gibsoncraig

How do you top two of the most acclaimed films of all time? If you are writing a sequel to them, the answer is likely...you don't. But in 1990 Francis Ford Coppola gave it his best shot in his collaborative work with Mario Puzo to create the third (and last) part of the God Father trilogy.

This third film brings with it a very different atmosphere from the previous two, but a large part of that is that due to the lapse of nearly two decades between the previous sequel. "God Father III" is a film of tremendous worth though it does suffer several weaknesses. First I think Coppola lost a lot of series momentum by waiting 16 years to film the concluding episode (A mistake duplicated by George Lucas with his "Star Wars" prequels). The returning cast (though a joy to see again) struggled to recapture their old personas with a script over- burdened in very complex Byzantine politics. Another weakness is Coppola's over zealous attempt to underline Michael's quest for redemption. Yes redemption is an appropriate theme for a person such Michael's character, but every screen moment for Pacino is weighed down by his Coppola-imposed "obligation" to show his continuous, undying contrition. A scene I think Coppola thought was one of the best (Michael's speech to Dom Tominsino's casket) is actually one of most pointless moments of the film. The screen play is also plagued by a number of very awkward lines (very disappointing given the pedigree of the cast)..Kay's "You became my nightmare" was bad,and Connie's "They will fear you now" to Michael was very awkwardly delivered, but Mary's calm,proclaimed "Dad?" with 9mm gunshot wounds to the chest may have needed the most serious review by the screen editors. The other weakness, pointed out in several IMDB reviews, was Coppola's decision to make Godfather III a "family affair". Obviously sister Talia Shire is part of the "God Father" institution, and Sophia Coppola tired her best, but a film of this magnitude can't afford to play favorites in it's casting and production. (It's ironic that incest plays a role in the script!) Despite it's flaws, God Father III is certainly a worth while piece. Coppola was able to bring back most of the characters (those who hadn't been killed in the series) while introducing a new protagonist in the character of Vinny Corleone, played brilliantly by a young Andy Garcia. The over all theme of redemption for Michael was also an interesting study, (His garden confession being the most substantive), but again how much further could a man who had his brother killed fall? Even though Michael in his heart may have wanted redemption, he really never does much to "get out" of the World he entered as a young man. But again that is what Coppola wanted to emphasize in this coup' de grace of the Coreleone dynasty.

For fans of the North and South series, this should never have been produced. Never, never, never never!! (If you have seen the first two Books and enjoyed them as most do, don't even consider viewing the third, it will spoil the greatness of the previous work)

"The Man who would be King" is truly a joy to watch for fans of Sean Connery, Michael Caine, director John Huston, or just quality films of epic adventure. "Man" mixes masculine bravado with intellectual-based humor to produce an effective vehicle for it's action stars. Huston's work provides perhaps the best pre-cursor to the "Indiana Jones" movies of the early 80's, as British mercenaries Carnahan and Dravot travel the seeming ends of the earth in 1800's South Asia, getting in and out of as much trouble as Connery's Bond character could ever hope to. Based on Runyard Kipling's novel,The movie is epic in it's adventure, but still deep enough to outline the philosophical roles of the king archetype as well as the absurdity of 19th century British imperialism. Connery (The man who longs to be king) climbs the traditional spire to monarchy through military prowess and the superstition of the masses, (not to mention a little luck!) Yet once king he suffers the same scrutiny that the pharaohs of Egypt and modern dictators face; a ruler's power rests with the people's contentment, when expected services are no longer delivered, the "King" will lose his mandate. Carnahan and Dravot are products of British imperialism, which operated on "racial" mandates of European supremecy. By the time Connery realizes the fallacy of his mindset(Like the tragic hero, when he begins to believe his own myth the downfall follows), it is too late. Still to the end the two men reaffirm the values of bravery, loyalty and brotherhood...The kind of things that make a man a true man.