Here are my thoughts on Godfather III.

The film has a raw deal from most due to the fact that it fails to capture the magic of the first two films, but what people fail to realize sometimes is that is wasn’t possible for the magic to come back, too many of the principle characters are now dead, the ones that remain could only try to make up for these losses, but never actually managed it.

I strongly believe that had the film remained in New York throughout and not in Sicily, then we’d have had a better movie, expand the Joey Zasa character and give Mantegna more to do than posture and preen rather camply.

Coppola’s use of Calo from GF1 was excellent but again, this wasn’t expanded upon, Appolonia was fondly remembered in the film and Mike and Calo should have had a scene and discussed it. Enzo the Baker’s cameo was nice, but seriously, Johnny Fontane, a key character from part one, reduced to a singing cameo, an entire sub-plot of the film could have been about Johnny, his relationship with Michael going sour and teaming up with Altobello and Zasa.

And on to Altobello, I’ve been reading a lot of criticism as concerns Wallach’s performance, but I think it was fine, he played doddery so well, and he played sneaky and deceptive very well. The part when he leaves the room to get Joey after his outburst was deftly handled, you honestly didn’t realise the old goat had anything to do with it until Mike roars out his name during his diabetic attack. It’s a shame that the deleted footage of Altobello rushing back into the room but then getting dragged out wasn’t included as that would have kept us fooled a little longer.

Then we move onto Garcia. And despite the fact that he is given the job of trying to emulate Sonny in some respects, the wildcard, the hot temper etc, Garcia is really, really good in his own right. And funny too, his insane, unceasing desire to see Joey Zasa killed is hilarious, the way he speaks his lines. ‘Just trouble. I take care of it’ ‘Well you tell him from me, that he can live, or he can die.’ ‘I say we make him dead. You give the word and I'll do it myself.’Plus suggesting to his mother that he write their names on the guest list and telling Mary to ‘Love somebody else’ Real quality. He was the best newcomer to the series by far and despite it going against the books canon (Lucy not being pregnant) is seems right somehow that Sonny does have a few illegitimates knocking about. But at the same time, Michael’s relationship with Vincent detracted from the one he has with his own son. There was a real opportunity there to develop that, they spent too much time with Mary and not with Tony, who seems to dislike his father a lot at the start of the film, but by the middle of the film, Tony is back to being a devoted son. The real ‘death of Michael Corleone’ should have been the death of Tony, It was Tony who played with Vito before his death, Tony who was privy to a lot of the events in Part II…either that, or Tony gets into the Gangster life himself. Tony – the Don’s own son, is a peripheral character and that’s wrong, the Don’s sons were the pivot in the first film.

Relying on Mary too much is what makes the film weak in a great deal of places, Sofia Coppola is appalling, ok, so Winona Ryder was sick, get another ACTRESS in to play Mary, not your own child who has zero acting quality, and no charisma either. She’s supposed to be the daughter of Michael Corleone! FFC’s nepotism went a bit too far this time, he lucked out with his sister, but failed horribly with his daughter. Each and every scene with Mary is an embarrasment. Her timing is off, she doesn’t look into the role and even in death, she acts like a beaten down old shed.

But shes not the only one, and I have to agree with all the abuse coming George Hamilton’s way…if FFC truly thought that this guy would be a decent replacement for the great Robert Duvall then he was seriously deluded. I can only assume that the picture was so low on budget and they needed someone VERY cheap. It’s hard to accept him being in the film, being part of the Godfather trilogy. He’s another reason why the film isn’t a patch on the first two.

Now, whether to put Kay Adams in the film? Hmm? I’d have said no personally. I mean what does she actually do? She spends nearly two hours just insulting him, gloating over his helplessness and generally being a pain. Ok, so shes owed it after the way Mike treated her, but it has nothing to do with the film or the story. His children love him come what may, she’s moved on and remarried, they keep finding reasons for her to be around Mike and they don’t work. She could have asked Mike to let Tony go another day, why turn up at the ‘shameful’ ceremony? To berate Michael? And then she visits Michael in the hospital, the man she ‘dreads’ so she can call him helpless and then allow his children to see him as if she had a say in the matter. The only reason Kay is in this is because she has avoided death in the first two films. She serves no purpose.

Connie was interesting in this film, but yet again, this isn’t explored. Is she genuine? Does she really care about Mike? Is she still paying him back for Carlo by feigning care and interfering in his attempts to go legitimate by encouraging Vincent at every turn? Even ordering the death of Joey Zasa over the Don’s head? Playing dumb over the knowledge of Fredo’s death?’ I’d love to know the answers to those questions but they aren’t answered within the film, and as she’s a character that we’ve watch progress over the two films previous, its was disappointing.

The other antagonists in this film were pretty decent, Luccesi was quietly cool and met with a very good death, The Archbishop was very interesting indeed…where does he get his balls in swindling Michael Corleone? Does he think that no matter what happens, he’d never kill a holy man? Gilday is quality, the way he smokes liberally in the presence of god, haha!! But the whole Immobliare thing, and Keinzig’s role in proceedings is confusing, and again, it doesn’t seem true that this weedy Swiss banker and a bespectacled Archbishop would have the guts to take 600 million dollars off the Corleones and expect to get away with it. I also liked Mosca.

So that just leaves me with Pacino…I think he is excellent. He manages to capture a man closing in on 60, a man that’s past his best, a man that is now finally regretting his murderous activities and the pain he’s left in his wake. He carries it well, with a cold charisma, that fact that Pacino’s voice has been altered through years of chain-smoking has also helped the character. Little things, like the slow way he puts on his sunglasses, the little one-liners he cracks (I’m gonna listen to some Tony Bennett records’ ‘I think I got tickets to the wrong opera’) to show he has the sense of humour he sorely lacked before. And the desperation he has to finally tear himself away from the gangworld, but with the cold reality that it was a life sentence from the day he killed Sollozzo. Pacino is of course famous for ‘shouting’ in films, and in the case of Scarface, in my opinion, he over-shouts, but in the Godfather films, his shouting is done at the right time and when needs much. And in part III, the moments when he shouts ‘It was not…what I WANTED, ‘Vincent will you SHUT UP’ was really effective. And the silent screaming at the end was masterfully handled by a masterful actor. Pacino succeeded in making Michael more likable in part III, which was nice in a film about his possible redemption.

The scenes that make this film memorable, are the helicopter hit on the Dons (survived by Neri, Vincent and Mike but not many others, funny that), the hit on Zasa and the hits on all the others at the end…yeah. I like hits. And the only other scene worthy is the superb confession with Mike and Lamberto, a scene worthy of any of the three films, and Vallone is superb in this film by the way. The scenes in Sicily are sadly forgettable. The opera is beautiful visually, but it didn’t feel right to me, it felt like a re-hash of GF1 with the baptism, people don’t always need to be killed during a huge event. FFC went a bit artsy on us there. I think we should have been in New York, the original home of the Corleone’s, for the trilogy’s conclusion.

Still, not a BAD film.

A lot of this has been hashed over in other posts and threads, so I wont repeat myself, or others here. I do take issue with you on three points.

1. Sicily - Sicily figures in all three movies (Michael's exile and first marriage there in GF, Vito Corleone's Childhood and return there to get revenge in II and the Church-Immobialare corruption expose along with the final chapter of DonTomasso's life being told. I thought the Sicily part of III was the best part of the picture.

2. Connie - I am repeating myself here, but she is the most dascinating character in the trilogy, and her transformation from "spoiled guinea brat" in 1 to hard nosed mafia underboss and Michael's de facto consigliere in III is brilliant character development.

3. Kay - The circle closes on the Michael-Kay story when they declare their lifelong love for each other in the dining room at Dontomasso's house. Originally there was supposed to be a scene where they make love, but it got deleted. It is a lot more than just Kay ranting at Michael.

I'm under no illusions that it's probably been discussed before - what hasn't been?

1) A small involvment from sicily would have been fine, but the real fun happens in NY for me.

2) Some development for Connie - just not enough, we can't tell what her true motives are.

I dunno... she orders the murder of Zasa and poisons Altobello all the while steering Michael out to pasture and getting Vincent to succeed him. What more do you want from her?

To see whether she wants to destroy Michael by ushering him out of his family.

Nah.

Proof please.

Cant prove a negative

TB and other Board Mafia officianados can tell us about females who exerted strong influence within Mafia families and may have even had operational control if only for a short while. One comes to mind: Joey Gallo's sister. In the meantime, try this:

"Italy’s Mafia Women Are Taking Control of the Clans By Leela Jacinto
June 20

Growing up the daughter of a Mafia boss in post-World War II southern Italy, Maria Licciardi probably looked forward to a life of stoic, tight-lipped loyalty to her macho menfolk.

But a quiet gender revolution in the Italian Mafia has seen women shatter the glass ceiling of organized crime, as an increasing number of women take on the top job for some of Italy's major crime clans.

The penetration of women into the highest levels of one of the world's most patriarchal social institutions has caught the eye of Italian media and experts as well as crime statisticians. In 1990, one woman was indicted for Mafia association. By 1995, there were 89 such indictments.

And so, by June 15, when Licciardi was arrested near Naples, the 50-year-old matriarch apparently had risen high enough on the crime pecking order to make it into Italy's dreaded list of 30 most-wanted criminals."

Talia played her role wounderfully and, as the above article indicates, her portrayal was realistic. There is nothing to indicate that she was trying to usher Michael out. She apparently disagreed with Michael's desire to leave the family which she interpreted as meaning the end of Corleone dominance and perhaps a betrayal of her father's legacy. That's why she was Vincent's advocate: "You're the only one who has my father's strength." FFC did a good job of contrasting her role with Michael's: as Michael let's up, Connie picks up. Great.

The Trilogy was incipient in Sicily; it's fitting that it ended there.

I disagree, sicily played a small role in both the other films, more screentime was in the US and Vito Corleone's base all his life was NYC. It would have been fitting to end it there. The only reason it would be fitting is because the mafia comes from sicily.

With Connie, I understand everything written, but you have to agree, her TRUE motives for wanting Vincent in the chair are not clear. I still get a bit of revenge for Carlo in there, and reducing Mike's power is her plan.

FFC wanted things to come full circle.

I'll add my voice to those who see no ulterior motives to Connie's behavior. I believe that all signs in the movie indicate that she is motivated by love and support for Michael and the Family. If she wanted to push Michael aside, or make him suffer, she had plenty of opportunities to do so as the film went on and Michael became more and more ambivalent. In particular, Connie's comforting of Michael and her reference to Fredo's "drowing" after Michael's confession shows her support for Michael and his rule over the Family.

I also disagree with you on Sicily. While Sicily doesn't get lots of screen time, the entire Trilogy has its roots in the Sicilian tradition, to paraphrase Keinszig. The struggles of the Family as time goes by are largely due to the tension between the Sicilian roots and traditions and the Mafia's integration into a rapidly evolving and distinct American society.

I compare Sicily in the Trilogy to Chinatown in the Jack Nicholson film of that name. Chinatown serves as a symbol of corruption and hopelessness throughout the movie, but virtually no action takes place there until the climax. It is similarly fitting that the Trilogy ends in Sicily.

But not very EXCITING though is it? An opera? Nice to look at yes....exciting? No.

Connie's actions in GFIII shows the old expression-
"The Apple doesn't fall far from the tree."

[quote=The Hollywood Finochio]But not very EXCITING though is it? An opera? Nice o look at yes....exciting? No.


What? Opera not exciting?? Why do you insult me this way? Wait till Turnbull hears about this.

Does it have to be about gunfights and explosions? Although it's been pointed out that Michael had to be suicidal to attend such a public event when he knew there were people out to kill him, I loved the opera scene. All of the majesty and pageantry was wonderful, perhaps because Cavalleria is one of my favorites.

I loved all the Sicily scenes, and found them to be the better-written and -acted parts of the movie. But I love anything that shows Sicily, so I am probably biased.

Finochio, you've got to be one of the most hard-headed Board members. As I pointed out in my post above and which Woltz reiterates, her motives were quite clear: "You're the only one who has my father's strength." She realized that Michael wanted out, that he was subject to murder,and that he was wracked by guilt. As I also pointed out above and Woltz states, Sicily was where it all began and it should end there.

Wrong. Sicily played a HUGE role in both GF and GFIII. It may have gotten less 'screentime', but what happens there is highly significant to both stories.

And fathersson, olivant & everyone else is absolutely right...FFC wanted it to come full circle so it was completely fitting that where Vito's story began, Michael's ended.



Wrong again. Connie had become very loyal to Michael, and had probably forgiven him many years earlier for what happened to Carlo. The whole thing with Vincent was simply contrived for the story without reason (as was Vincent himself), which is precisely why her motives for wanting Vincent are not clear (other than that line about him having the 'strength' of her father ). It's just part of the bad writing that bogs the whole thing down.

Now, if it had been one of her own sons she had wanted 'in the chair', that would've presented her 'motives' much more clearly and perhaps even tied in nicely in with a teeny bit of old resentment over Carlo even though she was now a constantly at Michael's side. Better writing...better story.

Ahhhhhh, well...what's done is done.

Apple

I guess I'm the only one who's figured out that he purposely takes on and holds onto these ridiculous positions that go against the general tide no matter how logical everyone's input to the contrary.

Keeps a thread going and riles people up at the same time.

Amusing at first...but it gets just plain silly after a while. Yawn.

And those are MY thoughts.

Not really. I think many others have figured that out already and have chosen to simply ignore the posts.

Well, the bullying doesn't surprise me. I expect it

But I think I wrote a nicely worded piece to open this thread, lots of points made, lots of opinions given out.

Someone has taken two issues from a post with about 10 issues and taken them to task...what would you have me do?

I need to find the rule which says that once someone has replied to your post, thats you done - shut up. There's no more mileage in the thread, another word and you're wrong.

I will try to ignore it all and respond to some of the points made which don't attack me in any way - tomorrow.

HF

The use of "Cavalleria Rusticana" was a suitable metaphor for the denouement of the Trilogy--and of Michael's life.

Thank goodness. Strentgh in numbers, think I'll join that club.

Apple

Apple, I honestly don't know how you get away with it on here, your behaviour is a disgrace

Well, I’ve had a nights sleep to think about the responses in this thread, and while I have no problem with the remarks challenging some points made are fine and I welcome them, I cannot tolerate the general lack of respect I have received by two members of this so-called community.

From Apple-on-ya I expect no less then a degree of scorn and contempt for every word I utter, hanging on to a years old grudge for dear life. She doesn’t even read the good stuff, just looks for the bad stuff, the worst kind of member, but she is what she is, she’ll never change, never have respect for ‘the likes of me’. But for SC, a board moderator, to openly declare that he/she ignores everything I say as a matter of principle is just despicable. We are supposed to be a forum, every member has their voice and it’s atrocious to come out and say that.

I spent nearly 45 minutes typing up my review of GFIII, I didn’t set out to antagonise anyone, just state my views. Which I have done. I made points about Altobello, Harrison, Vincent, Kay, Michael, Tony, Mary and most others in the film, none of this offended anyone so no-one said anything. No one quoted those points which they agreed with, no-one said anything positive on what I had to say, just that it had all been discussed before, which I found pretty dismissive and a bit rude. I was hoping someone would quote me a little and engage in a little debate about the film, which to an extent, Tomassi and I did do. He found that he disagreed massively with my comments regarding Sicily and Connie’s motives in the film…and while only looking for things that you disagree with is a bit poor, it’s the nature of the beast to react that way if something offends your eyes.

So I respond to his points. And I’ll now amplify what I mean for those members who think I’m happily crapping on Sicily’s involvement in the GF films.

In The Godfather Part I, Michael hides out in Sicily and marries and then loses a peasant girl via car bomb. That’s it. A stunning involvement, a beautiful picturesque involvement. An involvement that is imperative to the movie and can’t be done without…but the rest of the film is in New York. The Corleone Family was created in New York.

In the Godfather Part II, The infant Vito Andolini deals with the death of his parents and brother in Sicily, before being smuggled to the US. He later returns as an adult to consolidate the Genco business and to kill Ciccio. Once again, as in the first movie, Sicily’s involvement is brief, yet memorable. The Sicily scene, chopped from the theatrical, depicting Vito killing Ciccio’s retainers is a personal favourite of mine, but the point is, the film didn’t dwell on the Sicily locale, it was a fleeting visit. Of course, it wasn’t in New York either, most of the film was in Nevada…but FFC forced in involvement from New York too, with Mike visiting Frankie at home, and then the hit on Frankie…therefore, the visit to Sicily was complimented also by a visit to New York. Both venues holding an importance to the Corleone legacy.

So when part III comes along, FFC is torn, so he devotes half of his film to New York and half to Sicily. And here I feel there is a mistake, Sicily does not have the appeal to spend an hour on my screen and hold my full attention. It’s just not as much fun as New York. In Sicily, things are done SLOWLY and methodically, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I just wanted the film to go all out action, and NYC seems to force that issue more than Sicily. It’s my personal preference, something to which I’m entitled too, there is no LOGIC, or FACTS here to argue the point. If FFC had decided, the whole film could have been staged in NY and we’d be arguing right now why the hell wasn’t Sicily involved.

Shoulda, woulda coulda right? So there’s no need to bemoan George Hamilton being in the movie right? Or Sofia Coppola? Or anything else. Because FFC has made the decisions we all need to abide by it. I love movies set in New York, and I just felt that the conclusion to the Godfather series should have been in New York, Michael Corleone is a man with a Sicilian father, but is a New Yorker, born and bred.

I don’t see why I’m not entitled to that view.

As for Connie, I can accept the views given here, but in the 20 or so times that I’ve seen the film, I still can’t quite get her. Her eagerness to get the certifiable Vincent into the chair seems foolhardy to say the least. She tells Vincent that he’s the only one with his fathers strength, not only is this a veiled dig at Michaels purported weakness, but its also a downright lie. Vito’s strengths lay in reason, not biting people’s ears off. Connie is sneaky and underhand throughout the film, referencing Fredo’s death via drowning, but not questioning Neri’s survival. She knows Mike had her brother killed and she can’t have liked it. I think she’d been working for years to get Vincent into the family and to take it over, from there she can watch on as Mike pathetically fades away. This is just a theory though, can never be proved or disproved. I just don’t get Connie in this film. I have read people’s responses and I guess that’s the answer, but it’s still not clear to me, I guess it never will be

In closing, and I appeal to Don Cardi who usually treats me as a human being, if I’m going to be subject to a level of abuse every time I post a topic, perhaps my membership here should be rescinded. I’m never going to be ‘loved’ by the made gang and that’s a shame cos I love this forum almost as much as I love the GF movies. What’s the point in me posting if I’m not allowed a view or an opinion, or be accused of purposely rocking the boat.

I think rocking the boat is what this board actually needs. To delve deeper.

Let me know Cardi.

HF.

Get over yourself already, Finochio.

BTW - I'm male. Also, I did not say I ignore everything you say. Proof in point is that I'm replying to here now. With that in mind, I suggest if you have any other complaints about me, take them off the boards and PM me.

It was a response to a public slating you handed me. I'll keep it private if you do

And how am I not over myself? Where?

Take it off the boards.

AMEN

No. I won't take it off the boards

I was started on on the boards, so I will respond on the boards.

This is absolute shit. All of it.