The Godfather, Coda: The Death Of Micheal Corleone (1990/2020) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: Worthy Conclusion To The Prestigious Duology?

 

The "Godfather" duology have been regarded as some of the best films of all time, with the original being considered a classic and "Part 2" being seen as even better by fans and critics. After the success of "Part II", director Francis Ford Coppola wanted to move away from the franchise to work on other passion projects despite Paramount's requests for him to pen a third film. After getting into financial troubles, Coppola decided to take up the project after more than a decade. The third film was to be seen as an epilogue to the duology and will close the franchise as well as the story of Micheal Corleone. While it got praise during its initial release, the final film in the "Godfather" trilogy has been slammed overtime for various reasons with Coppola releasing a re-edit of the flawed film last year with a warm response by the fans of the franchise. I have only watched this re-edit and haven't seen the original cut for the review as I didn't want to bother. The differences between the two cuts is that the re-edit is a bit shorter with scenes having a more coherent place in the film, new musical cues, and an altered beginning and end. Aside from these differences, I will be treating the re-edit as if it was the theatrical cut after thirity years. The question remains: Is "Godfather Part III" worthy of being involved in the franchise?

Positives: 

• The storyline regarding Micheal Corleone. In the film, Micheal has mellowed over the years and has been trying to leave the crime business while securing his family's wealth and safety in good hands and faith. After recently legalizing his criminal empire by dealing with the Vatican, Micheal is set to find an heir with him eyeing Vincent Santino, the bastard son of Sonny Corleone. Micheal sees potential in his nephew as his son, Anthony, refuses to take up the mantle and Vincent is seen as the son Micheal never had, despite Vincent harbouring an explosive temper and want for revenge. After Micheal announces his exit out of the industry and returns the shares to The Commission, an assassination attempt tries killing Micheal, causing him and his family to hide in Italy while they plan to take out those that betrayed him. I will go in lengths with the issues regarding the story later, but I think the strength of it is Micheal's character arc.
• The tone during the second half of the film. Again, I will bring up the issues in the first half, but as soon as Micheal and his family move to Sicily, the film starts feeling more in nature to the franchise and it's where the drama and character building with Micheal and his loved ones that shine the most.
• Al Pacino as Micheal. While some feel that his performance is either over-the-top or not in nature to his character in previous films, Pacino really helps in making Micheal the highlight of the film. Micheal over the years is depressed and diagnosed with diabetes, which has made him regret all of the terrible things he has done in the past. While people feel that he should have been cold and bitter even as he gets older, it makes sense for why Micheal is trying to turn a new life in regards with his health condition and relationships. The scene where he demands sugar for his diabetic attack is a bit silly, but it illustrates how far this man has fallen out of power and how members of his family and work see him as soft for not trying to kill his enemies. Pacino however is great whenever he is with certain characters such as his ex-wife, Kay, and his son Anthony. I also like the subtlety in the ending where you just see an elderly Micheal just sitting outside alone. It's a nice way to close his journey in regards of seeking redemption and peace but having to pay a costly price.
• Some of the side characters. Diane Keaton as Kay is fantastic as always and captures the awkwardness of trying to fix up a strained relationship with Micheal. Their scenes feel the most natural in the film which is really thanks to the acting talents of Pacino and Keaton. Talia Share as Connie is also great as the sister of Micheal who proves to be quite vicious in regards to the needs of wanting revenge. Franc D'Ambrosio as Anthony is good for being a timid yet talented opera singer that Micheal feels proud for despite wanting nothing to do with the family business. Lastly, Raf Vallone does a nice job as Cardinal Lamberto, the Pope known as John Paul I who Micheal confesses to and tries to keep up the end of the deal with Micheal and the Vatican Bank.
• The cinematography by Gordan Willis. There's a lot of nice tracking shots, establishing shots, and creative uses to fitting subjects into the frame. The scenes in Sicily really show both the beauty and the contrast of old and modern in regards to the time setting of the film.
• The score by Carmine Coppola. While there's a mix of new and familiar musical tracks, the score is of course spectacular. I also love how the opera in the third act is synced with the actions and suspense on screen.
• The third act in general. It revolves around Micheal and his family watching Anthony perform Cavalleria rusticana with the antagonist Altobella ordering a hitman to kill Micheal while Vincent assassinates Altobella and Micheal's enemies during which the opera is performed. It's an excellent set-piece and it remains as the most iconic sequence of the hated sequel.

Negatives: 

• The overarching MacGuffin that is the Vatican Bank and the Pope. I get that it's based off a real-life scandal and conspiracy during the time, but the film feels really complicated with this element. It makes sense for the overall story and why Micheal makes this deal, but a lot of the film talks about the Pope and the bank and the company Micheal invested into and it's hard to actually be invested in it.
• The sub-plot regarding Vincent and his romance with Mary. The chemistry between the two is awful and just plain wrong. The two cousins only really love each other for their looks and that's it. They both don't feel grossed out by their attraction and even the other characters, including Micheal, don't comment on this aside from that it will put Mary in danger. The fact that the re-edit still includes plenty of the two making out is just disgusting.
• The tone in the first half of the film. Because the film takes place in 1979, the film wants to feel like it's a product of that time. Characters and actors are really over-the-top and have awkward deliveries, deaths feel gratuitous and flashy, and the film as a whole doesn't take itself seriously at times with spinning newspapers and gross incest. The tone manages to recorrect itself by the second half, but it still manages to hurt the film as a result.
• Vincent Santino. While Andy Garcia is doing a good job, it's the character itself that really makes him unlikeable. For one, the incest relationship with Mary is bad enough. But the new head of the Corleone mafia is just blunt-headed and violent-seeking. I get that it's due to his age and perception of life, but it still doesn't help making the character likeable when he constantly disobeys Micheal.
• Mary and Sofia Coppola's performance. This is the most infamous error of the film and it's no question as to why. Coppola was forced into the project in the last minute when Winona Ryder backed out due to feeling ill. Coppola herself didn't want to act in the film and it clearly shows. Her performance is so terrible that it's not even funny. It just makes the film awkward and uncomfortable, especially as she has the hots for her cousin. Even if Coppola wasn't acting, the character of Mary would have still been unlikeable due to her moody personality and horniness in regards to her love for Vincent. When she dies at the end of the film, I cheered, despite all of the actors pouring their talent out in making this moment emotional.
• The villains and side characters. I'm not going to spend much time on them, since they are all shoved in for the same issue. The actors are either just bland or too over-the-top to take seriously. Everyone acts as if they are in a satire film. Altobella is the main villain and he reminds me of Tony Vivaldi from "Last Action Hero" with his personality and silly cane with a fist. The lawyers and bodyguards are just stereotypical archetypes. And the character of Grace Hamilton, played by Bridget Fonda, is just thrown in to be sexy and wear Vincent's leather jacket. This "reporter" just shows up, sleeps with Vincent, and disappears at the beginning of the film despite said film acting as if she's far more important. Maybe she had more to do in the theatrical cut, but it just begs the question why she was even involved in the movie to begin with?
• Francis Ford Coppola's directing. Now, that's not to say that Coppola is a terrible director, but it's quite clear that he both wanted to do something different and not really interested in doing another "Godfather". The film itself feels a lot more amateur than the previous films and just feels odd in contrast to the franchise. This, again, might be due to the time period the film is set and how it wanted to feel in nature to that era and the films that were made then, but it makes the sequel feel like it's heavily lacking a sense of class or elegance. Some scenes, particularly those of exterior balconies or interior homes, feel far more different than those found in the previous films. It might have something to do with the lighting, natural or artificial, or even the cinematography by Willis, but it makes the film feel both cheap and kind of visually unimpressive at times.
• The editing in the re-edit. I'm not going to put too much blame, since it's meant to trim the fat off the original film, but there are some rough cuts to be seen. Also, the fade-to-black transitions are just not very good in this film, as scenes are either cut out a tad early or the transition opens up to a shot that doesn't fit well into said transition.

"The Godfather, Coda: The Death of Micheal Corleone" is by far the weakest installment in the legendary franchise by the huge quality dip it has taken from previous films. From a confusing Vatican storyline, the romance involving Vincent and Mary, the strange tone found in the first half of the film, Vincent is an unlikeable meathead, Mary is both a bad character and given an excruciating performance by Sofia Coppola, the villains and side characters are either really generic, pointless or tonally over-the-top that it makes the film feel more like a parody, the editing is pretty rough at times, and Francis Ford Coppola's directing is lacking his sense of class and quality and manages to come across as amateur and lazy. Despite all of these problems, does that mean it's a bad movie in general? Not at all. There are some strengths to the epilogue of the franchise such as Micheal Corleone's story and character arc, the tone manages to correct itself by the second half of the film, Pacino's performance as Micheal shows that he is a gifted actor, the characters of Kay, Connie, Anthony and Lamberto are well acted and work off really well with Pacino in the dramatic moments, Willis offers great cinematography with the scenes in Sicily bringing out the beauty of the country, Carmine Coppola still offers a strong, albeit, familiar score for the franchise, and the climax as a whole manages to become one of the best sequences in the franchise in regards to the operatic backdrop, suspense and overall filmmaking. So, it's clearly the weakest film in the trilogy, but it proves to still have redeeming qualities. I think that the best way to watch it would be to just stay invested in Micheal Corleone's journey. If you trail off, you will just ignore what strengths the film offers compared to an average cash-grab sequel.

Verdict: 5.5/10. Above-average at its best, shockingly mediocre at its worst. As a film, it's fairly decent, but as a conclusion to the "Godfather" series, it can be quite bothersome for many.