Turnbull, you make a very good point about something that's been puzzling me. In GF2, Michael wanted to legitimize; but at every step he rationalized and justified evil actions. He had lost sight of the difference between the criminal and the legal. Then in GF3, Michael is haunted by what he had become. He wants to redeem himself; but at every step he again rationalizes and justifies non-redemptive actions. Michael had lost sight of the difference between true atonement (taking responsibility for his actions) and the semblance of atonement (justifiying his actions).

I would think that the return of the rationalizing, justifying Michael in GF3 would have made a riveting character study. What puzzles me is why it failed on film. GF2 is a compelling, masterful movie: We watched mesmerized, with a mixture of dread and inevitability, the unfolding narrative of Michael slipping down the moral slope more and more. Why is GF3 not nearly as compelling (IMO, anyway)?

Is it the muddle of the Immobiliare plot? Is it the lower calibre of acting? Is there something different in the tone, that it's not haunting enough? I think it's all of that, but I think the main flaw is that it's missing the crucial nexus of the murder of Fredo.

Fredo's death was supposed to be the turning point of the trilogy: the life-shattering event that changed everything. Sure, we get a few flashbacks in GF3, but it should have had a much greater impact. It should have shaken Michael out of (most of) his rationalizing and his material ambition. We already saw Michael rationalize and manipulate through GF2. By the end of GF2, he was supposed to have gone as low as he could go. Michael started out as a person who had a lot of potential for good in him. You would think that an event as traumatic as the death of Fredo would have rekindled that within him, and that could have been a good starting point for GF3.