I watched some scenes of GF3 again, and I must say: I don't recognize Michael Corleone. I do see old Al, but not old Michael.
A lot of Michael's typical physical behavior has disappeared.
Now, I do know that people change when they get old, but some things remain.
For me, most visibly, his eye-movements. In GF and GF2 there are a lot of scenes in which Michael is talking to a person while staring away from him as if he's talking to himself. For example, when he tells Kay the Luca story, in the garden conversation with his father. And we all know the scenes where he stares others down - Conny, Fredo, Frankie. In GF3 this has almost disappeared with the exception of staring down Zasa.
Generally, Michael looks too relaxed, except for the stroke-scene.

Some of it may have to do with two facts: Maybe Pacino wasn't as into the part as he was in the first two. Also over the years Pacino has had a number of health isues, and it has drastically changed his physical appearance and his voice. Perhaps he cold not replicate the young Michael, and maybe did not want to.

People do change. I now deliberately speak slower. I take more time between the end of someone's statement and the beginning of mine. Sometimes people look away as a means of dissassociating themselves from what they are saying. Also, what DT states is certainly possible.

You're definitely right about Al more acting like himself instead of Michael. This was my thought also.

I think the reason Neri looked more like himself in III was that he didn't have much to do or say in the other two. The only scene in which he was the subject in II was deleted.

He was a hell of boat skipper in II.

Danito, what a great post. I have been trying to figure this out for years. I always felt that there was something "odd" about Michael in part 3. It wasn't Michael Corleone at all - it was a combination of all the characters Pacino has played since 1975.

Hell, Neri was pretty dang fat in II. That accounts for his difference in appearance. Also, as far as Michael is concerned, let's keep in mind that he was playing a different Michael who was wracked by remorse, a desire to leave the business, and diabetes.

Alright, but what's Michaelish about Pacino's performance?
There must be some traces of young Michael in the old Michael, unless Pacino played just Pacino.

He doesn't stare down anybody anymore because he doesn't have the confidence in his judgement anymore like he did. He is much less confrontational because (ostensibly) he is trying to disassociate himself physically and emotionally from the past. That's the evolution of an actor who portray's a different version of his character because the character is different. He can still be forceful though when he wants to be such as when he confronts Mary about her relationship with Vincent. But his demeanor is purposely less dominating than in the past.

That intense stare in The Godfather probably came from the fact that Pacino went to work evey day expcting to be fired and watch his acting career collapse.

Thing is, in GFI and II Pacino was to most people a tabala rassa....a blank slate and an unknown. By the time of GFII
he was an established star who had his own screen identity.
The other day I was talking to a theater buff in NY about Pacino's upcoming turn on Broadway playing Shylock. This friend said, "There's no way I'd see that...its just going to be Al Pacino being Al Pacino dressed as Shylock."

While I would not go that far, some of Al's later performances have been self indulgent and parodies. Specifically I am thinking about his hamming it up in "The Devil's Advocate."

Although Pacino in Heat is totally different than the Pacino in GF III.

I think Pacino in Heat is more like he is in Scarface, with his known temper. In GIII he is more like he is in Scent of a Woman.

The interesting thing is that Paramount agreed about Al Pacino after the restaurant scene.
FFC literally tortured him the whole day. In the end he was scared, didn't know what to do, just as scared as FFC needed him.
And I still like this scene best of all Pacino performances. It's naked, it's true. Better than the big "Behind the coffin"-speech in City Hall.
In the Godfather Trilogy, I think it's the only time we see Mike scared. When he tries to reach the gun, it's as if we hear his heart thumping in his throat.

I have a slightly different take on the change in Pacino. I did not see either of the first two "Godfather" films until 2000-01. So the Pacino I was used to was the gravelly voiced one from "Heat," "Sea of Love," "Donnie Brasco," and "The Insider."

For me, the first couple of times I saw the original "Godfather," I really had a hard time believing it was the same Al Pacino. More than anything, I think the smoking really took a toll on Al's voice. Obviously, we all change in physical appearance over time. But the vocal change was so pronounced.

The most disturbing aspect about Al for me in "GF III" was that ridiculous haircut. I cannot see Michael Corleone ever wearing his hear like that. A spiked haircut does not befit the Godfather of the most famous fictional crime families.

What is this Godfather Part 3 you are all referring to?

I'm also somewhat bothered with Michael's Al in Part III as is already mentioned.

But some people can change significantly. A good example is George Foreman, the boxer.

Before he fought Muhammad Ali he looked like an arrogant and nonchalant toughguy.

But after he was beat up by Ali he wasn't the same man. Years later, when he made a comeback, I almost didn't recognise him anymore as he seemed to have changed in a (somewhat insecure) but sympathetic guy.

I agree with people change but the change was so dramatically for a mobster. In the first Godfather Mike seemed like an ok guy but you sensed that he had a darker side. Once his father was shot Mike all of a sudden had no problem killing people. By the end of the first film and into the second film He obviously changed into a cold hearted monster. However, you sensed that Mike did have the potential to go dark since he was from a mafia family. In Part 3 he looked like he wouldn't hurt a fly. I understand that wanted him to have some regret but they went overboard espcially from the point of view of a mobster. Thses kind of guys dont all of a sudden change into good people even if its over a number of years

I have thought about this a lot too. I don't see much of the old Michael in part III. I chalk that up to more than 20 years between the time period in part II and part III and Michael having eliminated all his enemies. He was a cold hard person because he had people to eliminate. But if you had 20 years where you could live comfortably, you might get a little weaker. And then there's the aging part of it: reflection, regret, etc...

All in all I don't have a problem with it. I think Pacino also did an excellent job with the role. But at first it is a little startling to go from part II to part III and see such a drastic change in Michael.

I too have never understood why so many III viewers are incredulous at the change in Michael. Surprise is one thing, but it's not rocket science to figure the why of he change in him; the film explains it.

When I first saw GFIII, I thought that the mellowing of Michael made sense, but I didn't think the playfulness he flashes to Kay fit with what we had seen in the past - even before he is back in the Family business.

However, having subsequently seen some deleted scenes from GFI(such as in the hotel with Kay) that give glimpses into that side of his personality, I think the Michael of GFIII is a legitimate possilibity of what the character would become.

Salsicce his own?

Nah, LW. If it's all the same to you, I'm gonna go listen to some Tony Bennett records. Then get some better material .

[quote=pizzaboy I'm gonna go listen to some Tony Bennett records. Then get some better material . [/quote]

Oh happy day!