A nostalgic but insufficient send-off for the Corleone Family.

Rating: 7/10 (9 July 2015)

I watched 'The Godfather: Part III' the day after watching the preceding film, and anticipated a disaster given the poor reception of the title. As a standalone film it isn't so bad, but it is constantly loomed over by the two colossal previous instalments. From the first scene, the nostalgia is palpable: the social mingling and musical accompaniment (by Al Martino's Johnny Fontane, even) is characteristic of the 'Godfather' films, but is neither as grandiose nor as well-performed in this title. The wedding scene at the beginning of 'The Godfather' is probably one of the best-constructed scenes in film history, but the get-together in 'Part III' is a hollow piece of retrospection. This "exhausted nostalgia" may have been in part intentional, reflecting the passage of time between the second and third films, and the tolls exacted on the understandably exhausted characters. This passage of time feeds into another of my criticisms of 'The Godfather: Part III': I'm not keen on the very modern setting. I'm aware that if Michael Corleone is seen in 1959 in adulthood, logic dictates that by 1979 – when 'Part III' occurs – he'll be in his fifties or sixties. Therefore, Coppola couldn't escape setting it in the late seventies, I guess, but it just doesn't seem right for 'The Godfather'. The post-war setting of the first film which smoothly carried into the late fifties setting in the second film seems natural and appropriate; the portrayal of young Vito in the second film, set largely in the 1920s, is excellent. Michael Corleone's arrival at 1980 just seems anachronistic, bizarrely. I wonder if the producers tried to steer away from the late seventies in this title, for I noticed that the heavy focus on settings such as Sicilian villages, grandiose Vatican complexes and luxurious dining halls removed many of cultural traits of the 1970s. The timeframe of the film isn't enough to deter a fan, though, as there are scenes in 'Part III' that stand competently in their own right: one such scene was an exchange between Pacino and Eli Wallach in the back of a car, and this carried the atmosphere and profoundness that defined the earlier films. Wallach is one of the highlights of this film, but I can't say that I enjoyed the cast half as much as I enjoyed the first two films'. 'Part II' survived without Marlon Brando: Robert De Niro excellently took care of that. But without Duvall, Brando, Cazale and De Niro, 'The Godfather: Part III' really does seem disembodied and hollow. There are some enjoyable additions in this film, including Andy Garcia and the aforesaid star of 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly', but the spirit imbued in the characters of the first two films seems to have stayed away here. I won't address the plot in great detail, as there are many synopses and summaries available, but it is largely framed around Michael Corleone's attempts to legitimise his business by acquiring the Vatican's lucrative shares in a European real estate company, International Immobilare. Of course, in the world of Francis Ford Coppola, nothing is simple, and Corleone finds himself unenthusiastically thrown into the mix with shady Vatican officials, swindling businessmen and rival gangsters. Whilst the main plot was decent enough (if a little underwhelming for a grand finale), it's the subplot that I take particular issue with. It comes in the form of a romance between the characters of Andy Garcia and Sofia Coppola, and it simply cheapens the film. Think "Anakin and Padmé" ('Star Wars') instead of "Romeo and Juliet", and you'll get why I'm cynical of its inclusion. This subplot starkly contrasts with the relationship of Michael and Kay in 'The Godfather', as this latter romance scarcely dominated the screen, for there were much more riveting things happening. This perceptive selection of what to include and what to leave as implicit helped to distinguish 'The Godfather' as one of the greatest films of all time; unfortunately, Coppola seemed to have partially forgotten his masterpiece-creating formula. To conclude, 'The Godfather: Part III' is a necessary conclusion for anyone who appreciates the unparalleled intrigue of Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola, but this third instalment largely serves as a protracted piece of nostalgia: where the final flashback in 'The Godfather: Part II' asks, "Remember the good times?" this film simply asks, "Remember?" I've read criticisms that the film was released as a cash cow, but I'm not so cynical. There would have undoubtedly been a financial incentive, but I think that 'Part III' was largely a conclusive goodbye to the Corleone Family, designed with good intentions. Coppola seemed to be aiming for the effect that Eastwood would more successfully create with 'Unforgiven', orchestrating a dignified send-off for an iconic but now aged character/series.