Yes, it does feel more like a coda to a big orchestra rather than a third act to one of the grandest stories ever told, but "The Godfather: Part III" does work as a whole

Rating: 7/10 (15 April 2011)

What definitely personifies best the separation of the first two films in Francis Ford Coppola's "The Godfather" trilogy and the third and final entry is the Hollywood Greed Syndrome, which was spawned in 1977 following the release of "Star Wars." The first two movies were made before this event, in which Hollywood allowed ambitious directors to go after making the next big American movie. But "The Godfather: Part III" was released post-"Star Wars," from which the movie industry has yet to escape, in which the sole concern is making the next big American hit. Nevertheless, even though it is a lackluster companion piece to its predecessors, "The Godfather: Part III" does work as a crime drama. Its dicey and uneven, but it does work.
Quite some time has passed since the end of the second movie. Michael Corleone (Al Pacino, still great) is now an old man, his family's empire has lost a lot of power, many of his old friends have gone, and a lot of his own family has distanced themselves from him. As he attempts to mend fences in his personal life, Michael also tries to control his temperamental nephew (Andy Garcia) and prevent another mafia war from erupting.
The strongest aspect of "The Godfather: Part III," I think its general function as a nostalgia trip. It almost seems as if Coppola realized that he wasn't going to be able to make a third masterpiece and the best way to preserve as much of the original power is to remind us of the first two movies, but in a way that isn't shoddy or consumed by (too many) flashbacks. It is fascinating to see how the remaining principal characters have changed since the last two movies. How Michael has become worn down by his age and personal life. How his sister Connie (Talia Shire, very good in this movie) is still attempting to maintain a good relationship with the brother she once hated. We see some of the supporting faces, such as Al Neri (Richard Bright) and it becomes very fascinating, even though it is really more of like a history lesson than a character study.
There are also some good story elements, too. For example, the relationship between Michael and his ex-wife Kay (Diane Keaton). First of all, seeing how they've changed physically and psychically is fascinating and uncovering the fact that they still love each other is a powerful element. Most interesting however is the doomed relationship between Andy Garcia as the aspiring new don and Sofia Coppola as Michael's spunky, independent daughter. Director Coppola and his two young performers take a relationship that is, without giving too much away, sort of taboo or unnerving, and makes it quite moving in its own unique way. They are interesting. Much more interesting than the villains.
That is the core flaw of this movie, I think. There are no interesting antagonists. Nobody here is quite menacing or developed enough to really leave an impact. Great as Eli Wallach is in the movie (and let's admit, he was destined to be in one of the Godfather movies sooner or later) he frankly doesn't have much material to work with. Joe Mantegna, who overacts his part, is also dull. It does sound paradoxical for a movie that clocks around three hours in length to seem rushed. But it does. There is even a moment where Coppola's craft breaks in a scene where Michael suffers a stroke and we get a horrendous jump cut that stands out quite painfully, like a sore thumb. And a massacre scene in the middle of the story only reminds us how much better the climaxes of the first two movies were. Whereas those seemed brutal and terrifying, this one really seems staged with an overuse of cartoonishly-lit blood and rapid cuts between camera angles.
And then there comes the problem with the ending. The emotional climax of the movie works quite well. Without giving it away, I'll just say it reminded me of a great scene from an Alfred Hitchcock movie from 1956 in terms of dramatic tension and suspense. At this point, I was almost willing to forgive the movie for all of its flaws. It was going to be a great ending to a magnificent saga. Then came those two final, unforgivably awful shots and a poor decision to finalize the story with a cut to black as opposed to a slow, dramatic fade.
Yes, it does feel more like a coda to a big musical orchestra rather than a third act to one of the grandest stories ever told, but "The Godfather: Part III" does work as a whole. There are some great dynamics here, even if they aren't fully realized, and the movie does, again work primarily as a nostalgia trip. No, lightning did not strike a third time. This time it just brushed it and some sparks made contact. Well, those sparks were strong enough. "The Godfather: Part III" takes a while to get started, but it did leave me satisfied, if a little empty.