After thumbing through some of my "behind the scenes" Godfather books and looking over some of the proposed plots for Part III, I am so glad that we got what we did. We could have gotten something a lot worse than what we got.

I will summarize what the book (I forget what book it is) said.

Apprarently, the studio hired several writers to put together their scripts, and it shocks me that Puzo and Coppola weren't the first ones contacted. Word went out to several Hollywood power players from Don Simpson (Bad Boys, Top Gun) to Michael Eisner. Most of the scripts had to do with getting Anthony into the crime world and most had to do with him working undercover for the CIA and assassinating a Latin dictator. Sounds more like an action movie to me. One script even had the balls to kill off Michael and Tom before the title credits!!!

Eddie Murphy begged for a part in Part III. Sylvester Stallone was at one time interestied in writing, directing and acting in Part III. John Travolta was going to play Anthony at once. Madonna was to play Mary...

Man... I am so glad that the studio held out from all the "Goodfellas" type scripts. No offense to Goodfellas, but the Godfather is a different type of mafia movie. More calculated and more polished. So Puzo and Coppola get back together, hammer out a script and the rest is history.

Some of the endings they were working with was Michael getting killed by accident, Michael going blind and living with his sins, and the one that was filmed. I like that one the best. Although one idea I did like was the one that FFC describes on the commentary at the end of Part III, where Michael is shot, falls down the steps of the Vatican or the Opera House (can't remember) and Kay asks him if he is dying and he says, "no." I liked the irony of him saying his isn't dying, because he died a long time ago and became someone different when he became involved with the family. That was a nice touch.

However, what we got was a solid, somewhat flawed Part III. But even with the absence of Duvall and the inclusion of Sofia, I think it ended up really well.

Man, that would have been some fucked up movie if any combination of those scenarios took shape. GF III is not a bad movie, it's just not quite up to the par of the previous two and that is because of a plot that wasn't as tight as the other two (although it was more ambitious and very adventurous), Sofia's acting and the absence of Robert Duvall, which seriously diminshed the number of recognizable characters in the film to Kay, Neri, Tomasino, Connie and Michael. I do think they made the best of what they had and as DBCH pointed out, yes it could have been alot worse.

I give GF III 7.8 out of 10. It would have perhaps been as high as 9.0, maybe even higher if it lacked Sofia Coppola, had Robert Duvall, lacked Agent Orange, had a little more plot development on the character development of Vincent.

I give GF II 9.3 out of 10 and the Gofather 9.5 out of 10. GF I gets a better grade because I feel it's a bit more concise although GF II is a very awesome movie all the same.

Unlike some people I absolutly loved GFIII. I don't know what it is. And it is so sad. Of course it wasn't The Godfather or The Godfather Part II, but can you really live up to what those movies made, I mean really ?

I always thought that Part 3, if it wasn't compared to Parts 1 and 2, would be considered an excellent movie. It has the misfortune of trying to live up to a classic.

The same thing may happen to the upcoming book. It will probably be a good book, but when compared to the original it will seem ordinary.

I agree, but we would still have Sofia's performance mucking it up.

True, 3 could have been a lot worse. We are lucky to have gotten what we did,and itdid suffer from "Godfather" being in the title. Whats to stop them from using some of those other plots for a GF4, though. Scary thought huh. Thats why they should really stay away from 4.We got relatively lucky with 3. I dont think it will happen again.

Me neither, but I would still be a sucker for a Part IV... as I said before, anything that takes me back into that frame of mind is a good thing and no matter how bad any potential sequels are, it still isn't going to change the fact that the first 3 are damn good movies.

I mean people still love the Exorcist even thoug parts 2 & 3 were absolutely ass.

Who cares? We have what we have, which is 2/3 of a perfect trilogy and a damn good ending to it in Part III. Anything else is a pleasant bonus.

Bring it on.

Eddie Murphy would have been a better choice for Mary Corleone.

I can see Eddie Murphy doing some rendition of his "Quick" character in Harlem Nights in place of Joey Zasa in Part III - LOL.

I just finished viewing III again for about the 25th time, and was even more struck by how feeble it is, compared with the other two. Plot doesn't hold together, ridiculous dialog, and those wretched performances by Sofia and Wallach.

I dont care what anyone says, just seeing Michael (forget his daughter and all other stupidity) tryin to redeem himself and growing old after his crazy lifestyle makes GF3 worth watching

GF 3 starts off like a train wreck. The introductary party is sloppily directed and choppy. Lines are dubbed. Nothing like the introductions in Part I and II.

However, once the deal for Immobliere gets moving, the AC hit occurs, Michael faints, and we get back to Sicily - part III is chugging along at a fast pace, faster than the other ones.

It's ambicious and doesn't make appologies for it's shortcomings and it shouldn't. The opera scene while long, is the most suspenseful part of the trilogy. The first time I watched it I had no idea what would happen and I was on pins and needles the entire time. By then, FFC seems more back in the groove, camera shots are longer and more meaningful, edits are more smooth. We're back in the world of the Corleones. It took some time to get there, but remember, this movie was made 16 years after Part II.

I think most people who hate part III couldn't get past the first 30 mins and never finished it. Such a shame because it really gets better.

I just ignore Part III. Thinking There are only TWO godfather movies that exists.

Godafther part 3 is really stupid. You no why? We dont have the style and heroic efforts of the greatest charchter ever. CARLO

umm okay...

lol. You know what else is missing? Hooked on Phonics.

The greatest character ever: the lady who mistakenly enters the Vito-Johnny office scene when he ushers Johnny out. What priceless sincerity and brutal honestly with regards to her mistake. The way she enters and exits in a single motion is sheer perfection.

^^^^^Yeah DJ and the look on her face is priceless

Hi Im a Newbie to the Forum and this is my 1st post

Part III as a stand alone movie without the Godfather name, would of been a great movie (even better with a different actress), I actually enjoy this movie more then I thought, I didnt have high expectations going into it but I think its a really good 3 installment to the movie....actually you think about it in trilogy's the 3rd one is usually the Worst IE; Star wars, Back to the Future

Welcome to the forum! Always nice to see another Sopranos fan. But just remember, next time you come in here, you'd better come in heavy or not at all!

I agree wholeheartedly. GF III is a good movie, but fails to live up to the legacy of the first two movies.

About the Star Wars comment...funny, I know alot of people think ROTJ was the worst, but it's my personal favorite. Also, my favorite Indy is the 3rd one (The Last Crusade). ROTLA is good, but I didn't like TOD at all.

I like Godfather3 my boy Andy G.was good in it and GODfather could't live up to other two everybody die off. But it would did good if had ben made in the 80s.

also being post Goodfellas, it had to be a little different from the 1st 2 cause the audience changed some too