Originally posted by HevyDevyGK:
1. The plot - All this stuff about the church and immobiliare doesn't compare with the war against Solozzo and the Barzini's or the whole Roth/Pentangelli thing. It is also far to confusing, I still don't fully understand what's going on
3. Andy Garcia - I also don't understand why Michael chooses him as the new Don as he would clearly make a bad Don like Sonny would have done.
4. George Hamilton - What in the name of God is Mr Orange doing in a Godfather film. Robert Duvall must have been pissing himself laughing when he saw that fool as "consiglieri"
The plot: I agree, but it had the potential to be an interesting new twist. But the other posts are accurate-the Church/Immobiliare angle leaves many unanswered questions.
Andy Garcia: I think it's because Michael doesn't really care what happens to the illegitimate side of the family by this point in the movie. He relents because Vincent can't be changed and Michael doesn't have the energy to keep fighting.
George Hamilton: He is the single worst character in the Trilogy - by a landslide. He was totally unnecessary after Duvall was written out of the plot - after all, Michael had been his own consigliere for a long time.
I agree with most of your postive feedback about the movie. With all of its flaws, GFIII is still better than many movies of its time and today.
What it lacks are the smaller roles and unifying characters that were present in the first two films who gave the films that something extra: people like Tessio & Clemenza, Sonny, Roth, Moe Green. If nothing else, Connie is the only other Corleone left from the first film beside Michael -and that's not really a good thing. The void in GFIII are the Corleone's NOT in the film: Vito, Sonny, Fredo, and Tom (I know he's not a Corleone by name). The characters that were brought back in III were insiginifant to the plots in the Trilogy: Johnny
Fontaine (& his guinea charm
), Lucy Mancini, Teresa Hagen. Even Neri barely resembled his previous character of I & II.
