I ask this question to all of you here who know the Godfather trilogy by heart because the third movie is still sinking in for me and I will think of more as I go on.

This was only the second time I have watched Godfather III. The first time I watched it I didn't like it but that was a long time ago and now that I watched it a second time I actually enjoyed it. It's not nearly as good as the first two so I'm thinking people rip on it because of that fact. It's a sequel to two of the greatest films ever made so no matter how good it was, it didn't really have a chance.

I agree that Sofia Coppola was a bad actress. She was pretty, but I think her voice is what irritated me. It was pretty monotonous.

I still thought the movie was good though. I'm curious to hear what others have to say.

Oh, one more thing, I didn't realize that Eli Wallach was in this movie! One of my favorite movies is The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and I have only seen him a few other roles. He was good as Don Altobello.

Basically, I agree with you: it didn't measure up to the others, but it was a fairly good movie. Problem is, enthusiasts like us can't really judge III as a stand-alone--nor should we because, for us, it isn't a stand-alone.

III had most of the elements that made the others great: big sweep, excellent performance by Pacino (and much-improved roles for Shire and Keaton), fine production, good music, action, etc. What it didn't have was a good plot--a huge flaw compared with the others. I've gone into the plot-gaps in other postings. For now, I'll just quote a friend who, after seeing it for the first time, observed: "Thare's probably 50 hours of film on the cutting room floor--and the plot is there, not here [the theater]."

We will always compare a sequel with the original. However, if you are going to do a GFIII, where do you begin, how do you do it, what do you include, etc? It is a struggle. GFI&II are plotted along lines that reflect real time events to some extent. So, GFIII attempted to do that. But I believe that FFC was trying to sum up what the GF was all about in the first place - Michael's struggle with himself. To me the silent scream and the last scene of GFIII sum up all of the pathos of the Trilogy. They are powerful scenes that entertain and instruct. That is, ultimately, the virtue of GFIII.

Good points. I didn't even consider that it's really not a very good film by itself. I may have thought of that but I watched it right after I watched Godfather II so the previous movie was fresh in my mind. So I guess I felt it was a good movie based on (not compared to) the films before it.

I know this has been a discussion on here before but I had a difficult time finding it in the search area, but why did Michael give control of the family to Vincent Mancini? Was it simply because he was family and best for the job?

Or was it because he resembled Sonny so much and Michael always felt Sonny should have been next and not him?

Or did it have anything to do with the increase in power and violence in the family and Michael knew Mancini had the fight in him to rule during this time?

Connie had significant influence over Mike's decision and Mike didn't have the heart anymore, much as Vito didn't at some point.

With my first viewings, I found it extremely hard to follow the story line, and with most of the orginal cast gone, it seemed to be diluted.

I've said before that, if Michael'd had his way, Michael would have been "completely legitimate" as CEO of Immobiliare (which I continue to believe he would have used as a money-laundering conduit). Vincent would have been boss of what remained of the NYC "olive oil business." What was in it for Michael? Two things:
First, as a quid pro quo for Vincent becoming "Vincent Corleone," he had to agree to give up Mary. Then Michael would marry her off to some respectable chap that he approved of.

Second, Vincent would lurk in the background as Michael's "bulldog" (just as The Ant was Zasa's bulldog), except that Michael would keep Vincent at arms-length. Vincent would, in effect, be a deterrent to those who would try to unseat Michael by violence.

I think we all pretty much agree on this, TB, but I wonder how much in "the background" Vincent could be. In other words would he actually appear to be running a family in NY with regimes, and capos, territories and a place on th Commission with Michael pulling the strings, or would he be less visible?

My reasons of why Part 3 is bad

-Bad acting (sofia and others)

-Mike being weak (i want change not just weak mike, a gradual change would have made me apperciate weak mike much more)

-New crap characters (Vincent, the tom replacement and Mikes daughter were just boring characters that i had seen before in other films.

-Bad Villians (Don atabelo had nothing on Barzini and Roth).

-stupid scenes (helicopter and GLASSES)

And as people said before the plot holes.

Yes, indeed, dt! Even if things had gone Michael's way, he'd have had to face the reality that he'd probably created major--perhaps fatal--problems for himself in anointing Vincent:

Vincent needed Michael's patronage to get where he got. But Mafia's all about greed, not gratitude. Once Vincent had a secure criminal power base (after organizing a massacre much like the one Michael orchestrated in '55), why would he be content to lurk in the background? Wouldn't he come after Michael's "legitimate" empire, just as Michael lusted after Roth's "legitimate" empire? And wouldn't he come after Mary, too?
It'd probably work out to another in Michael's lifelong examples of winning battles and losing wars.

I'm beginning to think Michael was a terrible long term thinker.

I a sense, yes, maybe.

What I think happened is that Michael's plan did not pan out the way that he had hoped it would. Let's face it, he had hoped to have many sonS with Kay, but instead drove her away and caused her to not only abort any hope of having a second son, but eventually to take his only son away from him. His sister's children probably resented him in that they probably heard rumors and suspected that uncle Michael was responsible for the murder of their father, so they went their own way.

Sonny boys were probably protected by their mother and steered towards the road to legitimacy as she would not allow herself to lose one of her boys the way that she had lost her husband.

So in reality there was no one left for Michael to pass his legacy onto....that was until his brother's illegitimate son came onto the scene and showed an interest in being a part of BOTH the family and THE FAMILY.

In reality Michael was desperate to carry out his plan and had no choice but to mentor the only person with an hint of Corleone Blood to carry on the family business.

Everything was weaker
- Compare the opening parties in GF I, II and III. The third one could be anybodys. Can you imagine anyone in GFI bumping into the singings doing their "Zamsa-sam"? and anybody would be annoyed?
- It's not the plot IMO, the "lot" in GF II is also full of gaps. It's that you have hardly any reaaly good and memorable scene.
- The actors. Well, most of the OK., but in GFI, they are all great.
Just compare:
GFIII - GFI
Zaza - Sollozzo
Vincent - Sonny
Michael - Michael
Anthony - Fredo
Mary - Tom

Well, besides Sophia's obvious bad acting, the rest of the movie was lacking good actors as well, suffering partly because so many of Puzo's already-developed characters were absent.

No Hagen, Fredo, Sonny, Clemenza, Tessio... Yeah, I know they're "dead", but some flashback scenes from the 20s would have been awesome, even with new actors.
Instead we get Michael, Connie, Kay... and nobody else. You can't make a movie out of that.
We also get Vincent Mancini played by Andy whatever; a horrible actor, imo.

Those original CHARACTERS are what made the Godfather... the Godfather.

The vatican storyline was pretty boring too, but still Sophia is my main gripe with the movie, nonetheless.

I have been and continue to be a Sophia defender. She portrayed a 19 year girl just fine.

The bottom line is: Her part just wasn't big enough to have ruined anything. If you'd like a refund, ask Eli Wallach or George Hamilton.

I liked it, but like others have said concerning the reasons why it's disliked and that is the plot(or lack there of).

Plus wasn't the whole thing rushed into production? if so(& I think it was) then that's the fault of the studio no time to do a decent writing job/finding the correct actors to play the parts.

Plus George Hamilton just who's idea was it to put him in there?

I have to diagree. If you look at GFII - the parts of young Vito are just terrific, even though there's no plot at all. We just see how a young man becomes develops. Also the 50's part is not really what you would call a plot.

Compared to that there's pretty much of a plot. But the characters aren't interestig anymore. And, I repeat myself, there's hardly any single good scene in the whole movie.

I don't want to re-hash the Sofia debate, but I disagree that her part was too small for her to ruin the film. If you felt she was not believable as Michael's daughter, you wouldn't care that she was killed and the whole conclusion of the trilogy loses its pathos.

As I've posted before, in the theatre where I saw it, by the end of the film people were laughing out loud at her lines. That certainly ruined the mood.

"Dad?"

I agree with most of what was posted here. I don't think 3 is a horrible film, even with Sofia and George Hamilton. I think what is frustrating is that there are moments when we can see the potential for a GREAT film. Some of my favorite moments from the Trilogy are in 3. I love the scenes between Kay and Michael, I love Michael's confession, his monologue at Don Tomassino's coffin, just some lovely stuff. And then we have the Church, Anthony getting the role of Turiddu after about 90 seconds as a professional, the silliness of the helicopters, etc.

Good point. ANYTHING in this series following movies like Part I and II has some big shoes to fill and this one (Part III) came up short. Judging the movie on its own merits, though, it shows some weak storylines to say nothing of some weak acting.

I found it too confusing, too rushed and very disappointing.

I can't help but think it was made solely for money (to save some vineyards).

I've been thinking about this some more and I think the reason GF I and the young Vito story in GF II are what really hooks me into those movies are because the events that take place are on a smaller local level. Even though I enjoyed all three, the story of Michael moving to Nevada and getting into bigger broader things which leads into GF III on an international level are all things I will never experience in my lifetime.

But the little things in GF I and Vito's story in GF II are very tangible in our everyday lives. They are something that if we were in the right place at the right time we could get caught up in ourselves. The whole taking over of major corporations and the involvement of God's Mafia, the catholic church, becomes too big to relate to.

You have a point. Death of a Salesman takes place in a home, so we can all identify with it because its scope is quite limited and limited to things that we are all familar with. Contrast that with Wall Street and its grand scope.

But, I read God's Banker in the 80s after the Vatican Bank scandal broke, so I was familiar with it. Also, like many Board posters, I have read many books about the Mafia and am aware of how it threads its way into so much all around the world and how it operates basically, its character. As a consequence, the storyline in GFIII was not unfamiliar to me.

The best thing about Mike was the change. In part 1 we see mike has a good guy turn bad and in part 2 we see a man going deeper and more evil. Vito is a great character but Mikes change is the real story of the godfather. Part 3 never showed us how Mike becomes the old weak man but just fast forwarded everything. I wanted to see the change of evil man to a man of redemption. That would have been a better story.

Sometimes its easier to relate to mike because all his life he gets dragged to a thing that he didnt want but gets sucked into it even more by his own stupid choices.

Well, actually, we do. But the changes are exclusively internal. They are predicated on what happened in GFII, principally his murder of his brother. The weight of that enormous moral faux-pas must have been crushing as he aged. As he said, he killed his mother's son, his father's son. He not only took Fredo's life away from him, he also took it away from his mother and father. Taking Mary and Tony away from their mother also had its moral consequences. GFI & II were very event oriented; GFIII was not. But that was one of the points of III: the decisions we make dictate the life we lead.

And it took mike so long to realise all this.

At the end of II he may already be contemplating his deeds. However, the passage of time during which we come to regret our deeds is a variable unique to each one of us.

True but when mike is sitting there on his own in part 2 i always thought that he was already regreting what he had done. For me there was to much of a time jump to part 3.