The Godfather, Part III (Final Director's Cut) | Al Pacino, Diane Keaton

The Godfather, Part III (Final Director's Cut) | Al Pacino, Diane Keaton | Nice end to an incredible trilogy

vhs video:

The Godfather, Par...

	The Godfather, Part III (Final Director's Cut) Al Pacino, Diane Keaton Paramount Home Video, 2002 average customer review:based on 175 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

Sixteen years after Francis Ford Coppola won his second Oscar for The Godfather II (his first was for the 1972 Godfather), the director and star Al Pacino attempted to revive the concept one more time. Despite an elaborate plot that involves Michael Corleone seeking redemption through the Vatican while simultaneously preparing his nephew (Andy Garcia) to take over the Corleone family, the film fails to take shape as a truly meaningful experience in the way the preceding movies do. Still, Pacino is very moving as an elder Michael, filled with regret and trying hard to make amends with his wife (Diane Keaton) and grown children (one of whom is played, and not all that well, by the director's daughter, Sofia Coppola). --Tom Keogh

for more information click here

Excellent in nearly every way, except as a Godfather film

I can't rave enough about this film. A stellar cinematic achievement. Its only fault is being the third part of the trilogy. It can't compare to the other films. I and II consistently rank among top ten films ever. This isn't in the top ten films ever. Certainly, it ranks amongst the top 20 percent. (I'd probably put it in the top one percent of all films. Too much has been made of this film to re-rank or replace it among the other two.

One of the shining parts of this film is its commentary. Much of the commentary on the first two films are self-promotional. "I was great," "The studio hated me," etc. This commentary humbles Mr. Coppola. He becomes a strong pawn of the studio. Also interesting is the skeletonized version of the plot Mr. Coppola discusses of Godfather IV at the end of the film, rolling into the commentary, suggesting a film paralleling Godfather II (the rise of Vito in the Corleone family vs. the fall of Vincent Mancini & the Corleone family).

Also interesting are the discussion of casting decisions due to self-excising from the film of a few actors. Remember - the character of Clemenza was killed off entering the second film, and replaced by a 'parallel' actor, as well.

Finally - the decision of casting Sofia Coppola - certainly seen as a gross abuse of power. This casting decision could be paralleled to casting Talia Shire in the first Godfather film. Certainly, it seemed to have worked in his favor. Too much criticism has been thrown upon her performance. She is more than competent, if not brilliant, in this role. She was even a far more experienced actress when cast in this film than Miss Shire was when cast in the Godfather. I don't see her as strikingly beautiful, but appropriately desirable. Certainly Miss Coppola has distinguished herself as an artist since.

Finally - the plot surrounding the dirty ascension of a pious man into the shoes of the Pope brilliantly paralleled a modern tale. It is the essential corruption and rejection of power and grace in a stunningly realistic tale. Even now, I shudder at the unmaking of a man who worked so hard to remake himself.

Mr. Coppola - I thank you for this story.

for more information click here

Nice end to an incredible trilogy

I enjoyed it. Granted most everyone agrees it didn't live up to the first two, but it did above average with it's powerful performance by Al Pacino, once of his best I have to say, Diane Keaton, one of hers. If only Winona Ryder didn't back out of this film due to an illness we would never have had to endure Sofia Coppola playing the role of Michael Corleone's daughter. She's a great director like her father, but no actor.

The end of the trilogy

I had to get this movie because I own Godfather I and II. I liked Godfather III, but I wasn't as thrilled as I was with the previous movies. I think that because it was so long between the second and third movies had a real negative effect on the third installment. I'm glad that I got it, to complete the trilogy, but it was out shined by the other two. But, it is a decent installment that brings these movies to a close.

for more information click here

Pales in comparison

Taken on it's own merits, this is a pretty good film, with good acting and a fairly good (if confusing) plot.

But unfortunatly it can never be judged on it's own merits, as the shadow of 2 of film history's greatest films loom over it. The result is a rather lacklustre (if still watchable) film that significantly pales in comparison.

You care a lot less about the characters, and the plot does nothing really to add (or to it's credit detract) from the original 2.

One of the things Coppola can not be matched on however is the way he juxtaposes scenes to heighten or compliment each other, and he doesn't disapoint in this film, bringing up the tension beautifully by twinning attempted assassination in a theatre with the dramatics unravelling on stage, or Al Pacino's characters tragic holding of his dead daughter with the joyous dancing of the two in happier times.

So, in conclusion, a good film that can certainly never be called bad, but one which is pales considerably when compared with the other 2.

for more information click here