60/60 Review #47: The Godfather Part III.

I only knew 2 things about this movie going into it. 1) It's considered "the worst of the best" (i.e. the worst film in one of the best trilogies) and 2) Sophia Coppola was a big reason for that. Well... I wasn't lied to. Michael (Al Pacino) is trying to go legit, though they "pull [him] back in." Particularly, his nephew Vincent (Andy Garcia), a hot-head, is ruining things for him. So while he's dealing with business deals that involve the Vatican, Michael is also trying to deal with his nephew's affairs, including a more literal one with his daughter (and Vincent's own cousin), Mary (Sophia Coppola).

So... let's start with the incest. Tis a bit strange only 1 person in this movie finds the relationship at least moderately strange. But even then, I'm not entirely certain it's because the two are related and more that one is Michael's daughter and the other a wannabe-gangster. There's really only one line in the movie that makes note of the fact they're related. But anyway, that's not really the problem with Sophia Coppola--at least in my opinion.

So while on the subject of what is wrong, let's look at the acting. Yeah, she's pretty rough in it. There are a couple others who could use some help, too, but she's the worst. Pacino is fine, though--just as with the previous film--I couldn't care much about him or his character. I maybe liked his arch a little more in this film than the last one. He seemed more vulnerable and human this time out. Ironically, I liked Andy Garcia the most... and he was essentially playing a classic Pacino-type character.

You could probably easily guess my opinion of this film. The first is most enjoyable due to the character of Vito. The second's best bits are the Vito flashback sequences with De Niro. There is no Vito in this film, flashback or otherwise. If you need it a little more spelled out, I didn't particularly fall for this movie. The best parts are with Pacino acting more human and Andy Garcia acting more like Pacino. I couldn't care less about all the Vatican stuff or any of the politics of the businesses. Like the whole of the film, it just wasn't all that interesting. It was capable and overall well-made, but nothing "great."


Stop Saying OK! OK.

(P.S. That wraps up Crime Month Part 2! And now I'm done with all the crime stuff all together! I think the rest of the year is pretty much downhill from here. October is going to be insanely awesome. Why? Just look at what's coming up first to give you an idea. I'm moving from "The Worst of the Best" to "The Best of the Worst" next week with Troll 2. It's time for Horror Month. Oh my Goooooodddddddd!)

60/60 Extra: The Untouchables.

I said last time I was surprised how I liked the first film of this month so much. Let's make that 2 for 2. This one takes place during the Prohibition during the reign of Al Capone (Robert De Niro). Treasury Agent Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) is out to get him, so he puts together a team including beat cop Jim Malone (Sean Connery), Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith), and a young rookie named George Stone (Andy Garcia). Together they become known as the Untouchables, as they are somehow beyond the law, yet cannot be bribed or turned dirty. Patricia Clarkson also co-stars as Ness' wife.

I was into this movie from the opening credits. Why? The music. I think that had a big reason as to why I enjoyed this movie so much. The score of this film is absolutely fantastic. But that shouldn't be a big surprise. Doing a bit of looking about, the composer is the same man who composed, among many other things, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (then again, he also did Salo...). But anyway, I just loved the score from opening to closing.

The film is also very well paced. It's 2 hours long and, in something quite rare lately, I didn't feel that length. In fact, the only reason I would look at the clock was because I watched it at a late hour and needed to see how much time I had left before I had to get to bed. So, yes, it held me captivated, and I never felt it really dragged at all.

The acting was both a strength and a weakness. Sean Connery was fantastic, and he was my favorite character in the film. Dr Niro and Garcia ate up their scenes in their respective ways. Costner was fine, though his character was relatively dull... at least in comparison to the others. But I think he acted it to the best of his abilities.

There's also some good action, though at times it can get a bit cheesy. There's a particular scene with a baby carriage (with a long setup) and a long slow-motion shootout that comes to mind. It's a fun scene in a strange way, but it's also very silly at the same time. I don't hold it as a detriment to the film, though. It's charming in its own way.

And I think that's the best way I can describe the film. Sure, it's violent and gritty at times, but there's a certain charm to it. The music, the characters, the action, the dialogue... it just has a great charm to it all. Most movie reviewers will tell you that positive reviews are much more difficult to write than negative ones, so I'll just leave it at this. It's a fun film, and I recommend it to those who like the crime genre who have not yet seen it.


Royale With Cheese