The Godfather, Part III Reviews
November 16, 2014
The Godfather trilogy is said to be one of the best trilogies in movie cinema. The two Godfathers are considered to be the greatest movies ever made both winning an Oscar for best picture. Then there comes part 3, which is said to be the worst in the trilogy, but is it a bad movie? The Godfather Part 3 was the only film in the Godfather series to not win any Oscars, but nominated for seven Academy Awards including Best Picture. The film takes place 20 years after Godfather Part 2 in the year 1979 when Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is near his 60s and is trying to bring power in his family business as well as investing in the Catholic Church. He gets pulled back into gangster life by dealing with corrupt influence within the church and his nephew Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia), who associates with Michael's family business and his daughter, Mary Corleone (Sofia Coppola). The plot in Godfather Part 3 is a bit complex with so many situations that is happening all at the same time with Vincent falling in love with Mary, Michael trying to reconnect with his ex-wife Kay Adams (Diane Keaton), Investing in the Catholic Church while the Pope is dying, dealing with his nephew Vincent, and other associates in his family business. Some of these plot holes are very interesting like Michael making investment with the Catholic Church is actually interesting to follow with the Pope getting ill and then a new Pope comes in with changing deals with the Corleone family. I also thought having the Mafia involved with the story was interesting. The romantic relationship with Vincent and Mary was kind of a waste in the story and kind of weird. The story is not bad, but it is not as good as the previous Godfather films. The acting in Godfather Part 3 is weak. I fell like the actors are trying too hard to portray their characters; even some of the previous actors like Al Pacino try their best to act as his reprise roles. Al Pacino character is more of a Shakespeare character by dealing with tragedies from his past and presents by dealing with situations in his family business. Andy Garcia character is just a copy and paste of Michael Corleone from Godfather Part 1 by him trying to get with the family business. Talia Shire as Connie Corleone, Michael`s sister, is completely pointless in this film. She does absolutely nothing half of the time besides being on Michael side and his family business. The one actress that killed the entire film is Sofia Coppola as Mary Corleone. She may be one of the worst actresses of all time because of this movie. She was only cast in this film because she is the Directors daughter Francis Ford Coppola. Most of the time, Sofia makes a smirk look when she is on screen and has a bland monotone when she acts. The acting in Part 3 tries too hard to be perfect. Besides the complex story and weak acting, does the film capture the previous Godfather by how it looks? The answer to that is yes. The film gets credit for its well thought direction, editing, cinematography and music. The directions that Francis Ford Coppola tries to capture looks close to Part 1 and 2 with its Italian culture and gangster theme by setting his direction in areas like the Vatican, New York City and Sicily, Italy. The style of the cinematography is also a close resembles with camera angles in an odd but creative direction. The soundtrack I think has the best music in any of the Godfather films. The main theme song is still used in the film, but then the film brings in mammoth opera singing during the third act and I just love hearing that kind of music, especially in a gangster like situation when the Corleone family see Antony Corleone (Franc D`Ambrosio), Michael son, opera performance in Italy. During the performance, so many Mafia members get killed from other Mafias all happening while Antony performs. It is one of my favorite moments in the film. Overall, The Godfather Part 3 is not a bad film but it's not as good as the previous Godfathers. It tries too hard to relive the glory days on Part 1 and 2, but fails with the acting by not being the best. This film is only recommended to audiences who have seen Godfather Part 1 and Part 2 because first timers of the Godfather would get confuse on the story and characters if they haven't seen the other films in the series. One a scale from 1 to 5, I give this movie a 3 out of 5. It's more of a 6/10 rating in my opinion. This film also contains an R rating so viewer description is advised.
May 5, 2013
For a film series so great, this is a disappointment.
October 24, 2014
The Godfather Part 3 is a great closer to a great franchise. The performances are great, especially Pacino and Andy Garcia. The Narrative isn't quite as strong as it's predecessors, However it manages to stay compelling. The Climax is excellent and unpredictable, pretty much like the rest of the picture. I really liked how this movie focused even more on the characters, and within that there is strong emotion which continues to make you care about the Corleone family. The Godfather is overall the greatest trilogy of all time.
August 17, 2007
Yeah, yeah, yeah...Sofia Copolla, blah, blah, blah. And no, it is not as good as its predecessors, but how can you expect it to be? It is still a very good movie.
October 3, 2014
"The Godfather, Part III" may be the weakest Godfather film regarding its narrative structure and cast performance, but remains for sure a great film with a very memorable ending.
October 1, 2014
Al Pacino's performance demonstrates the standard that 'the Godfather' films are expected to reach, but Part III is hindered by a lacklustre supporting casting and a far less detailed story than its predecessors.
September 29, 2014
Same as the first 2.
|Cameron W. Johnson||
October 9, 2010
Forget the Corleone family, because by getting his father Carmine to do the score, and his daughter Sofia to co-star, Francis Ford Coppola has really turned this into a Coppola family affair, although it's not like he had a whole lot of options to go with at the last minute, because Nino Rota was dead long before this film came out, and Julia Roberts and Wynona Ryder were, you know, too busy to be in the long-anticipated conclusion of what is considered one of the great film series ever. Man, sixteen years is still a long time, so, at this point, shouldn't we call this "The Grandfather" or something? People, I'm very, very sorry, but I just have to say that... once you thought that you were out, they pull you back in! Yup, we finally come to the conclusion of this epic saga, and it took sixteen years for us to get around to it, but hey, that's only about the length of the first installment of this series. Wow, Al Pacino got old, so much so that he was just shy of 50 when he got into this film which portrayed him as just shy of 60, although there are equally great stretches, like Andy [u]García[/u] playing Italian. This must be some kind of an apology to Italian-Americans everywhere for Brian De Palma's having the nerve to turn Scarface into a Cuban, because Pacino is now back to being the definitive Italian-American gangster, and he's taking a Cuban through the Italianification with him. I'm sure there are plenty of Italian-Americans who would say that Coppola now has to apologize for this film, and really, as awesome as I think this film is, I can kind of see what they and their flamboyant hand gestures are talking about.
Not so much in pacing or consistency in its handling convoluted and near-episodically segmented narratives, the writing throughout this series has been pretty tight, and although Francis Ford Coppola's and Mario Puzo's script continues to shine in more than a few key areas, it makes more than a few missteps, with clichéd dialogue and, even worse, contrivances, which superficialize certain narrative attributes and characters, particularly the important Mary and Vincent Mancini/Corleone roles which feel like familiar types, at least early on. As matters progress, nuance builds to humanize the characterization with more layers, believability and overall depth, but with the thickening of the plot, subtlety issues find other targets, particularly dramatics that gradually devolve into melodramatics, and derivative ones at that, plaguing the storytelling with a certain predictability that seems to be challenged by the constant layering of plot aspects that eventually become something of a challenge to juggle. In my opinion, this series has never been anything if not rather overblown and confusing, and whether it be because it is somewhat questionably simplified, or simply because, as an original story that continues the canon of the novel "The Godfather", it is built to better accommodate film-style storytelling, this narrative is not quite as uneven as the predecessors, but it still has trouble in keeping a firm grip on its many layers, perhaps because most of the layers of the predecessors, no matter how excessive, bonded more organically than many a rather contrived aspect to this epic's plot. The final product is rather convoluted and overblown, and embracing its bloated structure would be a much easier task if the storytelling wasn't so busy, picking up nuance along the way while it hurries from event to event, with very few slow-downs throughout a sprawling course. The shortest installment in the saga, this film is still nearly three dadgum hours long, and that is too dadgum long, especially for a plot so bloated and busy, and unraveled with such meandering excess that repetition sets in, stiffening a sense of momentum that is smoothed out a good bit by heights in Coppola's directorial pacing, of which there are so many, compared to ponderous aspects in pacing that further challenge one's attention and investment. This series has been characterized by a meditative atmosphere that, no matter how penetrating in its subtlety and grace, has resulted in blandness, if not out-and-out dullness, and here, Coppola's thoughtfulness has been toned down enough to admittedly make this, at the very least, decidedly the most entertaining installment of the trilogy, but there's still a lot of limping about in directorial and structural pacing, making the film rather bland in a lot of ways, something that it cannot afford to be if you are to not be given the opportunity to focus on the other missteps of the final product, which, whether because of ambition or because of laziness, is misguided, with contrivances, convolutions and unevenness that render the final product shy of the competence or realization of its predecessor, and of its potential. Indeed, even I - someone who adores the predecessors, but does not view them as altogether pure masterpieces on a general standard - don't consider this a particularly satisfactory conclusion to Francis Ford Coppola's and Mario Puzo's saga, but it is a worthy one, and considering the caliber of the predecessors, that means that this effort is not simply rewarding or strong by its own right, but outstanding, with a wealth of worthy substance to be complimented by inspired storytelling and, for that matter, artistry.
Despite his efforts' being underused in this largely quiet series, Nino Rota crafted outstanding and iconic score work in the first two installments of this saga, before tragically passing in 1979, thus, Francis Ford Coppola's father, Carmine Coppola, - who provided additional music in the original "Godfather" - was employed to score this, his final project, and even though he was not nearly as unique or gifted as a composer than Rota, his efforts in this film are beautiful enough to compliment the aesthetic and tonal value of this drama. Gordon Willis' cinematography further impresses from an artistic standpoint, lacking the portraitist beauty that captivated in most every frame of the predecessors, but still being clean and crisp enough in its coloration and lighting to catch your eye time and again, particularly when falling over poetic visuals that are truly captivating in their craftsmanship. In addition to this, the visual style of the film has enough scope and intimacy for you to get a well-rounded feel for Alex Tavoularis' art direction, which doesn't take us as far back as the distinguished preceding period pieces, but still crafts many dynamic sets and visuals which are lavish, either in their being so expansive and distinct, or in their being pleasing on an aesthetic level. Really, even on a stylistic level, this film is not nearly up to par with its predecessors, despite being technically fresher, but there's still plenty of aesthetic value throughout the making of this film, which is musically and visually lovely, and technically immersive enough to help in complimenting the scale and importance of the substance through the style. Although there's plenty of story left to tell with this third installment in a saga comprised of, not expansive, but extensive epics, as a made-for-film conclusion to Mario Puzo's classic saga, this story also needs to do a lot of unraveling, thus, this story concept is not quite as complex and juicy as the subject matter of the predecessors, with a certain laziness that is reflected in contrivances, as well as convolutions that are found throughout this complex chronicle, but not in this forced of a fashion, and yet, much more outlandish than this story is the belief that this film's subject matter is not of significant importance, continuing to be an intriguing study on the workings of the mafia, backed by an enthralling meditation on a man's struggles with his enemies, family, faith, and guilt as an aging man of great sin, and on other affairs that, on top of being promising to begin with, evolves with its intrigue. As the plot thickens, it becomes more convoluted, as well as more melodramatic, but the fact of the matter is that this story gradually grows more complex, with more nuance, more thematic and dramatic depth, and extremes in the evolution of the plot progression which not even the narrative of "The Godfather Part II" hit, and which are more organic than the jarring segment shifts of the first installment in this saga. Sure, there's still plenty of convolution and unevenness to this narrative, even on paper, and that it's thin in certain places at any time reflects that it is not as rich with potential as the subject matter of the predecessors, but this story is always engrossing, to one extent or another, with a sound potential that I for one find is more than adequately fulfilled.
Francis Ford Coppola's and Mario Puzo's writing for this film is not as inspired as the writing for the predecessors, being about as excessive and uneven, with a lot more contrivances and clichés, and little less wit, so the excellence of this film's script is debatable, although there are excellent aspects, ranging from heights in sharp dialogue and moments of lighthearted relief, to extensive exposition and characterization that make this intimate epic nuanced, at least after a while. There's always something rather clichéd and manipulative about this story, but there is enough focus in its progression, even on paper, to hold your investment and flesh out worthwhile characters and conflicts, until crafting a solid plot to be brought to life by Coppola, as director. Where there are lazy spots in the writing of this film that beget missteps, the misguidance in Coppola's direction strictly derives from ambition, for although the filmmaking's legend's subdued storytelling in the predecessor's was a bit dull in its steadiness, it reflected a realization that is not as consistent here, but still very much prominent, with subtle stylization and color that liven up the thoughtful storytelling to the point of limiting bland spots, yet remains tasteful enough to tightly craft rich scenes that grow more recurrent as things go along. As I said, substance grows thicker, richer and more complex as the story progresses, and Coppola's direction emulates such a formula by growing more realized, thoughtful and resonant as the story thickens and unravels, until it ultimately comes down to an ending that, despite being rather awkwardly cut at the very conclusion, is one of the most devastatingly powerful moments of the entire series, thus securing Coppola's directorial performance as instrumental in the securing of excellence in this overambitious and often misguided, but engrossing drama, anchored by plenty of inspiration found in the onscreen performances. Criticism against this film has very recurrently been directed towards the performance of Coppola's daughter, now-notorious filmmaker Sofia Coppola, as the strong, but flawed young daughter of Michael Corleone, and to me, while Sofia is not necessarily bad, being no worse than her aunt, Talia Shire, was in the first "Godfather" (Man, Francis certainly knows how to work with his family, doesn't he?), she is flat, especially compared to the rest of the cast, which is filled with solid performances, the most outstanding of which, that is, in the supporting cast, belonging to the, even now, underappreciated Andy García, who nails the devilish charisma that always, in some way, defines the initially thin Vincent Mancini/Corleone character, whose gradual evolution from a brutal man of sleaze and crime to matured man of passion and criminal business who must face tremendous threats and tragedy is captured with nuance and dramatic range so subtle, yet so realized that García becomes his role, making it the last truly memorable major one in this saga. This series has followed the evolution of many distinguished characters, and yet, at its heart, it's all about Michael Corleone, and that especially goes for this film, which sees Corleone far into middle-age and wanting some sort of change to redeem himself, before the sins that wrack him with guilt over his great power catch up with his loved ones and destroy him, whether spiritually or literally, thus, this story has the potential to be the conclusion to Corleone's story that we've always wanted, and it's Al Pacino who fulfills that potential, capturing the esteemed presence and charisma of the, in some ways, good-hearted and, in other ways, intimidatingly dangerous head of a criminal empire, and backing it with some subtle degree of humanity and vulnerability, which grow greater and greater, with danger and a progression towards change, until peaking with heights in subtle, if not intense emotion that range from captivating to heartbreaking. Pacino has helped in carrying this series from the very beginning, and he does just the same here, all but single-handedly, with what may very well be his finest performance in the saga that played anything but a small part in defining his success, so the film is certainly fulfilling as a vehicle for Pacino and as a portrait on the tragic antihero who is Michael Corleone, but it satisfies beyond that, because for every shortcoming and misguidance, ambition and potential are met through an immense inspiration that, from both on and off of the screen, make the final product genuinely excellent by its own right.
When it's all finally said and done, clichés and contrivances come in the form of aggravations, if not formulaic melodramatics that corrupt the subtlety of this uneven, convoluted and busy narrative, whose repetitiously overdrawn and often blandly dry telling threaten an excellence that this series has always held, and continues to maintain, partly through the lovely score work, cinematography and art direction, and largely through a rich, gradually thickening story concept that is done more than enough justice by extensive writing, inspired direction and strong performances - the most outstanding of which being by the transformative Andy García, and the stellar Al Pacino - to make "The Godfather Part III" an ultimately plenty enthralling epic and worthy conclusion to Francis Ford Coppola's and Mario Puzo's classic saga of crime, family and humanity.
3.5/5 - Excellent
June 8, 2007
Very good. Great Trilogy !
July 19, 2013
Equally good to its predecessor by only being the friendliest of the trilogy with the performances at the same level of greatness and being a tiny bit less violent. But the final installment isn't the best as there are still violence and being overlong still, an addition of weirdness, and probably almost powerful to the first film in emotions by the big bang at the end. (B+)
(Full review coming soon)
June 12, 2014
"The Godfather Part lll" is a very good movie but unlike it's groundbreaking predecessors it has quite a few problems that keep it from being a special and great film. On the good side the film for the most part still has a strong script and interesting characters. The acting shockingly is very mediocre but does have a nice addition to the cast with Andy Garcia playing Vincent who is Michael's nephew. He was very charismatic in the film and earned a well deserved best supporting actor nomination. In fact his performance was actually the best performance in the entire movie. As for the bad in this film like I said besides Andy Garcia the acting is very mediocre. Al Pacino who I think deserved the best actor win for "The Godfather Part ll" is surprisingly very mediocre in this film giving honestly one the weakest performances in his career. I don't know if because it was 16 years after he made the second film or what but he just didn't seem like he was playing Michael Corleone anymore. There are some scenes where he is yelling, smiling, and cracking jokes which is nothing like the cold-hearted monster we saw him play in the last film. The whole film I didn't feel like he was playing Michael Corleone. It felt more like he was playing himself. Fortunately for him though he does not have the worst performance in the film as we have Sofia Coppola playing his daughter. She is absolutely god awful in the film and has some cringe worthy line deliveries. Overall while "The Godfather Part lll" has many problems it's still a good movie. It's just not anywhere near the masterpieces that the first two films were. If you've watched the first two films i recommend you check this one out just set your expectations low and don't expect a masterpiece.
February 15, 2010
(First and only viewing - In my early twenties)
January 18, 2011
While not bad, Part III just fails to live up to its perfect predecessors. It had too much to live up to, and actually gets boring at some points. Then again, its been a while since I've seen this movie, so maybe I should go and see it again...
April 27, 2014
While not as "perfect" as the first 2 movies, it successfully closes the Corleone circle - which many wished had remained open. 16 years have passed. Michael Corleone is a different Al Pacino than he was in the first two films. He's older, wiser and ill. His kids are grown. His family openly disobeys him and challenges his authority... he's slowly losing the family cohesion, while simultaneously amassing an ungodly amount of wealth from his business ventures - which he hopes can pay off his family's sins.
There are problems with this film. The dialogue and some acting is out-of-place. Mary Corleone provides naivete which feels appropo, but
Andy Garcia's "Vincent Mancini" is at one moment a 2-bit-mafia-hood" and at another moment "Andy Garcia" . It's as if he suddenly became civilized between frames.
This film is well shot and has 90's style cinematography. It's easier to watch than the older, longer films whose 200-minute run time necessitated intermission, but the story lacks character depth which the first 2 films conveyed - even if you hadn't read the novels.
I enjoy this film for whatever reason and while many others have shunned it, I embrace it.
September 13, 2011
The last film in the saga, "The Godfather, Part III", is unfortunately not as strong as its two predecessors. It is still a good film and entertaining to watch...but the cinematography isn't as strong, and we spend too much time with Andy Garcia (who is kinda creepy) and Sofia Coppola (who can not act). It does gives us a decent conclusion to Michael Corleone. I think the weird kissing cousins storyline and the constant praise of the unattractive Sofia Coppola's good looks (look I know shes your daughter Francis, but don't force her horrendous acting on the rest of us) just lose my enjoyment of the picture enough. I still do like it...just not nearly as much as the first two films, which are nearly perfect.
July 18, 2014
Although it may not reach the cinematic heights achieved by Part 1 or 2, the acting remains top-notch. Pacino's performance in the final scene is truly something to behold.
July 25, 2014
Well, if this isn't one of the most infamous films of all time. The Godfather, Part III was released 16 years after Part II and I don't think anyone really expected it. Part III is so radically different from the other two that it does indeed feel strange at first, but when you step back and look at what the film really is, it isn't really that bad at all and certainly, and thankfully, doesn't live up to the legend as the worst thing ever.
Right from the very start, it does feel very strange to see Michael being how he is and doing what he does, it doesn't really feel like it's Michael you're watching, he's so calm and even smiles regularly that you feel like you're not watching a Godfather film. As things progress, however, what he does, does make sense and seems like a natural evolution of this character, the film is primarily about his progression from where he was in the last film to this one. Al Pacino does a great job delivers the talent here, strangely being ignored by the Oscars.
It has a slower pace and it is well filmed. The film does fit in well with the timeline, it doesn't feel like it was made just because the producers wanted money, even though that was the case. Although if it does fit in with the timeline, I feel like there was too much skipped from Part II to Part III, we see the house from the last part in here with it abandoned and that's about it really.
Sofia Coppola, man, there's nothing that I need to add to this because everyone has already said everything about her already, but I just felt bad watching her, Coppola was the director and whenever she is on all I could think of was, NO! Get her off! Cut! Who thought any scene she was in was fine and ready for film, I know it must be hard to say 'no that was bad' to someone you're related to, but cm'on guys. She never closed her lips either, she always seemed to have them at a slant to try to come off as sexy and I just felt embarrassed for her, she was clearly forced into this role and just had to do it.The departure of Duvall is definitely one that hits home, one throwaway line about what happened to him felt disrespectful, I understand why he wasn't there, but still. Also, while it was nice to see Michael's progression, at the start it did just feel like a 'woe is me' storyline, it felt like a butchering of his character at first.
The film really does have a mood of 'hey this is the finale!!! Look, everything is over!' The final opera scene really felt like this. I did like it and I did like to see the conclusion of Michael's story, the whole thing has an air of 'what was the point?' about it. Coppola always seems to get defensive about a film he makes that wasn't loved by everybody, it happened with One from the Heart and it happened with this. Now, I do feel bad for the guy, I really do. He only had one year to write, direct and edit this. I don't understand why he wasn't given as much time as he wanted, to make this and I don't even think he would've if One from the Heart didn't flop. He said himself the Corleone saga was over, but hey, money is a thing...
There's all this backstage drama of horrible dealings going on here that it's amazing that it was as good as it was. You'd have thought Hollywood would have given more of a shit with one of the most critically acclaimed and financially successful series of all time but no, they were going to go ahead and make this even if Coppola did not want to be involved, I mean where's the respect? And if Pacino didn't accept the money he was offered, it would have started out at his funeral, which if that happened, then no, don't even make it at that point. And the very, very final scene felt half finished, that final shot is about twenty seconds and skipped out much of the story.
There's so much here that just remains a 'what if'. What if they allowed Paramount gave Coppola more time to make it. What if Robert Duvall was back. What if Winona Ryder was involved? What if it was made in his Golden Age of the 70's? There is so much to this and so many more questions, it could have been something very special on par with parts I and II if the producers stopped poking their noses in. I'm finding this very hard to give a score out of 5, (also, I wish I wrote my review for Part I differently, just sounds like a review that was forced). This is one of the most talked about films of all time and this review has to be one of my longest because there is so much to discuss with this controversial film! They should really change that poster of the film up there, make it look the same as the other two, even with that it really show that people don't care for this much. As it stands I think it is a good finale, it is slower and feels different from the others but hey, I think that was the intention. Michael was a different being; as was the film.
July 24, 2014
"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." Francis Ford Coppola teams up with Mario Puzo one last time to conclude the story of Michael Corleone with The Godfather Part III. Haunted by the death of his brother and seeking redemption, Michael Corleone dedicates his life to Catholic charities and sees an opportunity to take the Corleone family legit by buying a controlling share in Immobiliare, a multibillion dollar European real estate trust; but Michael soon finds himself drawn into another mob war after an assassination attempt on his life. Al Pacino gives another strong performance, as does Talia Shire and Joe Mantegna. Even Sofia Coppola, whose performance is much maligned, isn't that bad when she's not stuck in the horribly ill-conceived cousin romance subplot. But aside from the romance, which The Godfather films have never done well, the plot is intriguing and takes the series in an interesting direction. While the shadows of its processors loom large, The Godfather Part III is an incredibly well-crafted and compelling film that serves as a fitting epilogue to this sage.
July 18, 2014
Definitely the weakest of the bunch, it features Pacino being pure Pacino instead of losing himself in the role the way he had previously. Most of the remaining cast is new which further distances this film from the others. This film features an older, semi-retired Michael Corleone as he tries to find his way to some form of redemption. This is an obvious direction to go in although I feel like they didn't take advantage of the opportunity as much as I would have liked. I enjoyed aspects of this quest, the fact that Michael feels guilty but not particularly regretful about his actions was a nice touch, but on the whole it was both underdeveloped and overexplored. As nice as it was seeing a complete bastard seek forgiveness for the unforgivable I never really felt that this was the same Michael Corleone that we'd seen for two movies previously.
Sofia Coppola has frequently been lambasted for her performance as Michael's daughter, but while she isn't good she isn't ultimately that important. A more serious loss is Robert Duvall, whose informed advice would have been most useful to hear. As I said before, after giving a nicely restrained performance twice before Al Pacino succumbs to his tendency to chew scenery and seems to have abandoned Michael's dignity and restrained withdrawnness. Some of the plot points are not what you'd expect from a Godfather movie while others are over the top and feature excessive filmmaking that seems directly contrary to the restrained and low key style of the previous two. For example, the scene where a group of gangsters gets taken out by a helicopter feels like it comes from some action film and not a crime drama.
Choosing to set so much of the film in Sicily is an odd choice too as it quickly becomes Michael and Kay wandering through scenic cities. And I didn't really follow what the appointment of a new Pope had to do with anything. It seemed a really random direction to go. The ending is decent and sees Michael suffering without ever really feeling like he has paid for all his sins.