Out With A (Comparative) Whimper

Rating: Null/10 (26 August 1999)

Why did Coppolla make this film? What possessed him to, sixteen years later, "conclude" the greatest movie saga ever told? It's a shame that this film will always be attatched to the first two masterpieces. Kind of like how Yoko will always be attatched to John, Debbie Matanoupolis to The View and Roseanne Barr to the human race. Although, while watching it, it can at select times, be engrossing, looking back however, chunks start to rise in your throat. What are the problem with this? Here goes:
1) A lack of atmosphere. The Godfather II was also a bit weak in this department, but Godfather III tops the cake. Transporting it to a modern setting simply doesn't work. It gives the film a lack of identity. Sure, Corleone is pretty to look at, but it looks like the Corleone we knew in I after some mysterious force came down with a needle and sucked the beauty out of it. Part I used reds and blues to give the film a rare beauty and sense of the time in which it took place. It seemed lik an epic, brilliant comic book. Part II was shot depressively in dark colors (not a flaw it all, it matched the sad story of the film). I guess that since III doesn't have a theme, there's no way for a cinematographer to bring one out. Which leads me to the next flaw
2) Part I is Michaels ascention to the top. Is the mob glorified? To a point. Part II, the mob is anything but glorified, as Michael, loses and/or kills almost all that is dear to him. Part III is SUPPOSED to be about redemption, but unless I fell asleep during the film, I didn't seen any taking place (Perhaps I just found the answere my problem). He dies a miserable man, even more lonely than he was after II.
3) The plot is too muddled. Godfather II was successful in telling two stories because they were completely isolated from eachother. In this case, they aren't. The Vatican, and the troubles inside the F(f)amily don't mesh-at all. The characters from these two different tales never interact and I didn't feel like I got to know any of the new cast members (except for Vincent). This leads to a heinous, confusing and overblown finale where, to be honest, I didn't know who was being killed or where the killing was taking place AT ALL.
As for the good parts...Well, of course there were some. The performances by Pacino, Keaton and especially Garcia were top-notch. Sofia Coppolla has taken enough abuse here, so I won't complain. As I said before, the film is watchable. At points, when you actually DO understand what's going on, it can get very interesting. But the characters provoking you interest don't last long enough. Overall, an alright film in it's own right (with several flaws) fails to follow the example of it's two flawless counterparts.