Mike wanted to own Immobliare in return for bailing the Vatican out of debt.

The people involved with Immobliare, (Gilday, Kenzig, Lucchesi and to an extent, Altobllo and Zasa), wanted to string Mike along with the complicated approval process, take his money and then kill him in the AC massacre.

Where it gets complicated is after Mike survives. They use the pope's death to string Mike along even further, and then plan to kill him at the opera.

Is it that simple?

What details in this plot are complicated and don't make sense? Can we fill in the gaps ourselves like we've done with the gaps in Part II?

How long did it take you to reach those conclusions? It wasn't until after about 3-4 viewings that I got the hang of what was going on. There was just too many plots and sub plots going on to stay properly focused, at least for me.

I think it's that simple.Sadly this film doesn't get you thinking on different levels,like the first two.

The general plot (like I explained in the OP) can be understood in 1 or 2 viewings. It's the details, like the details in Part II that we are still discussing, that don't add up in Part III, even after a dozen viewings. This is the reason this film pales in comparison to the other 2.

So, agreed.

i don't find myself trying to fill in any gaps in part 3.If anything,i wish the film was more complex.

Maybe i'm misunderstanding your question.

I think Clotheshanger has the basic premise. IMO, the whole Vincent-Mary storyline is what really disrupts not only the flow of the film, but the complexity and duplicity of the rest of it.

After seeing the deleted, extended scence between Michael & Gilday, where Michael offers the $$ in exchange for control of Immobiliare, I think the scene belonged at the beginning of the film. FFC screwed up by putting it later in the film as opposed to the beginning. If that scene begins the film and is followed by Michael receiving the honor by the Pope, the storyline has a better flow.

And given the extensive set of examples of parallels to the first two films, having that deleted scene as the opening scene made obvious sense. With the camera behind Michael, showing him with his head slightly tilted to the right, with his fingers propping it up, and silently listening as the camera focuses on the favor-seeking Gilday, it would have been a nice parallel to the opening scene of GFI.

Well, unlike the other two films, part of GFIII was based on real events such as the Vatican Bank scandal and the possible murder of the Pope. FFC had to fit those scenarios to some extent.

How did they dicide to murder the Pope?
I know it's not canoli.

They poisoned him. I think it was the tea.

I also like the idea of Gilday asking Michael to bail out the Vatican at the beginning of the film as well. I wonder if people could re-edit Part III on their computer and make sense of it.

That would be interesting.

The revelation of the enemy is a big letdown in GFIII.

In the first 2 movies, the Don deduces who the hidden enemy is via intuition and a series of ambiguous clues that we discuss here on a daily basis.

In GFIII, it's more like:

Michael: Who's our enemy?

Tomassino: Don Lucchese

Michael: OK, let's stab him with his eyeglasses.

Not quite as deep or memorable.

Agreed 100%.

Well, wasn't Mike relying on Tomassino's knowledge and intuition?

Actually its more like:

Michael - Whose our enemy?
Don Tomassino - Luchese
Micheal - I need to see a cardinal.
Cardinal - Why are you sitting down?
Michael Do you have any candy and orange j.....
Cardinal - Voila! Want to go to confession?
Michael - I killed Fredo.
Connie - Too bad Fredo Drowned.
Michael - I cant handle this anymore, Vincent, please take over.
Vincent - Ok, I'll arrange to have Calo kill Luchese with a pair of Eyeglasses.
Connie - Have a canolli.
Bang.

By the way, didn't you think that the candy and orange juice arrived rather quickly? Now, think about it. Why would a cardinal and a facility full of priests keep a supply of candy and juice at hand? Who in particular likes candy and juice so much that you keep it handy? Kids, of course. Hmmmm!

So...the film was realistic after all! Too funny!!

I don't think it was that unusual for candy and juice to be handly, considering all the wealth of the Catholic Church in Rome. except of course if it was Lent, then there should have been no candy around.