More Bad Writing in III

Before Anthony goes onstage to perform Mary reads a telegram from the conveniently absent Douglas (Kay's husband) which says something to the effect that he hopes Anthony will sing better onstage than he does in the shower. What??????? A gifted tenor loses his ability to sing when he gets wet? And by the way what was the purpose of his character anyway? I don't think he uttered one line in the movie.

That's the least of the problems with the writing in III. The single most cringeworthy moment in movie history is after Michael and Vincent finish talking about Vincent's killing of the assassins sent to his apartment by Joey Zasa. Connie says "Michael, now they'll fear you" in the most pathetic, unconvincing voice imaginable. It's a cheap, shameless imitation of Vito's "And then they would fear you" statement to Bonasera in I. Just listening to it is painful! And it doesn't even make sense. Michael's been the head of the Corleone family for more than 25 years by that point, yet only now will they fear him? And only because his nephew killed two people who broke into his (Vincent's) apartment? Michael managed to defeat and wipe out the heads of the Five Families, and later had his own brother killed (albeit only after strong provocation by Fredo), yet none of that is enough to make him be feared (granted, Connie probably didn't consciously know about the Fredo killing)? But what Vincent did will, even though it wasn't even done on Michael's orders? Ridiculous!

Yes, it was poor writing. I think it was FFC/Puzo's cut-rate way of telling us that Kay had remarried, and that Douglas had enough of a relationship with Anthony to make a bad joke in a telegram.

FWIW, I still continue to believe as far as GFIII goes, that Vincent sort of came out of nowhere. I don't know if it would have improved the movie, but it would have been more believeable to have one of Sonny's boys going into the life. It just seemed like, although not impossible, a stretch for the audience to buy. But, that's my opinion.


TIS

It was a bit of a stretch, but not fatal. I must say after watching it in recent years I am less and less impressed with Andy Garcia's performance. I may start a thread trashing him.

Well, Vincent was one of Sonny's boys--"A temper like his father's..."

I agree 110 percent! That piece of dialogue was so "cheesy" that, after almost 20 years, I still fast forward right past it when I decide to give Part 3 another viewing (which thankfully isn't too often). To be honest, Puzo's dialogue was never going to be confused for that of, say, Richard Price's or George V. Higgins's, but that particular line was, indeed, cringeworthy.


Well, there's a LOT of that in GF3. How about when Vincent tells Don Altobello, "I'll be learning a lot from you." That was just a cheap imitation of Michael telling Roth "There's much I can learn from you."

Or when Neri tells Michael "He's waiting in the lobby," a la Fredo to Michael in Part 2, regarding Frankie Pentangeli.

And don't get me started on the almost shot for shot reshooting of the pickup outside of Jack Dempsey's in Part 1. They only substituted the China Bowl for it in Part 3. I mean, an homage is one thing, but that's just plain lazy!

Hard to know what the most cringeworthy line in III is, but for me the cheesy "Hi Vincent I remember you" line that Mary says is pretty awful. And the "acting" made it even worse.

And another thing I never understood in the "plot." Why was Altobello out to get Michael? He starts out as an old family friend from Vito's time (of course there is no mention of a Don Altobello in I or II) at the end of his life, who contributes money to the Corleone Foundation. Apparently he and Zasa and Luchese are in cahoots somehow, I think, yet when Altobello introduces Vincent to Luchese he says Vincent is the "hero" who killed Joey Zasa, and Luchese says "we don't want another Joe," so maybe he wasn't sponsoring Joe. IF you buy into the theory that Luchese wa using Altobello to stop Michael from taking over Immobiliare, how would Luchese know Altobello had such animus toward Michael that he would betray him? Talk about lazy. Someone needs to find out who did the continuity in this picture.

Well put, dt. Of all the many plot weaknesses in III, the weakest are: why did Altobello turn against Michael, why did Michael want Immobiliare, and why was Lucchese against him?

Weakest line? Where to begin? How about "Our true enemy has yet to show himself?"

That the only one that can reasonably be answered. The quest for money, power and "legitimacy."

But then again here's another plot weakness....Michael realizes the higher up he goes the crookeder it gets, so there is a nihilistic aspect to it all. If Immobiliare is as crooked as the mob, why would he risk his family to get it? I thought he was all about "protecting" them.

I don't think those are glaring plot holes.

Archbishop Gilday - quite the manipulator himself - makes clear why Michael would want Immobiliare - wealth and legitimacy:

This deal with Immobiliare can make you one of the richest men in the world. Your whole past history, and the history of your family, will be washed away.

If Michael is taking over, someone's interests were pushed aside. Apparently those were Lucchese's.

As for Don Altobello, his motivation is less explicit. But he does express concern that Michael is not sharing Immobiliare. And he apparently has a long history with Lucchese (according to Don Tommasino, Altobello "kept the peace" between the Americans and the Sicilians), who must have made it worth his while to turn on Michael.

Weakest line: "I'll always love you." Hands down.

I think a more interesting...and challenging...thread would be a discussion of any GOOD writing in GFIII.

You should start one.

I think it'll be a very short thread!

I'm going to go out on a limb here...I suspect that the majority of us diehard GF fans would "forgive and forget" if a new GF3 was remade as if the 1990 movie never existed. I know this may sound odd but how about a "second chance"?

Realistically, if Tom Hagen hadn't been written out and Mary had been played by a different actress, would the movie have been all that bad?

Yes, it would. We can accept some inexplicable story twists as in GF2 (drapes). We can accept the elimination of a character (Clemenza).
But what was GF3 all about? I can't really see who the hero of the story is. In GF it's about Vito giving power to his son who doesn't want it. In GF it's about the same two people: Michael getting colder and becoming a murderous beast, while his father created an atmosphere of power plus trust. The crime storys (drugs in GF, Cuba and Vegas in GF2) are just environment, even though the enemy-storys (Sollozzo and Roth) are powerful.
In my opinion, the key is: GF3 is too technical. We don't really care about Michael anymore. We are to believe that his children are his treasure, but I don't buy that. In GF we see Michael like a hesitating Hamlet, who doesn't want the power, who doesn't want to be a murderer, but unlike Hamlet he makes a tough decision. In GF2 Michael wants to protect his family, but he destroys it. What does he really want in GF3? I have no idea. If it's Immobiliare, I don't give a shit. Just like Michael in GF, Vincent has to give up his love. So what! I can't believe that Vincent really loves Mary. Not because of Sophia's acting, but because of Vincent's character. He takes women as they come. Giving up Mary is not really a sacrifice.
I know, I know, the confession and the scream. They could have put these two scenes at the end of GF2 and that's it.

Good points, Danito. Would you go for a remake?

"My lucky coat!"

Best line ever written in the history of cinema.

In order to make GFIII watchable, someone would have to go back in time and kill Sophia Coppolla's mother the night before Sophia was conceived.

Not al all. I think the absence of Tom Hagen is the film's biggest flaw, and I also think that Winona Rider would have been perfect for playing Mary. It's a big shame that she didn't play the role.

isn't it "reveal himself"?


and i love that line!

"I'll give you a hint: he's Italian."

and

"Will someone please hail Mary? Oh Excuse my Your Excellency."

"Now they'll fear you."

FUCKING CRINGE WORTHY!!!!

"I dread you."
WTF?!? Kay had 20 + years to think of a zinger to "Bazinga" Michael and that's all she comes up with?!?

I vote for these two, definitely.

What a terrible thing to say. Even in jest.

That aside, with all the obvious casting flaws, the main problem w/ GFIII is and always will be the writing, as the preceding parade of 'weak' (not to mention ridiculous) lines has proven.

And it was probably stolen from an even better line, "My lucky pig. I must have my lucky pig!"

Which is from a true story.

"My lucky coat."

I always wondered just who the hell he was talking too.

He just had to 'stand still and say something' in order to get killed. No more no less.

He couldn't get his lucky coat off of the hook?!! He deserved to be shot.

How about...."COMMAND ME!" Vincent says it and so does Calo. It sounds too forced, pretentious or phony. It should be followed by, "Bark like a dog!"

I guess you're refering to the movie 'Bugsy'. That was one of the most ludicrous scenes btw.

"Pee on me, Don Corleone. Please."

Doesnt Michael say "I command this family" in the hospital scene?

Maybe she wanted to have Michael get a Rastafarian do.

So I finally watched Godfather, part III last night for the first time. Ever. (I'm really late to this party.)

I was really confused in places about who was doing what and why, but I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking that this film wasn't nearly as well done as the first two. The dialogue seemed weak to me, and too often it seemed as if the script was really rehashing events from the first two movies because they worked well then.

Once I've watched it again - and I'll probably rewatch I and II first - maybe I can have a few more positive comments about part III.

One question, though - was Michael diabetic in parts I and II? If so, I totally missed that.

No evidence of it.

Michael diabetic probably came on as he got older as there is nothing in GF 1 and 2 showing he had diabetics or its more sloppy writing..

But he was already taking pills in part II. You see this when he is sitting in the train to Miami.

True, but we don't know what the pills were for. I always assumed they were Valium, or something like it. In any case, developing diabetes later in life isn't uncommon, so I don't think there's any inconsistency here.

Speaking of attacks on GFIII, there was a pretty good line on Sportscenter this morning. They were showing highlights of the record-long match at Wimbledon (continuing this morning for day 3, 59-59 in the 5th set). After one highlight, the anchor tried to put the length into perspective by saying, "At this point in the match, you could have watched The Godfather and Godfather II. As for Godfather III...well, who wants to watch that, anyway."

What do you guys think was the best line in the film?

I love "You will not give, I'll take!" and use it on friends and family when ever they offer me something, delivered exactly how Joe Mantegna says it in the film.

Michael showed signs of oncoming diabetes in I. Notice that he drank an excssive amount of water, which is a symptom/

Excessive?

I seem to remember an earlier discussion of this topic.
FFC could not have envisioned III while he was scripting and filming III--or at least not in that much detail. He always said that III was Paramount's idea--they kept leaning on him to do III as a prestige effort for the studio.

I speculated that the pill he took on the train was Miltown, the universal tranquilizer of the late Fifties.

It could have been that TB or something for residual pain in his jaw.

I agree with Woltz and Turnbull that it probably was some tranquilizer, which seems the most obvious.

The man wouldn't drink because he was afraid it would dull his senses. Do you really think he would take something like Miltown or Valium? I'm guessing it was nothing more than aspirin.

Is this in addition to the 'heavy smoking'???

I haven't viewed GFII in a while, will have to check out the next time for how many times we see Michael Corleone with a glass of water in front of him. Which of course, would indicate 'excessive' drinking of same.

The diabetes in GFIII was most likely written in as another way of having the older Michael come off as more weak and vulnerable, nearer the end of his effective reign as 'Don'.

And I agree that it was no more than aspirin he was downing on that train in GFII.

He's always drinking water. Before his cooking lesson with Clemenza. On the train. With Fredo while Fredo has a banana daquari. At the meeting with Batista.

DT, I've noticed that it's easier to swallow a pill if you try to swallow it with water. I've alo noticed that some people drink water (or club soda) when other people they are with drink alcoholic beverages. And on occasion, I've even walked into the kitchen, filled a glass with water, and drank it.

Yeah, but Michael was a compulsive water drinker. Much of his water drinking was probably cut by FFC.

Just like Manolo's scenes.

Well, you've got a point there...any character seen excessively drinking water (or club soda) at least FOUR times, in two movies covering a 13 year timespan has GOT to be interpreted as 'pre-diabetic'!!

He does ask Al for cold water upon returning from Cuba...I'm not sure if he drinks any, just soothes his eyes. But still, he ASKS for the water...does that count? I think it should.

What about the deleted scenes...we've GOT to see if Michael's drinking water (or club soda) in any of the deleted scenes because just anything we can find will further prove the theory!!!

(By the way, weren't there pitchers/glasses of water in front of most of the attendees at the Batista meeting...as there would be a almost any similar gathering of businessmen in a boardroom? -- Another thing I'll have to check out during next GFII viewing.)

Clearly thy were ALL pre-diabetics.

I wonder if the don's had good health insurance?