The 70's vs. the 90's: Different time, different motion picture

Rating: 9/10 (7 February 2006)

Before I saw The Godfather: Part III, I read many negative reviews (except for Roger Ebert's) about it and I had my mind set on watching a horrid movie because I was such a fan of the first two. But I was surprised: It wasn't as bad as everyone said it was and just because it wasn't good as the first two (The Godfather was made in the 1972 and The Godfather: Part II was made in 1974) this last installment of the "trilogy" serves the whole saga some justice because it gives a nice deliverable ending to two cinematic masterpieces.
The film begins with a haunting memory of the Tahoe estate. Then cuts into Michael being honored by his church and mirroring a celebration of the first two parts. (but held indoors!)
When Anthony (D'Ambrosio) tells Michael he wants no part in the family business and wants to pursue a life in music, Michael reluctantly agrees.
But then pops the alternative: Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia) comes in with the support of his own of Connie, Michael's sister (Talia Shire) to meet Michael. He is the illegitimate son of Sonny, Michael's brother and he tells Michael that Joey Zasa (Joe Mantegna) has been bad-mouthing him behind his back. Vincent, like his father, has a temper and is prone to doing things without thinking. He wants to join Michael and leaves Zasa so Michael takes Vincent in, reluctantly.
The main plot in the film is actually quite confusing and I don't know if I'll fully explain it in the correct terms: Michael wants to buy a company called Immobiliare, which is controlled by the Vatican. Don Altobello, who becomes furious that his mafia would not be included into the deal because of Michael's hunger of being legitimate - he wants to keep the company as legitimate as possible because that has been his ultimate Americanized dream.
There are a few "subplots", including the rather disturbing but at the same time I must admit as rather sweet incest romance between Mary (Coppola) and Vincent (Garcia). When Mary approaches Vincent and he tells her to "Love somebody else" just breaks my heart for some reason.
Another one that I thought was fantastically written was probably the dialog between Michael (Pacino) and Kay (Keaton). Why? Even though it seemed misplaced (since it was written in later) I thought it would of had been terrific in another film. But too bad, it's already in this film: When Kay comes to Sicily for their son's debut in an opera and Michael is there to finish off the Vatican deal, he shows her around the city and those moments are priceless. These are great actors doing great dialog and the scene where Michael and Kay are both in that room and he tells her he still loves her and she starts breaking down - I think I was going to cry as well. But after thinking about it a while: What happened to the abortion in Part II? (Goodness, he started yelling her and then later slapped her ...) Did it just disappear out of Michael's mind or is this a very different film? And yes, it is a very different film - with flaws that we can just forget and move on with our lives.
The man is suffering  he even has a diabetic stroke in the course of the film. But this is a man who has done evilness.
The acting isn't all as bad people say it is. I want to start off with Sofia Coppola who has received two Razzies for her performance - if it wasn't for those bad reviews I would never had noticed that her acting sucked. My mind just paid attention to her acting - and other than how her voice sounded so unnatural and strange, she wasn't as bad as people say she was. And there's Andy Garcia, who beat out quite a number of people for the role of Vincent and even though he wasn't really deserving of his Oscar-nom, he did quite well adjusting to his character when his character had no development whatsoever (I mean, he became Don in just uh - 2 weeks?). There is Talia Shire, who is probably one of the best gems in the film. She is malicious and as sweet as poison and that's why I loved her here. Keaton turns in a mustered-up performance of a Oscar-winner (Annie Hall). And for all the love/hate comments for Al Pacino - he's on top of his game and you know what? He may be the best thing in the whole entire film. The silent scream scene in unforgettable.
So my critique of the film? I think this is *the* film I would be willing to watch again if I was to choose between the three. Why? Because this is my favorite film even though it wasn't the best film (Part II is the best if you asked me). This film is a nostalgic surprise (with one too many flashbacks from the first two) and Francis Ford Coppola (who has admitted he made the film for financial reasons) does a fantastic job. I thought the shots looked more "modern" because sixteen years is a lot of time to improvise on skills of film-making which makes a very different motion picture. I think Part III felt more like a Hollywood blockbuster/wannabe Oscar bait. But all in all, it's a very entertaining film (yeah, it may be confusing but still enjoyable).
The Godfather: Part III is also surprisingly funny ("When I'm dead, I'm gonna be really smart"). I didn't expect that coming!