I thought the film as a whole more of an epilogue in itself to the two-parter Saga, so the little scene at the end felt a bit overdone and maybe a little too obvious.
The final minute of Part 3 is one of my favorite moments of all cinema... The heartbreak and loneliness in which Michael Corleone died always fill me with a sadness because of my fear to end just as lonely and full of regret. I also compared Michael´s dead with his father´s. Michael died alone and broken while Vito died happy playing with his grandson. It´s just great cinema.
I also like that it kind of mirrors the end of part 1 - Michael has his enemies killed both times. In the first one, he is complete triumphant and there are no repercussions for him. By the last part, he himself is no longer untouchable and has to suffer the consequences of his actions - he lost his family (part of the recurring theme throughout is how important family is), he lost his friends, he lost any respect people had for him, and he died completely alone.
but i wonder why that is so , vito chose the life of being a don whereas, michael was forced to make that choice as he had to save his father and he was the only brother who had the wits ,,, why was he punished so much and vito rather was given a death with respect and around his loved ones and michael was all alone.
@@nenditajaswal I believe acceptence is the difference... Bcuz Micheal never wanted to b it... He wanted to distance himself from the true nature of la COSA nostra nd don Vito embraced it🤷🏾♂️
Pacino's performance as Michael was better than De Niro's as Vito. Pacino not winning was enough of an insult, but he was also the only nominee in that category from The Godfather Part II. The Best Supporting Actor nod was split three ways between De Niro, Lee Strasberg, and Michael V Gazzo, and he still won. Pacino stood alone, and lost for a superior performance to any of those three.
I just watched this trilogy fir the first time and I don't know why people hate this movie. I feel like I'm supposed to hate it, because everyone tells me I'm supposed to. But I really enjoyed it.
Musse2009 I'm glad I'm not the only one! I was seriously depressed about that. I was like, "Whyyyyyyyyy! Whyyyyyy was he alone? Whyyyyyyy?" I couldn't understand why he had to be alone. Then the orange and the dogs, too? I was a bawling mess. Don't you think someone should've been with him or something? :'(
I cried when I saw it the first time, I just couldn't believe that his daughter died, she was so important and so special in the movie, I feel more sorry for Vincent, he loved her and was going to marry her.... I wished it had a good ending ..............
MandyDoll I cried when I saw it the first time, I just couldn't believe that his daughter died, she was so important and so special in the movie, I feel more sorry for Vincent, he loved her and was going to marry her.... I wished it had a good ending ....
Musse2009 You think so? I had given thought to the Mary and Vincent situation and I don't think they would've been together. They didn't live in the same place and he was head of the family with that one caveat. I think she would've been his Apollonia, just not dead.
The part after Mary is murdered and Michael loses it on the steps always gets me....and then he begins to remember his life, especially him dancing with his daughter...that’s when I really lose it.
The choice to make his first cry silent and then the deep breath and then the audience gets to her Michael as he dies, not physically but in spirt. All the weight of the sins he committed come to lay upon him and he shatters.
I always felt that the movie wasn't as bad as many people say, and I agree with what this video says: that the movie isn't the third part in a trilogy, but an epilogue to a two-part story. Sofia Coppola's acting wasn't that terrible, and when you understand the circumstances behind her casting, it's obvious she wasn't suited for the role but did the best that she could and honestly, I think it works well. If you believe the film is terrible, if you believe the plot is weak and contrived or the tone uneven or what have you, that is your opinion and while I may not agree with your opinion, I will respect it. In my opinion, "The Death of Michael Corleone" works as an epilogue to the story of Michael Corleone. The movie is still the weakest of the Godfather films, but not as terrible as many say, and does honestly deserve re-appraisal. At the very least, try and watch it with an open mind.
+KitAkira1989 despite the almost unanimous negative worldview, I have and always will LOVE part 3 as an exceptional film in of itself. It was poetic and , in my opinion the most tragic in the series. Some scenes depict such tragedy magnificently , the confession, that last scene showing how Michael has lost all of the women in his life that he truly loved and in the end, despite having such focus on family, died alone. The use of the opera to underscore the tragic components to the film where in my mind, just very well done. I enjoy this film as much as the others, in some aspects , even more. It just seemed.......deeper to me.
Godfather 3 was boring as fuck in my opinion. It couldn't stand alone without the previous 2, and the characters were very different, Al Pacino for example felt like he was portraying another character. Michael was supposed to be this cold hearted and wise bad ass, who murders without regret those who've wronged him, and doesn't smile after his first wife's death, in the Godfather 3, he was weak, cracks jokes, let's people cross him, and discourages people from avenging him.
I went into the movie, originally, many years ago with the idea that it "wasn't as good" as the first two according to those who told me about it. I remember I did enjoy it. But after rewatching it for the first time, last night, in probably 10 years I really loved it. It's a fantastic film and a fine epilogue to the original story.
“Has it ever struck you that life is all memory, except for the one present moment that goes by you so quick you hardly catch it going?”― Tennessee Williams..
Nah it’s not from that. I watched Part 2 + Part 3 back to back across two days and I personally thought there was a step down in quality from 2 to 3 that the production details only serve to reinforce
@@Henry.58 it was different for the Godfather movies that is more about the story that the action but I think it fit well and it was impactfull in my opinion
Each dance is significant for Michael, as he lost all three women he loved deeply. Instead of dying a swift early death. Michael dies a slow agonizing death, haunted by the loved ones he could not protect and ultimately lost.
I'm gonna be honest; I've tried to revisit Godfather III over the years but I've never gotten into it. While it's not a terrible film, I've always seen it as an unnecessary addition to the series. The series will always end with Michael sitting alone on that chair to me. That said I thoroughly enjoyed this video. While it's not going to change my opinion of the film, you've done a great job at looking beyond the typical criticisms of the film. Well done.
I think that the critics hated the film because it brought a "Christian" touch to a man paying a deeply personal price for his catastrophic, enormous sins. So-called "modern" society are growing ashamed of Christianity and anything that reminds "Hollywood" about a man paying for his sins is automatically objectionable. The "Death of Michael Corleone" shows a man quietly sinking into the Hell that awaits him. I'm sure that this finds many people deeply uncomfortable, because although our sins can never come close to Michael's, we still have some very minor ones'. Nobody likes to think about them. I don't either. This begs the question of Jesus' taking on OUR sins on the Cross. Could even Jesus' terrible suffering expiate the sins of Michael Corleone? Seems unlikely Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
I'm surprised there was no mention of the real killer of "Godfather III": The non-casting of Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen. Other than that, really great analysis!
I agree....that never sat well with me, especially to be replaced with George Hamilton, it almost seemed comedic. They could have atleast used somebody like Ben Kingsley or something...But then again, I guess back in 1990 Hamilton had more of a LA Law kinda vibe and they wanted to catch some of that swag...who knows.
@Emperor AlHasan Oh! I kinda feel upset about the fact there was a chance to make another GREAT Godfather sequel and it's not been created becuz of money 🙄
I watched Part III without reading any user reviews and I frankly did like the movie. It does serve it's purpose of bringing the series to an end. You see Michael striving hard to legitimize his business operations and making all the efforts to set things right for his future generations while being filled with regret with the decisions of his past actions, especially what he did with Fredo. Al Pacino's performance definitely was a powerful one in this series and the end of this movie shows a sharp contrast to how Vito died a warm death alongside his family whereas Michael was left alone on his final day. All in all I did like all the 3 movies equally. I really don't get why the Part 3 gets so much hate.
"Part 3 is the Fredo of the trilogy." That line caught me off guard and got a genuine laugh out loud from me. While I enjoy all 3 movies I have to admit...that is a fitting way to describe this movie in one sentence.
In part 1 - he takes his soon to be wife. To his sister marriage. He explained to her. He is not part of the family business. (He was forced in. He worked his way out. In part 3. A lot of people forget this.) If Sonny never died, he would of never been apart of family business.
@@abdulrahmanx2900 Michael was already in the family business when Santino was alive. He killed Solozzo and the police capt. He even volunteered to do it..
@@jimmyconway7958 He was the only one capable of doing it in that situation, because he was a family member without taking part in the business.Well I wonder If vito supposed that mike would turn into the most cold blooded Don of the whole story.
@@jimmyconway7958 yeah ...so why show him as weak ..cos he wasn't...by the end of two micheal looked almost psychopathic...he wasn't meant to be king ...and it consumes him
Godfather III is a good film which follows two great films. That's its main problem. The ending , when all of Michael's deeds rebound on him in a single moment of horror , saves it and makes it fit into the series.
He hammed it up a bit for me, but he 100% portrayed Sonny's son very well. The issue is we didn't see him learn enough from Micheal to properly portray him becoming the next don.
Its amazing how you predicted and saw the vision Coppola and Puzo had for the film. And now the true vision will be realised. I returned to this essay after the announcement. Even the title was spot on. Just amazing mate! Great job!
The plot is more complicated because of Michael's involvement with what was essentially the Vatican bank scandal and the role his family played in the financial dealings with Immobiliare: a complicated business and I have often thought that the was at the heart of the criticism of this movie. Certainly it was a morality play and proof that the ends do not justify the means. One minor point: Michael's ultimate diagnosis of diabetes is clearly foretold in the first movie because their are so many shots of him drinking water [excessive thirst is an early sign of diabetes] which continues through the second movie. I have to agree though that the final scenes with the death of Mary and Michael's reaction is one of the most powerful scenes every shot in a movie coupled with his demise: alone and essentially forgotten left with his tragic memories and all the ways his life went wrong. Even the dogs didn't want anything to do with him.
I personally consider the first two parts the best films I’ve ever seen, and the best two in cinema history. However, my problem with part III isn’t exactly the story or when does it take place. It’s the execution. It’s ridiculously over the top, and the cinematography of the picture and the way it is shot, makes it look like a soap opera. Sofia’s acting has been torn apart, but I also feel that other actors performance it’s either a let down or subpar, specially Andy Garcia and Joe Mantegna performances. Both of them are a mixed bag. I think the Vatican angle is very interesting, but that mob bosses shoot out…That is not the godfather. It had to be toned down.
I'll agree that some of the realism being cut out was a bit much like that one assassination thing, but you could make the argument that it's due to the changing times, much like Michael's new appearance and demeanor. I think the shooting style is fine, even if it obviously lacks the same level of depth and nuance the first two films had and yeah the acting could have been better though I think the large majority of actors that were in both movies (basically just Talia Shire, diane keaton, and al pacino) along with Andy garcia gave good - great performances.
That is certainly one of the themes of the series.In the book it is revealed that Sonny saw his father kill Fanucci and that his destiny was set from that moment on.And of course,Michael's was set the moment he shot Sollozzo and McCluskey.
Question/Survey: When Michael dies, he seems to die peacefully with a "best friend" (ie a dog)...how nice not to die a violent death like his father BUT, remember at the beginning of the movie during the wedding, when he is speaking privately with Zaza, his sister, and his illegitamate nephew and the nephew is accusing Zaza of saying "F*** Michael Corleone"...Michael says such a person would be a piece of S***...that "such a person would be a dog", implying that a dog is the lowliest of low creatures. Does this mean that Michael actually dies in the worst way ...that he dies surrounded by loved ones - no one but a lowly dog that he dies alone and at the lowliest point of his life?
really good point, I did notice the dog in the end but forgot about the quote u mentioned. i also think that he didnt die peacyful but suffering from all sins and his losses. his father vito died while playing with his grandchild and also as a rich man - looking at michael again the scene didnt look like he had that much money anymore and his beloved people werent there. So i would say yes, he died at the lowest point of his life. I found it interesting that they show michaels last second immediately after the scenes at the opera. Just before the oper ended, Michael looked like he is in the most powerful position he ever was, especially because of this epic music climaxing. But then within one moment there was such a huge drop and we see just how he died. Instead of showing in detail what happened afterwards, we can just see the contrast of the two michaels.
facciaditosta no its micheals realization and admittance to his great sins, such as killing his brother Fredo, and him finally acknowledging the suffering he has caused and whether or not it will be worth it
Interesting, made me rethink my reaction to the movie. I always thought Sophia was good in the picture; the character had a sweetness and vulnerability that might have been because of the actress’s lack of experience.
As Italian I know well the mafia history and I agree the third film completes the first two ,above all it is the most significant..All godfathers moslty die ALONE AND IN PAIN..FANTASTIC.That s how it reallly happens ..
I really enjoyed this video, thanks! I loved all three and never fully understood why there was so much hate towards part 3. Absolute classic all three of them!! Grazie Mille to this video and hats off to the Godfather Classics.
I would agree with those who say Sophia Coppola's role as Mary was more than acceptable. She was perfectly beautiful, innocent and naieve. She didn't have to act. She should not be compared to other more aggressive or dynamic characters. She was naturally understated as the character should be. As far as GF Part III is concerned - it was realistic. Man is not immortal. The deeds of life catch up. And this film depicts the tragic consequences of that lifestyle. So Pacino's character did not die violently. But the violent death of his daughter Mary before his very eyes killed him. A good film must secumb to the laws and principles of real life. You reap what you sew. And while the first two of the GF sequels more or less glorified that lifestyle. Oh yes it did in the eyes of the audience whether intentional or not. Consequences had to have its day. Otherwise its an escape from reality. After all that violence people needed to see consequences. There has to be a moral to this kind of story. And that is the credible purpose and accomplishment of GF Part III. The saga is incomplete without it.
I think that the film is quite a masterpiece once you look past your predetermined assumptions and yes acting on some parts could have been better but the plot and story is truly magnificent and I agree people were expecting the same thing as the other two movies but neglect the fact that the life they lived catches up to you eventually and many people didn't want to believe that nor believe Micheal could "lose" to anything, however at the end Michael's sins catch up to him and his daughter pays the price for it and Micheal the dies having to accept all the suffering, pain, destruction, and death he caused and realize it wasn't worth it.
Part 3 was a great movie. It's what happens when a story, or a life style ends in real life. People might not like how it might end, but that's how things go down? It's very realistic... things fade away with time... they end and you aren't as strong as when you are young.
Are you suggesting the movie’s only criticised because it gives a realistic ending? Because I’d beg to differ - especially since Goodfellas was released in the same year with a better story that condemns the gangster life but only a third of the box office gross of Godfather 3. Anyway, didn’t have a problem with Part 3 giving Michael his downfall. It was how they gave his downfall which was disappointing. Or how they abandoned the Tom Hagen character. Or the helicopter set piece that they put in which wasn’t realistic like you suggest but was instead over the top & the most stylised sequence of the trilogy. Al Pacino’s acting was also over the top & less realistic than the previous films, so was Connie’s heel turn into some kind of hitwoman now even though she previously despised the gangster life. Like I said though the premise & idea of the movie was fine. But the execution was cartoony & over the top in ways that lacked the finesse & care that the previous films had.
I just watched part 3, and i liked it, it wasn't as great, but what really made the movie were the killings during the opera, it was very similar to those of the bauptism. And the italian festival on new york was exactly like the one in which vito killed fanucci. Joey wanted to be like don fanucci, and as a result, he ended up killed like him. I personally liked michael going back to sicily. His son singing Brucia la Terra, and him remembering apollonia was my favorite scene, how he never forgt
mrSlampamper How is he using it wrong? Her death scene would make someone cringe - meaning to experience an inward shiver of embarrassment or disgust - either because of how heartbreaking the death would be when viewing it from the perspective of the father Michael, or from how cringe-inducing the acting is too. I’m not sure which above interpretation OP meant, but both work and it makes perfect contextual sense. If anything it’s the internet’s repurposing of cringe and invention of the fake word ‘cringey’ that makes confusion over the real word.
For all those who like me are intense fans of the Godfather movies, it's very exciting indeed to be able to watch the two masterpieces and not yet be done with the series. It's amazing how jumping straight into the story, introducing Vincent right away, rearranging a few things, and carefully trimming unnecessary and/or flawed moments and scenes has transformed this film. While it could never equal the first two films, the third film always contained much of great power and worth, yet it was not a satisfying viewing experience. What we have now that we didn't have before is a third film that *works*. And, to me, that's huge!
THANK YOU FOR THIS wonderfully brilliant expose. I am a lifelong fan of all three, but you have pulled and combined things I had not seen or considered. Bravo!
I watched III, and then I and II Honestly thought III was very good, but compared to the I and II, obviously quite bad but by its own it stands tall because I was very much invested by it, despite already watching spoilers for it years ago.
Beautiful breakdown of The Godfather part 3. The movie ending is the most organic I've ever seen actors and actresses portray; their grief acted out is to this day still haunting. The Godfather part 3 may be considered the "Fredo" of the series, but my subjective view in 2019 is it's the perfect end to a powerful man who loses everything that truly mattered to him. Thank you for your analysis TSA.
Incredible observation on what is an incredible film that stands alone, as it should. How amazing the film reflects the author, Francis Ford Coppola's own personal tragedy, the loss of a child. Wonderful work.
Personally for me, the Godfather series wouldn't be complete without part III.. It's the perfect ending for the series...A shock to the system...The ending is just unimaginable, yet too realistic.. That a life of crime is a life of tragedy, altogether.. Great analysis
He says inevitable...I always said necessary. I loved this film. I never understood why this was resented. Michael's silent scream was absolutely devastating. And it was karma. Retribution if you will.
This analysis is right. The title of GF3 is what messed with our minds - I'm old enough to have seen all 3 first time around. I agree, it should have been called "The Death of Michael Corleone". The perfect epilogue.
@ 8:00 - Michael's hair is different in part three because he's... "moving up" in the world yet again, and has taken the hint from Senator Pat Geary in Pt 2, that "oily hair and silk suits" just can't go to the highest places...
@@blackspring3207 the godfather 3 is shit apart from the end - acting is horrible, weird incest storyline for no reason, not as much impact and it goes against the message of the godfather part 2
I was fortunate enough to have all of The Godfather films available at once through Netflix when I first watched them about a year ago, and even more fortunate to have known about the planned subtitle for Part 3 before I watched it. While it’s undoubtedly the “weakest” of the three, I loved it. I thought the ending five minutes were the best I’d ever seen in terms of making me feel just agony for this man I’d watched go from idealist to the devil and back.
It's funny how Martin Scorsese would ultimately produce his own Godfather Part III, The Irishman, as a subversion of the very films that undermined Part III around 1990. It comes full circle.
GF3 would have been better if they had continued it. It is unfair to compare it to GF1 and GF2 because the cast looks different and it is nearly 2 decades later where films have changed. There was no way to film it with the same cameras and make Michael just like he was in GF2. I think the film would be more well remembered if GF4 was made a few years after GF3, with Garcia and De Niro doing a parallel story like GF2. If this was done, GF3 and GF4 would be a pair of films similar to each other like GF1 and GF2 were a pair. It is too late now as nearly 2 decades have passed since GF3. I would still like to see GF4 through. It could be just about Vito in the 1930's a decade before GF1. It would need an all new cast though. De Niro is too old now.
Thia movie was an Operatic 'Honor Killing' to that genre and Family. Well-done Sofia! Being AWAKE to me is awesome. I have done this with DOZENS of films. NEXT F'KN LEVEL
This film is sooooo cleverly disguised as an 'out-of time' trainwreck. On the contrary! A masterful stroke to tie ALL ends of a parallel to our own twisted world of 24/7 dealings. "I haven't even STARTED!" - Martin Riggs 'Lethal Weapon
Andy Garcia played the role in part 3 very well. Pacino also had some unforgettable quotes in it. Yes it's the weakest Godfather movie but it's by no mean a bad movie - it's a good movie that just had the heavy burden of carrying the Godfather name.
I thought Godfather III was great. Very misunderstood when it came out.It is a magnificent and befitting epilogue to one of the greatest saga's of all time.
Sophia Coppola was outstanding in her role. She was actually one of the few good things about this film. Criticizing Francis for nepotism is trite - even arbitrary.
I am really thankful that I learned of the movies criticism only years after I watched it so many times. I think its a great ending to the Godfather, the ending always makes me cry.
O.C.TileGuy I liked Sofia Coppola as Mary and don't mind her acting as it actually suits the character as being unsure of herself and not knowing for sure who her father is. One reason why Sofia was better than Winona Ryder would have been because she actually looks like an Italian daughter. Ryder would have had a stronger screen presence though.
Cathy Audette no other way such a man could’ve end. He ordered the death of his own brother. A brother who was dumb & impotent. Banishment would’ve served just as well as death. He had no mercy, perpetuated & lived in a world of no mercy. I don’t think it sad. I think it’s inevitable.
I tried to get a ticket to The infamous showing of this film on Christmas that year in Long Island, NY. And the movie was sold out. Gun fight broke out in the audience. 4 people shot , 1 killed. Good thing I didn’t get a ticket
This is a well constructed, cogent review of Godfather III. I am impressed. It isn't perfect but it is far and away one of the highest quality critiques on youtube. Thank you.
Something just occurred to me. Since Mary was shot in the chest it would've taken her a couple of minutes or so to die. Her lungs would've filled with blood and she would've died choking on her blood. It would have been more horrific and heart-rending if she died like that instead of the brief gasp she gave. 😞
Nope she got hit in the heart, her death was realistic. A heart shot will stop someone in their tracks and they will be unconscious in just a few seconds once the brain starts not receiving the blood it needs. I she got shot in the belly then yes i agree she would have died much later or maybe even survived...
This was a terrific video essay and I couldnt stop watching it. It was thought provoking to point out now that time has past we can finally be objective about the 3rd installment, free of expectations. That said, I thought III was pandering. Pandering to an audience that wanted more Puzo and and pandering to a Hollywood that wanted more money. The fact remains that GF was a masterful book and screenplay by Mario Puzo, that took 2 movies to tell. No more story, no more more movie. It hinges on Puzo's creation. That the audience wants more is irrelevant. If Puzo creates more, we get more, but we cant simply paint a second Mona Lisa because we liked the first one so much. This is one reason I liked this essay: it brought up the other ARTISTs inspired by an original masterpiece. That said, Micheal's recollections and death were superb scenes. Garcia was excellent. Hamilton was good, too.
I went into part 3 expecting a terrible movie, purely based on the bad press and reputation it has garnered, but was pleasantly surprised by a really gripping story and a FANTASTIC finale. Sure, it wasn't as good as the first two, but there's NO WAY part 3 deserves to be labelled bad
Another thing I would say is Vincent also has Fredo’s loyalty and good heart. Fredo may have not been a strong and wise person but (aside from almost Killing Michael unintentionally) he did have Fredo’s good heart and loyalty. He embodies everything the Corleone’s have become.
Despite the critism, I loved part III. The ending was sad but beautiful because it made so much sense. You see the difference in how Michael's life ends up as opposed to his dad, you see how he loses everything because of what he did. The most important part of the latter is that he was always all about his family, everything that he did, but he did heinous crimes which he had to pay for. He had to pay for it by losing all of the women he cared about in his life. In the end when he dies, you see the contrast of him fighting for his family all of his life to him dying all alone without family.
ML N : Vitos 'growth' was through his circumstances of relocation and denial of opportunity and finding of only route available to him 'then' whilst Micheals problem was more with having to try to keep a leviathan ticking over, something he'd never asked for, maybe ?
I think the scene with the thunder is brilliant and not something that could have been done in the first two. You get chills every time he screams to Fredo in his diabetic haze.
I think the ending of Part III was personally one of the most powerful moments in movie history. There is so much symbolism and emotion put into it.
HELL YEAH ITS POWERFUL..I CRIED THE FIRST TIME TOO BECAUSE ITS VERY CLOSE TO THE M A F I A FAMILY
I remember thinking, 'Mary is his punishment for killing Fredo'...
I thought the film as a whole more of an epilogue in itself to the two-parter Saga, so the little scene at the end felt a bit overdone and maybe a little too obvious.
It ended how it was supposed to end. It was perfect!
The daughters acting was so terrible it distracted me
I wish they would have commented on Michael's silent scream.
It's one of the most powerful images in movie history.
+Falcrist I wish we had, too.
Yes, that silent scream is brilliant.
They should make a re-make of the Godfather Trilogy with resurrections. So many deaths in a movie make me sad.
I cried!
Russell crowe learmed a thing or two from him when he was in gladiator
The final minute of Part 3 is one of my favorite moments of all cinema... The heartbreak and loneliness in which Michael Corleone died always fill me with a sadness because of my fear to end just as lonely and full of regret. I also compared Michael´s dead with his father´s. Michael died alone and broken while Vito died happy playing with his grandson. It´s just great cinema.
I also like that it kind of mirrors the end of part 1 - Michael has his enemies killed both times. In the first one, he is complete triumphant and there are no repercussions for him. By the last part, he himself is no longer untouchable and has to suffer the consequences of his actions - he lost his family (part of the recurring theme throughout is how important family is), he lost his friends, he lost any respect people had for him, and he died completely alone.
It’s quite moving indeed...
but i wonder why that is so , vito chose the life of being a don whereas, michael was forced to make that choice as he had to save his father and he was the only brother who had the wits ,,, why was he punished so much and vito rather was given a death with respect and around his loved ones and michael was all alone.
@@nenditajaswal I believe acceptence is the difference... Bcuz Micheal never wanted to b it... He wanted to distance himself from the true nature of la COSA nostra nd don Vito embraced it🤷🏾♂️
Vito is Family first guy
while Michael is more of ambitious genius guy, selfcentered.
Pacino should have won the Oscar for Part two. We all know it.
Mozart Dylan the scene where he hits Kay is scary. Pacino does it with just his facial expression
@@BoxPounder throughout the film the little sharp looks of a man losing his emotions was truly acting at its finest
@@BoxPounder omno
Pacino's performance as Michael was better than De Niro's as Vito. Pacino not winning was enough of an insult, but he was also the only nominee in that category from The Godfather Part II. The Best Supporting Actor nod was split three ways between De Niro, Lee Strasberg, and Michael V Gazzo, and he still won. Pacino stood alone, and lost for a superior performance to any of those three.
@@Falor5151 could not agree more. Pacinos performance is easily top 3 male performance of all time.
I just watched this trilogy fir the first time and I don't know why people hate this movie. I feel like I'm supposed to hate it, because everyone tells me I'm supposed to. But I really enjoyed it.
Don't hate it. Embrace it!
+Reece Crothers don't hate kiss and hug it hug it take it to bed with you and live with it forever
it's good.
I enjoy too
Mr. Manager I agree with you I really like it
Godfather 3 ending ALWAYS makes me cry. :'(
Same here...
Musse2009 I'm glad I'm not the only one! I was seriously depressed about that. I was like, "Whyyyyyyyyy! Whyyyyyy was he alone? Whyyyyyyy?" I couldn't understand why he had to be alone. Then the orange and the dogs, too? I was a bawling mess. Don't you think someone should've been with him or something? :'(
I cried when I saw it the first time, I just couldn't believe that his daughter died, she was so important and so special in the movie, I feel more sorry for Vincent, he loved her and was going to marry her.... I wished it had a good ending ..............
MandyDoll I cried when I saw it the first time, I just couldn't believe that his daughter died, she was so important and so special in the movie, I feel more sorry for Vincent, he loved her and was going to marry her.... I wished it had a good ending ....
Musse2009 You think so? I had given thought to the Mary and Vincent situation and I don't think they would've been together. They didn't live in the same place and he was head of the family with that one caveat. I think she would've been his Apollonia, just not dead.
The part after Mary is murdered and Michael loses it on the steps always gets me....and then he begins to remember his life, especially him dancing with his daughter...that’s when I really lose it.
MARY WAS SO INNOCENT SWEET GIRL. HER PART WAS PLAYED JUST RIGHT.
The choice to make his first cry silent and then the deep breath and then the audience gets to her Michael as he dies, not physically but in spirt. All the weight of the sins he committed come to lay upon him and he shatters.
Pretty SOPHIA COPPOLA would have been a great silent film star with the footage lost to time.
I always felt that the movie wasn't as bad as many people say, and I agree with what this video says: that the movie isn't the third part in a trilogy, but an epilogue to a two-part story. Sofia Coppola's acting wasn't that terrible, and when you understand the circumstances behind her casting, it's obvious she wasn't suited for the role but did the best that she could and honestly, I think it works well.
If you believe the film is terrible, if you believe the plot is weak and contrived or the tone uneven or what have you, that is your opinion and while I may not agree with your opinion, I will respect it. In my opinion, "The Death of Michael Corleone" works as an epilogue to the story of Michael Corleone. The movie is still the weakest of the Godfather films, but not as terrible as many say, and does honestly deserve re-appraisal. At the very least, try and watch it with an open mind.
KitAkira1989 ^What this person said I agree 100%
+KitAkira1989 despite the almost unanimous negative worldview, I have and always will LOVE part 3 as an exceptional film in of itself. It was poetic and , in my opinion the most tragic in the series. Some scenes depict such tragedy magnificently , the confession, that last scene showing how Michael has lost all of the women in his life that he truly loved and in the end, despite having such focus on family, died alone. The use of the opera to underscore the tragic components to the film where in my mind, just very well done. I enjoy this film as much as the others, in some aspects , even more. It just seemed.......deeper to me.
Godfather 3 was boring as fuck in my opinion. It couldn't stand alone without the previous 2, and the characters were very different, Al Pacino for example felt like he was portraying another character. Michael was supposed to be this cold hearted and wise bad ass, who murders without regret those who've wronged him, and doesn't smile after his first wife's death, in the Godfather 3, he was weak, cracks jokes, let's people cross him, and discourages people from avenging him.
I went into the movie, originally, many years ago with the idea that it "wasn't as good" as the first two according to those who told me about it. I remember I did enjoy it. But after rewatching it for the first time, last night, in probably 10 years I really loved it. It's a fantastic film and a fine epilogue to the original story.
+DEFIANT ONE I totally agree
Part III has one of Michael's best quotes ever. "Just as soon as I thought I was out, they pull me back in."
Yeah that’s not the quote... try again
@@toosweet6046 I was para phrasing from memory, you get the idea.
@@toosweet6046 Lool wtf is your problem? I bet you are one of those nerds who knows every line every character says -_-
John Wick???
"...Yeah....I think I'm back!"
Silvio's favorite line.
“Has it ever struck you that life is all memory, except for the one present moment that goes by you so quick you hardly catch it going?”― Tennessee Williams..
Part III was the Fredo of the series. Misunderstood, ignored, and murdered 😭😭
Great line
Maybe it's from watching all three movies in a week, but I love all three movies and thought that Part 3 was a fantastic way to end the series.
Nah it’s not from that. I watched Part 2 + Part 3 back to back across two days and I personally thought there was a step down in quality from 2 to 3 that the production details only serve to reinforce
Yea 3 was great it's just that actress that plays Micheal's daughter she is the shits
@@stevenbaksh5545 Could have did away with the Helicopter massacre also,A little far fetched if you ask me.Too James Bond like for me.
@@Henry.58 it was different for the Godfather movies that is more about the story that the action but I think it fit well and it was impactfull in my opinion
@@stevenbaksh5545 It like the movie in general,I think Andy Garcia made it watchable.
Each dance is significant for Michael, as he lost all three women he loved deeply. Instead of dying a swift early death. Michael dies a slow agonizing death, haunted by the loved ones he could not protect and ultimately lost.
I'm gonna be honest; I've tried to revisit Godfather III over the years but I've never gotten into it. While it's not a terrible film, I've always seen it as an unnecessary addition to the series. The series will always end with Michael sitting alone on that chair to me. That said I thoroughly enjoyed this video. While it's not going to change my opinion of the film, you've done a great job at looking beyond the typical criticisms of the film. Well done.
AJK90 It wasn't necessary. It is just an epilogue.
AJK90 I like Godfather part three a lot
I think that the critics hated the film because it brought a "Christian" touch to a man paying a deeply personal price for his catastrophic, enormous sins.
So-called "modern" society are growing ashamed of Christianity and anything that reminds "Hollywood" about a man paying for his sins is automatically objectionable.
The "Death of Michael Corleone" shows a man quietly sinking into the Hell that awaits him. I'm sure that this finds many people deeply uncomfortable, because although our sins can never come close to Michael's, we still have some very minor ones'.
Nobody likes to think about them. I don't either.
This begs the question of Jesus' taking on OUR sins on the Cross. Could even Jesus' terrible suffering expiate the sins of Michael Corleone? Seems unlikely
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
San Jose Mike : Well put.
@Rishi Rajan I don't think he was obsessed with family. But that villa where he dies, is where is first love dies.
I'm surprised there was no mention of the real killer of "Godfather III": The non-casting of Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen. Other than that, really great analysis!
Money issues
I agree....that never sat well with me, especially to be replaced with George Hamilton, it almost seemed comedic. They could have atleast used somebody like Ben Kingsley or something...But then again, I guess back in 1990 Hamilton had more of a LA Law kinda vibe and they wanted to catch some of that swag...who knows.
It was mentioned that Tom Hagen died.
@Emperor AlHasan Why did he refuse ?
@Emperor AlHasan Oh! I kinda feel upset about the fact there was a chance to make another GREAT Godfather sequel and it's not been created becuz of money 🙄
the ending scene always makes my get goosebumps... the dance, the music, the bells...
I watched Part III without reading any user reviews and I frankly did like the movie. It does serve it's purpose of bringing the series to an end. You see Michael striving hard to legitimize his business operations and making all the efforts to set things right for his future generations while being filled with regret with the decisions of his past actions, especially what he did with Fredo. Al Pacino's performance definitely was a powerful one in this series and the end of this movie shows a sharp contrast to how Vito died a warm death alongside his family whereas Michael was left alone on his final day. All in all I did like all the 3 movies equally. I really don't get why the Part 3 gets so much hate.
Supposedly a fourth was planned. Which would have seen the new Don get involved in drug dealing which would ultimately destroy the family.
... its purpose ... (No apostrophe in the possessive pronoun!)
I totally agree with you❤
"Part 3 is the Fredo of the trilogy." That line caught me off guard and got a genuine laugh out loud from me. While I enjoy all 3 movies I have to admit...that is a fitting way to describe this movie in one sentence.
“IM SMART NOT LIKE PEOPLE SAY!”
Part three is interesting because unlike the Micheal corelone whos ready to fight for his family Micheal corelone is trying to dig him self out
In part 1 - he takes his soon to be wife. To his sister marriage. He explained to her. He is not part of the family business.
(He was forced in. He worked his way out. In part 3. A lot of people forget this.) If Sonny never died, he would of never been apart of family business.
@@abdulrahmanx2900 Michael was already in the family business when Santino was alive. He killed Solozzo and the police capt. He even volunteered to do it..
@@jimmyconway7958 He was the only one capable of doing it in that situation, because he was a family member without taking part in the business.Well I wonder If vito supposed that mike would turn into the most cold blooded Don of the whole story.
EVERY time i try to get out. THEY PULL ME BACK IN
@@jimmyconway7958 yeah ...so why show him as weak ..cos he wasn't...by the end of two micheal looked almost psychopathic...he wasn't meant to be king ...and it consumes him
Godfather III is a good film which follows two great films. That's its main problem. The ending , when all of Michael's deeds rebound on him in a single moment of horror , saves it and makes it fit into the series.
When you have to explain the joke
@@Choune991 lmao nice
@@Choune991 Umm ok...Funny
The actor who played vincent was such a corleone, i loved his performance
Andy Garcia
HIS NAME IS ANDY GARCIA.
Such a Sunny Corleone learning to be Michael Corleone
His name is Robert Paulson
He hammed it up a bit for me, but he 100% portrayed Sonny's son very well. The issue is we didn't see him learn enough from Micheal to properly portray him becoming the next don.
Its amazing how you predicted and saw the vision Coppola and Puzo had for the film. And now the true vision will be realised. I returned to this essay after the announcement. Even the title was spot on. Just amazing mate! Great job!
Part three is an absolute Masterpiece. It gets better over time. It’s Powerful it’s chilling it’s the End...
The plot is more complicated because of Michael's involvement with what was essentially the Vatican bank scandal and the role his family played in the financial dealings with Immobiliare: a complicated business and I have often thought that the was at the heart of the criticism of this movie. Certainly it was a morality play and proof that the ends do not justify the means. One minor point: Michael's ultimate diagnosis of diabetes is clearly foretold in the first movie because their are so many shots of him drinking water [excessive thirst is an early sign of diabetes] which continues through the second movie. I have to agree though that the final scenes with the death of Mary and Michael's reaction is one of the most powerful scenes every shot in a movie coupled with his demise: alone and essentially forgotten left with his tragic memories and all the ways his life went wrong. Even the dogs didn't want anything to do with him.
@@interestedobserver-gk3ih absolutely...
Rotwang2013 - Best comment.
I personally consider the first two parts the best films I’ve ever seen, and the best two in cinema history. However, my problem with part III isn’t exactly the story or when does it take place. It’s the execution. It’s ridiculously over the top, and the cinematography of the picture and the way it is shot, makes it look like a soap opera. Sofia’s acting has been torn apart, but I also feel that other actors performance it’s either a let down or subpar, specially Andy Garcia and Joe Mantegna performances. Both of them are a mixed bag.
I think the Vatican angle is very interesting, but that mob bosses shoot out…That is not the godfather. It had to be toned down.
I'll agree that some of the realism being cut out was a bit much like that one assassination thing, but you could make the argument that it's due to the changing times, much like Michael's new appearance and demeanor.
I think the shooting style is fine, even if it obviously lacks the same level of depth and nuance the first two films had and yeah the acting could have been better though I think the large majority of actors that were in both movies (basically just Talia Shire, diane keaton, and al pacino) along with Andy garcia gave good - great performances.
The sense of destiny, the moment Vito raised his gun on Don Fanucci, a crime family was born so all the subsequent tragedies.
That is certainly one of the themes of the series.In the book it is revealed that Sonny saw his father kill Fanucci and that his destiny was set from that moment on.And of course,Michael's was set the moment he shot Sollozzo and McCluskey.
Question/Survey: When Michael dies, he seems to die peacefully with a "best friend" (ie a dog)...how nice not to die a violent death like his father BUT, remember at the beginning of the movie during the wedding, when he is speaking privately with Zaza, his sister, and his illegitamate nephew and the nephew is accusing Zaza of saying "F*** Michael Corleone"...Michael says such a person would be a piece of S***...that "such a person would be a dog", implying that a dog is the lowliest of low creatures. Does this mean that Michael actually dies in the worst way ...that he dies surrounded by loved ones - no one but a lowly dog that he dies alone and at the lowliest point of his life?
really good point, I did notice the dog in the end but forgot about the quote u mentioned. i also think that he didnt die peacyful but suffering from all sins and his losses. his father vito died while playing with his grandchild and also as a rich man - looking at michael again the scene didnt look like he had that much money anymore and his beloved people werent there. So i would say yes, he died at the lowest point of his life. I found it interesting that they show michaels last second immediately after the scenes at the opera. Just before the oper ended, Michael looked like he is in the most powerful position he ever was, especially because of this epic music climaxing. But then within one moment there was such a huge drop and we see just how he died. Instead of showing in detail what happened afterwards, we can just see the contrast of the two michaels.
His father did not die a violent death. He died almost the same way
+larenius1 Coppola seems obligated to make him confess his sins and be redeemed I think that was a very weak movie move
facciaditosta no its micheals realization and admittance to his great sins, such as killing his brother Fredo, and him finally acknowledging the suffering he has caused and whether or not it will be worth it
pretty big stretch and also Vito didn't die a violent death.
Interesting, made me rethink my reaction to the movie. I always thought Sophia was good in the picture; the character had a sweetness and vulnerability that might have been because of the actress’s lack of experience.
Exactly! Finally somebody that agrees with me. Sofia had that innocence and, forgive me the word, "italianness" that made her a memorable character.
@Lady Fervor because its Hollywood
"She did the role for me, took a bullet for Michael and one for me. She wasn't an actress she was just real." Francis Ford Coppola.
I HATED her smile. Creepiest smile i've ever seen on a girl...
As Italian I know well the mafia history and I agree the third film completes the first two ,above all it is the most significant..All godfathers moslty die ALONE AND IN PAIN..FANTASTIC.That s how it reallly happens ..
Except Vito, Vito has his grandson with him and died satisfied with his life. In the novel his last words were “Life is so beautiful.”
Love the unbiased view in this essay.
The part 3 definitely deserves more recognition that it received.
The Fredo of the trilogy haha
😂
v ttd you win sir. Cuomo is indeed Fredo
I was born in the 80's and part 3 was the first godfather I ever saw so I always liked it. Vincent was the man
This was a great movie, all three are excellently made.
Lovely commentary
I really enjoyed this video, thanks! I loved all three and never fully understood why there was so much hate towards part 3. Absolute classic all three of them!! Grazie Mille to this video and hats off to the Godfather Classics.
I would agree with those who say Sophia Coppola's role as Mary was more than acceptable. She was perfectly beautiful, innocent and naieve. She didn't have to act. She should not be compared to other more aggressive or dynamic characters. She was naturally understated as the character should be.
As far as GF Part III is concerned - it was realistic. Man is not immortal. The deeds of life catch up. And this film depicts the tragic consequences of that lifestyle. So Pacino's character did not die violently. But the violent death of his daughter Mary before his very eyes killed him.
A good film must secumb to the laws and principles of real life. You reap what you sew. And while the first two of the GF sequels more or less glorified that lifestyle. Oh yes it did in the eyes of the audience whether intentional or not. Consequences had to have its day. Otherwise its an escape from reality.
After all that violence people needed to see consequences. There has to be a moral to this kind of story. And that is the credible purpose and accomplishment of GF Part III. The saga is incomplete without it.
I think that the film is quite a masterpiece once you look past your predetermined assumptions and yes acting on some parts could have been better but the plot and story is truly magnificent and I agree people were expecting the same thing as the other two movies but neglect the fact that the life they lived catches up to you eventually and many people didn't want to believe that nor believe Micheal could "lose" to anything, however at the end Michael's sins catch up to him and his daughter pays the price for it and Micheal the dies having to accept all the suffering, pain, destruction, and death he caused and realize it wasn't worth it.
De Niro won Best Supporting Actor for Godfather Part II, not Best Actor. Pacino was the sole nominee for Best Actor in Godfather Part II.
An error that shouldn't have made it to the final edit. Our apologies.
Reece Crothers it’s all good. Just thought I’d say something.
This is a fantastic analysis, its a shame that this channel is seeemingly dead after failing to gain the recognition this work clearly deserves.
Part 3 has a great storyline with the Vatican church and the Corleone's family return to Sicily.
Part 3 was a great movie. It's what happens when a story, or a life style ends in real life. People might not like how it might end, but that's how things go down? It's very realistic... things fade away with time... they end and you aren't as strong as when you are young.
Are you suggesting the movie’s only criticised because it gives a realistic ending?
Because I’d beg to differ - especially since Goodfellas was released in the same year with a better story that condemns the gangster life but only a third of the box office gross of Godfather 3.
Anyway, didn’t have a problem with Part 3 giving Michael his downfall. It was how they gave his downfall which was disappointing. Or how they abandoned the Tom Hagen character. Or the helicopter set piece that they put in which wasn’t realistic like you suggest but was instead over the top & the most stylised sequence of the trilogy. Al Pacino’s acting was also over the top & less realistic than the previous films, so was Connie’s heel turn into some kind of hitwoman now even though she previously despised the gangster life.
Like I said though the premise & idea of the movie was fine. But the execution was cartoony & over the top in ways that lacked the finesse & care that the previous films had.
THIS is how you vlog an essay! A+
I just watched part 3, and i liked it, it wasn't as great, but what really made the movie were the killings during the opera, it was very similar to those of the bauptism. And the italian festival on new york was exactly like the one in which vito killed fanucci. Joey wanted to be like don fanucci, and as a result, he ended up killed like him. I personally liked michael going back to sicily. His son singing Brucia la Terra, and him remembering apollonia was my favorite scene, how he never forgt
If you look at rotten tomatoes the audience score is in the high seventies so I think the audience doesn't crucify as much as the critics
I loved part III. I thought the ending was very poetic, and a fitting ending to Michael's legacy, or lack thereof!
Say what you will about Sofia-- Her death scene can still make any father cringe!
look up the definition of 'cringe' you're using that wrong
mrSlampamper How is he using it wrong? Her death scene would make someone cringe - meaning to experience an inward shiver of embarrassment or disgust - either because of how heartbreaking the death would be when viewing it from the perspective of the father Michael, or from how cringe-inducing the acting is too.
I’m not sure which above interpretation OP meant, but both work and it makes perfect contextual sense. If anything it’s the internet’s repurposing of cringe and invention of the fake word ‘cringey’ that makes confusion over the real word.
Kaizer.Beatz exactly, I’m not sure why 9 other people agree with this idiot either
"Dad?"....uggg
@@marleneg7794 - It's true her entire performance in the film wasn't on par with the other actors, but her final scene was played perfectly.
The only thing Godfather Part III is missing is Robert Duvall. Otherwise, I love it.
For all those who like me are intense fans of the Godfather movies, it's very exciting indeed to be able to watch the two masterpieces and not yet be done with the series. It's amazing how jumping straight into the story, introducing Vincent right away, rearranging a few things, and carefully trimming unnecessary and/or flawed moments and scenes has transformed this film. While it could never equal the first two films, the third film always contained much of great power and worth, yet it was not a satisfying viewing experience. What we have now that we didn't have before is a third film that *works*.
And, to me, that's huge!
Well dome, I too believe that it was a fitting end to the story. Bravo!
Seventh Art,
Well worth the all work it must have taken.
You've documented Hollywoods meticulous documentation of a now bygone era.
Nicely done!
Brilliant narrative. Thanks for posting.
Thanks for watching!
THANK YOU FOR THIS wonderfully brilliant expose. I am a lifelong fan of all three, but you have pulled and combined things I had not seen or considered. Bravo!
Talia Shire is very attractive.
@Jack The Film Fanatic why is she not nice ?
I think he was disagreeing with Trey Stephens that she is physically attractive. A comma missing between the “really” and the “a” I think.
While not on the level of the first two films, part 3 was pretty decent movie.
Part 3 was such a powerful film!
I watched III, and then I and II
Honestly thought III was very good, but compared to the I and II, obviously quite bad but by its own it stands tall because I was very much invested by it, despite already watching spoilers for it years ago.
11:20 Johnny Fontane only appeared in The Godfather and The Godfather Part III, not Part II
True. There are some errors. That is one of them. We apologize.
He was in 3. Showed up at the party early in the movie
I8thumper that was in part 1
@@geoffreybrockmeier3765 correct!
@I8thumper That was in the first part, where Michael meets Moe Green
Beautiful breakdown of The Godfather part 3. The movie ending is the most organic I've ever seen actors and actresses portray; their grief acted out is to this day still haunting. The Godfather part 3 may be considered the "Fredo" of the series, but my subjective view in 2019 is it's the perfect end to a powerful man who loses everything that truly mattered to him.
Thank you for your analysis TSA.
Incredible observation on what is an incredible film that stands alone, as it should. How amazing the film reflects the author, Francis Ford Coppola's own personal tragedy, the loss of a child. Wonderful work.
Personally for me, the Godfather series wouldn't be complete without part III.. It's the perfect ending for the series...A shock to the system...The ending is just unimaginable, yet too realistic.. That a life of crime is a life of tragedy, altogether.. Great analysis
I love that music but I can't hear the narration very well with it.
The Godfather Part III (1990) is underrated. I got the 1992, 1997 & 2001.
Damn good picture anyway...
Godfather Part 3: Not as good as it's older brothers, but it's dtill a solid sequel.
Go home, you're drunk
That was beautiful man, I’ve always had a fascination with godfather part 3 that I’d never been able to articulate, this did exactly that.
To me, the Godfather 3 is equal to the first. It is really an amazing film. I couldn't believe the way they panned it.
Yeah it's as amazing a film as the first but not as good a movie as the first, learn the difference.
0v0 Dashawn What? Explain the difference lol
0v0 Dashawn you don’t even know the difference lmao
I loved the last one, but I also love Shakespeare and saw a lot of his influence in Coppola's vision.
He says inevitable...I always said necessary. I loved this film.
I never understood why this was resented. Michael's silent scream was absolutely devastating. And it was karma. Retribution if you will.
This analysis is right. The title of GF3 is what messed with our minds - I'm old enough to have seen all 3 first time around. I agree, it should have been called "The Death of Michael Corleone". The perfect epilogue.
@ 8:00 - Michael's hair is different in part three because he's... "moving up" in the world yet again, and has taken the hint from Senator Pat Geary in Pt 2, that "oily hair and silk suits"
just can't go to the highest places...
This film is an absolute master class in staging. The blocking is impeccable.
it's a real problem when the analysis becomes better than the actual movie
the movie is great. so, nah.
@@blackspring3207 the godfather 3 is shit apart from the end - acting is horrible, weird incest storyline for no reason, not as much impact and it goes against the message of the godfather part 2
@@gtrrohit5078 nah its good
@@blackspring3207yh its good but many levels beneath the other two films.
A very underrated film indeed. It's like a good wine that's aged beautifully.
This video was so far ahead of its time... It's kind of incredible.
Thank you so much, sir, now I have more appreciation for this movie, it;s a great treat to find such amazing analysis
It's been 22 minutes well spent. Good stuff.
I was fortunate enough to have all of The Godfather films available at once through Netflix when I first watched them about a year ago, and even more fortunate to have known about the planned subtitle for Part 3 before I watched it.
While it’s undoubtedly the “weakest” of the three, I loved it. I thought the ending five minutes were the best I’d ever seen in terms of making me feel just agony for this man I’d watched go from idealist to the devil and back.
Thank you for this. I love GIII so much, and it was good to hear someone point out how much there is to appreciate here.
It's funny how Martin Scorsese would ultimately produce his own Godfather Part III, The Irishman, as a subversion of the very films that undermined Part III around 1990. It comes full circle.
Sophia Coppola, I recall, co-starred in 'Peggy Sue Got Married' directed by her father. She played Peggy Sue's sister.
GF3 would have been better if they had continued it. It is unfair to compare it to GF1 and GF2 because the cast looks different and it is nearly 2 decades later where films have changed. There was no way to film it with the same cameras and make Michael just like he was in GF2.
I think the film would be more well remembered if GF4 was made a few years after GF3, with Garcia and De Niro doing a parallel story like GF2. If this was done, GF3 and GF4 would be a pair of films similar to each other like GF1 and GF2 were a pair.
It is too late now as nearly 2 decades have passed since GF3.
I would still like to see GF4 through. It could be just about Vito in the 1930's a decade before GF1. It would need an all new cast though. De Niro is too old now.
Thia movie was an Operatic 'Honor Killing' to that genre and Family.
Well-done Sofia!
Being AWAKE to me is awesome.
I have done this with DOZENS of films.
NEXT F'KN LEVEL
sad how "michael corleone" died heartbroken and lonely from so much loss 0_O
This film is sooooo cleverly disguised as an 'out-of time' trainwreck.
On the contrary!
A masterful stroke to tie ALL ends of a parallel to our own twisted world of 24/7 dealings.
"I haven't even STARTED!"
- Martin Riggs
'Lethal Weapon
Andy Garcia played the role in part 3 very well.
Pacino also had some unforgettable quotes in it.
Yes it's the weakest Godfather movie but it's by no mean a bad movie - it's a good movie that just had the heavy burden of carrying the Godfather name.
I thought Godfather III was great. Very misunderstood when it came out.It is a magnificent and befitting epilogue to one of the greatest saga's of all time.
Sophia Coppola was outstanding in her role. She was actually one of the few good things about this film. Criticizing Francis for nepotism is trite - even arbitrary.
I am really thankful that I learned of the movies criticism only years after I watched it so many times. I think its a great ending to the Godfather, the ending always makes me cry.
Sophia was PERFECT. Young, incredibly beautiful, innocent. Her death was the most tragic of all the death scenes in these films.
Good commentary!
O.C.TileGuy I liked Sofia Coppola as Mary and don't mind her acting as it actually suits the character as being unsure of herself and not knowing for sure who her father is. One reason why Sofia was better than Winona Ryder would have been because she actually looks like an Italian daughter. Ryder would have had a stronger screen presence though.
I would have f*cked that Sophia chick.
The re-edit is much better than the original part III
Andy Garcia is amazing in this film. " Hey, Joey....Zasa..."
At the end Michael Corleone dies like a dog. He is broken, full of regret and punished by the loss of all he ever loved. A very sad ending indeed.
Cathy Audette no other way such a man could’ve end. He ordered the death of his own brother. A brother who was dumb & impotent. Banishment would’ve served just as well as death. He had no mercy, perpetuated & lived in a world of no mercy. I don’t think it sad. I think it’s inevitable.
I tried to get a ticket to
The infamous showing of this film on Christmas that year in Long Island, NY. And the movie was sold out. Gun fight broke out in the audience. 4 people shot , 1 killed. Good thing I didn’t get a ticket
Joey Lodes : Blimey - life imitating oit.
Where? Brentwood? Roosevelt? Wyandanch?
Wow !!! So much info to take in, I'll have to watch this doc again, it's so well made.
I loved gf i, ii, and iii; yes, the relationship timelines were off between characters, but i love it.
This is a well constructed, cogent review of Godfather III. I am impressed. It isn't perfect but it is far and away one of the highest quality critiques on youtube. Thank you.
Something just occurred to me. Since Mary was shot in the chest it would've taken her a couple of minutes or so to die. Her lungs would've filled with blood and she would've died choking on her blood. It would have been more horrific and heart-rending if she died like that instead of the brief gasp she gave. 😞
Nope she got hit in the heart, her death was realistic. A heart shot will stop someone in their tracks and they will be unconscious in just a few seconds once the brain starts not receiving the blood it needs.
I she got shot in the belly then yes i agree she would have died much later or maybe even survived...
This was a terrific video essay and I couldnt stop watching it. It was thought provoking to point out now that time has past we can finally be objective about the 3rd installment, free of expectations. That said, I thought III was pandering. Pandering to an audience that wanted more Puzo and and pandering to a Hollywood that wanted more money. The fact remains that GF was a masterful book and screenplay by Mario Puzo, that took 2 movies to tell. No more story, no more more movie. It hinges on Puzo's creation. That the audience wants more is irrelevant. If Puzo creates more, we get more, but we cant simply paint a second Mona Lisa because we liked the first one so much. This is one reason I liked this essay: it brought up the other ARTISTs inspired by an original masterpiece. That said, Micheal's recollections and death were superb scenes. Garcia was excellent. Hamilton was good, too.
Part 3 was good...Not great but good.
I went into part 3 expecting a terrible movie, purely based on the bad press and reputation it has garnered, but was pleasantly surprised by a really gripping story and a FANTASTIC finale. Sure, it wasn't as good as the first two, but there's NO WAY part 3 deserves to be labelled bad
I think I will die watching The Godfather
Another thing I would say is Vincent also has Fredo’s loyalty and good heart. Fredo may have not been a strong and wise person but (aside from almost Killing Michael unintentionally) he did have Fredo’s good heart and loyalty. He embodies everything the Corleone’s have become.
Despite the critism, I loved part III. The ending was sad but beautiful because it made so much sense. You see the difference in how Michael's life ends up as opposed to his dad, you see how he loses everything because of what he did. The most important part of the latter is that he was always all about his family, everything that he did, but he did heinous crimes which he had to pay for. He had to pay for it by losing all of the women he cared about in his life. In the end when he dies, you see the contrast of him fighting for his family all of his life to him dying all alone without family.
ML N : Vitos 'growth' was through his circumstances of relocation and denial of opportunity and finding of only route available to him 'then' whilst Micheals problem was more with having to try to keep a leviathan ticking over, something he'd never asked for, maybe ?
I think the scene with the thunder is brilliant and not something that could have been done in the first two. You get chills every time he screams to Fredo in his diabetic haze.