We claim to hate them, at least as it relates to movies. But how often are book sequels good? I don't know, but does Scarlett compare to Gone With the Wind? I know it wasn't written by the same author, but I do think the point holds. That being said, sequels seem to often work out well in literature, but probably fare less well in movies and to a lesser extent video games. TV shows don't really have sequels, but they do have spin-offs, a phenomena that seem to be rarely seen in film. But in a sense, couldn't each season be seen as a sequel? to that first season? Especially seeing as how most TV seasons usually have different storylines.
We often complain about the lack of original ideas in Hollywood. Knowing this, and knowing that we seem to believe and recognize that sequels aren't usually as good as the original movie, why do we go see them? Yes, some are as good as the original, or better; Empire Strikes Back, Back to the Future Part II, Spider-man 2, The Godfather, part II, all rate as some of the biggest and better sequels of all time. On a side note, does anyone else find it interesting that the rise of sequels seem to mirror the rise in blockbuster films? Obviously movie has a lot to do with it. In the summer of 2013 the film Smurfs 2 had it's entire production paid for with product placement and cross-promotions even before it opened up in theaters. [1] In such a world the actual critical reception of box office performance of a movie would seem to matter little as a determining factor for deciding when to make a sequel.
It should be no wonder, then, that the Corleone family was revisited in 1990 with The Godfather, part III, 16 years after the previous installment. Was it an unnecessary sequel? Yeah, it was. A, more or less, surefire way to make money? Probably. Bringing Al Pacino and Diane Keaton back together, trading on their massive popularity at that time, with rising star Andy Garcia representing a new generation...Why not? The only main cast member from the previous films who could have reprised his role who didn't was Robert Duvall. I get why they made this movie, and I don't criticize or condemn anyone for making it, even if it was somewhat unnecessary.
When compared to the first two movies in the Godfather series it simply fails. There's minimal continuity with the first two films and it really isn't as well made as them. The story is a little more convoluted and confusing, and while there's a sense of revenge there's no true singular opposition to our anti-heroes. In some ways, they are their biggest enemies, but if that were really true in the film they would destroy themselves, and I'm not sure that truly happened here.
This film has been constantly criticized, but few seem to remember that it was actually nominated for Best Picture at the 1991 Oscars. While that doesn't definitively mean that it is a good movie or even one of the year's five best, I think it does make a statement about the general quality of the movie, and that it was still one of that year's best films. It is an intriguing tale and continuation of the Corleone saga. In addition, Andy Garcia is very dynamic as Vincent Mancini-Corleone. He is, however, perhaps overshadowed by the travesty that is the acting of Sofia Coppola. Winona Ryder was slated to play the role of Mary Corleone, but had to drop out due to illness. [2] It was too late to postpone production so director Francis Ford Coppola went with his daughter to take over the role. I would love to say that isn't her fault, but it kind of is. Her acting was truly horrible. That being said, and I know this isn't really an easy thing to do, but if one were to completely ignore her acting as best they could, the film isn't bad. It's actually decent and above average. That's not much an endorsement, but it's something, and compared to how most people talk about this movie it's actually a ringing endorsement. I think that most of the people who revile this movie and say it's horrible haven't actually seen it.
Its reputation has certainly preceded it. While not nearly as good as the first two parts of the series, when those first two parts are individually almost universally considered to be in the top five of movies ever made, why should we be surprised if this one doesn't exactly match up? Final Score: 7.5/10
