Bolted on sequels rarely work

Rating: 4/10 (26 January 2007)

This is another in a long line of after the event sequels that seemed to be made purely to capitalize on the success of the original versions rather than from any desire to further the story. Godfather 2 was made because Puzo and Coppola felt they had much more to do with the character of Michael. When it was done so were they and it should have been left so. Like the "Color of Money" did to "The Hustler", Godfather 3 harms rather than helps the legacy of the original.
I am, like many, a huge fan of the first two films. The true masterpiece of them was the brilliant character of Michael Corleone, brilliantly written and brilliantly portrayed. This was the first place where #3 goes wrong. In this part Michael is a shadow of his former self. He is weak and indecisive, a character who lets events overtake him. Little is given in the way of explanation as to what happened to change him. Pacino himself seems to be only half interested in the role.
Furthermore the cast of surrounding characters are much weaker this time out. Talia Shire's performance is pure embarrassment. She shrieks and hollers her way thru the film like a day time soap actress. Andy Garcia who showed such promise early in his career is good but nothing extraordinary. Sophia Coppola should never have been added to the film, she is not an actress and was really dropped in it by her Dad. Bridget Fonda too is weak as is Joe Matenga. Eli Wallach's character is woefully under developed. Compare this with the character of "Hyman Roth" in part 2.
If this film really wanted to be judged on its own merits and not look pale in comparison to parts one and two it should not have used the word Godfather in its title. In reality it should never have been made.