There is no change of mike. They just start the movie with mike a man whose trying to change his ways. What they should have done was show the evil mike of part two (older version ofcourse)and then slowly realising that he has nothing left and tries to win it back and go legit at the same time. It would have been better.

To me the godfather has been about change of the people and charachters of the movie and not showing the change of mike in part 3 (the main chrachter) was the worst in my opnion.

Part 1 and 2 show chnge of mike slowly which makes them great including the acting, charachters and the themes.

The godfather part 3, well everyone knows about what charachters and actors (or actress i'm talking about )that were bad but that has been talked about. So no change just ruins the movie for me (including the normal problems of part 3).

I don't agree... I think Part III showed a change in Mike (he became repentent about killing Fredo, for instance). I think the problem with Part III is that it was made.

Oh yes and that

No, no. The world would be poorer if GFIII had not been made. It may not be to our collective satisfaction, but it was pretty good overall and it provided closure which, by the way, The Sopranos did not (for some viwers).

Michael DID NOT die. He just doubled over with agita, from greasy onion rings.

I also disagree with the original post. Mike in Part II was pretty constant throughout. And could there be a bigger change for Mike in Part III? He goes from his usual scheming self to full blown regret and death when Mary is killed.

And it's obvious that Mike had changed in the time between II and III, so we don't need to see that change on screen. It's too gradual.

No, the biggest problem with Part III is the amount of time that had passed between II and III. The script is REALLY bad in places and the direction is a tad stale in places too. Obviously, the casting is also a problem. Put Duvall in there with a small subplot about Mike and Tom's relationship and swap Sofia for Winona and I bet you'd have a MUCH, better movie, and one that is not as hated as it is, if not comparable to the original film.

But what we've got isn't all bad. I agree with Olivant... excellent closure if nothing else.

And a 6 pack of Yoo-Hoo

Part 3 was just a rehash of dialogue used in the first two movies mixed in with a shitty plot. A helicopter attack? WTF!? Etc, etc.

Well, it was set in more modern times. Maybe if part IV takes place in the 2000's the attack can be the enemies sending a virus to the Corleone's computer.

Part 3 is what it is.Nothing we can do about it now.

Did John Gotti ever use a helicopter to attack someone? It was a ridiculous Hollywood idea that took away from the movie. Why not have something more realistic? Maybe in part IV a UFO can land in NY and the aliens can give Vincent and offer he can't refuse.

I don't think the helicopter attack was necessarily a bad idea, just the way it was executed. The "lucky coat" line was enough to ruin it for me.

The helicopter attack was ridiculous. For me, that's when the movie lost it's credibility.

I was waiting for Chuck Norris to show up and usher Michael to safety. It would have been about as believable as Neri yelling "Mikey, this way!" or some geriatric wiseguy hanging in there because he forgot his lucky coat.

Still, the film had it's moments. It wasn't all bad.

The the party scene is kind of a little too verbose

Well how else are you going to wipe out 30 people? A bomb? How would that allow our main characters to live? And how would that lend suspense to the film? The attack lasted a few mins and injected some action into the film. A bomb would have been an explosion and the dust settling. I'm not defending the helicopter attack as is, it could have been a lot better, but it was there for a reason.

Well, I could have done without the helicopter attack. But, when you compare the novel with GFI, for instance, the film exaggerates. I've posted elsewhere how I thought the number of guards in Vito's house was an exaggeration. Also, Sonny's murder at the tollbooth. In the novel, he is shot by three guys apparently using pistols although that's not clear. So, you are going to get exaggeration and it does not always lend itself to the film's integrity or enjoyment.

That's my point, Olivant, there was just too much exaggeration in the helicopter attack.

Where, in the history of organized crime in America or anywhere else for that matter, has such an attack occured?

The idea of a punk like Zasa wiping out the entire commission in one fell swoop is ridiculous.

There are many ways a guy could fail to wipe out the commission in one fell swoop, a helicopter attack is one of the most ridiculous. A bomb would have been more convincing at least. Send the amount of guys he had do the helicopter attack into the room with machine guns, etc.

Another question: why wipe out the Commission? What's the objective? Revenge? Certainly, Altobello could not have been fooled into thinking that he would take over. They wiped out alot of guys representing a sizable portion of Cosa Nostra. One guy doesn't just then step in and say "I'm the boss now." It's not that easy. It seems like overkill that could come back to haunt the perpetrators.

And others could say that Mike wiping out the heads of the Five Families could be a little ridiculous as well. The helicopter attack was an ambitious move to say the least.

And not everything in these films have to be based on real life events.

Michael wiping out the heads of the 5 families was actually loosely based on the "night of the Sicilian vespers," a real life event.

And while you're right, in that the movie does not have to be based on real life events, the hit on the commission could have been somewhat more realistic. A helicopter? PUH-LEEZE! Do you have any idea what it would be like getting into airspace next to the Atlantic Ocean, an international water?

However, I'm not the argumentative type, so let's just agree to disagree.

Yes the movie has bad bits.

Back to change, In the start of the movie mike was shown to be trying to make his business legit and also trying to distant himself from the gangsters. I wanted to know how mike turned into what he turned into in part 3. The chnage isnt realy a change in my opnion it bwas just predictable hollywood.

Another thing is that part 2 was an anwsome end to the godfather, part 3 well wasnt needed.

We'll have to disagree about Part III. It's only natural that Mike would live to regret his decisions, especially killing Fredo. Part III did this and made him pay for his sins which I think is the ultimate ending to the saga.

Exactly. The film bleeds with pathos. There probably is no better example of "you reap what you sow."

Oh God tell me about that line ..thats one of the things that really makes me cringe.Why the fuck did they put that in there????

They lacked money at that very time, so a Godfather sequel might be a solution.

BTW, I watched Part III again last night and it's not getting better with repeat viewings like Part I and II. It's getting worse.

It wasn't so much that the bad scenes kept getting worse, it was that the best scenes in the film didn't get better. They were just good scenes. No depth, no complexity... just dialog.

In Parts I and II every shot, every scene and movement seemed intentional like the entire film was storyboarded before it was shot. Part III, however, feels like the script was rewritten the morning of the shoot, and in many cases, it was. Nothing seemed planned.

It's still a good movie, and a worthy ending to the trilogy, but the more and more I think about it, it really doesn't advance the story beyond Part II.

Now, wait a minute. In GFIII we see Michael torn by guilt for past sins and his denouement over the death of his daughter. We see the mantle of leadership passed from him to Vinnie. We see the attempted usurptions of Altobello et al in an international context. How is that not an advance as you put it?

Haha... I knew this would get you to respond Olivant! You're probably a bigger supporter of Part III than me now!

I do agree that seeing Mike's transformation was the biggest advancement of story in Part III. But we are also left to believe that he is already regretful at the end of Part II. Mary's death was a nice touch but in the end, just another hammer on the head. We get it, Mike's made the worst decisions in his life and now he's paying for it.

I guess what I am saying is, we don't get much advancement in the grand scheme of things in Part III other than Mike's guilt. That is reason alone to make a Part III IMO, but this most recent viewing just felt hollow. I remember Part III being more richer than it was when I just watched it. I don't know where that is coming from as I have always been an emphatic Part III supporter. But I just wasn't feeling it, dawg. Parts I and II felt a pure as they've always been, even better... but Part III just felt stale compared to the other films whereas in the past it's felt like a nice ending to the saga.

It still is, I suppose... I guess the honeymoon stage is starting to wear off with Part III for me.

And if I were to write a Part IV, sure there would be plot advancements, but in the end I keep stalling because there is little to advance the big picture other than showing the Corleone crime family being totally wiped out. And do we really need to see another movie based on that plot advancement alone?

Well DBC, you have to keep in mind that everything comes to an end. Where does the Corleone saga go after GFII? If you examine any real Mafia family, you will see a succession of changes in leadership, threats to hegemony, plots and counterplots, competition for the brass ring, etc. The Trilogy is somewhat different because all the foregoing is wrapped around one person and his progress through life.

I like GFIII, but I recognize its insufficiencies. I don't go out of my way to compare it to the other two films because those were more or less spontaneous productions and not dictated by FFC's financial needs or the like.