GF III. Was it misunderstood?

Recently I purchased the Trilogy on Blue Ray with the FFC comments. BTW, very nice in Blue Ray. Last night I watched GF III and although I haven't watched it anywhere near the amount of times I've seen GF and GF II, I believe it finally found its way into my mental Trilogy and I understand why it was critically panned. It wasn't a romanticized family story with lovable characters. It was no longer a story about the Corleones, it was story about greed and corruption and how it destroys people.....like the Corleones. And to provide the ultimate impact, the story implicates one of the highest bastions of morality - the Catholic Church. What a heavy dose of depression.

FFC gave us a mighty slap across the face. Michael never really morphed into a bad guy. The Fredo thing was a brick in the head, but all his attempts to legitimatize were thwarted by greed...and not by individuals, but by "legitimate" organizations.

I thought Al Pacino may have given his best performance of the Trilogy. Sophia Coppola was lambasted by many, but her understated portrayal of Mary was a necessary contrast to Vincent and her parents. Even George Hamilton fit the part. Now Eli Wallach?? The character was wrong, not the actor. He was a devious bastard.

One question. Why was Joey Zaza invited to the Atlantic City meeting? Was he the only one who didn't get a "gift" from Michael. If so, he shouldn't have been there. Artistic License?

I think he was there to be snubbed, so he thought he was getting something.

I agree with Wayne: he was there to set up the machine gun attack--directorial license.

I thought GFIII isn't a bad movie if considered as a standalone. But, of course, it can't be considered as a standalone. It is glaringly worse than the other two.

MC, those are some interesting observations. I've posted elsewhere that I thought that Sophia's portrayal of a teenager on the threshold of womanhood was just fine.

The greed and corruption theme? Indeed, and it was also about it taking place in the legitimate world. But Michael was still complicit. As several of we Board members have posted elsewhere, Michael could have backed out at any point and certainly at any time during III. I never bought the they draw me back in. While it may be true that one can never leave the Mafia, one can retire and Michael was in a position to do so. I just never understood what legitimate interest he could have had in the Corleone family other than trying to have a vote (maybe the controlling one) about its leadership. It was never clear to me that Altobello and his Europeon allies wanted Immobliere for nefarious reasons, so why would they want Michael out of the way?

Sophia was unwatchable in this movie. She was just plain horrible.

Plus the other thing that sticks out with me on this that is incredibly dumb. After they kill Zaza, Connie states "now they will fear you."

Michael wiped out the heads of the 4 other crime families, killed his own sibling, Hymen Roth, and THIS is the event that will make them "fear him" ?? Really ??

The problem with III is that the storyline is too forced. II uses the backstory of Vito's early life which was part of the original Godfather novel, with the plotline of Michael's being the Don in Nevada being a logical extension of the "move to Vegas" they discussed in the original.

I think I am correct in saying that at the time of III FFC and Puzo may have needed the money, and unlike the original, III was something the studio wanted instead of it being something the director wanted.

I believe Wynona Ryder was slated to play Mary, but became ill at the last minute, and FFC made the terrible mistake of casting his daughter, who is a talented writer and director for sure, but no actress. The casting of Hamilton was a bit of Hubris also. I think FFC thought he pulled off a fast one by casting Troy Donahue ad Merle in II, and was trying to duplicate it.

For my taste Pacino overracted. Eli Wallach was just awful.

Standing alone it would be a 3 out of five star movie... along the lines of another mediocre but entertaining Pacino turn in "Devil's Advocate." Nothing more.

If there is anything good in GFIII its the acting of Talia Shire.

DT, I completely agree with your description of III as forced. That's a great characterization. For sure, some of the casting was inappropriate. But that may have been due to a lack of applicants. Of course, the screenplay wasn't the best; some of the dialogue was just plain silly and the film too long and involved.

Turnbull took the words I would use. It's a good movie if taken on its own. The problem is that it is a sequel to not one, but two of the best films in cinematic history. It was doomed to fail to live up to such lofty standards.

It's flawed. I agree with the comment that it's "forced." I hate the trading in on the preceding films with comments such as "temper like his father" and "learn from your father." BJ Harrison & Sofia Coppola bring the film down IMHO. I like the treachery of Gilday & Lucchese, the contrition of Michael, and the no more bullshit attitude of Kay. Plus Connie had too much control over Michael to be believable.

The characters used in GFIII from the first film were poor choices: Lucy, Johnny Fontaine, & Sonny's twins from Part II. I think Tom Hagen would have made the film much better.

Sequels rarely work. But GFII was the exception. To think lightning would strike a third time is unrealistic.

Oli.. one point about lack of applicants...the studio wanted to make the movie, but not badly enough to pay Robert Duvall what he was worth at the time. By then Duvall had made quite a name for himself. Would a young FFC have bowed to this so easily?

There may have been a reason Michael allowed all this to play out. At that point Michael knew that Zasa knew that he (Michael) was preventing Zasa from rising up in the Commission. For some reason, probably preventing a war, Michael was completely against having Zasa killed, but embarrasing him like that in "public" got just the reaction Michael wanted...a declaration from Zasa that the two of them were now "enemies." Of course Michael underestimated Zasa, and did not see the Zasa-Altobello alliance (thats what he gets for having George Hamilton as a lawyer.....Hagen would have figured this out) coming, and he was clueless about the helicopter attack. This was a terrible tactical mistake.

Of course once Vincent an Neri rescued him from the attempted hit, Michael, who was plotting against Zasa in a rather feckless way, indulges in self-pity by claiming he is beind "dragged back in" when in fact he was never really trying to get out.

DT, there's no indication that Hamilton was a consigliere. on the other hand, there is evidence that he was a corporate attorney. Also, Altobello was a long time family ally. So, why would Michael view him as otherwise. Being clueless about the helicopter attack was not monopolized by Michael; none of the dons saw it coming.

Of course, as so many of us have posted in other threads, Michael could have retired from the life whenever he wanted. He let himself be pulled back in.

dammndest thing........I was watching the HBO version of III on my DVR this weekend, and right after the order came down to Neri, "light a candle under the archbishop)I got a message saying "for technical reasons the rest" of the movie was not recorded. I felt awful I missed the ending.... So it can't be all that bad.

Not misunderstood... just an obviously weak movie..(when compared to first two)

Wallach and S.Coppolla had big important roles that were both awful. Wallach was miscast and acted horribly.

Although not S.Coppolla's fault that she was miscast, her role was completely unbelievable. No shot Mancini would fall in love with her.. looks wise (considering who she was)...



...

The story they originally had for Hagen and Michael falling out, Willie Chi Chi and Rocco surviving would have made a much better movie.

I believe that you are correct DT. The story goes that FFC's winery was losing money and in order to save it he decided to make GFIII.

I used to really love Part III. It was probably the movie that stayed with me the most after I saw the trilogy for the first time, especially because of the ending, which I still do think is pretty damn good.

Over time, I've come to see it for its flaws and each time I watch it, I see more reasons why it was so panned. Ironically, I see Sofia's performance as less and less a mark against it. It's bad, sure, but not as bad as some of the other acting (Wallach) and the dialog. My god, the dialog. "My lucky coat", and "Vincent, do you love me" even though we just met?

It's a decent capper to the trilogy and I can appreciate its ambition. That it is as good as it is (if you can say it's good) despite what went wrong during production, is a testament to everyone involved.

But it's still a terrible movie.

We've extensively discussed the disappointing III and part of that disappointment is with some of the casting. But I don't recall any comments about why certain casting decisions were made. Can any Board members enlighten us?

I think we've pretty much indicted the casting of Michael's attoney with Hamilton, Altobello with Wallach, and Lucchese with the german sounding actor. Given the array of actors available to casting agents, why would Puzo and FFC settle for them?

The only things I know for sure is thet Duvall would not reprise his role for financial reasons, and Wynona Ryder, who was supposed to play Mary got sick, could not fufill her contract and was replaced by Sofia Copppola.

IMHO, FFC and even Puzo did III for the money more than out of artistic inspiration. I think everyone enjoyed being reunited, going back to Sicily, and enjoying themselves offscreen, but thats a far cry from the effort that went into I and II.

In one of the documentaries about the Godfather, FFC and Pacino make a big fuss about Michael's speech to the corpse of Don Tomassino as representing the theme of the movie, but even that very good scene seems forced, and almost not a part of the picture.

I have no clue what possesed FFC to make some of the awful casting decisions. I think Eli Wallach was some kind of Lee Strassberg protoge, so maybe that had something to do with it, but then again he was also in a bunch of Spaghetti Westerns, which is a sketchy connection. As for Hamilton, I can only guess it was hubris. FFC pulled off using Troy Donahue as Merle in II, but that was a very small part. Hamilton was simply not credible as Hagen's replacement. Even worse, he wasn't even given good lines. Telling the archbishop he got gray hair from worrying was embarrasing.

Even Andy Garcia, who was considered an up and comer at the time was something of a bust, because after that role he really didnt do anything notable until the Ocean's 11, 12, and 13 movies, in which he was already playing a parody of himself.

i did enjoy the GF3 ............but it was lacking something compared with the first movies

Well, we are given to believe that Michael has been trying to take the Corleone family legitimate for several years at the time of GF III, so it is not inconceivable that for many of the members of the Commission, especially newer members who came in after 1960s, might have considered Michael's bad-ass reputation as more the stuff of legend than anything else.

By smoking Joey Zasa (or allowing Vincent to do it), he serves notice he can still be brutal when he feels like it.

From the looks of the gathering in Atlantic City, most of the people there looked to be Michael's age or even older, so I think they knew he was a bad ass. Still, Michael did not approve of the killing of Zasa, which he made clear to Vincent, Neri and Connie. He may have even got the word out that this was a rogue opertaion, so I do not think the killing of Zasa served notice to anyone.

My biggest gripe with GF III was that Michael was no longer Michael anymore, but he was Al Pacino, during his "hoo-hah" era.

I mean not only did he no longer look like Michael but the brooding, calculating demeanor was gone completely.

Im not sure if that was done on purpose to show us Michael had grown, but it was like watching a different character or just Pacino.

Sofia Copppola takes alot of flack for her acting in the movie, it probably didn't help that she was the directors daughter. But i really didn't think she was that bad, i mean shes not a top class actress sure, but she wasn't as bad as some make out.

GF III for me showed us just how invaluable John Cazale and Robert Duvall were to the first two movies. Its a pity they didn't work something out for Duvall.

Well friend, III was intended to show a Michael torn between giving up power (or having it taken from him) and redeeming his soul.

As far as Sophia goes, I agree with you. She accurately and credibly portrayed a vulnerable girl on the verge of womanhood.

Something else that bugged me about Eli Wallach's character...

Way back when, Altobello was consigliere for the Tattaglia family, yet he's Connie's godfather. It strikes me as a bit odd that someone from a rival family would be godfather to one's only daughter.

To me, the role of Michael Corleone goes like this:

GF1, GF2: Al Pacino
GF3: Tony Montana with a New York accent

Voice aside, it's as if Pacino is playing a parody of Michael Corleone in GF3. For somebody who's out of the business and supposed to be redeeming himself via charity, he's anything but. The outbursts are so over the top; granted Michael was angry at times in GF2, but his reactions were much more controlled and measured.

I don't have an issue with Sofia Coppola's acting, aside from some shitty lines she was given -- her telling Vincent "I'll give you a hint...he's Italian" is just horrid. I don't think any other actress would have been much of a difference. Sofia probably gets more flak because of the nepotism perception.

On the other hand, Bridget Fonda serves no purpose in the film, other than a parking place for Vincent for the night.

FFC did alright when he was able to slot Michael V. Gazzo into what was Clemenza's character in GF2. That does not work when you swap George Hamilton for Robert Duvall. Besides, what powerful businessman has a lawyer named BJ Harrison?

Oh, let's not forget GF3 also had Ron Jeremy...

I love the explosiveness of Michael's anger in the first two movies, something that was completely lost in the third.

Watching GF II yesterday the scene where Tom is telling him about the "miscarriage" and Michael explosively yells can't he just give a straight answer anymore.

Where as Godfather 3 felt like watching Al Pacino in Scent Of A Woman lol. Hoo-Hah..

FFC didn't want to do Part II initially. He relented when the studio gave him total control.

Part III was a cash grab. It financed his winery.

Had Rider and Duvall been a part of Part III it would have instantly been much better...but it still had a weak script and was made too long after Part II.

A Godfather Part III that was about the final split between Michael and Tom would have been a monumental movie; as big in scope as the Godfather Part 2. Instead it always feels to me like two poorly coordinated stories; one a sort of corporate thriller about a bad guy trying to wash himself clean with a big acquisition while his enemies try to prevent it, and the other a sort of passing of the torch from the king to his heir (Michael to Vincent, much as Godfather 1 was about Vito to Michael).

It's these two poorly sewed together plots that drive me nuts about the movie. I get the whole Vincent-Mary plot line, even if the wrong actress was cast. I get the whole Immobiliare plot line, though George Hamilton sort of plays a rather dull "hotshot" corporate lawyer type that gives us nothing emotional to attach ourselves to.

If I could not have got Robert Duvall to come back (and I would have paid him whatever he wanted, even costar billing with Pacino), then I would have eliminated the whole Don Altobello angle. It really does poorly fit the story, and always feels patched on. I would have played up the whole "enemies in high places" angle much more; sort of a Sollozzo-Barzini writ large. You could still have worked in the other points without a distracting never-before-seen-but-so-very-powerful Don.

I remember watching Godfather III in the theater when it was released, I do remember the theater was basically dead me and like one other person. If it is viewed as a stand alone film it's not bad it's a hell of a lot better than what is coming out nowdays. But like Turnbull stated it can't be viewed as a stand alone film now obviously when compared to the first 2 both winners of Best Picture(Godfather II, being the only sequel to accomplish such a feat)it will come up short. I heard that FFC was having financial problems and that it was rushed into production. If both of those scenario's are indeed fact the movie is bound to fail right off the bat

My theory: They didn't meet Robert Duvall's demand, so, no Tom Hagen. Pacino was upset about that, and mailed in his performance. I mean he wasn't even trying to be Michael, and that alone about ruined it. I actually think the Vatican involvement was a good idea, just poorly acted and probably a poor final draft that Coppola and Puzo would have given more attention to if the environment surrounding production wasn't so disgruntled. Also, Sophia Coppola might be the worst actor ever, although she's a good director. Lost in Translation is good stuff.

I heard at one of the big premieres, in LA or NY, when Michael tells Connie, "maybe they should fear you", people just started walking out.

Sofia did a better acting job on g1 in the baptism scene.

+1
I completely agree. FFC made two big mistakes by casting his sister to play Connie and Sofia to play Mary imo.

EDIT: seen i already replied to this thread.

Re-watched again recently, and its still Pacino that lets the movie down for me. Very little essence of Michael Corleone in the movie.

I think Talia Shire was ok in all 3.. and obviously Winona Ryder getting sick screwed them at the last minute...Sophia Coppola was abysmal.... but Eli Wallach as Don Altobello was just as bad..

...worse, if that's possible...

A poisoned cannoli can't be too far on that list as well.

As flawed as this move is I still watch it every few months.

Agreed. I think Pacino was upset about them not paying Duvall enough, so maybe he phoned it in on purpose.

I watched a clip on YouTube because I didn't remember him being THAT bad but you're right. It was not GOOD

Somewhere in the late 80s to early 90s Pacino just started playing versions of the same character. Not Tony Montana, but variants on Carlito Brigante. The bravado, the mannerisms, just about everything Pacino has done in the last twenty five years, with a very few exceptions, has just been shades of Carlito. When I watch GFIII, I feel like I'm watching the first iteration of Carlito.

Surely there must have been a way for Pacino to play a tired, worn out Michael Corleone that didn't involve invoking an alien character that we had never seen before.

I think the 16 year gap is mostly to blame. It would be hard for any actor to play a character after that much time has passed and make it ring true...especially a role as complex and calculated as Michael Corleone.

How could Al portray Michael the same way? In the 9 years between Cruising and Sea of Love his voice changed immensely due to smoking. Cruising is 1980 and he sounds like Michael, Sea of Love '89 and he sounds totally different. Losing much of your vocal range as an actor will change how you act....

I do think the film is misunderstood. It is weak compared to the first two, it is also a much less grand story. It's a much less epic, more corporate story that is centered around one man's redemption. It's not the sweeping multi-generational epic that II was. It fails in several areas: Sophia Coppola, Michael's haircut, Joe Montagna (I can't take him seriously as a gangster), and the fact that it feels too modern.

GFI and II are both period films as much as they are gangster films. They look and feel like the periods in which they're set; they transport us back to 1945 New York or 1958 era Cuba. While GFIII is set between 1979 and 1980, it looks and feels like it's taking place in 1990, when it came out. It looks, aesthetically, unlike its siblings. And Michael's haircut....

Al Pacino on [The Godfather: Part III (1990)]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000199/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
If interested, need to scroll down, under 'Personal Quotes'

You know what the problem with that film is?
The real problem? Nobody wants to see Michael have retribution and feel guilty. That's not who he is. In the other scripts, in Michael's mind he is avenging his family and saving them.

Michael never thinks of himself as a gangster - not as a child, not while he is one and not afterward. That is not the image he has of himself.

SPOILER

Michael has this code: he lives by something that makes audiences respond. But once he goes away from that and starts crying over coffins, making confessions and feeling remorse, it isn't right.

I applaud [Francis Ford Coppola] for trying to get to that, but Michael is so frozen in that image.

There is in him a deep feeling of having betrayed his mother by killing his brother. That was a mistake. And we are ruled by these mistakes in life as time goes on. He was wrong.

SPOILER

Coppola and Puzo punished Michael mercilessly! and Pacino let them!
The degradation of once powerful [albeit nefarious] man was absolutely brutal indeed
Oh, the ignominy of it all......

This slipped by me in III: Who takes over the Corleone family from Zasa? Vinny? If so, who authorized it? Michael? The Commission? I don't recall a transition scene.

A convenient omission, Oli, although Michael, at his party, told Vincent that "Mr. Joe Zasa now owns what used to be the Corleone Family business in New York." A bit earlier, before Vincent joined them, Michael told Zasa: Joe, your business is your business. I have no interests or percentage – I’m out." So, it is arguable that Michael didn't care who succeeded Zasa.

A more serious omission: Who took over the Corleone Family, which was still under Michael's control in II, after Pentangeli flipped and the Rosato brothers were on the run?

Too bad FFC didnt keep some of the good film that was cut out and thrown away from all 3 films ( yeah, i know G3 included ) it could have been used for flash back scenes in a possible G4.
He should have done G3 no later than 1983 or 1984 AND PAID Duvall and Castellano wanted to make it right.

My theory is that Mike is still running the family as a criminal enterprise after Part 2. The last scene in part 2 is suppose to take place in 1968 when Anthony goes off to college and basically shuns Mike. Mike still has that cold look in his eyes so I'm sure he is still a cold blooded mobster at that point. My guess is that sometime in the early 70's Mike finally gives up Control of the criminal family to Zasa

JCrusher. Are you referring to when Michael is sitting outside smoking right before it goes into the flashback of Vito's bday? Hire do you know that it's 1968? And why the Hell do they show what appears to be the Tahoe house in ruins in the beginning of 3? Was it supposed to be symbolic to Mike's life and what it once was?

The flashback scene overlaps Michael sitting in the same room where he basically told Connie to get rid of Earl. The last scene of II is Michael sitting outside on the grounds of the compound; he's not smoking (and he is still wearing his wedding ring).

I doubt that we can accurately gauge the year. Some Board members who know the cars of the era may be able to identify the approximate year based on the cars that appear in those scenes. In the hotel scene when Michael strikes Kay, both kids are young, nowhere near college age. The same is true in the scene when Michael closes the door on Kay.

If we assume that Pentangeli's suicide, Fredo's murder and Roth's murder occurred in rapid sequence (per Michael's admonition to Tom, "I don't want to kill everybody--just my enemies"), then all would have occurred in 1960: Roth told reporters at the airport that he came home to vote in the Presidential election.

That could be correct TB. It fits with my post about the kids being young. Still, the cars are the key for me. Maybe someone who knows them better than me can chime in. You know them, don't you?

That's definitely a cigarette in his right hand.

According to the script the last scene takes place when an 18 year old Antony meets up with Michael, but like so many other scenes it was cut so we only see an older Michael sitting in his chair. It would take place in the late 60s.

Oli, the last car seen in GFII that we get a reasonably full view of is a '59 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 limo parked outside the Tahoe boathouse during Mama's wake. That would be consistent with a '59-'60 time frame.

yup. Plus his hair is starting to get grey in it and it looks like his face has some wrinkles.

Head Topics Ireland 25 February 2022
As The Godfather turns 50, it’s time to give the unfairly ridiculed Part III another chance

The Godfather: Part III, the poor relation of the franchise?
Godfather III has never been loved, but has perhaps been unfairly treated

I [author of the article - Source Independent.ie] watched it recently, for the hell of it, and for all its shark-jumping and papal assassinations, there are wonderful set pieces, deep moral undercurrents and some fine performances too.

The idea to make Michael Corleone’s guilt over the killing of his brother Fredo a central theme of the film was a good one, as were his efforts to gain redemption by splashing his cash in the Vatican.

It’s densely, even audaciously plotted, full of baroque references to the earlier films, and if it hadn’t had the word ‘Godfather’ in the title might have been better received.

It’s worth watching, if you never have, and Sofia Coppola is not at all as bad as some critics have suggested. But when it was rereleased in 2020, nobody went to see it

When Coppola rereleased it two years ago to mark its 30th anniversary, the reaction was very different. The director had renamed it The Godfather Coda included new edits, and cut it back to a relatively trim 158 minutes.

But all for naught, as commentators lined up to explain why they’d never particularly cared for the film in the first place. The plot was grandiose, the pacing funereal, Al Pacino’s ageing make-up ropey, and Sofia Coppola’s acting egregious.

I watched some of 3 last night before retiring. 3 has some weaknesses I don't like.

I have never accepted George Hamilton in his role, and, on top of that, I didn't much like the role that was created in GF 3.

The other thing that rubs me the wrong way is the matriarchal emphasis in the Corleone family, with the rise of Talia Shire with her role as Connie C.

Also, I though the cousin love angle was totally necessary. Too much about Michael's family.

For me, in GF I & II, family was part of the story, but was not "the story" as I see it was in GF 3.

Kay & Michael still in love... I mean, who gives a sh*t!!

To me, this is the most significant criticism of many. If you can't cast Duvall/Hagen, why do you feel the need to create this replacement who adds nothing. And George Hamilton? He was cheeseball even back then.