1) What is your opinion on the film?

2) Was Michael receiving any street income, even if it was laundered, by III? Drug money, plain ol' money laundering, anything?

If not, why was Michael still so high on the Commission if he was retired?

1) It's a good film, but it's not in the same league with the first two.

2) Michael probably wasn't directly getting any "street income" by that time because it would have been too dangerous to his "respectable" status. BUT: though Zasa was the head of the "olive oil business" and Michael had "sold the casinos," it's impossible to believe that he wasn't getting income from at least some sources that were white-collar illegal, or that he wasn't laundering some or most of his income. Why was he so hell-bent on getting International Immobiliare (apparently a European real estate conglomerate) if he wasn't intending to use it to launder money or for some other illegal or extra-legal purpose?

I infer from the Atlantic City scene that Michael was laundering the other Dons' money through his respectable fronts, which would account for his status in the Commission. "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in...." Yeah, sure, Michael: You were never out--you never wanted to be out.

That's what doesn't make sense to me. His whole "legitimacy" arc from I-II....

In II, getting involved in the casinos is supposed to be his route to legitimacy, right? But that involves him having to edge out or work in cooperation with other mobsters, so he'd be up in the shit with them, just not directing "dirty work" like drug money or murders.

III, he's at the head of the Commission or at least very near the top. To be there, and not have been whacked out already, he'd have to be making the other families money SOMEHOW.

Jackie, the key to Michael's "legitimacy" obsession is found in this bit of dialog from GF:
MICHAEL

I'm working for my father now, Kay. He's been sick -- very sick.

KAY

But you're not like him, Michael. I thought you weren't going to become a man like your

father. That's what you told me...

MICHAEL

My father's no different than any other powerful man --

(then, after Kay laughs)

-- Any man who's responsible for other people. Like a senator or a president.

KAY

You know how naive you sound?

MICHAEL

Why?

KAY

Senators and presidents don't have men killed...

MICHAEL

Oh -- who's being naïve, Kay?

To Michael, if senators and presidents can have people killed and can be considered legitimate, then he's no different when he has people killed. If gangsters can own or control casinos in Nevada, where gambling is legal, and can be considered legitimate, why can't he own casinos and be considered legitimate? If legitimate businessmen launder money, why can't he launder money and be considered legitimate? And, if wealthy crooks buy legitimacy from the Church by making massive contributions, why shouldn't he do the same?