The Godfather: Part III (1990) Dir: Francis Ford Coppola
Instagram post:
I arrived at the third and final film in Francis Ford Coppola's iconic trilogy with no small degree of trepidation. It is no secret that this is considered to be a far cry from the prior two films, something that kept my expectations low. However, I did choose to watch the 'Coda' version of this threequel, which is supposedly better than the original release.
There were a few factors that I identified very quickly, which held this film back. It lacked cohesion - the story was convoluted and messy, and missed the sharpness and conviction of its predecessors. There was also a distinct lack of closure provided by a narrative that read like a very long-winded epilogue.
It wasn't just structural and screenplay issues that I had, however. Creatively, the choice to include an incest storyline was just bizarre, never mind that it was, quite simply, uncomfortable to watch. Its presentation as a sweet, misunderstood, forbidden love is also quite problematic and concerning. It was a horrible creative decision.
The absence of the character of Tom Hagen, played by Robert Duvall, due to a pay dispute, hampered the film quite severely too. His replacement, played by George Hamilton, was nowhere near as interesting, and the film missed the on-screen relationship between Capone and Duvall badly.
Where this film suffered more than anything, though, was with its extremely poor pacing. The film trudged along, and meandered through its dull plot at barely walking pace. The film is not exactly short either, at nearly three hours. For a trilogy with such intriguing personality and tone, it was strange to see this sequel, which lacked both.
Al Pacino understandably gave a more subdued performance than his prior appearances in the trilogy. However, I can't say that I was anywhere near as keen on his performance. Like his character, there were glimpses of the old him, but they were few and far between. It wasn't bad acting, but it also wasn't great acting either.
I thought that Diane Keaton had some excellent scenes, but she appeared far too briefly for my liking, particularly when considering her character's importance to the plot. I did appreciate her performance though, regardless of how little she was utilised. She was one of the few people in the film, who felt like her character from the last two films.
Talia Shire had significantly more to do in this film than she had done before, which I personally saw as a good thing. I enjoyed her acting, for the most part, although there was one scene where she makes an exclamation that was quite laughable. That aside, I would argue that she was the strongest performer in the film.
I get the idea behind Andy Garcia's character, but the execution of it, by both the writers and Garcia, was mediocre at best. Focusing on his performance, Garcia was all over the place. He resembled the film as a whole, in many respect, because he was frustratingly inconsistent. I really must stress that he was not helped by the film's writing.
Sofia Coppola, unfortunately, gave a very wooden performance, I felt. If anything, she did not seem to be very comfortable on-screen. The supporting cast, while better than Coppola, weren't exactly exemplary. The most notable, for what it's worth, were Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna, George Hamilton and Bridget Fonda.
Overall, I'm sorry to say that this was a rather depressing imitation of two all-time classic films. Like it's protagonist, this film felt like a faded depiction of something formerly far more successful. I don't doubt the vision of the film - I really think the story could have been good, but the execution was lumpy and disappointing.
Comentários