What was the release of the third Godfather like? Especially before it came out... what was the big topic?

No where near the anticipation or excitement of I or II.

I was in Florida at the time, went to see it the second day it was open (in the daytime), and the theatre was more than half empty.

What was the press saying about it before it came out?

By the way, thanks for the fast response =)

I don't remember what the press was saying before it was released.

Afterwards, of course, the critics pretty much roasted it as not being comparable to the first two, which it isn't.

Part III really never had a chance. It was being panned before it was even released. I guess they disliked Paramount feastering with the ole "cash-cow". However, I do recall a few tid-bits:

1. One company offered Paramount $50 million to obtain to rights for a one-time pay-for-view showing on Xmas eve.

2. You can purchase part III mugs and key rings and Michael's praying poster at video stores.

3. Life magazine had covered the movie in the Dec. 1990 issue. It had beautiful photos.

I can recalling seeing Part III on the first showing on Xmas day. I drove 15 miles extra so I can see the 10:30am showing rather than the 11am. Only a few people in the theater, but what did I care? On top of that, it was a winter storm.

GFIII had a fair amount of critic-buzz before it was released--critics wondering if Coppola could do it again, the Wynona Rider/Sofia flap, etc. I saw it the day it opened, first show, in a theater in Union, NJ--place was full. My brother tried to see it in Brooklyn on the first day, and couldn't get near the theater. Janet Maslin in the NYTimes gave it a rave review. Others were all over the place.

Thats odd, I would think that GF3 would get a lot of hype. GF1 ad GF2 were such big hits and then so many years after, GF3 a potential third hit, reuniting the old cast-it definately sounds like a lot of media to me. Its too bad I was only three at the time heh.

It's unfortunate the critics lambasted it. I like GF 1 and GF 2 a bit better, but GF III is still a great movie in my opinion. Personally I think it's the cousin factor that made alot of the people cringe. It's definatly a very dramatic and complex piece, up to the level of GF I and II. People have criticized Garcia and Sofia's preformances. Sofia, played a very fluffy character in my opinion, although she was playing a very simple character wasn't that out of place doing so.

Garcia, I liked, he did a good job, but the character although quick witted and cunning and carrying all the characterisitic of the 3 brothers. Never really played more a complex character like MC or VC by Brando. He had none of the sophistication of these characters. These were low points that perhaps people didnt' latch onto. However overall I liked it and athought it was great.

GF III, of course, was trashed by critics who judged it strictly on the basis that it wasn't as good as I or II.

In my view, GF III was mortally hamstrung by the loss of Winona Ryder and Robert Duvall from the cast very late in preparation for the movie.

That made necessary throwing Sofia Coppola into the role of Mary. Now Winona Ryder is not exactly the greatest actress of all time either, but I think the role of Mary was trimmed down to accommodate Sofia Coppola's lack of experience. She did OK in my view but you do not expect actors in the GF series to do "just OK."

Much more damaging was the loss of Robert Duvall over a money dispute. This made it necessary to dramatically rewrite the script and write out the character of Tom Hagen and replace him with the nondescript B.J. Harrison aka George Hamilton who basically added nothing to the story except to say "yeah" once in a while.

From what i have seen and read, and ESPECIALLY from my reviewing of GF II, which was clearly setting it up, I am absolutely convinced that a conflict between Michael Corleone and Tom Hagen over the ultimate direction of the Corleone Family was intended to be the primary topic of GF III. IF Tom's loyalty was up for grabs, other families would certainly have tried to enlist him in a battle to take Michael out, which IMO would have been the main theme of GF III.

With Duvall out and Hagen written out, that whole concept went out the window, and the whole script had to be hastily rewritten and the entire Vatican/Immobliare deal inflated from probably just a minor topic originally, to the main story line of the movie. It all had to be done on the fly and that's why GF III seemed rushed and disjointed compared to I and II.

I never saw the movies until I was 18, but I remember I was 11 at the time, going to see Look Who's Talking Too at the movies on Christmas Eve and seeing people put the signs up for GF3 and thinking, wow - they made another one?

Then a year later when the movie was on VHS, my friend had it and we started to watch it - not knowing anything about the first two movies and we turned it off in the first 10 minutes because we didn't understand it.

I was in 7th grade when GF3 came out. They made a pretty big deal of it here in Southern California. No one really knew what to expect but there was anticipation.

At first, I didn't think it was Al Pacino playing Michael. The Michael in the first two movies was young, handsome, and had a non-gravely voice. In Part 3, he looked like he looked like he aged 30 years in a 16 year span. Kudos to Dick Smith's abilities.