The Godfather and The Godfather Part II are masterpieces, of that there is no doubt. Well. Then there is The Godfather Part III. There are a lot of questions surrounding this film that I feel have rather easy answers. Is this film as bad as it is made out to be? No, the film has long stretches of great quality. Is Sofia Coppola’s performance really that bad? Yes, it’s genuinely atrocious. Is there the essence of a worthy third part to the trilogy? Yes. The heart of that essence was thwarted by many things, ranging from casting issues, budgetary restraints and studio pressure. It has now come to light however that this was never Coppola’s vision and that rather than a culminating third part to his masterful trilogy, the third film was instead supposed to serve as a coda, an epilogue of sorts offering a final comment upon the life and ultimate death of Michael Corleone. Coppola has now had the chance to re-name his film and more importantly re-edit it, all serving as he puts it - "a re-contextualization". So. Now. Do these changes deal with everything? Not really. Is The Death of Michael Corleone a better film than The Godfather Part III? Well in no major ways, but this final cut is still an interesting filmic document and allows us to return to the much maligned 1990 concluding part of one of the finest trilogies of all time, if only for its first two glorious masterpieces.

Credit

The Death of Michael Corleone (as I will now refer to it as) is a complex beast. Coppola was forced to adapt and change his possible ideas for a third film over and over again, due to issues with securing Robert Duvall’s return as Tom Hagen, as well as Winona Ryder’s casting change as Mary due to exhaustion. These are elements that are directly at the heart of what makes the third film lesser. With a return from Hagen we could really see the culmination of a relationship of great pain and familial troubles over multiple decades. Although there is no certainty that a film with Hagen would have been of a better quality, I personally believe that the development of those characters would have been the most interesting path for another film. Coppola thought so too in actuality, but due to monetary disputes we didn’t get that. Instead the role of consigliore is filled with George Hamilton as B.J Harrison. Hamilton serves the corporate embodiment of legitimacy that lies at the heart of the film, but just doesn’t have any drama about his character. There is nothing necessarily wrong with a character serving as a figure reflecting the themes of the film, however it would help the film if that figure also had some character to it. Before we get to the good, let’s get the dark horse out of the way. Sofia Coppola really is abysmal in this film. All of her lines are delivered so painfully flatly that any scene she is on screen is genuinely unbearable. She is the iceberg that sinks this ship, that otherwise had moments of lovely cruising and sailing. People have posited that she isn’t the main problem with the film and that a recasting wouldn’t have solved the inherent issues at the crux of the film; however, I frankly couldn’t disagree more. Without giving away anything regarding the final stretch of the film, Mary may very well be the most important character in the film and the fact that we easily grow to avidly dislike her due to the performance is, as aforementioned, the looming metaphorical iceberg in the water.

Credit

Coppola has made with this film a clearly Shakespearean tale of legacy and revenge in a way that was previously rather sub-textual, but here is completely surface level and does a disservice to a script that has moments of great complexity. Working again with Mario Puzo, a screenplay has been written that pairs the most epic sequences and vistas with the most painful moments of intimacy, take for instance the grand helicopter shootout and the sensational Kitchen scene with some of the best Pacino work people had seen in some time. Let’s talk about Pacino. Pacino is the films saving grace, with some of the finest work he ever did in his entire career. Such is the pain and beauty of some of his moments here that I still see them as cannon, despite my frequently negative overall view of the film. Pacino is the reason I do return here and although I always am surprised by some of the film’s more elusive moments of quality. I am never surprised by the power of Pacino. The biggest problem with Pacino, is not actually Pacino’s problem. The scenes were Michael’s character doesn’t ring true is all down to the script and where Puzo and Coppola chose to take the character. The resolution of Michael and Kay’s relationship is frankly absurd to me and although Keaton does similarly fine work, every scene and moment between the two of them just plays as false. Every moment in fact in the film where Michael has seemingly found a heart and feels empathy just rings painfully untrue and in many ways betrays the unnaturally powerful conclusion of the previous film, which has been and will always be my true ending to the character of Michael Corleone; alone, aged, ruined. The final moments  in this film with Michael on the steps could have possibly been some of the most effecting work of Pacino’s career, it still for instance is brutal and brilliant acting. However if we remained with the cold and emotionless nature that we left his character with and made Mary someone we cared for, and then let that cold exterior drop for that harrowing final image – then I think one of the great movie moments could have been born.  All this being said; there has always been many irons in the fire when it came to what made those initial films the masterpieces that they are, however if one was to point a finger, Coppola would certainly be the name that came to mind first. The craft and expertise of Coppola is frequently on display in this film and is a fine remembrance of the talent of a master filmmaker, who even in his lesser films demonstrates the quality of his well justified auteurship.

Credit

The new characters we meet, when they are not shoddy replacements for those we have grown invested in are also largely intriguing. But mainly Andy Garcia’s Vincent, who is marvellous in the film as the new heir to the Corleone name. Garcia perfectly imbues all of the anger and fury of what we imagine Sonny Corleone’s bastard child to be like. His trajectory across the film isn’t as subtle, or perhaps as effecting or complex as Michael’s in the first film, but Garcia is certainly a reason for why this film works so well. The exceptions to this are our villains. The film really does have a major villain problem. From the minute we meet Eli Wallach’s Don Altobello, we understand that he will betray Michael. Gone is the duplicitous ambiguity that made the original films villains so enthralling. Wallach’s performance also is far from wonderful, with some genuinely hilarious moments of painful over-acting. The second prong of this issue lies with the entirely overly complex plotting of the majority of the film, with strands regarding the Vatican and European banking coming and going without any exceptional writing to lead us through it. The figures we come across in this plot also are fleetingly memorable and no standouts can really be commented on. The one exception to this villain issue is Joe Mantegna as Joey Zaza, a brutal modern gangster who highlights the changing of the guard at the crux of the film’s first act. Mantegna is cold and effective as Zaza and although his climatic parade scene is a highlight of the film, his absence from the rest does feel glaring when one takes in the film as a whole after the fact. This reflects in many ways the entire experience of viewing The Death of Michael Corleone, when you are in the middle of it, it is very easy to be sucked in by the world that Coppola so extraordinarily depicts. It is very easy to fall back into viewing Pacino’s greatest work, in his performances as Michael Corleone, even if this is the lesser of the three. All this is very easy and the film has plenty to offer, but it’s issues have remained and the reasons we malign the film are unfortunately still ultimately painfully present.

-

A 7/10 that simultaneously deserves all of the harsh notices that it has received over the years, but also in many ways is one of the more underrated films of the 90’s. This contains some of the finest sequences that Coppola ever directed, and certainly some of the best acting of Pacino’s later years. All in all this edit hasn’t changed a lot, but has breathed a new life into the film in the community, if in actuality it hasn’t actually changed all that much in the body of the film.

P.S. Yes. Yes I do think this film would be ten times better with Winona Ryder as Mary.

P.P.S. Yes, I would kill for a film with Pacino and Duvall as these characters in their later years. As Billy Crystal sang at the Oscars that year, "Godfather 3, let there be more. And put Duvall into Part 4."

P.P.P.S. There was talk for a period of time regarding a fourth film following the structure of The Godfather Part II, with Andy Garcia’s Vincent rising in his role, paralleled with Leonardo Di Caprio as a young Sonny Corleone. Despite all of this film’s lesser moments, I would still love to at least see what this film would have been. Obviously the possibility of this is now beyond us, but I hope in a parallel universe there is a very happy Tom who has a fourth Godfather film, superior to this one.

-Thomas Carruthers