How many times have you watched it? Entirely? I mean actually sat down and watched it from beginning to end without letting the nagging flaws get in the way?

I'll be the first to tell you that Part III is a deeply flawed movie that doesn't hold a candle to the first two movies. But it is also a very worthwhile and excellent final chapter to an otherwise awesome trilogy.

I'm just curious. I know there are some adimant Part III haters here, and I want to hear it straight from them.

Actually I'm not a part III hater or a lover. It simply disappears compared to the previous two, but it is a decent movie, IMO. I think I watched it three times.

As I've readily admitted here before...I've NEVER watched entirely from beginning to end.

I've seen the beginning, parts of the middle, and the end. Straight through? Never.

Mainly because the first hour or so is such a unrelieved bore that unlike the first two (and most other good movies, for that matter) I've been forced to switch channels just to stay awake.

I also can't really say that I 'HATE' the movie. Haven't seen enought of it to really hate it (unlike 'Titanic' which I truly do hate). But I can say that it was a waste of time, a mass fabricated, sensational and in some cases downright ridiculous plotlines just to capitalize on the previous films and tickle fans, and REALLLY unlike the other two...awash with too many instances of miscasting and bad acting.

So except for the fact that Michael does die in the final scene which I do think was appropriate...I would say that it most certainly was not a 'worthwhile and excellent final chapter to an otherwise awesome trilogy'.

Because it could've and should've been better. And it wasn't, and aside from the fact that it is forevermore a 'Part III' ... really doesn't even deserve a place in The Trilogy precisely because it DOESN'T (in your words) hold a candle to GF and GFII. Which is why you will almost always see GF and GFII aired together, back-to-back nights or weeks whenever they are on Bravo or Spike or HBO. And GFIII is always off somewhere on its own (where it belongs) on TBS or something like that.

I wonder if I'm getting my opinion across. Sometimes I'm not clear in my choice of words.


AppleOnYa

Always remember: It's a story, FFC was trying to tell a story. Not a GF I.1 with different characters in a different time.

George Lucas was also trying to tell a story, not making a prequel trilogy that was exactly like the original trilogy.

But people are right when they say GF I is a better movie than GF III. Acting, and especially the plot-developping ... was worse in GF III.

I think it's been noted that part III makes me Crabby. I believe I've watched it all the way through a total of 2 times. I know alot of people indicate it's disappointing because it doesn't measure up to I and II. I don't think it even is that good as a stand alone move.

1. Vincent more or less is a "made up" character. Loyal viewers/readers know Lucy was not pregnant before Sonny died, hence, Vincent could not have been born.

2. Mary/Vincent ---------- "I love you cous". 'Nuff said.

3. George Hamilton. Double barf.

4. No Tom Hagen.

5. I absolutely could not follow the plot. Who killed who, and why? Who were supposed to be the good guys vs. bad guys?

The only positive.....bang, bang,.. "DADDY"!!! Mary's dead. Goodbye, Sophia.

While I admire Pacino's acting in the scene, the silent scream, I crings when Sophia says "Dad" and at the way she falls to the ground. Horrible acting. UggH! But as you say BethE, the positive to that scene is that there is no more Sophia! They should have killed her off about 1/4 way through the movie to spare us the torture of enduring her horrible acting.


Don Cardi

Yes...Al's silent scream sent chills up my spine. It's a shame a superbly acted scene was intertwined with Sophia's aweful stage presence. It's just a hodgepodge thrown together. Sort of like a beef stew.

I agree with DC. Killing Sophia off earlier in the movie would have been beneficial to the acting. It could have happened when enemies of the Corleone family found out she was involved with Vincent or something, so then they would see it as a Corleone weakness.

Overall, when it comes to Part III, it is definitely weak in some aspects, but it completes the GF story somewhat smoothly (in my beliefs). We know where people end up (Hagen dying before the third movie takes place definitely pissed me off).

A mystery which I'm wondering is, what happens to Kay? We know Michael goes on to die on a chair eating an orange, Mary gets shot, Tony sings opera, but what happens to Kay? Does she go on to be a powerful mafia wife as she always was.

Some of the acting makes me wana hurl. The best acting job would takes place at the end of the movie with the silent cry of Michael Corleone. The worst acting by Sophia Coppola, hands down.

Other than the acting, and parts of the story, I think GFIII is alright.

I've watched GFIII a dozen times all the way through. While it does not rise to the level of GF I and II, it does reach my threshhold of satisfaction.

Now, what is all this carping about Sophia's acting? She was young at the time and she played a 19 year old girl in the movie. Now, how in the world does a 19 year old girl act and react? To address one particluar scene, if you were shot in the chest, how in the world do you think you would act or react? With death engulfing you, what would be your last verbal expression? What would be the look on your face? Sophia did just fine. She played a loving and young woman who was trying to sort through the conflicts of her emerging womanhood and relationship with her parents and she portrayed her character quite well.

Look...if the decision was made to have Sophia killed in crossfire, then at the end of the movie was the exact right place for it to happen. For that moment to come any earlier in the film would've made the rest almost anti-climactic. Michael's heart would've been broken and his role of Don be diminished that much sooner. Wouldn't have worked (not that much in GFIII DOES work).

For first time and even repeat viewers, this ending DID have a pretty good impact. You're still reeling from the shock of Sophia's death and then fast forward about 20 years to Michael's own death...blind, crippled, alone. It's over.

Incidentally, with regard to the way people malign Mary's 'Dad....???' just before dropping to her knees and keeling over, I always thought that was pretty well done. It could be imagined that the bullet hit in such a way that she was literally stunned and didn't know what hit her.
I would guess FFC directed Sophia to play it exactly the way she did. One of the few memorable moments from a very non-memorable performance.

Apple

i can't stand what they did with pacino's hair in the movie and the only worthwhile scene was the just when i thought i was out they pull me back in

Kudos Apple.

It was meant as a joke people. I did not intend to start a debate over it.


Don Cardi

Once completely without breaks. Maybe 3-4 times piecemeal(sp?).

I want to make a distinction between the main plot and sub-plot. The main plot is about michael's redemption efforts. This was okay to some extent. The sub-plot of vincent's rise, luchesi,Altobello, immobilaire etc was total crap. The only exception to the set of bad sub-plots was Connie. Her character was developed in a excellent manner.

I don't think I hate it. Like Apple said, even I would hate Titanic completely! It is a bad movie though IMO. And I don't even think it is a great movie in a "standalone" way. Without the first 2 parts, we have no idea why michael is doing all that he does in part 3. And when you bring in the idea of trilogy, part 3 is the black sheep.

I actually don't hate it at all, with the exception of Sophia's acting. There are even certain parts that I love, such as Michael's confession, his scene at Don Tomassino's coffin, his scene's with Kay in Sicily, and even the "I dread you" scene. I don't even care that Lucy wasn't pregnant in the novel, because there are many parts of the novel that are not in the book and conversely. I mean, do you hate Frank Pentangeli, because he was never in the book? I happen to like Andy Garcia and think he did well in the role. However, even he couldn't help bring Sophia to life.

Here's my take on Godfather III.... How likely is it that Sonny's illegitimate son would move up so quickly out of the blue? Andy Garcia is a good looking man, but it would take alot more than Sophia Coppola to create an incestious relationship. Michael's character coming full circle was necessary and Connie's metamorphosis was incredible. Kay was lame... where did Don Altobello come from. You would think that Connie's Godfather would have at least been mentioned somewhere. I remember hearing about another plot for GIII and I think it would have worked out alot better, Connie's son coming back and waging war against Michael as a retaliation for Carlo's death. I think that could have worked and created a foundation for Michael seeking forgiveness for Fredo's death. I personally think the best line in the film is when Michael tells Connie "maybe they should fear you" after Vincent comes and tells them about his message to Joey Zazza. Connie's character is the only breath of life GIII has. It is also my opinion that once Winona Ryder left the cast both of Michael's children should have left also. Anthony was a ridiculous character and again Sophia Coppola brought nothing to the table except being one of a handful of actors in each Godfather movie. I personally think that Francis wasn't thinking clearly after his son's death.

That's a good interpretation of her reaction. I never thought of it like that. To me, it was just a simple indifference, weak when it comes to acting. But now that you break it down to an intellectual sense, it's understandable.

With all these new characters presented in Part III, no wonder it was so united from the first two. Half of the main characters are just coming out of the wood work. Perhaps the third movie would be more respected had it been connected more with the second: with events leading to it. I'm aware FFC didn't know he would go on to release a third one. Just giving my assumption.

I thought Andy Garcia was a good choice for Vincent. He did just fine acting wise and he had me believing he was the son of Santino's.

I am not a Godfather III hater. In fact, I hardly can consider the movie any worse then the previous two. And, here's why...

For one thing, I don't consider The Godfather III to be, just the third installment. In Coppola's commentary for the film, he mentions that he tried his hardest to convince the studio to have it be named The Death of Michael Corleone. You see, it wasn't part three, it was the end, the last page. For example, say your building a a tall tower. Now, each block may be different but simmilar in so many other ways, whereas, the roof, the cap, is always much more unusual. This was simply a way to give us closure, not the story of the Corleones neccesarily. And I believe it did just that.

Also, what the hell is so horrible with Sophia Coppola's acting? I'll admit, not Oscar worthy, but, come one, you guys beat up on her too much. I mean, she played it all perfectly fine, definately believable. I mean, I've seen far worse acting, this is hardly considered to be horrible, or even bad.

Now, granted, the third movie is complicated. But, so was the second installment. I mean, it took me just as many viewings to understand The Godfather II as it did The Godfather III. I think the problem is simply that it wasn't as exciting, and it wasn't the same Michael. It was not a subject that many would find interesting. But I see it as, hey, this is where Michael is, whether I fancied it all or not. I was interested in Michael and his family. Indeed, they all changed quite a bit, but it had been a couple decades, and is change in character not inevitable?

The only thing I didn't like, was the fact that Vincent was made up entirely. But, you must remember, the book and the movie are both two different things. The movie was based on the novel, it wasn't the novel with moving pictures. I mean, when Vito dies, in the book, Michael is there to say goodbye, in the movie, his grandson is there to watch him die. In the second installment, when Vito's mother is killed, it is in a different way then in the book. The two worlds are different, and as much as I would have rather seen the movie more congruent to the novel, I did like the fact of Sonny's bastard son showing up.

So, there, thats all I have to say. Feel free to critisize, disagree, what have you. But, let me end with this. It is The Godfather we all fell in love with. And I see it like this, can you be an absolutely true fan if you hate part of the trilogy so very much? Hmmm...

Kudos Mosc. especially in regard to Sophia. But, given that the novel went on and on about Lucy and her vagina, if she did have a child by Sonny you would think that Puzo would have wove that into the story(afterall, they are kind of connected). I agree with you that GFII took a few viewings before I was able to absorb all its nuances. GFIII was an intellectual challenge. To we GFophiles, it was a delight.

It would have been a lot better movie had they killed off Sophia in rehersal.

Yes, it is The Godfather we all fell in love with. Which makes the 'deep flaws' (plotlines/writing/casting/acting/absenseof Duvall) in Part III all the more prominent, and all the more worth criticizing.

Yes. Because I was an 'absolutely true fan' long before GFIII was ever made. And despite its unfortunate existence, I remain an 'absolutely tru fan' of the other two, as well as the made-for-tv Godfather Saga.

Hmmmm....

Apple

Good discussion.

I created this thread to see where everyone stood and then tell all the haters who had seen the movie only once or twice to go back and watch it again without prejudice.

Remember, it took us (and it’s still taking us) many viewings to completely understand all the goings on in Part II. Granted, Part II -- as complex as it is -- is put together better than Part III. But I’m hoping that people will at least give Part III the same patient learning experience that they gave Part II. Whereas Part II was different than Part I, Part III is that much more different from Part II and Part I. Still, it’s not as good a movie as the first two, but I think it’s worth more than just “it sucks.”

You can hate it for not having Robert Duvall in it. You can hate it for Sophia Coppola or George Hamilton. But there is a movie underneath it all, a good movie, and I just can’t accept people saying it stinks and dismissing it out right.

AppleOnYa -- Thank you. You’ve summed up your feelings for the movie well. I think if everyone was able to look at the movie that way, we’d have a better understanding for Part III.

Finally, I think Part III intrigues me so much because it is different and it is flawed. It’s ambitious as hell, and I think FFC for making it more than gangland garroting and shootouts. People say that it should have been more like GoodFellas, and I didn’t want it to be. GoodFellas was GoodFellas. Part III is The Godfather, as different as it may seem.

VERY GOOD POINTS, DeathByClotheshanger.

I'll have to admit your thread has gotten me to thinking a little more about GFIII. While I make no promises as to changing my view on the overall film...I vow to try (and I DO mean TRY) to watch Part III in its entirety next time it's aired on tv.

Of course, I'll have to blast the sound & put on a pot of good, strong coffee just to get past that first hour again....

Apple

Once upon a time in a land far far away, there were 3 gods. They ruled the people who lived in the land. One god's name was "Good". The other two were twins and shared the same name, "Perfection". All people were blinded by the beauty of the twins, and worshipped them. The third god was a bit weaker than the other, and he only got a small temple, while the twins got a cathedral. He didn't like it that the people in the land couldn't see through his weaknesses. "I'm smaht", he said.
The people forgot he was also a god, and he stayed bitter for the rest of his life.

I should sleep more

The value of GFIII actually started with the flashback scene of GFII at its end. That scene was a segue to one man's reflection on life and his search for redemption. GFIII was important for that reason - it dealt with consequences. As Doc Holliday told Wyatt Earp in the movie by that name: "There's only what we do." Your motivations, your intelligence, your skills, what's in your heart, the light or dark in your soul mean nothing compared to what you end up doing.

Sometimes I think that some people criticize GFIII not so much because of its plot liberties or its acting, but because it reminds them of what they may have done, sins they may have committed. It makes them realize that they can't take it back just like Mike realized the same thing. It makes them realize that there are no do overs. For many, GFIII was a reflection in their mirror.

olivant, I think you're in need of a life.

Apple

I once got into a dangerous situation. I was walking down a deserted road alone one night and quickly 3 scary looking men approached me. I was worried if they were armed. For one moment, I decided to hand over my wallet quietly. But in the nick of the time, I hit upon a brilliant idea. I immedietely removed my spectacles, folded it and poked it into their necks one after another. They fell dead into a pool of their own blood.

OK, now it looks like I need to save this thread from the gutter.

I think people don't like Part III for primarily one reason and that is -- it's too modern.

An Elvis Costello song is featured in the movie. Most of the Godfather movie fans were alive during the time it took place -- they remember that time period well. There's no mystique or myth about it.

Whereas Parts I and some of Part II took place during the golden age of America, when things were always viewed as better, Part III set the movie in the late 70's. Nothing golden about that... unless it was sequence or leisure suits.

I'm willing to bet that if Duvall and Ryder were in the movie instead of Hamilton and Coppola, people would still have a beef with Part III because it took place in a modern world.

And this is something that people might not openly admit to, but it does play a part in their not liking it. Some where sub-concious. In the back of their minds.

That and some of the acting was bad and the plot too confusing.

But overall, I think this movie deserves a solid *** review, out of ****.

I mean come on, some people have given some baaaad movies *** and part III is much better than that crap. It's ambitious like I said, where as other *** movies revel in their own stink.

THAT is something you're right on the mark about! Though I don't really think about it often because there's so much else about the movie not to like.

I remember even the very first time I tried to watch GFIII on tv sometime during 1998. I was a bit thrown by the opening segment panning a very mondern Manhatten complete with World Trade Center...and a subtitle specifying that this was taking place in the 1970's.

Even though it made perfect sense, there was somehow less magic in the fact that the Corleones were now in modern times, the times I grew up in....not the 1920's, 1940's or 1950's.

THAT's IT....no magic!!!
Good a story as it might be...and for whatever reasons, GFIII is simply devoid of the magic that dominated the other two.

And now...I shall go join olivant in looking for a life.

Apple

Godfather III can be summed up in, fittingly, three words:
No Duvall. Sofia.

Of course it's only the beginning of the film's shortcomings, but these two are the worst ones. Duvall's lack hurts the film badly enough, and FC's nepotism in casting his wooden daughter proved to be the very worst flaw of the film and probably the worst casting in the entire history of motion pictures.

When I watched the Godfather III DVD, after a while I had to take a rubber chicken from a drawer and put him in front of the screen whenever Coppola showed up, to conceal her. I could still hear her painful delivery in that annoying voice, but at least I did not have to look at her anymore... And, quite frankly, with a rubber chicken instead of Coppola, the movie became almost watchable. It also helped a little that, when she whined "Daad..." in that infamous climax, I muttered "You sure are. Too bad it happened so late".

Perhaps I'll even try it again, this time with a photo of Duval during the Hamilton scenes...

Or perhaps FC himself should ask George Lucas to do a CGI "Godfather III Redux", with Coppola replaced by an actress and Duval inserted over Hamilton... and, even better, with everything except maybe for the last 20 minutes reshot.

I suspect those who actually try to defend this film only feel compelled to do so because FC, Pacino and Puzo were involved in its making. If it was an identical film directed and written by someone else (but still without Duval and with Sofia Coppola), I have no doubt that literally almost everyone would have been listing it as one of the "worst sequels of all time", next to such antifavorites as "Highlander II" or "Batman and Robin"...