Why was it not as good as the others

why was it not as good as the others

Cause it shouldnt have been made

Because people still rate the Godfather films separately instead of as a triptych.

Everyone wants my Dunkaccino.

Released far too long after part II, didn't seem like much thought was put into it apart from being a cash grab.

Honestly it was still pretty good. It was much closer to the second than people really ever give it credit for. But the second is vastly overrated.

Because Coppola was forced to do it.

>It was much closer to the second than people really ever give it credit for. But the second is vastly overrated.

This. One of the worst acting jobs in the history of film turns a decent film into a meme.

>sofia coppola
>boring, pointless plot
>writing and cinematography is shallow and on the nose. compare kay having the door shut on her in 1 to any of michael's histrionic little outbursts in 3 where he just flat resorts to theatrical asides to the audience

it has the general feel of a typical hollywood movie sequel, churned out to feed a hungry consumer base rather than as a work of art inspired by someone who actually had something to say.

The strength of the first two films was the plot and the acting. They weren't that great from a pure cinematric standpoint, but the camera work and the editing fitted the script and gave it a good feeling and pace, made the characters more vivid.

The plot for the third part focused more on drama and less about the business, gangsta, political stuff that was intriguing. It was a lot of bitching about nothing and the someone just died. Clearly not much thought went into it. It dragged out, wasn't polished or refined at all.

Andy Garcia is no Brando or De Niro, and his character wasn't good either. Dianne Keaton is a woman. So basically Pacino had to carry the whole movie. It was rather obvious he wasn't in the mood for it, probably had to do with Keaton also. The rest of the actors wasn't good either, but they had little to work with aldo. A ballerina-fag, teenage dramaqueen, some dumb politicians and what else, no single of them are even remotely memorable like the turk, the corrupt police chief, battaglia, the jew, fredo, apollonia, clemenza, etc.

Add to that, the editing, the pacing, the camera work, the sound wasn't done better than the first two, even though some technical improvements had been done in the fifteen years a part.

Like others said, one could feel your time and money dwindeling away watching it. It delivered much less than expected, which you can't do when you make a sequel to one the greatest and most acclaimed films ever. It's perhaps a 4-5 out of 10 on it's, but given it's history the grade is lowered by 1-2 points.

One could compare it with Cassius Clay's last comeback, the iraqi war or the albums Kiss produced in the 90s... It was something willingly engaged and done that the world could've been better without.

There was something weird and cheap about this movie that stood out to me as a kid.

Pacino was playing a caricature of himself. He was nothing like Michael

>Sofia Coppola can't act
>Pacino's hair doesn't fit
Still a great movie. Opera scene is pure kino

Because Sofia Crapola

It's sole reason for existence is because Coppola was broke as fuck and needed the money.

Because Coppola bought into the marriage meme and paid the Brendan Fraser price.

>they weren't that great from a pure cinematric standpoint

I found the second one to be watchable, the first one I've tried to watch probably three times, but don't get past the dead horse in the guy's bed.

it's not that that part is frightening, its just boring to me

Edgy

honestly, great post user

Trick question. None of them were good.