So, in other words, you wanted Part 3 to really have been Part 4, with another Godfather movie being released between 1974 and '90......

But, dont we all wish that were true!

No for me the real ending is and always will be part 2. I was just criticising part 3 and its time gap and how bad it is.

That's exactly what FFC had in mind when filming the end of GFII. Look closely, Michael looks as though he's aged somewhat, and he's thinking back to when they were a family, now sitting there all alone.

FFC never had ANY intention of making a GFIII. The ending of GFII, as far as FFC was concerned, was going to be it.

For all we know, when Mike is contemplating his life choices at the end of 2, that may have very well been a few years after Fredo's death. But yes, one of Coppolla's intentions was to show that Mike had aged far beyond his years.

I concur. But so many things in our lives are a function of evolution. Mike's guilt, no doubt, evolved over time to finally overtly manifest themselves in GFIII.

Still, I'd like to know who were the black-clad people who were walking into the building (house?) in the far background as Mike is sitting there in contemplation.

I watched it yesterday off and on when there were commercials for the NFL games (which take up way too much time) and for the first time I thought to myself, "This isn't so bad at all." I am coming full circle on GFIII and I think it often gets an undeserved bad rap.

I actually sat down and watched it too yesterday. It isn't that it is a bad movie, but it's just not I and II.

I only watched the last ten minutes of it yesterday. I mainly want to see Mary's death scene. There's so much going on at one time on those scenes. I picked up on Tom's priest son praying when Mary gets shot. Every time you watch these movies there's something there you never noticed before.

Praying, no doubt, that he wouldn't have to appear in Part IV.

Or praying that no one he knows watches GF III.

I watched the last few minutes just to see the silent scream. That scream gives me chills. Oh yeah I watched the scene where Connie gives Altobello that canoli for his b-day.

This movie is hard to understand.

I thought he was praying for acting skills.

I thought the story arc was complete in GF2. Michael has won the whole world but lost his soul. He's murdered his own brother and irretrievably alienated his wife and stepbrother. I didn't think the story had anywhere to go from there. So even if GF III had been a better movie, it still would have been unnecessary IMO.

GF III is an attempt to show Michael's quest for redemption and forgiveness. To get it, he pays a heavy price -- the death of his daughter. With that in mind, GFIII comletes the arc of the story of Michael's life ending of course with his solitary death, an old and broken man.

Mamma mia. Have I really lived to see men of honor seriously discuss whether GF3 was likeable?
The world is rolling downhill. Absolutely.

Oh, that's JUST YOU!

Doesn't look like that, though.
Whenever I catch myself enjoying a second of this - ahem - product, I'll call a doctor right away.

Get the same doctor Michael got for Connie...."get her a doctor...she's hysterical."

Nah, it was a bad shot. I never get hysterical, as if there was any reason for strong emotions in GF3. But I don't mean that you are not welcome to watch this masterpiece of the age first time in the morning and last in the evening. As long as your business doesn't conflict with mine, you know, I wish you luck.

If you consider letting me watch it twice a day not interfering, te Salute.

Only if you take care that I shouldn't know! I mean, if relatives show me Life magazine with the photo of you watching it, I'll definitely say that you are watching movies about strangers.

I liked it, but I wouldn't buy it. It was rather boring, and everybody is either older or dead, and there is a bit of a "cheese" factor to it. It's not as bad as people make it out to be, it's a good effort. Still, just doesn't "feel" like a Godfather. People say Eli Wallach's acting was bad. I think it was ok if you like stereotypical old Italian dudes lol Sophia's acting was not bad, just a little dry. But Andy Garcia was ok, I think he didn't quite master the accent well tho.

I like how Mikey sort of tried to make good again with Kay and all that. It was sort of comforting.

I think part three could have been Amazing if it was made in 1976 I'v seen the movie 2 times and the secend time I understood the plot but I simpily think it was bad even if it was a standalone film. I find the characters boring and the acting of sophie terrible(and a little funny at the end.) Also Michel doesnt seem like Mike the film should have been more about his redemption not him buying stock.

Madonne! It was all about his seeking redemption.

LOL I found Michels redemption more of a sub-plot then the main storyline. I found the main story line was too focused on the church.

Well, if you did, you missed the whole point of the movie. The two previous films were about Michael's journey from innocuous third son to the pinnacle of a crime empire, the evolution of his character, the revelation of his true self. III was about his catharcis, epiphiny, regrets, the reconciliation of his fratricide and his million other sins with the path not taken.

You skimmed the film's surface. Watch it a couple more times.

Amen, Olivant. Mercop...there's this quiz.....

Lol I passed it already.

Madonne!