Godfather Prt III & It's Many Flaws

I've been watching my GF DVDs over the last couple a days, and the first 2 films just get better and better every time I watch them. The third however seems to get worse.

So here is my rant as to why GF III is no where near as good. In no particular order

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

2. Sofia Coppola - Although it's often said it's her fault that she is why the film is not so good I don't think she should take all the blame. Her acting is absolutely terrible this cannot be denied. For an example of her bad acting just look at the scene when she is walking with Michael and Tony. The best example of her dire acting is at the very end her shocking delivery of the lines "Dad why are you doing this to me?" makes me ill. I believe the assasin heard this and actually went for Sofia first to try and put her out her misery.

3. Andy Garcia - Although Sofia's acting is bad Andy's may actually be worse. He delivers lines with as much charisma as a 2x4. He also seems to be play his character as Sterotypical B Movie Angry Mafia Gangster. A Good example of his wooden acting is in the meeting with Zasa in Michaels office and just before Michael has the stroke, his acting in these scenes is laughable. Actually any scene with Andy or Sofia in it shows just how bad they are, espicially when he says "I love you cous" you can really feel the emotion can't you? eh no.

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.

3. The Dialogue - It is no where near as good as the first 2 with many a cheesy line every now and again. Such as Connie - "Now they will fear you"

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"

5. Talia Shire - Not so much her acting as I would say it's better in this one than the first two but why is she suddenlt involved in the family business. Even Michael doesn't know what that's all about in the film.

6. Too Many Coppolas - What is the matter with FFC that he would put his daughter in the film just because she's his daughter, was he so arrogant that he wouldn't have had Mary played by some one better. And there must have been a few people better than Sofia. Also why is Nic Cage a producer, I bet he had a hand in having Sofia being in it. Why did they not pick a good cast? Were they all drunk at the time. Crap like Joe Mantegna and Bridget Fonda are poor as well.

I'm glad Winnona Ryder and Johnny Depp were not in this either. They are both far better actors but they would not fit in in a GF film.

Now on to the few good points.

Al Pacino and Eli Wallach I felt were superb.
There are some superb scenes first being when Michael has the stroke and he is screaming Fredo. Ande before that when he says "just when I thought I was out..."
Another good scene is when Michael confesses.
I also like how some old people like Tomasino and Calo are in it.
Al Pacino on the stairs at the end is superb, it would have been even better if he had been acting with a better actress
The final scene is a perfect end to the trilogy when we see Michael dying old and alone. It's very sad and emotional.

I have no idea why I've sat and wrote all this but if anyone wants to agree or disagree with my ramblings feel free

Great points. I love your line about the assasin going for Mary first to put her out of her misery. ha.

Yes I rant about Tom Hagen being missing in this film all the time, but it cannot be stressed enough. There was a huge storyline going on that was not even touched upon in GF III except for "His father died years ago." I understand that they coulden't afford Duvall, but come on, atleast give us a hint as to how he died. Was he murdered? Did he betray Michael? Was his mistress really Sandra? There are just too many open ended questions when it comes to Tom's character.

i believe it is Nic GAGE not CAGE. as far as everything else, to each his own. the immobliare plot, i agree, is confusing. but in my opinion it made for an interesting story. i know a lot of people dont agree, but michael was finally going through with his promise of becoming legitimate. and no matter how far he felt he was from the illegitimate world, he realised that he was dealing with more corrupt individuals. as he says "they are the true mafia." it worked for me.
as far as sofia, i think the character of "mary" is a person we love to hate. i see her as young, annoying, and naive.......WHICH SOFIA MASTERED (if you know what i mean)
my 2 cents
robert

I'm glad you put "plot" first, Hevy, because that's where I agree with you 10,000 percent! The film starts off promisingly enough, but then falls apart. What is Immobiliare, and why is it so important for Michael to be in charge of it? Who is Lucchesi? Why is he opposing Michael? Where did Altobello come from? Why did he sell out Michael to Zasa and Lucchesi? Why did Archbishop Gilday give Michael the shaft? Who poisoned the Pope?
"Too confusing"? You said it!

Is it ? oops I just thought it was Cage cause of Coppola.

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.

I was going to add that it also lacks a Vito. In the first 2 we have the sheer genius of Brando and DeNiro but in the third there is a big gap.

The main problem with it I think is Andy Garcia and Sofia Coppola there acting is unbearable to watch. Seriously everyone go and get their Trilogy's out and watch her appalling acting before she gets shot. If it were not for Al Pacino screaming on the steps everyone would have cheered when they saw her get shot.

i have watched the trilogy over and over, call me wierd but i am still not appalled. its not "great", but not appalling to me.

robert

I thought Andy Garcia was good (he was nominated for an Oscar, by the way). Winona Ryder would've been better than Sofia, but Sofia was OK. Eli Wallach's character makes me laugh (either really good acting or really bad acting )

The scenes with Al Pacino and Diane Keaton are great.

I don't like to pick apart GFIII because it was held to impossibly high standards. I admit it has flaws, as all films do. Even Part I & Part II have flaws.

The fact Andy Garcia was nominated for an oscar somes up the awards. Like Martin Scorsese losing out to Kevin Costner.

His acting is so cliche it's unbelievable. Like when he keeps on yelling and hitting things. No his acting along with Sofia's is piss poor.

Yeah Diane Keaton is good in it, I like her scenes as well, especially the one where Michael ask her to forgive him.

I agree. I actually said to myself-Good she's dead.She lasted way to long! But then I saw how much she ment to Mike and I felt bad for saying that.

I couldnt agree more.I think they waited too long. Although it doesnt "ruin" the trilogy for me, it is nowhere near the other 2.Still it is better than a lot of movies worse. Had it not been called a Godfather movie, I think it would have done better, critically. Nothing can help Sophias acting!

GF III suffers from what I'd like to call the "Kiss Ass Phenomena." This is where a person of notoriety is surrounded by people kissing his ass for some distant past achievement!

I can just picture what happened on a daily basis : "Francis that’s a great idea. Get George Hamilton on the phone ASAP! " --or-- "Wow! Your daughter would be great. She probably doesn’t even need acting lessons! " – or “Start production without a complete screenplay? BRILLIANT!!!” "NO concept? Wow!! This is gonna be fun!"

If one person on that set would of pulled his head out of FFC's pooper and stood up and said what he thought maybe we would have a different picture.

*also see George Lucas and the Star Wars CRAPquels Episode ]

Another thing I liked when I was watching the extras on the DVD is how Al Pacino seems to do a bit of ass kissing. He talks about all this stuff about Michael and what it means to him yet he said he wasn't going to be in it unless he got more money. I think that's why it suffers as well everyone had became rich and famous.

I agree if someone had the guts to just say Hold on a second Francis your daughter is a terrible actress maybe it would all have turned out different. But I don't think anyone was caring it seemed to be all about the money.

I love when a new member comes on board and reveals their GF3 experience. Thanks HD, its always good to get some fresh perspective on an old favorite topic.

It's almost like GF3 should not be part of the Trilogy. There are certainly bright moments, but many dull ones that have been detailed here. Besides the uneven acting by several cast members, I think the things that drag the picture down are:
1. No endearing character(s). There's no one in this film that you love. GF - Vito, Clemenza, Sonny; GF2 - Vito, Pentangelli.
2. No clearcut villians. The Immobiliare/Vatican Bank thing is too nebulous. Hard to hate a villian who you have a tough time identifying. GF - Sollozzo, Barzini, Tattalgia; GF2 - Roth, Geary, Fanucci
3. No love story - Can't count Vincent and Mary; that was an infamnia; GF Michael and Kay, Michael and Appolonia; GF2 - Vito and Carmella, Michael and Kay (sort of)
4. No conflict resolution, Michael dies, daughter dies, what happens with the family? GF- Michael conquers the Five Families; GF2 - Vito rises above poverty to become the Don and Michael...well, no resolution there unless you consider killing Fredo, Roth.

Just an overall inconclusive storyline that spirals downward from the start, but I don't mind watching it from time to time.

One other thing that bugs me whenever I watch Part III (aside from some of the things you guys have perceptively pointed out). The music used during the part where Michael screams because his daughter has been shot isa poor choice. It's a gorgeous and emotional piece of music, but I still think of RAGING BULL whenever I hear it and that detracts from what's going on in the scene with me. Coppola should have chosen a piece of music that hasn't been used in such a distinctive way in another popular and critically acclaimed film.

I agree with most of the things people have said so far (Sofia's "acting", lack of good characters, etc...) So let me just name a few other things that bugged me about GFIII.

1)First of all, why and how did Connie become such a hard core killer? Giving orders to kill people, making poison pastries (how lame was that, by the way). The thing that almost made me crap my draws was the scene where she tells Vincent, "I want you to strike back."

2)Anthony turned into a little weenie.

3)Yeah, Michael killed Fredo, but doesn't Anthony care about the fact that Kay killed his unborn brother?

4)The scene where Michael is talking to the cardinal, or the priest, or whoever the hell the guy was (I am still confused by all this church stuff too) and he has a diabetic attack. He asks the guy if he has anything sweet.. any orange juice or candy. Literally 2 seconds later the guy comes back with a heaping tray of OJ and assorted candies!! Like priests keep this stuff lying around just in case a diabetic mafia boss' blood sugar gets too low?

I dunno... that last one didn't really bother me, I just thought it was kind of funny that they had that stuff ready for Michael immediately.

All things considered, though, there have been much much worse movies than GFIII.

I forgot about Connie being so involved. The whole movie I'm thinking "Since when did the women start making business decisions?!?!" Not that I am against women or anything ( I am one ) It just annoyed me because the wives/women were always kept in the dark in the first two GF's then all of a sudden Connie is telling Vincent what to do and advising Michael.

Hamilton isn't Consiglieri ... he's a lawyer.

If you look at the meeting - when they're in the kitchen, Hamilton isn't there, Neri, Connie and Vincent are. Michael doesn't really have a consiglieri ...

I can't believe how 3 fell apart because of money issues and Richard Castillano (Clemenza) didn't do II because of money.

Yeah the whole Connie thing annoys me too.

We can blame money problems on keeping Robert Duval out of it, but that's it. Everyone else that was going to be in it is there, sadly.

I think a not too good plot, crap casting and bad acting let it down.

I find myself defending GFIII at work all the time with the line someone already used - "it's better than a lot of movies out there." That's the new game at work: "gee, Mark, is Porky's better than GFIII?"
Anyway, I agree with most of the points made. I didnt mind Garcia's acting. I would have loved to see Winona Ryder in the film. The church plot is muddled. (Like why does the Cardinal and BJ talk about some deal at the opening party, only to have Michael ask about taking control of Immobilaire later in the film??)But, then again. GFIII was in a no win situation. Still, it WAS nominated for Best Picture. Not even Porky's got that....

Ha Ha I love that! I almost spit out my soda when I read that!

I'd call that one a tie.

A tie??? You're out of your mind. I am by far not a GFIII fan, but I can admit it's better than Porky's! ha ha.

Of course III isn't I or II, but considering what COULD have happened (Stallone!!??) Francis crafted a pretty decent bookend.
It IS better than Porky's.

Porky's has the edge when it comes to frontal nudity.

Personally i think the music used in this seen just made it even better, and wa a superb choice.

For me it had a better effect on the GF scene than in Raging Bull.

Jeeeze Louise, why don't y'all just pitch out that third DVD if you hate the damn thing that much???

I think GF III gets unfairly ripped all the time because it isn't as good as I or II. And no, it isn't. But i come on here all the time and read lengthy threads from people who just want to get their rocks off about how horrible III is. Good god, give it a break if you hate it that much.

All that said, GFIII is indeed better than many many other movies out there these days.

I agree with a lot of the complaints. My A-Number One complaint was the absence of Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall), because clearly in retrospect towards the end of GFII, it was being set up that Tom and Michael would ultimately battle over the fate of the family, which would have been the main story line of GF III.

A lot of you seem to get really cranked up over George Hamilton - I can't generate enough emotional energy to get upset by him. He was barely there at all - just a smiling pretty boy in the background. They just wrote in his chracter to mouth some of the lines that would have gone to Hagen and otherwise he was just along for the ride.

The Vatican/Immobliare plot line was too involved and nebulous, and didn't involve anybody you recognized.

The gangland war/Joey Zasa subplot had potential to be a lot more meaningful - if we had found out, for example, that some of the other families had ties going back, say, to Hyman Roth, Barzini, Tartaglia, etc, - then we would understand their motivations better. (Hell, think about this: what if it turned out, for instance, that name of the copter pilot at the hotel ambush was ..Frankie Fanucci??)

Andy Garcia was OK in his role of Vincent, but the whole illegitimate-son-of-Sonny thing never made sense to me - Sonny had two **legitimate** sons which it would have made more sense to write into the plotline as being involved in the family business - or, for that matter, maybe Connie's kids - remember when Michael tells Connie in GF II that one of her sons has been arrested for petty burglary?

It would be a lot more resonant, if those kids, or especially if Michael Francis Rizzo (the baby Michael stands godfather for in GF on the day he rubs out the heads of the Five Families) - rose up in the family business. Just think of the parallel, of Mikey Rizzo Corleone, the innocent baby whose baptism was stained by the blood of all those murders - eventually becoming the Godfather himself?? (Now THERE'S a GF IV idea... )

(After Connie found out that Carlo really was responsible for Sonny's murder and that Michael had a perfectly good reason for having him killed, Connie would have changed the kids' name back to Corleone. She wouldn't have wanted any reminder of Carlo.)

Now to the women. Bridget Fonda was kinda-ok in her role, but it was so brief there wasnt' much she could have done good or bad with it. Her character Grace was clearly intended to be a counterpart to Kay as a "WASP" outsider marrying into the family.

Sofia C. as Mary. Ahh my god, here we go. I do not actually think she was really that horrible - some of her wooden performance was the way her character was written - as a spoiled, isolated, pampered mama's girl who had been kept away from her family most of her life. So of course Mary comes off as a semi-zombie. Sofia's performance was not great, but considering she was an amateur fill-in thrown in literally at the last minute, it was adequate. Marisa Tomei would have been my pick to cast as Mary.

The final female character in GFIII worthy of mention is in my view the most intriguing one in the entire trilogy - Talia Shire as Connie. In the first two episodes Connie comes off as pampered, spoiled, naive, almost irrelevant to the family. But in GF III Connie breaks out of that mold and actually seizes control of the Corleone family. Michael is waffling and indecisive even before his diabetic stroke, and his dithering leaves the family in danger of collapse.

Somebody needs to step up and make a decisive move, and Connie knows that Michael is physically not in shape to do it, and emotionally he isn't focused enough either. She knows Vincent has the ability to do it and she steers Michael into handing over control to him. In GF III, even if there is nobody with that actual title, Connie clearly becomes the consigliere to both Michael - and Vincent after he takes over.

Then, the final scene at the opera, very similar to Michael's decision to take part in getting rid of Sollozzo and McCluskey. Before then, Michael didn't have blood on his hands. Once he pulls the trigger, he's in - there's no going back.

In GF III Connie knows Don Altobello has to be gotten rid of and she knows she is the only one he trusts enough to get close to him and get rid of him. We also find out that Altobello is actually Connie's own godfather, but she is ruthless enough to get rid of him with no hesitation. Once she's killed Altobello, she's in, too.

That also gives her legitimacy in the Mafia culture - she "earns her bones." Once somebody rising in the family hierarchy "earns his bones" by killing somebody, you don't f**k around with them any more - you know if you do they'll snuff you out like a candle.

If and when a GF IV is made, I would bet one of the first scenes would feature Connie capping somebody with a pistol. But she's already "made her bones" -- anybody in the gangland world already knows you better not F-around with Connie Corleone.

So overall, GFIII definitely has some major flaws, but so do GF I (we never meet Genco) and GF II (where the hell did Roth and Pentangeli suddenly come from?? They just appeared out of nowhere.)

Anyway, if GF I and II are, say 95 and 98 on a 100 scale, and GF III is, say, 85, then GF III is clearly the "worst" of the series, but that doesnt mean it sucks. It's not as good as the others, that's all.

I'd say on the scale GFI & II are about 95 and GFIII about 55.

Also I think it's near impossible to pick any flaws from the first 2. As you say maybe not seeing Genco but that's it. We never see Roth as he isn't in New York and Pentangeli was supposed to be Clemenza.

The reason Part I has almost no flaws is because it all came from the novel. Novels are usually more well thought out than a movie screenplay. And I think Part II has as many flaws as Part III. But they are still two of my favorite movies.

I know on the 'Deleted Scenes' section of the DVD, we do see Genco's deathbed scene, so originally he was supposed to be in there. But throughout GF I and II we get references about what a great consigliere Genco had been for Vito, we don't really see why this was true.

I know Pentangeli was supposed to be the same character as Clemenza - but he wasn't. Castellano not playing Clemenza in GF II is as much a flaw as Duvall not playing Hagen in GF III. FFC should have just recast the roles.

They went to the trouble of showing the Tessio-Clemenza back stories in the "flashback" sequences in GFII, I always wondered why FFC didn't introduce Pentangeli at the same time (maybe as a childhood buddy of Vito's from Sicily or something, which would have explained why Pentangeli's brother was still living there in 1959), to explain why Michael is supposed to regard him 40 years later as a trusted old family friend. FFC also could have introduced a much younger Hyman Roth as being in business with Vito at the importing company - maybe running bootleg booze during Prohibition.

Still, I think GF III is much better than most people give it credit for. But obviously, it's not as good as it should have been.

Your name reminded me of another one.

It was pretty cheezy to see Enzo pop up in the beginning of Godfather III and say, "Here is the beautiful cake for you family from Enzo da Baker."

I mean, we all loved Enzo... but was that really necessary? Same thing with Johnny Fontaine.

True surely he hasn't kept in touch with the same baker for all those years

Considering Hollywood was essentially setting Francis up for failure- i'd say GF III was damn good-in fact its my favorite of the trilogy. I have the Vanity Fair article that FFC makes referene to in the DVD commentary, and boy is it rough on him. Te article came out in May before the movies release in December, and it gets nasty. It critisizes and exploits everything from his weight to Diane and Al's romantic fights,etc. it is just ridiculous how cruel hollywood was to this film.

About Sofia Coppola-Paramount Pictures had three options when Winona Ryder dropped out-1.rewrite the entire movie to make it age appropriate for Madonna to play the role, 2.stall the production of the movie till someone like Laura San Giacomo (yuck!) could make it to the set essentially raising the budget to enormous heights, or 3. use Sofia. It was a no-win situation-and as rumor goes, Madonna personally called Sofia and conceded the role to her so that the other cast members would not throw a hissy fit to get her on the set. The entire cast treated Sofia like crap leaving her in tears every day. Maybe if they'd been more respectful and supportive, the media wouldn't have had a field day with her.

In regards to her acting, i actually think her performance in the last scene is boarderline brilliant. and what i just don't understand that people dont seem to get is that is exactly how mary corleone was intended to be!! a naive, awkward girl of 18!!

Andy Garcia is wonderful in this movie. With all due respect you are nitpicking on that one.

Talia Shire gave the performance of a lifetime, and the addition of the connie character to family business added a new depth to the plot.

George Hamilton was a very good supporting character, and it is fairly well documented Bridet Fonda was cast as a likely set up for the now defuct project of GF IV.

It is a very artsy film-this i know-which makes it singularly less commercial. But the beauty this movie creates is just so emotional.

Chilltown, I agree with everything you're saying except for the part about Talia Shire giving the performance of a lifetime in GFIII. No way was that better than her performance in the Rocky series. Especially part I and part III (the beach scene!"We've got a house! We've got cars! We've got money!!! We've got everything but the truth!! What's the truth Rocky???)... Or even part IV "You can't win, Rocky!!".

I personally liked GFIII even though its not as great as I and II and Sofia Coppola ('Nuff said), and the whole Connie thing-I thought it was really pretty good.

I don't hate Part III like some on this board. But this statement above, pertaining to Connie "making her bones," exposes a huge problem with the third film. Having a fifty-something, mousey woman kill a man? Come on - they had run out of Corleone's to be killers if Connie has to start whacking people. With all due respect, I don't think ANY mafioso would be intimidated if they discovered that Connie had, in fact, killed Don Altabello.

I'm not a GFIII hater by any means, but what you've just said is 100% rubbish. Anyone that knows good acting can see her acting his utter crap. It's as wooden as Van Damme or Arnie. also this excuse that she was meant to be played like that I don't get. she was supposed to be naive and awkward but why does that mean she was to play a naive 18 year old girl really badly.

Sorry I have to disagree I rate his acting as about as good as Sofias, there's no emotion in it at all, he says his lines that's it. you feel absolute nothing for him. As I pointed out earlier just watch the meeting with Zasa and the part before Michael has the stroke or when him and Sofia are in the kitchen,you should be able to see just how bad he is.

Now I think you're just joking.

GFIII is better than a lot of films, but it really does have some big problems.

Something else I thought was stupid was vincents bodyguards who were male stripper twins.

My wife and I watched the trilogy for the umpteenth time this past weekend and we watched GF3 last night.

Another thing that troubles me about it (along with a lot that was mentioned before ) is that Michael Corleone has become Al Pacino, and not the other way around. It seems like Al never even tried to get back into the role, just shouted lines when necessary. Still a wonderful performance, but a lot different than what came before.

Pacino's Michael in Part 3 is no different from any number of Pacino's roles from around that time period. He screams a lot, but with the deep Pacino voice, not the shrill Michael voice from Part 1 and 2.

I know a lot of time has passed from Part 2 to Part 3, but it also seems like Michael has become some happy go lucky mobster. Sure he has demons, but he seems too upbeat at times. Sure a lot of time has passed, and sure he loves his family, and I know that it's necessary to the movie to have Michael older and filled with regret - but I still have a hard time buying it. He just looks a lot differnet than he did in Part 2 too.

However, I do love this movie and cherish the ending. I forgot all about the scene from Raging Bull when the music is played at the end of Part 3. It's put to much better use in Part 3, I mean they are showing the opera in which that piece of music appears...

I think had FFC and Puzo not had been rushed by the studio and others, they could have laid out the groundwork for a much better story. And Duvall and Rider would have helped bring the lack of credability too.

But I am happy with the way it turned out, despite all the obsticles it faced. And also, how cool was it to see all those old characters again like Enzo, Lucy, Carlo the Bodyguard, and Don Tommasino?

The movie is great for nostalgia alone.

I Like Godfather 3 the acting could have be beter but it was good to me it need more killing and vincent need more lines and more men aswill to watch his uncle. JOEY ZAZA!

God point ClothesHanger, I think that Al Pacino did do a good job and I think after 20 years, it's inevitable that his character would have gone through some sort of metamorphisis by the 3rd Movie.

I persoanlly think that Godfather 3 is a bit ridiculed because it fell so sort of the mark of the other 2 movies, which were sycint, complex masterpeices. Upon giving it much thought, I think Godfather 3 fell short because of various reasons and the main reason is FFC wanted to do too much witht he movie. GF and GF II both were complex and grand in scale. GF III attempted to top this by showing Michael's growth, as he attempted to move away from a life he knew would only lead to heart ache and loss, but was at the same time tempted back into it by his knowledge of how to run a crime family. Also he tried to add a myriad of themes to make this movie a true sucessor to the other 2 movies.

Michael moved from the most power Don in NY to controlling a huge empire in America to becoming legit and then became a global player. Quite impressive and as such FFC upped the enemies, and the complexity of the plot in GF III. Only it was so complex that I think 2 three hour movies would have done a better job ironing everything out and expressing everything he wanted to express.

I agree that the plot in an attempt to up what was done before fell short of the sycintness of the other 2 movies due to time constraints. As such much was left out by nececity, or glazed over in an attempt to do everything FFC set out to do. The plot is one example, it's not just complex, but too complex and confusing for us really get into and never really explained or ironed out. The new characters are not elaborate upon enough for us to efficeintly connect with them.

Also, we are introduced to enemies we know little about and we are not ever clearly clued into the plot as it unfolds, we are given hints here and there, but due to the complexity of the plot , FFC is given little opportunity to explain the dizzy array of enemies we are finally it seems introduced to at the end of the movie.

Both Mary and Andy Garcia's characters were not given an introduction sufficient enough to allow us to click with them. Mary was very one dimensional in the way she was written, and lacked the complexity or character development that was characterisitc of the other characters in the other GF's. Vincent's character wasn't sufficently elaborated upon to allow us to fully beleive he would be an effective Don. This is a major down point in the film. His intelligence or leadership ability is never fully elaborated upon.

What I think was done really well was the themes of the movie. Connie evolved into a true Mafiso-ette, by the 3rd movie and was an enemy to Michael in the sense that she was the main tempter to michael's righteous goal of being 100% legit, this is a true stroke of shakespearian intrigue. Also after 20 years of attoning and finally attempting to become completly legit, michael is tossed back into the ring by events and a small time hood backed by larger than life enemies. Also, no matter how hard he tried he cant' escape his past nor can any amount of money attone for his sins.

I think the final tragity of his character is not that he dies alone or even that his daughter dies. But the life-long dream of now 2 generations of Corleones, that was within his grasp (becoming legit) is undermined when he allows Vincent to take over the family by some coercion from his sister. It can be argued by grooming Vincent for the role, he ultimatly allowed himself be tempted back into the life and allowed circumstance and environment ultimatly control his destiny. Which in and of itself is a theme in the GF, the influence of one's environment on who they become.

One note on Mary, I don't doubt there was a shred of nepotism going on in GF III by hiring Sofia to do the role of Mary, butI thikn one of the justifiable reasons is that FFC's wife is a WASP and as such Mary is half Italian, half WASP and at least ethnically fits the role well.

Im always loathe to critisise Al Pacino in any way, but I think he lost sight of the Michael character in this film. He should have went back and really studied the films and got a more accurate aproximation of the original persona. Its enivitable and realistic that there should be change, but I think the change went too far.

BUT his scream at the end makes the whole movie worth while....I think its possibly the most beautiful moment in the whole trilogy

As for the Sofia Coppola debate - shes shit. End of debate.

Nobody is surprised when guys like Luca Brasi kill people; it's when meek, mousy people start rubbing people out that you get impressed.

As far as being "intimidated," it's not in the sense that she's gonna rip your head off with her bare hands (a-la Luca Brasi), but that she's a ruthless cold-eyed beeeyatch who'd have you snuffed in a minute if it suited her purposes.

I still think it was an effective character development.