leeper@mtgzy.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) (01/03/91)
THE GODFATHER PART III
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1990 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: The Corleone saga continues in another
story of honor and revenge. This is not the Best Picture of
1990 but it is good enough that it will probably be nominated
for that honor. While it is less than totally original,
major similarities to the other parts may well go unnoticed.
(The afterword to this review is a spoiler.) Rating: high +2
(-4 to +4).
In these days of making popular films into series, by far the most
respected series is the now three-part "Godfather" saga. Both THE GODFATHER
and THE GODFATHER PART II won the Best Picture Academy Award and it is very
likely we will be seeing a campaign to get THE GODFATHER PART III the same
award. No sequel other than THE GODFATHER PART II has ever won Best
Picture. The series has even outlived the accuracy of the title, since
Michael Corleone was certainly not the Godfather in PART I, and seems only
rarely to use the title of "Godfather." In many ways this is also the most
deserving of being a series since the stories really do build on each other
and lose a great deal if viewed out of order. There is now authenticity
from the fact that when a character remembers an event from years earlier,
the audience also remembers it from a point in time that is genuinely years
earlier for them. If Michael remembers the death of his first wife many
years ago, I also remember it from eighteen years ago.
It is not that there is really such original writing. In many ways we
are repeatedly seeing the same story. (For fear of spoilers I can list only
some superficial parallels here and will say more in the afterward.) Each
film starts with a long sequence that is a celebration of an important
family event: a wedding, a confirmation, an award from the Pope. Each also
concludes with a family event. One thinks of the films as being about the
family business but, in fact, the subject is very rarely even mentioned.
There is very little about how the Corleones acquire their money. Instead,
these films are almost exclusively about meta-business issues such as the
politics of dealing with the competition; the issue arises in each film.
Perhaps the reason for the chosen concentration is that the Corleones would
be much less sympathetic if the films were about their day-to-day business.
Even visual touches are repeated. There is always a scene in the Corleone
kitchen with a big pot on the stove.
As the film opens Michael Corleone--do I really have to say he is
played by Al Pacino?--is still trying to whitewash the family name and to
live up to the nobility of the name Corleone (Lionheart). He has
contributed vast sums of money to charitable works. At one point we see a
hospital named for Vito Corleone and probably not because Vito provided them
with patients. At the opening Michael is contributing $100,000,000 for
poverty relief for Sicily and receiving the order of San Sebastian from the
Pope. Of note is that there is far less of the ethnic Italian feel to this
event than there was at Connie's wedding. The Corleones are apparently
assimilating American styles. Michael feels that he is finally achieving
legitimacy and respectability.
But there is a problem with Vincent Mancini (played by Andy Garcia)
who, despite the surname, is the son of Sonny Corleone (played by James Caan
in Parts I and II). Vincent is the most likely heir to the family business,
but he is also something of a loose cannon. He is as temperamental and
power-hungry as his father was. Vincent has a feud with his current boss, a
hood named Joey Zasa (played by Joe Mantegna).
Vincent is attracted to Michael's daughter, Mary. In fact, the choice
of the plain-looking Sofia Coppola, the director's daughter, for Mary
instead of the originally cast attractive Winona Ryder may actually work for
the film. Coppola is not a great actress but putting a less attractive
woman in the role creates interesting speculation as to Vincent's motives.
There is no great mystery as to why Vincent would be interested in a woman
as attractive as Winona Ryder. But Vincent has an eye for good-looking
women and the power-hungry nephew's interest in Mary could well be power
rather than physical attraction. In any case, Michael is dead set against a
relationship between these two grandchildren of Vito Corleone. It is
Vincent's feud and Michael's relation with the Vatican that are the
springboard for this third story.
Michael's other child is Anthony who, like the young Michael, wants no
part of the family business and wants instead to sing grand opera. In fact,
his debut performance at La Scala, in the lead no less, becomes an important
event in the film. The choice of opera, Pietro Mascagni's "Cavalleria
Rusticana," is of course highly appropriate. The title literally translates
to "Rustic Chivalry" and refers to the code of honor of the poor Sicilians
of the story. The concept of this Sicilian code of honor pervades the
"Godfather" films as well as the opera. The emphasis on this-favor-for-
that-favor, how one treats the Don, and symbolic gestures such as "the Kiss
of Death" are equally important in the series and in this opera of the
hatred of Turridu and Alfio. In the time-honored Sicilian custom, Alfio
challenges Turridu by embracing him and Turridu signifies he accepts the
challenge by biting Alfio's ear. Naturally, the opera ends in bloodshed.
The sweetly melancholic Intermezzo from "Cavalleria Rusticana" may already
be familiar to filmgoers from its use in RAGING BULL. Coppola uses it in
THE GODFATHER PART III to underscore the final scenes of the film.
So does this new film live up to its predecessors? It is flawed, of
course, but then PART II diluted its effect by jumping around in time to
pick up pieces of storyline both before and after the first film. That was
the flaw that television thought it could correct when it re-edited the
first two parts into one chronological story. (Comments on that effort will
appear in my afterword.) The third film is no more flawed and probably in a
league with the first two. I would rate it a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
(In case you're curious, I would rate THE GODFATHER a +3 and THE GODFATHER
PART II a high +2.)
[Spoiler follows]
Spoiler-afterword: Earlier in this review I talked about a repeating
structure in the "Godfather" films. Let me be more detailed. The films
always start with a major family event and they always end with a bloodbath
that coincides with another major family event: baptism, marriage-
separation, son's operatic debut at La Scala. In each case Michael is
trying to make himself or his whole family legitimate, but he is stymied.
There is some unspeakable act committed by an apparent enemy: the Tataglias,
the Rosatos, Joey Zasa. Michael decides his honor and the general safety of
the family demand revenge. However, the perpetrator is only the apparent
enemy. The real enemy pulling the strings does not show his face except as
an apparent peacemaker: Barzini, Roth, Altobello. In the end the ersatz
peacemaker and all his co-conspirators are dispatched in the bloodbath that
spans only hours or minutes. This strikes me as being too strong a parallel
in structure to be just coincidence. It, in fact, goes beyond formula.
Each film is a repetition of the same melodrama. Michael is trying to be
good. Someone interprets this as weakness and moves against him. The urge
for revenge with Sicilian anger takes over. Vito's mother, too, promised
Don Cicci that she and Vito would not take action against him and asked for
peace. He murdered her in cold blood. Vito's Sicilian revenge must wait
for the proper time but honor demands it. Vito's son Michael replays this
melodrama in each film.
I did not see the television re-editing in which the first two parts
were edited so they told one story in chronological order. I have been told
it is an improvement. I find it hard to believe, however, since each story
is a re-telling of an instance of Michael repeating his father's tragedy.
Re-editing would violate the internal structure. The "improved" version
sounds too much like taking Shakespeare's HENRY IV Parts I and II and HENRY
V, editing them together to make one long play, then showing it over five
nights with commercials.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzy!leeper
leeper@mtgzy.att.comalba@cbnewse.att.com (david.alba..jr) (01/03/91)
THE GODFATHER PART III
A film review by David Alba, Jr.
Copyright 1990 David Alba, Jr.
It is here. Yes, after sixteen years Francis Ford Coppola has
decided to complete the epic story of the Corleone family. For those
who can remember back to THE GODFATHER PART II, we last left Michael
Corleone sitting alone contemplating the fact that he had ordered the
execution of his own brother, Fredo.
The third installment of the Godfather trilogy takes place twenty
years after THE GODFATHER PART II. Aging Michael Corleone is trying to
turn his dream into a reality. His dream has been to make the Corleone
family completely legitimate. Michael has been attempting to do this
ever since he took over control of the family at the end of the first
film, THE GODFATHER.
The film opens with Michael Corleone receiving a humanitarian award
from the Archbishop. Michael is later approached by the Archbishop,
who has been placed in financial charge of the Vatican. In an effort to
help the Vatican overcome their financial trouble Michael offers to
donate 600 million dollars in exchange for the Vatican's controlling
interest in a company called Imobilare. It is Michael's belief that if
he can gain control of the financially strong company he would finally
be able to make the Corleone family legitimate. Michael encounters
problems when several members of The Vatican council refuse to give
controlling interest of Imobilare to Michael because his family is
involved in organized crime.
Al Pacino returns to his familiar role as Michael Corleone, along
with Diane Keaton who reprises her role as Michael's estranged wife Kay.
Also returning, as Connie Corleone, is Talia Shire. The film also stars
newcomers Andy Garcia as Sonny Corleone's illegitimate son, and Sophia
Coppola as Michael's daughter. The fine cast is also joined by veteran
actors Eli Wallach, George Hamilton and Joe Mantegna. There is also a
small role played by Don Novello who is best remembered as Father Guido
Sarducci on "Saturday Night Live."
This film is beautifully filmed with splendid cinematography of New
York and Sicily, but it also contains the violence that has become a
trademark of the Godfather films. The performance of Pacino was
adequate--he portrayed an aging and sick Michael who couldn't overcome
the guilt of having his brother killed--but it is the performances of
Andy Garcia and Talia Shire that really stand out in this movie.
This film is unarguably not as good as its two predecessors, but I
believe this film is good enough to stand on its own as a continuation
of the Corleone saga. See this film before someone makes you an offer
you can't refuse.
Rating: Three Stars (+3) jgp@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Pellmann) (01/29/91)
THE GODFATHER PART III
(Spoilers for I & II)
A film review by Jim Pellmann
Copyright 1991 Jim Pellmann
SUMMARY: A grand-slam finale to the Michael Corleone saga. Not for all
tastes, and requires some homework, but those who expend the effort will
be well rewarded. The best of the trilogy, easily one of the year's
best films, and with some actors' best-ever performances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all the hoopla surround the Christmas release of G3, I took
advantage of HBO's two-night back-to-back showings on G1 and G2 in
December. (Not surprisingly, all video stores have been out of both for
the last several weeks.)
Having never seen either, I was looking forward to catching up on
two Best Picture Oscar winners. Perhaps it was because I'm not big on
gangster/Mafia movies (I absolutely hated GOODFELLAS) or perhaps they
lose something when viewed on TV, but my opinion of G1 and G2 was that
they were good, but not great. So I was not terribly excited about
another two hours and forty minutes more of G3. But I was greatly
surprised and concurred with the Chronicle:
"If GODFATHER III were simply a worthy sequel, that would have
been enough. But this lushly photographed, brilliantly acted and
wonderfully entertaining movie has its own claims to uniqueness.
It's the most thoughtful of the three films, and its climax
brings the entire series into sharper focus."
For maximum enjoyment, I recommend:
- Go rent G1 and G2 before seeing G3: One of my friends who saw it
with me had not seen G1 or G2 since they were released in '72 and '74
and was terribly lost keeping track of who was doing what to whom. G2
has many passing references to characters and events from G1 and G2
(see below for a brief summary).
- Don't expect an action-packed, shoot-out type movie: Coppola
deliberately develops the story at a slower pace, as we study each
character's motivations. It gradually builds to an edge-of-the-seat
climax.
- Find a theater showing G3 in 70mm with surround sound. I can't
recall any other movie where the improved sound system enhanced the
movie as much. The movie's climax, which takes place at an opera
house, is especially effective because of it.
Synopses
--------
(WARNING: If you plan on renting G1 and G2 and don't want the plots spoiled
for you, don't read any further!)
Part 1: During the mid-1940s, we meet Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) and
his four children: Sonny (James Caan), Fredo (John Cazale),
Michael (Al Pacino), and Connie (Talia Shire). Attorney Tom
Hagen (Robert Duvall) protects the family's legal interests.
When another Mafia boss makes an attempt on Vito's life,
Michael kills the other boss and a corrupt police chief, and
flees to Sicily, leaving his girlfriend Kay (Diane Keaton)
behind. While in Sicily, Michael falls in love with a
villager and marries her. Eventually, the other family
catches up with him and Michael's wife is killed in a
booby-trapped car meant for Michael.
Michael returns to New York and convinces Kay to marry him.
Sonny is killed in an ambush by another family. When Vito
dies, Michael takes over as Don Corleone.
Part 2: Although he promises Kay that he is going to move the family
into legitimate business, Michael gets further and further
involved in gambling and drugs during the '50s. He must
resort to violence more and more often, just to stay alive.
Eventually Kay can take no more and leaves Michael, taking
their two children with her.
Michael tries to control Connie's numerous romances, and
eventually learns that his brother Fredo is trying to have him
killed. In a decision that will haunt Michael for the rest of
his life, he arranges Fredo's murder.
Michael's story is intercut with scenes from his father Vito's
early life in Sicily and New York. Young Vito (played by
Robert De Niro) murders the reigning Mafia don to take control
of the city.
Part 3: It is now 1979, and as Michael approaches retirement, he wants
nothing more than to make the family completely legitimate.
He divests his gambling business to other families and donates
millions of dollars to Catholic charities.
The church has controlling interest in an European
conglomerate called Immobilare. Striking a deal with a
Archbishop who has lost much of the church's money through bad
investments, Michael offers to donate $600 million to cover
the losses, in exchange for the church's approval to Michael's
buying controlling interest in Immobilare. The other
stockholders balk at having a known hoodlum as a major
stockholder, but the Archbishop promises to get the required
approval of the Pope for the deal to go through.
Meanwhile, Vincent (Andy Garcia), the illegitimate son of his
brother Sonny, warns Michael that another family boss, Joey
Zasa, is bad-mouthing Michael behind his back. Guided by
Michael's scheming sister Connie (Talia Shire), Vincent has
ambitions to take over the Corleone family business. Vincent
quickly becomes Michael's right-hand man, and despite
Michael's repeated objections, falls in love with Michael's
daughter Mary (Sophia Coppola).
Meanwhile, Michael's ex-wife Kay (Diane Keaton) asks him to
allow their son Tony to abandon his legal studies to become a
singer. Michael reluctantly agrees.
Michael has as much problem extracting himself from the
gambling business as he does getting the Immobilare deal to go
through, and he eventually suspects the two may be related.
He traces both back to Sicily and it all comes together at the
Italian opera house where his son is making his professional
singing debut. The climax is one of the most skillful blends
of action, music, cinematography, and editing I can recall.
The ending genuinely surprised me.
Performances
------------
Al Pacino (Michael) shines and will undoubtedly be nominated for a
Best Actor Oscar. You can feel his frustration when he says, "Just when
I think I'm out, they *pull* me back in." He even takes on the gravelly
voice of Brando's Vito. There are two particular scenes that are
brilliant: one where he confesses his sins for the first time in years
and another where he has a diabetic stroke.
Andy Garcia (Vincent) is great--he is the very embodiment of Sonny
Corleone, hot-headed temperament and mannerisms. This could well be the
turning point in his career. If there should be any future Godfather
movies, they will no doubt revolve around his character.
Talia Shire is deliciously evil as the conniving Connie, always
counseling Vincent on how to get in Michael's good graces. In the end,
she even gets to dispatch one of the family enemies in her own special
way.
Sofia Coppola (Francis Coppola's daughter) does just fine as Mary,
despite many critics' caustic comments. Not an outstanding performance,
but solid and believable.
Eli Wallach almost steals the whole movie as an old friend of the
family, Don Altobello, who is always trying to keep the peace. Great
fun.
Diane Keaton (Kay) is one of the movie's major disappointments, in
my mind. It almost seems as if she is overacting to justify her top
billing for what is a pretty small role.
George Hamilton is merely passable, replacing Robert Duvall as the
family attorney. Duvall reportedly wanted twice what Paramount offered
and wanted a larger role, so his Tom Hagen character was killed off
between G2 and G3.
John Savage has a throwaway role as Tom Hagen's son, and has
nothing to do with the plot, as far as I could tell.
Likewise Bridget Fonda has a brief scene playing a reporter seduced
by Vincent, and is not seen again.
Don Novello (better known as Father Guido Sarducci) plays it
straight as the family's PR man, attempting to convince a disbelieving
press of the family's respectability.
All in all, a great ensemble. Add in the great cinematography,
music, and editing (same team as G1 and G2) and you have one of the most
satisfying movies of the year.
--
Jim Pellmannreiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher) (01/29/91)
THE GODFATHER PART III
[Spoilers included.]
A film review by Peter Reiher
Copyright 1991 Peter Reiher
I finally got around to seeing THE GODFATHER PART III, and I'm not
happy. It's is much, much worse than the first two films. And "worse"
is the term, not "not as good." I thought the first two films were
brilliant, while the third is easily the worst film Coppola has ever
made, even counting that trivial little segment of NEW YORK STORIES.
The only good points of this film, in my opinion, were Andy Garcia's
dynamic performance, good production design, and an acceptable
performance from Pacino.
The flaws, on the other hand, are legion, starting, as bad films
invariably do, with the script. THE GODFATHER PART III is not nearly as
well written as the first two films. The dialog is weaker, the story is
not well integrated into the world built in the first two films, some of
the characters are inconsistently written, few of them are very
interesting. Some characters only seem present because they were in the
other films, notably Kay, Diane Keaton's character.
One very serious problem in the script is that we do not get enough
explanation of why Michael isn't the man he was at the end of the last
film. Hints, yes, but not a real explanation. Since the whole series
is more about him than anyone else, that's a major flaw. More or less
the last thing we see in THE GODFATHER PART II is Michael contemplating
the murder of his brother, and coming to terms with it by banishing all
his feelings. In this film, his son tells him that he is leaving law
school to become a singer, and Michael gives the same song and dance
that a stockbroker would give his son in the same circumstances. There
is no trace of the powerful, amoral man who would do anything to get his
way in this scene. Where'd he go? Either Michael should continue to
behave in the same way, or we must be told what caused him to change.
In this film, Kay tells Michael that she thinks he's more dangerous
than ever now that he's respectable. Why? He seems far less dangerous
in this film. Is Kay supposed to be wrong? Is it supposed to be a
foreshadowing of an explosion of violence and evil from Michael? There
is no support for either of these possibilities, or any other that I can
see, except, perhaps, that Coppola and Puzo thought it was a good line.
The script is also lacking in the atmosphere and strongly written
scenes that were so much a part of the earlier films. The opera
sequence at the end of the film is an inferior retread of the climax to
THE COTTON CLUB. There is no scene in this film equal (in its writing)
to the scene in THE GODFATHER PART II where Hagen explains to one of the
family's betrayers why he must commit suicide, or the scene where
Michael tells his brother that he knows of his betrayal, or the scene in
Part I where the Godfather dispenses favors at his daughter's wedding.
The script also provided too little material for us to get any feel for
the world of the Mafia, as the first two scripts did so well. It
didn't substitute any feel for the world of high finance, or the
Vatican, either.
Talia Shire's character is especially harmed by this failure of
background. She is forever going on about "saving the family." What
family? There's Pacino, Garcia, Pacino's two children, herself, and
about three underlings. Pacino's kids don't want to have anything to do
with the Mafia, so who are they saving the family for? Contrast this to
the first film, in which Brando was surrounded by sons, cousins, and
retainers -- in a true, if perverse, sense, he was a feudal lord who
watched out for all of the peasants in his barony. In this film, Pacino
is a businessman with only a shell of a company.
The acting is surprisingly poor. As mentioned, Andy Garcia is
dynamic and alive, and Pacino is fine, given the scripted limitations.
But the rest of the cast contains hardly a decent performance, much less
a brilliant one. Eli Wallach left tooth marks all over the scenery.
Joe Mantegna gave the first bad performance I've ever seen from him.
(He was, admittedly, hampered by some of the script's poorest lines.)
George Hamilton had nothing to do and did it drably. Talia Shire
careened between different interpretations of her character which mostly
didn't fit in with what we already know of her from the earlier films.
There isn't a single bad performance in either of the first two films,
and there are several in this one. Disturbingly, the minor characters,
who seemed so flavorful in the first two films, dissolve into
indistinguishable mush in this film -- a combined flaw in writing and
casting. As far as Sofia Coppola goes, well, let's just say I
considered the climax of the opera scene to be a happy ending.
In addition to problems of script and acting, THE GODFATHER PART
III is perhaps the worst edited major film I've seen in many years,
probably a result of the rush job necessary to meet the December 25th
deadline. THE GODFATHER PART III is choppy. Scenes do not flow
naturally together. Coppola intercuts between simultaneous action
without rhyme or reason. A notable example -- the scene in which Andy
Garcia is playing pool and is interrupted by Talia Shire. This scene is
unnecessarily cut in half by a sequence in which Michael Corleone
masquerades as Kay's driver so he can show her Sicily. Why the cut?
Well, Garcia has a reaction to the car starting up and driving away,
and, unless the other scene is interposed, the reaction makes no sense.
However, the interruption robs Garcia's scene of the power it needs.
With sufficient time, I'm sure the editors could have worked around the
problem, possibly cutting Garcia's reaction and placing the scene
between Michael and Kay elsewhere. That's the sort of thing that
happens when you have a rush job. There are other examples, as well.
A more serious flaw is the frequent use of fades to black. At
least four or five times, a scene ends, we fade to black, and we are
somewhere else dealing with entirely different thematic material. These
fades cause the rhythm of the film to stop dead. Using a fade to black
as a period at the end of a cinematic sentence is a perfectly valid
technique, if you really do want to pause and indicate that a major
change is about to take place, but that isn't what the makers of this
film seem to have in mind. Rather, they need to end one scene and start
another, and they didn't have time to do anything good, so they faded to
black. Whenever they do, any momentum the film has built disappears,
and they do it quite a lot.
The music for this film, another strong point in the earlier films,
is terrible. Coppola's hiring his father to do the score was an even
worse idea than hiring his daughter to play a leading role. The only
decent parts of the score are those written by Nino Rota for the first
film. Much of the rest of the music is banal, and sometimes
inappropriate.
And even the direction is poor. I mean, really, a spinning
newspaper stopping to reveal a headline? Followed by a shot of
newspapers coming off the presses so we could see another headline?
These were cliches in the 1940's. Relying on them to provide us with
information is almost cynically lazy. I never thought Coppola would try
to use this kind of technique seriously. This one is so old that it
isn't even any use for a joke.
Coppola also seems to have lost his eye for shots. I liked very
much a shot showing Raf Vallone and Pacino separated by an urn, during
Pacino's confession. It nicely commented on the content of the scene,
with the physical separation between the calm, peaceful cardinal and the
suffering, troubled Mafioso. But that is the only memorable scene,
other than, possible, dropping one of the murder victims down a
stairwell and the opening sequence in which the camera travels over the
wreckage of the Corleone's vacation house by the lake. That very
promising opening suggests that we will see the corresponding moral ruin
of the man who owns the house. But we don't. Instead, we get a kinder,
gentler Michael Corleone who, for reasons unclear from anything we've
seen in the earlier films, decides he wants to get out of the crime
business.
The laziness of the direction is also clear in all of the film's
other flaws, including the acting and the editing. Particularly
ludicrous is the scene at the very end, in which the aged Michael dies
in his chair in a long shot. He drops the orange, slumps over, he's
dead -- so far, so good. Then he falls out of the chair. I was
reminded of the guy on LAUGH IN who used to ride around on a tricycle
and then fall over sideways. Not very subtle, Coppola.
The photography isn't bad, but lacks the rich texture of the first
two films. Shadows played a much more important role in those films.
Here, not very much happens in shadow. The light isn't as golden,
perhaps appropriate for a film with a more modern setting, but
definitely not as pretty.
The production design is as luxurious as ever, and cannot be
faulted. It's nice, I guess, that someone in the production is doing
his job.
Overall, I'm not sure whether I regard THE GODFATHER PART III as a
major disappointment or not. I was always somewhat dubious about the
promise of the film, particularly since Coppola did it for the money,
not because he really wanted to show us more. The mixed reviews led me
to believe that the film might contain something of value, but I was
wrong. If you feel that you must be a completist about this series, I
guess you should see THE GODFATHER PART III. But if you are looking for
entertainment in a film, or artistic quality, look somewhere else.
There's actually some justice to the fact that HOME ALONE will probably
gross two to three times as much as this film.
Peter Reiher
reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov
. . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher