Wow. I just finished reading the whole discussion. I searched "reviews" trying to find some discussion and reviews on GFIII because obviously, them majority of the message board hates it or strongly dislike it ... anyway, I'm just going to go ahead and post. *feeling a bit guilty having to resurrect an ancient discussion*

DeathByClotheshanger posted Roger Ebert's review, which I have read in the past and I am quite surprised he enjoyed it more than GFII. I think Ebert's review was right on the point, though. I personally don't prefer GFIII over GFII or even the first one, but technically, I treat it as a film of itself and I expect Ebert did too. I mean -- if we changed the title, the characters' names and cut out all the misplaced flashback scenes looking nostalgically to the first two movies it's going to be a very differnt movie.

I think the main weakness of the film is that they waited too long to make it. Too bad FFC didn't go into financial problems earlier. I mean, when you compare a film from the 70's to the 90's it's obviously a very differnt era of filmmaking. The dialogue would be weak and not as crisp -- after two films of masterpiece cinema, you run out of words to say. Judging from the trailer of GFIII, it was probably meant to be a 90's Hollywood blockbuster. It even opened on Christmas Day and we all know what that means -- it was even aiming for an Oscar nom! Eventually it earned 7 of them and won none.

As for the plot -- I didn't understand it the first time around but then when I watched it the second time, it "kind of" made sense. But I've got the overview of it on the Film Studies section of SparkNotes (which is actually a very good read).

I might be the only one, but I found Sofia Coppola's (YES -- it's spelt SOFIA!!!) acting not as bad as everyone here thought. I don't think Winona Ryder could of had made it "better" -- I mean, her lines were terrible! They were just ... dreadful (even compared to the overall dialogue in film, it seriously sucked). Being familiar with Ryder's acting, I can't say she could of had made it better. Considering Sofia Coppola isn't the world's most experienced actress, what can we possibly expect from her?

There is also the incest relationship, which everyone seems to be going "ewwwwwwww..." over. I have to admit: I enjoyed the incest bits. They were kind of sweet, haha. Even though that would never had happened in the universe of the first two films, it "fits in" to the third film. I think that was one of the more entertaining aspects of the film. And for what dontomasso said about how Vincent dumped Mary -- hey, when did Vincent ever become the smartest guy in the world? Yeah, sure he envolved into a calculating don in a few short weeks, but still: He still got a lot to learn.

So a thumb up for me on GFIII -- I enjoyed the film as whole and I didn't really care for the plot. I liked how the film was quite peaceful and I liked how Michael was seeking redempmtion and had him go through an emotional journey. It was good to watch and I'm happy I stopped avoiding it Other than that, I thought there were some priceless scenes, all coming from Al Pacino. And another thing I agree with Ebert with was the scenes with Michael and Kay (Diane Keaton) -- totally out-of-character for Michael, but still, I liked watching those scenes. I even had some nice chuckles throughout the film, which is actually a nice relief from the darkness of depth from the first two. The film had a great "look" to it too. But at the end, I even shed a tear or two.

As for what Moscarelli said about to be a true fan you must be fond of all three -- I disagree. I think Part III isn't for everybody -- I'm just lenient