[rec.arts.movies.reviews] REVIEW: THE GODFATHER III

lmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann) (12/28/90)

			     THE GODFATHER III
		       A film review by Laurie Mann
			Copyright 1990 Laurie Mann

     It's Christmas night and I'm eating frozen lasagna for dinner.

     That probably expresses my emotions about THE GODFATHER III more
than any formal review I could write.

     But that's a cheat.  Maybe some people out there prefer frozen
lasagna the real thing, and may think I'm praising the movie, so I'd
better be explicit.

     I'm a real fan of both THE GODFATHER I & II, and looked forward to
GIII for a long time.  While Coppola's had a long run of bad luck,
APOCALYPSE NOW, the "Godfather" movies, and PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED are
some of my favorite movies.  I thought he could pull a third "Godfather"
movie off.

     I was wrong.

     The third "Godfather" movie is a triumph of style over substance.
The set decorations are wonderful.  But the direction, acting and
scripting of this movie are pitiful.  The direction is particularly
poor.  Combine this with the ragged editing and you have a real mess.
People who didn't see the first movie might be lost.  On the other hand,
it might help to not be familiar with those earlier fine films.

     The basic problem with this movie is that it is stupidly written.  The plot
is pretty unbelievable to begin with, and it includes elements that are
ludicrous.  One of the strengths of the first two movies was that it was
believable.  GIII is as close to reality as PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED was.

     My complaints with this movie are many and varied, but they center
around the scripting for and acting of the character of Michael
Corleone.  In the first two movies, Puzo, Coppola and Pacino created a
tragic figure.  In the third movie, he's just an old man in decline.  In
the first two movies, you could both sympathize with and be afraid of
Michael.  In the third, it's hard to do either.  Pacino has the same
dour, frozen expression for about two-thirds of this movie.  When he
finally smiles, you expect his face to break.

     I'd hoped initial rumors about the acting ability of Sofia Coppola
might have been off base.  They weren't.  In the words of another
reviewer about another actress, "She runs the gamut of emotion from A to
B."  I like that she didn't look like an actress, but, other than that,
an exhausted Winona Ryder still would have acted circles around this
young woman.  Maybe Coppola will grow into being a fine actress---women
like Sally Field, Jessica Lange and Farrah Fawcett didn't act in their
first few movies either, and they've improved dramatically.  

     Other than the sets, what can I praise about this movie?  Not much.
Andy Garcia and Talia Shire turn in the best performances of the movie.
Diane Keaton was better than she was in GII.

     In short, don't rush off to see this movie.  It's not filmed in
such a way that it will loose a thing on video.

Spoiler alert!


     OK, don't say I didn't warn you....


     GI moved from being about Don Vito to being about Michael.  It was
subtle at times about the way power corrupts people, and sometimes it
hit you over the head with it.  Part of the power in GI and GII was
watching the payoff at the end of each movie.  In GI, Michael becomes
the Godfather, literary and figuratively.  In GII, Michael has become
hollow and corrupt.  In GIII, Michael strives for redemption, and it's
clear he doesn't get it, even though he long outlives his enemies.

     The opera scene, and the shoot-out on the steps afterwards were
both way too long.  It would have been a stronger movie to find out what
happened to Vinnie after the shoot-out.  During the last third of the
film, it's hinted that Vinnie is double-crossing Michael.  We don't know
if this is the case or not.  This was too important a point to drop.

     I'd guess about a third of the audience (and the theater was
pretty full) was moved by the ending, but most of us got out of our
seats and left in a hurry.  No one applauded.  Arrgghhh...I haven't been
this disappointed by a movie in a very long time.  Coppola should have
stopped while he was ahead (yes, I know he made the movie in return for
a picture deal from Paramount...).

***      Laurie Mann ** lmann@jjmhome.UUCP ** lmann@es.stratus.com        ***
***	     	NeXT mail:  lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com			    ***