Hey Guys,

Personally I found the third installment quite enjoyable. The Vatican story arc was kind of convoluted and the spirit of the first two films were not expressed in this one since of the time gap (literally) for the movie production but I thought it was a worthy end. The ending is probably one of the best endings in cinema history with Michael dancing with all the women who fell out of his hands. Any one else agree? Just spreading my thoughts!

Talk about flogging a dead horse. Look through some threads and you will find extensive debates and conversations on this topic.

There are few haters of GF III, and there is a consensus that it does have some great scenes including the silent scream and as is pointed out here Michael dancing with every woman he lost...good catch.

It just does not live up to I or II. Coppola and Puzo needed the money, the studio was pushing for it, and all this shows.

I agree. All films have their dour moments, but III dramatized the old adage: you reap what you sow. Of course, comparisons with I & II are inevitable, but based on what some Board member's posts about III, you'd think they they'd lost an arm or leg over it.

Not to mention their minds.

It's true that GFIII is infinitely inferior to I and II. It may also be true that, on balance, it's actually not a bad movie. Given that it's part of a trilogy, it's impossible to simply judge it on it's own without comparing it to the first two films. However, I don't think this is the only reason why it is held in such disdain.

It's impossible to put into words what makes a movie great. Try asking somebody: "What makes the Mona Lisa great? Or Beethoven's 5th symphony?" It's impossible to answer the question. It's the same way with movies. Yet when people talk about the first two Godfather movies, one thing that is consistently singled out for praise is the acting. Every acting performance in both films is excellent. Even the secondary characters--Sollozzo, Moe Greene, Fanucci, Senator Geary--are extremely memorable. In GF III, on the other hand, most of the performances range from mediocre to poor.

Joe Mantegna seems forced and over the top as Joey Zasa (his "they would not be a man, they would be a dog" line is absolutely cringeworthy). Talia Shire's performance was very poor--her "Michael, now they'll fear you" is simply excruciating to listen to, in addition to being one of several lame imitations made in III of infinitely better predecessor scenes in I and II. Andy Garcia's Vincent was perhaps the movie's most likeable character. But unlike James Caan as Sonny, who sounded like a real person getting angry when he flew into his rages, when Garcia screamed it didn't seem genuine, it seemed like he was screaming for the sake of screaming. And on and on. As for the minor characters in III, forget it. George Hamilton's lawyer character was totally forgettable (I can't even remember his name), as was Don Lucchesi, the mastermind of the plot against Michael.

Another issue with GFIII is what Coppola does with the character of Michael. To me, and I think to many others, there is something deeply unsatisfying and even sad about a man as formidable (if probably too ruthless at times) as Michael is in Part II turning into the pathetic schmuck he is in III. Michael was never nearly as personally likeable or charismatic as Vito. But even if one totally disapproves of his actions, even if one considers him downright evil, it is difficult not to respect on some level who he becomes by the end of I and is throughout II, someone with that type of power and that determination to act to uphold and defend both the Corleone crime family and (in his mind at least) his real family.

Still another problem with III is the plot, particularly the angle involving the Vatican bank. It's (at least for many people) very hard to follow and make sense out of. While the plot of GFII could also be confusing in places (the "Michael Corleone says hello!" scene comes particularly to mind), and this is one reason why I don't consider II to be as great as I, there's nothing nearly as convoluted as there is in III.

Glad that you mentioned the silent scream... that was a powerful scene as well

Good points VitoC. You captured the essence of what made III less than its predecessors (sp?). To capsulize it...GF and II had great acting and, script and plot. III fell short in all three, but it can be viewed not as a progression of the saga, but more like a surreal extension.

I can characterize it like this. I went to my 20 year high school reunion and many of my classmates looked like cartoon characters of their high school selves.

That's it in a nutshell. As a standalone, III is a good movie. In comparison to I and II, it just doesn't measure up. The disappointment most GF fanatics felt after seeing III (including me) overwhelmed its good points.

Excellent feedback/points Turnbull...I felt as if the movie was kind of rushed so the saga could end... anyone else feel that way?

I would rather have Part III than not have it.

That is a lot more than I can say for a lot of sequels out there nowadays.

And when there was a 16-year gap between II and III and they turned in a movie has good as III was, I am definitely not a "hater".

I love it.