I don't think the creation of his character was necessary; in my opinon a much better, and more believable story could've been written using any of Mike's existing nephews from the previous films. Even Tom's son...instead of the predicability of having him become a priest, there could've been a rivalry of sorts between him and one of Connie's sons. It might have been very interesting if well-written, considering the fact that Tom not being a Sicilian had been pointed out by both Santino and Michael in The Godfather.

Apple

Could 'A, should' A, would' A

how much do you think was change once they knew it was going to be Andy playing the part.

why was Bridget Fonda even there?

You know, I wondered the same question. She was this stupid little annoying minor part, wasn't even that good looking (to me anyway), but then again she was like a DeNiro in Raging Bull compared to Sofia Coppola...or maybe not...but you get my point

Anton

WHAT THE HECK IS THAT MESSED UP VIDEO HAVE THERE ANTON I NO ITS WAY OFF TOPIC BUT WHAT THE HELL IS THAT.LOL NEVER SAW THAT BUT ITS MESSED UP.!!!!!!

One of my favorite sites...lol

It is weird, isn't it?

Anton

M.M.Floors wrote :
Count me in ! I love GFIII because it's not the same kind of mafia movie as the first two, and it is closer to my world with the opera part and the Vatican plot which is based on true facts.

I'm not crazy abt violent movies, I prefer those which use violence as a prop like GFIII and Once Upon A Time In America. The GF Trilogy is a father and son story as FFC put it and OUATIA is a blood brothers story and "a fairy-tale abt time" as Sergio Leone put it.

DonAnton : this video is the plot-line of a Japanese movie I saw 1 or 2 years ago (sorry, I forgot the title). They made a sequel recently but I didn't watch it 'cuz I didn't find the first part that scary. Actually I found it quite ridiculous at times, you'd see ppl scared to death (literally !) while watching a video on TV and then, towards the end you see what's so scary
*SPOILER* a creature is creeping from the TV screen into the appartment ! You can't see its face 'cuz it's hidden behind very long black hair and a close-up lets you guess one white gloomy eye and sort of a mummyfied cheek.
The story goes on and the end isn't that great either.

They said it was based on a very popular Japanese urban legend and indeed the film begins with a journalist who interviews teenagers abt this video.

We get all set up for this subplot: Journalist using Vincent to get the goods on Michael, witnesses a double murder....

and then we never see her again? Huh?

I watch the entire trilogy almost once per week and I liked part 3, but not as much as the first two. I think they dropped the ball in a number of ways. First off they had a number of characters that had appeared in the first two, but didn't really introduce who they were in part 3. I think they made the same mistake in the part 2 flashbacks (with Tessio and Clemenza), but not to the same extent as part 3. Even Neri's character didn't garner the respect in part 3 that he deserved. Some of the characters that made an appearance in part 3 that were in the previous 2 were:
1. Vincenzo--the love child of Sonny and the woman he was banging on the side (during Connie's wedding) in part 1. Many people do not realize this relationship w/Michael.
2. The Woman that Sonny was banging on the side in part 1/Vincenzo's mom was actually in Part 3--with Vincenzo as they arrived at the reception AND after he bit Zasa's ear off outside of Michael's office.
3. Enzo the Baker--baked the cake for Michael's party in part 3 was the same person that Vito helped to become a US citizen and also helped Michael protect Vito at the hospital in part 1.
4. Michael's "loyal" Sicilian bodyguard (not Fabrizio who planted the bomb that killed Apollonia in pt 1) was in many of the Sicilian scenes in part 3 as well--I believe he was the one that killed Luchese (or one of the others) at the end of pt 3.
5. The hitman that shot Mary, I THINK may have been Michael's bodyguard that betrayed him and planted the bomb that killed Apollonia, but I have been unable to find any definite ID on that yet.
6. Johnny Fontaine-made appearances in all 3, but just appeared to be a cheap wedding singer in pt 3.
7. I thought Eli Wallach played an excellent role as Altobello in part 3 and I wish he would have been introduced in one of the previous ones. Many people don't realized that Eli Wallach is also the same person that played Tuco (or "the Ugly") in the classic spaghetti western "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" with Clint Eastwood, he also played Mr. Freeze in the old Batman TV shows.

They wouldn't have had to do much to (re-)introduce everyone--maybe just a quick shot of them in their youth 20 years ago. For example, when Michael spoke to Enzo the Baker in part 3, they could have shot back to that part in part 1 when he introduced himself (with flowers in hand) to Michael in the hospital, "...I'm Enzo, I'm here for your father, I help you..."
-Just my two cents worth.

First off welcome over to the boards , enjoy your stay posting and browsing.

I didn't think that was the problem at all it's that there was just no plot and one question

why do you think this quote was true everybody? id you do think so?

"Why were you so loved Don Tommasino and i so feared, i was no worse then you"-Micheal Corleone in GFIII

[/QUOTE]Count me in ! I love GFIII because it's not the same kind of mafia movie as the first two, and it is closer to my world with the opera part and the Vatican plot which is based on true facts.
[/QB][/QUOTE]

I will say it again on this board why I liked GF 3 more then the other two.

In GF 3 I specially liked the intrigues. You think people are good to the family, but after a while they turn against the family (which actually was their plan). For example Don Altobello.

I also liked the person Mosca. He looked more freightening then Luca, Neri or somebody else. And he played his role very good.

The opera scene was very good (some people don't agree with this, look somewhere else on the board). This is a exciting part of the movie.

And I always like films when the Vatican is involved and is some people of the Vatican are corrupt.

And the best scene of the whole trilogy is the part when Mary gets shot and Michael cry's it out!!!

What's the use of the last respond GOdYankee???

It was kinda confusing at first with new people popping up every minute while people are getting shot up the next, but the acting, THE ACTING, was fabulous, especially from Al Pacino, mad props to him =)

MM Floors, if you look carefully I responded to whitjr44's post. Sorry, don't quite know how to use the quote thing.

Its true, part III dosent have the style and grae of parts I&II, but thats what makes part I and II classics. The sequels should never surpass them. Part III was excellent in its own right. I especially like the touch of having Connie more closely involved with the family business, even giving orders to kill. This is a definite change from her character in parts I & II. Also what was so bad about Vincent? To me he was a mixture of a young Sonny and Micheal, and take for granted that he does have to live through life, knowing he's a bastard. Id have a temper to. This movie is an excellent installment in the saga, and the only thing I woould change is having someone else play Mary's part, and I would not include the two first cousins falling in love. Other than that, why can't Micheal want out? Why can't try to make ALL of his money legit? Its been long enough.

Well, I don't see any changes?? Correct me please and say where your respond stands? I don't see it under the quote and not in the quote?

His posts are in the quotes.Under the numbered comments,you can see his own comments added.

i liked pt. 3

I liked part three quite a bit. The only thing is it isnt like part 1 and 2 where i can pop it in and watch it any time. But in all do respects I can see why it didnt get an academy and why people nock it. But I think it is essential to the Godfather Experience.

To me it will always be FFC trying to make some money , the movie wasn't needed and all it did was ruin RUIN such a great Miscellany, but if others like it they like it, it's their right, the thing is i thought all the movie was , was a name and a lot of boring shit. Even though you can't go wrong w/ Pacino, but eh.

What is wrong with God Father III..is that you hear that they were going to make it, You wanted it so bad since you loved the first two...they talked about it being made and when it was coming....You heart pounded waiting for it like a kid waits for Christmas presents.

Then it gets here and you rush to see it. You see the opening, not bad, they are connecting the other films with the first two....Then you sit thru it and you are let down by it. I think that is half my problem with it... I expected more and feel i didn't get something that was as good as it could have been..... Call me an old crow, but I still feel that way!

Godfather 3 is not my favorite movie but it is good. I liked it!

By the time I saw the movies, GF3 was already out, so I got to see them all together...no hype. I like it, it was a good movie, but it wasn't the masterpiece the 1st 2 were. The plot was a little forced or something, I could have done w/out the cousin love thing, but I like the ending...Al Pacino can make anything great though.

I thought the plot was great, Al was underrated.

Hi,
I liked GF3. The firt two movies are much better. GF3 however does offer a conclusion to the story. Sofia Coppola was a last minute replacement for Winona Ryder who dropped out. She wasn't that bad. Bridget Fonda was there so we could see Sonny's son in action. Remember Sonny was the prince of the city and had all of the ladies. Vincent added the aspect of violence to the film. The assassin on the steps wasn't Calo but someone hired by Luchese and Altobello. Calo, Michael's trusted bodyguard killed Luchese in the end and was aslso killed. Al Pacino again was given the shaft by the Academy Awards Comittee. Garcia won an Oscar however. Robert Duvall was sorely missed and George Hamilton stunk.

Paul

GFI has the edge for me, purely because of Brando.

I'm not especially a fan of his, but his portrayal of Vito is without doubt the best single performance from an actor I have ever seen.

Absolutely mesmerising.

Although GFII and III are both fantastic IMHO, they aint the same without Brando's Vito.

Hi,
GF3 did have its moments. Michael's confession is heartbreaking.

hello, everyone! i'm new here. i'm Don Papa, but am actually a girl.

by the way, i don't know how to insert the instant "graemlins". i tried clicking on them and the darn thing doesn't work. sorry, i've been under a rock!

i don't know about you, but ... i just love all three Godfather movies. some may have found Part 2 long and dragging, while others may have found Part 3 weak (acting and plot), but the bottom line is, they're all exciting to me! i watch them over and over!