After the Atlantic City shooting, in Connie’s apartment, Michael says: “Let's get a message to Joey Zasa. I respect what he's done. The new overthrows the old, it's natural.” When Vincent protests, “How can you do business with this guy?” Michael replies: “I'm a businessman, first, foremost. I want no further conflict with anyone.”

Then he has his diabetic stroke, and while he’s incapacitated, Vincent, Neri and Connie decide that Zasa must be whacked. But, as soon as Michael recovers and is alone with Vincent, he chides him for the murder. He tells Vincent: “It was the wrong decision. I command this family, right or wrong! It was not, what I WANTED!” he spits out through his teeth, nearly having another stroke in the process.

What did Michael want? Was he really about to capitulate to Zasa right after the shooting, when it was clear that he wasn’t intended to survive? Did he think Zasa would spare him after he sent his message of “respect”? Or was Michael playing the classic Vito ploy of appearing to be weak before his enemy, the better to buy time to figure out what to do? Or was it simpler than that: Michael the controller demanding to be in control all the time, even when incapacitated?

And why didn’t Vincent, Neri and Connie wait until Michael was well enough to give the ok to whack Zasa? Was it simply kill or be killed? Or did Vincent lead the charge because he was afraid that Michael really would cave in to Zasa—cutting off his prospects to become the new Don Corleone?

Your thoughts?

Interesting topic, Turnbull. I'm surprised that you have let yourself delve into the third film given your dislike for it!

My opinion is that Michael was trying to emulate his father's advice of giving the enemy the appearance of victory (short-term) until the Corleone's could re-group. It was similar, albeit on a smaller scale, to the victory Vito appeared to give Barzini and the other families at the sit down meeting to end the war.

Another factor was Michael simply trying to reign in Vincent, who made his intentions of wanting to kill Zasa well-known. Remember Vincent's appearance at Michael's house the night of the killing of Zasa's goons: "I've got problems with the Commission, young man, and you don't make them any easier."

Michael's quest for true legitimacy was also being jeopardized when Vincent whacked Zasa. Michael wanted everything to look proper and legitimate when trying to take over for Immobiliare. He pled his case to Archbishop Gilday: "We’ve sold the casinos, all businesses having to do with gambling. We have no interests, or investments, in anything illegitimate."

It would not take much to see the connection of a murder charge (against Vincent) by one of Michael Corleone's relatives and how it could negatively impact Michael's ability to take over Immobiliare. "It was not what I wanted" was just a more eloquent way of saying "don't you dare screw this up for me" because of your conflicts with Joey Zasa.

Don't know how important it is, but it's the same thing as Fredo said, just before he claimed to be "smaht."

I think there are two main reasons:

1. Michael desperately wanted the Vatican deal to go through. The last thing he needed was to be involved in a Mafia war.

2. Michael realizes that Zasa was a front and that his "true enemy has not yet shown his face." If Zasa is alive, he can lead Michael to his backers. If he's dead, he can't.

Michael was fooling everyone but mostly himself. ".. they pull me back in." Noone pulled him back in; he never left.

I think Neri, Vincent and Connie didn't wait for Michael's ok because they didn't know if Michael would BE ok. They thought they were doing what he wanted. Also Vincent is impetuous.

Exactly. This is vintage Michael, and whatever made Connie, Vincent, and Neri of all people go against his wishes is beyond me. erhaps they thought Michael was going to die and they wanted to show some sign of strength.

Connie and Vinnie were operating on emotion. They didn't have Mike's cold calculating ability. Afterall, it was Connie who previously said "Now they'll fear you." Neri was just along for the ride.

I just realised that this was the 3rd film!!

One thing to say: you admit to watching it!!

Yeah cause thats just as bad as making a goodbye thread and not going anywhere..

The 3rd film is good but not on the level of the first 2

I agree De Niro. III is not on a level w/I&II and it is unsatisfying. But it is good enough to hold my interest. I do not watch it as repeatedly as I watch reruns of I&II, but it is difficult to come up with a climax. Still, it had its moments. For one, the silent scream is one of the most dramatic scenes in cinematic history.

I agree about the scream scene..

Well said, Olivant. It's not a bad movie as a stand-alone, and it provides a denouement for the Saga. But it is nowhere in the same league as I and II.

There are aspects of III that I love. I love the scene with Michael and Kay. I love the scene between Zaza and Vincent, the day that Kay and Michael spend in Sicily together, when Michael kneels at Don Tomassino's coffin, when Michael confesses to Lamberto (aside from the easy availability of the candy and OJ), Michael and Connie talking as she gives him his insulin. Those scenes almost make up for Sofia's bad acting and how awfully HUGE the plot-holes are.

The silent scream is the best part of the movie. Just thinking about it I get goose bumps.

I like how Michael and Mary are dancing with that little girl at his celebration party.

The part about the silent scream scene is that you miss the great acting of Diane Keaton with Pacino's histrionics. Keaton, who has to be restrained by Talia Shire, is just incredible in that scene, and she seldom gets even mentioned.

With all the semi-positive analysis I may need to go back and watch this sometime soon.

I have to admit that those really excellent scenes may be exactly what frustrates me about GF3. I see small portions of what could have been a great film, and then George Hamilton walks onscreen!

Actually, when you think about it, FFC still pulled off something great. What other Trilogy, which was never intended to be a trilogy, has achieved what The Godfather Trilogy has? Even though GF3 isn't up to the standards of the first two films, it is by no means a total train-wreck. It's just a good film vs. a great film.

It could have been great. It should have been great. Therein lies the frustration.

As a stand alone, it was a well acted (for the most part), and entertaining film, yet nowhere near as good as it's older siblings. Kind of like Jan Brady. Connie, Connie, Connie. Er, Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.

I like III as a stand-alone., but as previously opined, it is not in the same league as I and II. I still enjoy it, though.

I believe Michael's "It was not what I wanted" was more or less a "Not WHEN I wanted." I really do believe that he wanted Joey dead, but wanted to be the one that planned it out, and to do it in his own time. The plan that Vincent, Connie, and Neri contrived could have gone bad in so many ways; they got lucky that it didn't.

Lucchese, I agree. Michael had a plan to extricate huimself (I guess) from the Mafia but he wanted to do it on his own terms and he still at that point was not above using his formidable resources to achieve his end.

Bingo. To me, one of the key underlying themes of the film. Despite his desire to be "legitimate," he is what he is, and cannot escape that reality.