to capture lightning in a bottle a 3rd time?
val | September 24, 2008 12:19 AM
i realy liked part III.
it is not as good as part I or part II (maybe only the score is better) ...
the only problem i see in this movie is the casting ...
they had a couple of great actors (pacino, garcia,keton,shire) and a couple of them that just didnt belong there
Sonny's Fist | September 24, 2008 12:18 AM
Thank you, thank you, thank you for finally easing up on GFIII. If that film came from another director under another title it would be considered a semi-masterpiece.
The last half hour of that film is about as good a sequence as Coppola has ever put together. Then cap it off with Pacino's reaction to his daughter's death... I bawled my eyes out.
Zsa Zsa!
Wes | September 23, 2008 11:20 PM
Part III is not a bad movie in all, but next to the unmitigated genius of I and II, it seems like a let down. For me, the most jarring moment is seeing Geroge Hamilton as the "replacement" for Robert Duvall. A real drop-off. And Sofia C. is not a very convincing actress. Not terrible, but not a classic, either.
Leanne | September 23, 2008 10:33 PM
Godfather III was an after thought. Awkward acting, especially by Sofia Coppola, made a few of the dramatic scenes almost laughable. And yet, I watched the entire film anticipating with great hope that at any moment, the absolute elegance and perfection of Godfather 1 and 2 would surface, smoothing the rough edges and creating cinematic brilliance once again. I guess the third time isn't always the charm.
Bill in Seattle | September 23, 2008 10:12 PM
i really enjoyed III despite Sofia's bland performance. i always thought that if Wynona Ryder hadn't bowed out of the role that the film would have achieved classic status. of course, to really be a classic, someone had to take Francis aside and tell him to reshoot that pitiful ending when Michael not only dies but flops out of his chair like a bad Chevy Chase pratfall.
doobios | September 23, 2008 9:29 PM
Godfather III is BY NO MEANS a bad movie, it just is not as good as the first 2 Godfathers (not many movies are). The worst part was Coppolas daughter: sorely miscasted. People need to give it a break, and watch it and take is as an addition to THE trilogy, not as something to compare to the first two.
Stist | September 23, 2008 9:04 PM
Part III was the 1st Godfather movie I saw and it made me fall in love with the Corleone family and the romance and loyalty that Italian-American families have that my waspy family just doesn't. In ranks 3rd in greatness in the trilogy but still a beautiful movie. Pacino screaming on the opera steps at the end is horrifying. And I love that Connie turns out to be bad ass.
That said, Jason is totally right about the editing. When Michael has his stroke in the kitchen, the group of characters move from one room to another in one cut. very awkward.
Birdman | September 23, 2008 8:11 PM
Godfather III does not compare to Parts I & II but then again no movies ever made do either. Thus people need to start leaving Part III alone and realize it's a damn fine movie. Pacino is brilliant as he brings closure to Michael. Parts I&II are the two greatest films ever made. Part III is top 50 for sure. So hell yes it belongs in the set!
Leonardo | September 23, 2008 7:21 PM
It is one of the greatest movies of all time in my opinion....Pacino and Garcia delivers awesome peformances.
Coppola is a master...the best at what he does...so is Pacino.
Mr. X | September 23, 2008 7:15 PM
They should have shot Diane Keaton instead of the daughter
jasonTHX | September 23, 2008 3:51 PM
Part III is an amazing, powerful, shattering movie. One of the best experiences I've had watching a film in my life, in the fall of 1991. Still it's not perfect. The editing seemed off (why does George Hamilton shout "We had an agreement." all of a sudden?) and Bridget Fonda dissapears too suddenly.
Sofia isn't necessarily "Bad", she's just kind of soulless in her scenes with Pacino, but not in her scenes with Garcia. Go figure. Some setups are way too obvious (you can see Eli Wallach's s Don Altabello betrayal of Michael coming long before it happens.)
Still what hits the heart most are the quiet scenes, Michael's confession, and Micheal and kay's reconcilliation.
I remember the 1991 videocassette had deep brown and orange colors that the DVD washed out. I hope these new discs retain that look. I grew up with those colors in my mind, they're how I want to see this again.
LS | September 23, 2008 3:37 PM
I just felt like casting mistakes took away from the entire film...Sofia Coppola, George Hamilton, Joe Mantegna, Bridget Fonda. Also, I thought FFC missed the opportunity to tie the films together by not starting the film with Archbishop Gilday sitting across from Michael asking for help a la Bonasera across from Don Vito in the first film. Every time I watch the triology (yearly), subtle missteps such as this always give rise to thoughts of "what could have been"...
Shabby | September 23, 2008 11:39 AM
Godfather III has some good moments but the biggest problem is the horrible make-up on Pacino at the very end.