I know this is better placed in "Creative Trilogy Captions"; but since we're on the subject of GF3, I couldn't resist:



"Even with these high-powered opera glasses, I can't find a coherent plot in Godfather Part III."

The nr 3 is a pretty decent movie on its own, but as I and II's succesor, its horrible.

It just kills me when people say they love a guilty pleasure movie like Dirty Dancing or Red Dawn or Roadhouse but when Part III is mentioned they crap on it like it's yesterday's business section. I mean, Patrick Swayze wasn't even in Part III!

How many movies are perfect? I mean cripes, most of the movies that are revered as classics aren't perfect... it just so happens that Part I and II are -- and that hurts Part III.

I know Part III isn't perfect, but that doesn't stop a movie from being good, or even great.

YES!!! There are HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE lines uttered in Part III that wouldn't have even been part of the deleted scenes section of the deleted scenes in Part I and II (My lucky coat, I love you cuz, Dad, etc...) but there are scenes of such power and beauty that make you forget all about what came before. The confession, the silent scream, the music, the cinematography... you might habe to dig a little deeper than you'd like... but those nuggest of greatness are there. But the haters refuse to acknowledge them for the most part.

I'm willing to bet that most people here are parents. I'm also willing to bet that a lot of your children have done things that have made you want to give them up for adoption. However, when they do something good, like color you a picture or tell you they love you out of the blue, you forget all about the bad times. That is Part III for me.

I just feel like us Part III lovers are under attack from the haters. I wanted to make my opinion known, and in the process get a hater to seriously sit down and re-watch Part III in a different light.

Well, it's been almost a year and this thread is still floating around... so has any of the haters seen this film ALL THE WAY THROUGH yet?

Apple?

Sorry son, but a few good nuggets don't make a chicken tender. If the first two were anything, they were two beautiful whole chickens. While GF III is a flawed film in many ways, it was still an ok film. Not that good, not terrible, but not on caliber with the first two masterpieces. A two-star effort IMO.

Well that's the beauty of it. While you say 2 stars, I say 3 stars (out of 4) but I do agree that it's flawed and some of its flaws run deep.

But if I were to choose between having a Part III and not having a Part III, I would choose having a Part III every day of the week.

I have been reading this discussion and sitting on a copy of GFIII for about a week. I've been staring at the copy and debating whether to watch it because the last time I tried I turned it off absolutely bored. I decided I'd read the transcript our Don prepared so I could know ahead of time what kind of things I'd have to "sit through" and then see how bad it really was.
To be honest and fair, I was not appalled by the movie. I found it to be well acted by Andy Garcia, whom I really had no opinion of before but know I think he's a great actor. I know the conversation about his mother never being pregnant before but I think Andy's Vincent was a great contrast character to Micheal. Vincent was a total opposite of young Micheal, he wanted to be in the family and would give up everything to be Don.
Sofia, yes I know I read about her acting and I agree there were bad scenes, but I think had the lines I love you cuz, not been in the movie I probably wouldn't have thought much about it. I think however that it was an interesting subplot to the movie, only because Micheal's son and daughter became his weakness, and this try to make this more evident to the viewer.
I thought that George Hamilton was pretty bad yes, and I think that was a bad miscast, but don't all movies have miscasts? Yes not having Duvall was bad, but it didn't kill it for me.
It was tough to follow at times, the dealings with the vatican weren't always explained, I was lost at times trying to figure out which ones were good and bad, but that has more to do with writing, IMO. The death(s) at the opera were interesting, seeing Mosca pretend to be dead was crafty, and I thought that Sofia's death was well shot (no pun intended). The donkey noise was disturbing, did no one else feel this way? Ugh.
I know there was a post before, and forgive me, I don't know who posted but I think The Death of Micheal Corleone would have been a more worthy title. With this in mind, the forgiveness scene with the Cardinal was great, seeing him come full circle from the innocent Micheal in TGF to the dark Micheal in GFII to the Micheal who sees what he's become was absolutely beautiful. The Micheal who was now ill, diabetic, troubled by his enemies and getting weaker. The scene of him dying alone is magnificent, only because when his father died, young Anthony was there. There's no one there when Micheal dies. It seems like such a powerful statement of what becomes of a man like Micheal. We start to like him at times and at the end he realizes who he is, and it pains him. I have to say with an open mind that it is not the same action packed type of story like the first two, it much more deep in some scens and not as well written in others. That in mind, I think it does deserve to be where it is, and that is the closing chapter on Micheal.

If Part III should be appreciated for anything, it's that it succeeds in making Michael Corleone a tragic character. At the end of Part II, we see he's troubled by what he has done -- but we also get a sense that he still believes that everything he has done to that point has been necessary to "protect the family."

In Part III, he clearly see that Michael regrets killing Fredo -- as well as ordering the deaths of many men. Michael's past comes back to haunt him -- and while the details of the story aren't always perfect -- the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

I never got the feeling of Michael being 'troubled' at the end of GFII. Seems to me he was more consumed with this 'protecting the family' thing...even to the point of being almost devoid of a soul. In that final closeup he most certainly does seem tragic to me.

I would say that in GFIII he was far more troubled by the past (hence his weepy confession about Fredo) .... or HAD been troubled in the years between the two films.

I can completely understand the need for a GFIII...there were many (including me) who wanted to know how the rest of Michael's life might unfold after that loneliness depicted at the end of GFII. I just wish it had been done better...and always will.

Apple

I think that every GF fan feels the same way. I am, however, happy that we got what we got, considering that it took this long, and was this complicated to get made.

I'd rather have what we got, then nothing at all. It sure makes these message boards more interesting!

I agree with everything Moscarelli has said. Although I and II are better, III is excellent on its own. And its really an extended finale to II, rather than another chapter... Thats how I see it.

Like most i dont hate part 3 but like most of the people on here,i do agree that it is flawed at times.Imo i think Sophia Coppola almost ruined this film with her attempt at acting.Francis should have known better and not have let his bias get in the way.

Whisper

Come on, Sofia grows on you. I've seen the film a few days ago, and she wasn't half bad. She wasn't really, you know, acting majestically or anything - she was natural. Nothing extreme. She wasn't really bad. Her acting job just wasn't Pacino or Garcia-esque...

Now, I will say that IF Winona Ryder had been in the film, it would've fared better - because Mary's vulnerability would've come off better than it did. Plus, Rider IS a better actress than Sofia Coppola, no matter what anyone says.

So does a fungus.

So does Gnocchi.

So does Vincent when he is making gnocchi

I think there's been worse acting around us than Sofia Coppola. She just wasn't as good as the rest, and thats hardly her fault...

Interesting this is still being debated.

I'm still firm in my belief that Part III is a flawed film, but a good film.

Flawed, yes. Terrible? No way...

I agree with DeathByClotheshanger.

I think Part III is a very underrated and well done conclusion. I never watch movies to look for flaws, I look for redeeming qualities and this has plenty.