Good discussion.

I created this thread to see where everyone stood and then tell all the haters who had seen the movie only once or twice to go back and watch it again without prejudice.

Remember, it took us (and it’s still taking us) many viewings to completely understand all the goings on in Part II. Granted, Part II -- as complex as it is -- is put together better than Part III. But I’m hoping that people will at least give Part III the same patient learning experience that they gave Part II. Whereas Part II was different than Part I, Part III is that much more different from Part II and Part I. Still, it’s not as good a movie as the first two, but I think it’s worth more than just “it sucks.”

You can hate it for not having Robert Duvall in it. You can hate it for Sophia Coppola or George Hamilton. But there is a movie underneath it all, a good movie, and I just can’t accept people saying it stinks and dismissing it out right.

AppleOnYa -- Thank you. You’ve summed up your feelings for the movie well. I think if everyone was able to look at the movie that way, we’d have a better understanding for Part III.

Finally, I think Part III intrigues me so much because it is different and it is flawed. It’s ambitious as hell, and I think FFC for making it more than gangland garroting and shootouts. People say that it should have been more like GoodFellas, and I didn’t want it to be. GoodFellas was GoodFellas. Part III is The Godfather, as different as it may seem.