This was something I had mulled over shortly after I viewed GF3, but I kept forgetting to start a topic about it. Now I've remembered, and I have some extra computer time, so here goes:

As GF3 begins, it's obvious that Michael still has ties to the crime world. He is trying (or so he claims) to legitimize it and/or divest himself of the more unsavory elements. But this is 20 years after GF2 ended. Considering the soul-searching and regret -- and even trauma -- encapsulated in that final image of Michael alone at the conclusion of GF2, I for one expected that he would have started his legalization endeavour much sooner, perhaps no more than a couple of years after Fredo's death: a project of atonement that he had to undertake to regain his humanity.

I can see some remnants of the underworld sticking to Michael, but I was soundly disappointed that he was in as deep as he was in GF3; I wanted him to be largely out. How did a haunted Michael even sustain the ambition to wheel and deal with Vatican bigwigs during GF3? To me, it negated the resonance of the conclusion of GF2 to see Michael doing business as usual.

I'm not saying that there should be no mafia and no crime in GF3. Goodness, this is The Godfather: it needs the tension, danger, conflicted interests, and personal repercussions that are the wages of organized crime. But where I think the focus should have been is on Michael's past coming back to haunt him: perhaps an angry Vincent Mancini (or another of Sonny's boys) resentful of the loss of his father's legacy; perhaps a blackmail threat; perhaps a threat to his children from a former disgruntled associate. I can see the tension arising from Michael, out of desperation, reluctantly seeking protection from the very forces he swore off, like a latter-day Bonasera, the trilogy coming full circle.

Michael being dragged "back in" to the underworld in GF3 rings false because he's never really out. Who is "forcing" him "back in" with such urgency that he seemingly has no choice in the matter? Where is the tension from conflicting loyalties? He goes willingly; whatever internal struggle there is supposed to be is not supported by the narrative; it's a façade of struggle. That's the problem, IMO: business as usual, as though GF2 were nothing more than a bad dream.

All of Michael's life after the Sollozzo/McCluskey murders was a conflict between his lust for power and control, and his obsession with being "legitimate." But, instead of simply putting the criminal life behind him and truly going legit, Michael constantly holds onto power and tries to rationalize his behavior by claiming that he's no different than any other pezzanovanti in politics, business, etc. Small wonder that, by GFIII, he's still misleading himself (and trying to mislead others) by claiming that he was "out" when in fact he was still in--by choice. Right at the beginning, Vincent tells him "Zasa knows you're keeping him from rising in the Commission" (and he wasn't talking about the Federal Trade Commission ). Any wonder that Vincent soon embroils him in his vendetta with Zasa? Then he presides over a Commission meeting in Atlantic City--and nearly gets shot to pieces. Surprised? He bribes a crooked Archbishop to get a Papal Knighthood and control of an international real estate cartel dominated by a big-time crook--and is betrayed. Shocked? And he goes to Sicily, conspires with his old friend and protector who's still a big power in the Mafia--and a top assassin guns for him, killing his daughter. Unlikely? Nope. Crime Doesn't Pay.

Turnbull, you make a very good point about something that's been puzzling me. In GF2, Michael wanted to legitimize; but at every step he rationalized and justified evil actions. He had lost sight of the difference between the criminal and the legal. Then in GF3, Michael is haunted by what he had become. He wants to redeem himself; but at every step he again rationalizes and justifies non-redemptive actions. Michael had lost sight of the difference between true atonement (taking responsibility for his actions) and the semblance of atonement (justifiying his actions).

I would think that the return of the rationalizing, justifying Michael in GF3 would have made a riveting character study. What puzzles me is why it failed on film. GF2 is a compelling, masterful movie: We watched mesmerized, with a mixture of dread and inevitability, the unfolding narrative of Michael slipping down the moral slope more and more. Why is GF3 not nearly as compelling (IMO, anyway)?

Is it the muddle of the Immobiliare plot? Is it the lower calibre of acting? Is there something different in the tone, that it's not haunting enough? I think it's all of that, but I think the main flaw is that it's missing the crucial nexus of the murder of Fredo.

Fredo's death was supposed to be the turning point of the trilogy: the life-shattering event that changed everything. Sure, we get a few flashbacks in GF3, but it should have had a much greater impact. It should have shaken Michael out of (most of) his rationalizing and his material ambition. We already saw Michael rationalize and manipulate through GF2. By the end of GF2, he was supposed to have gone as low as he could go. Michael started out as a person who had a lot of potential for good in him. You would think that an event as traumatic as the death of Fredo would have rekindled that within him, and that could have been a good starting point for GF3.

Cristina, I compressed your quote here because the above says it all for me. III contains most of the elements of greatness in the earlier films. But the plot falls apart soon after Vincent shoots the two intruders. It never answers some fundamental questions:

What is Immobiliare? Why does Michael need to dominate it in order to be legitimate, if he's already a Papal Knight and benefactor of Sicily? Why did Gilday doublecross Michael? Who is Lucchese? Why is he out to get Michael? Where did Altobello come from? Why is he out to get Michael? When and how did Michael resolve his conflict with Anthony?

An astute friend, after seeing III for the first time, observed that "there must be ten hours of plot and connective tissue on the cutting room floors."

CW, exactly, and as I have just posted in the threat about Did Michael Kill Mary (or something like that) this has all the elements of Greek tragedy. As early as GFII when she leaves Michael Kay tells him he is "blind." He does not accept this truth, and he continues to deny it until the last act of GFIII. By then of course (not without irony) he is literally going blind....in fact one could say that only after he went blind did he "see."

It's his way of life. It's like a drug addict who sees their world crumbling around them, yet still takes the drugs.

No Tom Hagen. According to Duvall, all they had to do was pay him half as much as Pacino and he would have been in.

Isn't Michael largely out by that time? He's sold the casinos. He didn't bribe an archbishop, he contributed vast sums to charity.