Did you realize there is always a parade of KKK looking people carrying the cross of CHRIST in the streets and that was portrayed in the opera on the last part where ANTHONY was starring in.

Although there were ethnic and religious themes in GFI & II, do you think that they overdid both in GFIII?:

The Commendatore rite and the follow-up party with Italian songs The $100 million for Sicily.
Tony's Italian opera
Tony's Italian song
Most of the movie taking place in Sicily
The Pope
The Vatican
The Archbishop
Andrew as a priest
The assassins dressed as priests
There are many more.
Thoughts?

All three films intertwine the mob and the church, and I do not think it is overdone in III.

I thought that the 100 million was a bit far fetched, especially for 1979. I mean, how could a mob family show that kind of money, without raising a few eyebrows?

Oh really? How much more overdone could a film be that involves, the Vatican, the College of Cardinals and the Pope?

So by this line of reasoning is there too much of Cuba in II?

Parts of the film are very loosely based on real historical events concerning the ending of the Papacy of Paul VI, and the very short Papacy of John Paul I in 1978, and the collapse of the Banco Ambrosiano in 1982. Like the character Cardinal Lamberto, who becomes John Paul I, the historical John Paul I, Albino Luciani, reigned for only a very short time before being found dead in his bed with a just-completed report about the Jesuit order nearby.

Journalist David Yallop argues that Luciani was planning a reform of Vatican finances and that he died by poisoning; these claims are reflected in the film. Yallop also names as a suspect Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, who was the head of the Vatican bank, like the character Archbishop Gilday in the film. However, while Marcinkus was noted for his muscular physique and Chicago origins, Gilday is a mild Irishman.

The character of Frederick Keinszig, the Swiss banker who is murdered and left hanging under a bridge, mirrors the fate (and physical appearance) of Roberto Calvi, the Italian head of the Banco Ambrosiano who was found hanging under Blackfriars Bridge in London in 1982 (it was unclear until very recently whether it was a case of suicide or, as the Italian idiom has it, "being suicided." Courts in Italy have recently ruled the latter). The character of Licio Lucchesi, who moves between the church, organized crime and Italian politics, recalls Licio Gelli, head of the Propaganda Due Masonic lodge. The character of Joey Zasa bears many similarities to the flashy John Gotti.

I don't know if I exactly follow your line of reasoning, so allow me to make a few comments about the 2 scenarios.

-Most importantly the Cuba scenes were loosely based on fact, whereas the portrayl of the Church, to say the least was a stretch.

-The Cuba scenes basically dealt with the local goverment being in partnership with the mob. Sure GFIII showed the partnership of the Church and the mob, but involving the very heart of Catholicism, The Vatica, The Pope, and the College of Cardinals, is again quite a stretch.

-As pointed out on another thread, for a mafia family to be able to "invest" 100 million dollars, is again, you should pardon the expression, a stretch. I don't think such wealth by a mob boss has come close to acquiring that much wealth since the days of Al Capone, and by the same token, the wealth of the Vatican is legendary, and I don't think they need any two bit hoods to fund their business interests.

Keep in mind I don't object to the Catholic Church sort of being shown in a bad light, I think it was just too much, but on the other hand, had it been handled differently would have made for a better film. As I posted before, with a first viewing, many of us were trying to establish "who's on first?".

A family owning 4 major casinos for decades could easily amass hundreds of millions of dollars of profits. Not to mention the brothels, drug dealing, etc. etc.

Was it such a stretch though?

From Wikipedia:

When he is in negotiations with the Archbishop Michael says that the Corleones are totally out of the casinos and that all their money is legitimate (that's a lie of course because Michael had yet to cash out with the commission) which indicates to me that
all the money they had amassed over the years had been laundered.

Don't forget The Family already had great wealth under Vito Corleone, perhaps $100 million, so it is not a stretch to think they had that kind of cash available.

Organized crime generates revenues in the billions annually. Vito had been in business since the 30s. Michael's adept expansion of the family's enterprises, both legal and illegal, could easily have amassed quite a fortune. Don't forget, Michael is working through a foundation and I am sure he arranged for its funding and disbursements to be done legally.

In addition to In God's Name, you might read God's Banker also.

There is no denying that much of what was portrayed about the Church, Pope etc. was loosely based on fact and conjecture. But how much of what happened within the Vatican was connected to the American mafia? Who was Mike's character based on? I think we might be able to agree that connecting the two, the Vatican and the American mafia, is at least a small stretch.

Well, the Corleones weren't ever really supposed to be based on a real family that way that Fontaine = Sinatra or Roth = Lansky.

Martin Scorsese has a parallel shtick: In "Mean Streets" and "Goodfellas," violence often occurs when Italian music is playing on jukeboxes, radios, etc.