Didn't think it was a bad film at all and I wonder why it got bad reviews.

I've only seen it once though, it was a while ago. I'm revisiting the trilogy at the mo so perhaps will get a better perspective...

i really liked it.

I only saw it once or twice, but I did see it at the theater when it came out. I fucking loved it. My only complaint was the fact that Coppola's daughter was absolutely horrible.

And that hit in the skyscraper...when they handcuffed the doors shut and a helicopter rose up and busted caps in everyone's ass...that was one of the most awesome mob hits ever filmed.

This is a person who considers The Godfather her most favorite movie of all time. That being said, The Godfather parts 1 & 2 were masterpieces.

The Godfather Part III was not a bad movie, however, in comparing its standards with Parts 1 & 2, it was a disappointment. The acting was flawless from the WHOLE CAST in Parts 1 & 2...as far as Godfather III goes, it was a huge mistake for Coppolla to cast his daughter (to replace Wynona Ryder) in the role of Michael's daughter. She wasn't convincing at all and I remember the first time I saw it, I had a hard time trying to figure out if she (the character) was a minor or an adult. Though Pacino is always great, I felt he overdid it in some scenes. But that's not uncommon for him. Andy Garcia was great as the "mini me" of Sonny...he played it well. And Joe Mangtegna was pretty good too.

I agree with Stoned...that mob hit scene in the skyscraper was incredible. I also felt the hit on Zasa (Vincent, posing as an officer is on a horse and shoots the trapped Zasa on the street in broad daylight)...that was hot! The whole "first cousins in love" incest thing was a bit of a turn off.

Nonetheless, it was a good movie, although I watch it much less than the first two.

ABSOLUTE YAY

the movie is not a pitch perfect masterpiece like the original and part II, I know it; if the original is as good as, let's say Casablanca and part II as Citizen Kane, then III is as good as, well, any other very good movie out there that hasn't reached the status of masterpiece for a number of reasons...

reasons? well, Coppola at that time was (AND STILL IS!) tired, the 80s were ROUGH for him and I don't know if his son had already died then , the casting of Sophia Coppola was seen as pure nepotism, and while she gave a decent performance, we all know that Winona Ryder was born for that role (I know she wasn't available in 89-1990, but still...)

but that's it, other than that, the GIII was the perfect sequel for part II; some folks said that it was an unnecessary sequel since the character of Michael Corleone wasn't interesting enough to make a movie JUST about him, that the Godfather mythos is about Vito and Michael, not just about Michael, etc. : WHATEVER. We ALL wanted to know what happened to the sons of Michael, we all wanted to know what happened to Michael after the Golden Age of the Mafia (from the 20s to 1959), etc. I refuse to accept that Michael just killed Fredo and spent the rest of his life in front of that lake, thinking about why things got so wrong...BOLLOCKS! I wanted to see how and why Michael coped with the horrible (often necessary) things he did in part II and how he tried to make things legal and safe once and for all in part III, and that movie gave me just THAT; the scene when Michael confesses to that (soon-to-be Pope) bishop is a Top5 scene of the whole Godfather saga in my book...

oh, and Robert Duvall?, well he demanded a lot of cash $$$$ and the producers said, "lick our *sscracks"; sorry friend, you weren't as big as Al Pacino, you never were, face it I don't think part III needed Hagen anyway, I've read that if he had appeared, Coppola would have used another plot of "former friends/brothers turned into bitter enemies", meh, we all saw that plot in the Godfather II ; I think Tom Hamilton did a marvelous job as the new semi-legal/semi-corrupt family lawyer with his greasy hair and the extreme suntan, lol To me, Tom Hagen died of cancer (probably sad and jaded as well) sometime between 1959 and 1979 and then his son rised in the Vatican, period

so that's it, part III is not a 5 STARS masterpiece like part I and II, but it was a SOLID 4 STARS sequel; maybe not a great film, but surely a GREAT Godfather sequel

[Edited 12/7/12 5:55am]

missfee said:

The Godfather Part III was not a bad movie, however, in comparing its standards with Parts 1 & 2, it was a disappointment. The acting was flawless from the WHOLE CAST in Parts 1 & 2...as far as Godfather III goes, it was a huge mistake for Coppolla to cast his daughter (to replace Wynona Ryder) in the role of Michael's daughter. She wasn't convincing at all and I remember the first time I saw it, I had a hard time trying to figure out if she (the character) was a minor or an adult. Though Pacino is always great, I felt he overdid it in some scenes. But that's not uncommon for him. Andy Garcia was great as the "mini me" of Sonny...he played it well. And Joe Mangtegna was pretty good too.

Yeah, that's it, the acting! omg! every scene in parts I and II was marvelous in terms of acting! ANY scene of parts I and II is worthwhile for the acting alone! (and the dialogue, cinematography, music, etc)... but that acting...oh the acting!

I agree with Stoned...that mob hit scene in the skyscraper was incredible. I also felt the hit on Zasa (Vincent, posing as an officer is on a horse and shoots the trapped Zasa on the street in broad daylight)...that was hot! The whole "first cousins in love" incest thing was a bit of a turn off.

I actually liked that semi-incest plot, it showed that the love story between Mary and Vincent was DOOMED since the beginning, and it gave this tragic/sad aura to the film that worked very well; if the overall mood of part I was..."fear", and part II "hate", then for III it was "sadness";

and a romantic relantionship between semi-cousins (and I say semi because Vincent was a bastardo to begin with, lol) is not as offensive as love between carnal brothers lol

damn double post

[Edited 12/7/12 5:50am]

JoeTyler said:

missfee said:

The Godfather Part III was not a bad movie, however, in comparing its standards with Parts 1 & 2, it was a disappointment. The acting was flawless from the WHOLE CAST in Parts 1 & 2...as far as Godfather III goes, it was a huge mistake for Coppolla to cast his daughter (to replace Wynona Ryder) in the role of Michael's daughter. She wasn't convincing at all and I remember the first time I saw it, I had a hard time trying to figure out if she (the character) was a minor or an adult. Though Pacino is always great, I felt he overdid it in some scenes. But that's not uncommon for him. Andy Garcia was great as the "mini me" of Sonny...he played it well. And Joe Mangtegna was pretty good too.

Yeah, that's it, the acting! omg! every scene in parts I and II was marvelous in terms of acting! ANY scene of parts I and II is worthwhile for the acting alone! (and the dialogue, cinematography, music, etc)... but that acting...oh the acting!

I agree with Stoned...that mob hit scene in the skyscraper was incredible. I also felt the hit on Zasa (Vincent, posing as an officer is on a horse and shoots the trapped Zasa on the street in broad daylight)...that was hot! The whole "first cousins in love" incest thing was a bit of a turn off.

I actually liked that semi-incest plot, it showed that the love story between Mary and Vincent was DOOMED since the beginning, and it gave this tragic/sad aura to the film that worked very well; if the overall mood of part I was..."fear", and part II "hate", then for III it was "sadness";

and a romantic relantionship between semi-cousins (and I say semi because Vincent was a bastardo to begin with, lol) is not as offensive as love between carnal brothers lol

I mean yeah I get why the whole "semi-incest" thing was included in the storyline because there needed to be some sort of dramatic climax near the end of the film to wrap the whole Corleone saga storyline up. However, I think if they would have had Michael's son pitted against Vincent's character as a rivalry to claim the Corleone throne...oh that plot would had been a force to be reckoned with.

missfee said:

JoeTyler said:

I mean yeah I get why the whole "semi-incest" thing was included in the storyline because there needed to be some sort of dramatic climax near the end of the film to wrap the whole Corleone saga storyline up. However, I think if they would have had Michael's son pitted against Vincent's character as a rivalry to claim the Corleone throne...oh that plot would had been a force to be reckoned with.

hmmm... ... well, the thing I like the most about III is that "the past is always there to haunt you", I mean, part III is, overall, a laid-back, serene film (despite a couple of shootout scenes), almost a healing process for the characters that made it alive after part II...watching part III for the first time there was a moment when I truly thought that Michael was gonna make it: go legal, return with Kay and watch his sons married and doing the things they truly wanted to...with Vincent representing a modern, less barbaric version of the Mafia (aka, modern contraband)

and then the film was turned into a mega-tragedy near the very end.

That's how I see part III, it's not a bitter film about deadly rivalries like part II: it's a tragedy, because for some people there IS no redemption, they just have to deal with what they have sown...the irony is that Michael always thought that his punishment would be a shot to the brains or something, but turned out that it was something A LOT worse

that's why I see III as the perfect sequel to part II and I'm still surprised/puzzled that so many critics actually said that it was not only a disappointing sequel but overall a weak film

JoeTyler said:

missfee said:

I mean yeah I get why the whole "semi-incest" thing was included in the storyline because there needed to be some sort of dramatic climax near the end of the film to wrap the whole Corleone saga storyline up. However, I think if they would have had Michael's son pitted against Vincent's character as a rivalry to claim the Corleone throne...oh that plot would had been a force to be reckoned with.

hmmm... ... well, the thing I like the most about III is that "the past is always there to haunt you", I mean, part III is, overall, a laid-back, serene film (despite a couple of shootout scenes), almost a healing process for the characters that made it alive after part II...watching part III for the first time there was a moment when I truly thought that Michael was gonna make it: go legal, return with Kay and watch his sons married and doing the things they truly wanted to...with Vincent representing a modern, less barbaric version of the Mafia (aka, modern contraband)

and then the film was turned into a mega-tragedy near the very end.

That's how I see part III, it's not a bitter film about deadly rivalries like part II: it's a tragedy, because for some people there IS no redemption, they just have to deal with what they have sown...the irony is that Michael always thought that his punishment would be a shot to the brains or something, but turned out that it was something A LOT worse

that's why I see III as the perfect sequel to part II and I'm still surprised/puzzled that so many critics actually said that it was not only a disappointing sequel but overall a weak film

True. I get what you are saying. I think, from the critics standpoint, they probably were expecting to see a film that ended with the Corleone dynasty going on and on and on instead of it just flat out ending. In a way, I'm glad it ended there because multiple sequels would had made the quality of the franchise decrease. (Kind of like the Rocky films...that franchise should have ended after IV )

What you said is very true, the storyline was very much a healing process for the characters to come full circle. Still, deep down, I feel like there was a disconnect somewhere between this movie and the first two. I can't put my finger on it, but I just feel a disconnect. That is why I feel this installment is the weaker of the two. Maybe because by the end of II, Michael was this hard, ruthless, emotionless mafia don where as all of sudden in III, he's older, emotional and sort of sensitive...almost as if he had never been ruthless at all. I guess I just feel like in III, you didn't really see the bulk of the qualities of Michael Corleone that made him stand out in Parts I & II...in III he was a whole different person....but I guess for how the storyline was being presented, it couldn't had made sense unless Michael had changed (for the better and wiser) ridding all of his evil qualities.

missfee said:

JoeTyler said:

hmmm... ... well, the thing I like the most about III is that "the past is always there to haunt you", I mean, part III is, overall, a laid-back, serene film (despite a couple of shootout scenes), almost a healing process for the characters that made it alive after part II...watching part III for the first time there was a moment when I truly thought that Michael was gonna make it: go legal, return with Kay and watch his sons married and doing the things they truly wanted to...with Vincent representing a modern, less barbaric version of the Mafia (aka, modern contraband)

and then the film was turned into a mega-tragedy near the very end.

That's how I see part III, it's not a bitter film about deadly rivalries like part II: it's a tragedy, because for some people there IS no redemption, they just have to deal with what they have sown...the irony is that Michael always thought that his punishment would be a shot to the brains or something, but turned out that it was something A LOT worse

that's why I see III as the perfect sequel to part II and I'm still surprised/puzzled that so many critics actually said that it was not only a disappointing sequel but overall a weak film

True. I get what you are saying. I think, from the critics standpoint, they probably were expecting to see a film that ended with the Corleone dynasty going on and on and on instead of it just flat out ending. In a way, I'm glad it ended there because multiple sequels would had made the quality of the franchise decrease. (Kind of like the Rocky films...that franchise should have ended after IV )

What you said is very true, the storyline was very much a healing process for the characters to come full circle. Still, deep down, I feel like there was a disconnect somewhere between this movie and the first two. I can't put my finger on it, but I just feel a disconnect. That is why I feel this installment is the weaker of the two. Maybe because by the end of II, Michael was this hard, ruthless, emotionless mafia don where as all of sudden in III, he's older, emotional and sort of sensitive...almost as if he had never been ruthless at all. I guess I just feel like in III, you didn't really see the bulk of the qualities of Michael Corleone that made him stand out in Parts I & II...in III he was a whole different person....but I guess for how the storyline was being presented, it couldn't had made sense unless Michael had changed (for the better and wiser) ridding all of his evil qualities.

yeah, I was also surprised when I saw this older/kinder Michael, I guess he got soft after the murder of Fredo, I mean, he hit rock-bottom in terms of ruthlessness there; after that his only option was to change for the better.

Like his father Vito, he was a lot harder when he was younger and HAD to kill in order to make his family (the Corleones) survive and endure...in fact, Vito was a bit of a "gentler, older, former ruthless mega-Don") in the original Godfather, he only got his edge back after the murder of Sonny, he also saw that Michael was smart AND ruthless and use it for good= I'm sure Vito would have approved the mass murder of all those rival Dons near the end of the original film, but probably he would have spared Carlo, but who knows? maybe not, lol

perhaps that's another theme of part III: a Don HAS to be hard and ruthless, otherwise he is doomed to fail and/or watch his family die...the evil Michael of part II would have eliminated those wannabe-gangsters of the Vatican faster than a rabbit gets f*cked

Never say

JoeTyler said:

missfee said:

True. I get what you are saying. I think, from the critics standpoint, they probably were expecting to see a film that ended with the Corleone dynasty going on and on and on instead of it just flat out ending. In a way, I'm glad it ended there because multiple sequels would had made the quality of the franchise decrease. (Kind of like the Rocky films...that franchise should have ended after IV )

What you said is very true, the storyline was very much a healing process for the characters to come full circle. Still, deep down, I feel like there was a disconnect somewhere between this movie and the first two. I can't put my finger on it, but I just feel a disconnect. That is why I feel this installment is the weaker of the two. Maybe because by the end of II, Michael was this hard, ruthless, emotionless mafia don where as all of sudden in III, he's older, emotional and sort of sensitive...almost as if he had never been ruthless at all. I guess I just feel like in III, you didn't really see the bulk of the qualities of Michael Corleone that made him stand out in Parts I & II...in III he was a whole different person....but I guess for how the storyline was being presented, it couldn't had made sense unless Michael had changed (for the better and wiser) ridding all of his evil qualities.

yeah, I was also surprised when I saw this older/kinder Michael, I guess he got soft after the murder of Fredo, I mean, he hit rock-bottom in terms of ruthlessness there; after that his only option was to change for the better.

Like his father Vito, he was a lot harder when he was younger and HAD to kill in order to make his family (the Corleones) survive and endure...in fact, Vito was a bit of a "gentler, older, former ruthless mega-Don") in the original Godfather, he only got his edge back after the murder of Sonny, he also saw that Michael was smart AND ruthless and use it for good= I'm sure Vito would have approved the mass murder of all those rival Dons near the end of the original film, but probably he would have spared Carlo, but who knows? maybe not, lol

perhaps that's another theme of part III: a Don HAS to be hard and ruthless, otherwise he is doomed to fail and/or watch his family die...the evil Michael of part II would have eliminated those wannabe-gangsters of the Vatican faster than a rabbit gets f*cked

The thing with older Vito was that even though he was older, wiser and tried to put his ruthlessness behind him....there was STILL an element in him that was ruthless...you could tell that in younger days when he was making his bones that he was in fact a ruthless gangster turned powerful Mafia don. This is what's missing from Michael's character in III, the fact that they eliminated all traces of his ruthlessness is most likely the disconnect element I feel between this film and the first two.

I also believe that compared to both Vito and Vincent, Michael was far more colder and ruthless that them...and I'll tell you why. The younger Vito, killed men directly as well as order hits...same with Vincent. However with Michael, he was, IMO, all the more powerful, because he was more of a mastermind. You only actually saw him kill two people (together in one hit)...Sollozzo and Capt. McClunskey. The rest of the hits were ordered by Michael. Even though Vito was a great businessman and Don, Michael, by far was very much a chess player which made him brillant in his strategies. For this reason alone is why I consider both Parts I & II masterpiece films. Pacino literally EARNED his Oscar way back then, although the Academy didn't give it to him until 1992 for "Scent of a Woman".

Also, did you notice that in III, it's the first time you hear Michael curse? I know it's a weird observation but in parts I & II, it's like he had the words to express how he felt in a calm like manner which made cursing unnecessary, yet in III when he's this older and wiser man trying to reconcile his guilt, he's more unsettled.

[Edited 12/7/12 7:35am]

missfee said:

JoeTyler said:

yeah, I was also surprised when I saw this older/kinder Michael, I guess he got soft after the murder of Fredo, I mean, he hit rock-bottom in terms of ruthlessness there; after that his only option was to change for the better.

Like his father Vito, he was a lot harder when he was younger and HAD to kill in order to make his family (the Corleones) survive and endure...in fact, Vito was a bit of a "gentler, older, former ruthless mega-Don") in the original Godfather, he only got his edge back after the murder of Sonny, he also saw that Michael was smart AND ruthless and use it for good= I'm sure Vito would have approved the mass murder of all those rival Dons near the end of the original film, but probably he would have spared Carlo, but who knows? maybe not, lol

perhaps that's another theme of part III: a Don HAS to be hard and ruthless, otherwise he is doomed to fail and/or watch his family die...the evil Michael of part II would have eliminated those wannabe-gangsters of the Vatican faster than a rabbit gets f*cked

The thing with older Vito was that even though he was older, wiser and tried to put his ruthlessness behind him....there was STILL an element in him that was ruthless...you could tell that in younger days when he was making his bones that he was in fact a ruthless gangster turned powerful Mafia don. This is what's missing from Michael's character in III, the fact that they eliminated all traces of his ruthlessness is most likely the disconnect element I feel between this film and the first two.

I also believe that compared to both Vito and Vincent, Michael was far more colder and ruthless that them...and I'll tell you why. The younger Vito, killed men directly as well as order hits...same with Vincent. However with Michael, he was, IMO, all the more powerful, because he was more of a mastermind. You only actually saw him kill two people (together in one hit)...Sollozzo and Capt. McClunskey. The rest of the hits were ordered by Michael. Even though Vito was a great businessman and Don, Michael, by far was very much a chess player which made him brillant in his strategies. For this reason alone is why I consider both Parts I & II masterpiece films. Pacino literally EARNED his Oscar way back then, although the Academy didn't give it to him until 1992 for "Scent of a Woman".

Also, did you notice that in III, it's the first time you hear Michael curse? I know it's a weird observation but in parts I & II, it's like he had the words to express how he felt in a calm like manner which made cursing unnecessary, yet in III when he's this older and wiser man trying to reconcile his guilt, he's more unsettled.

Yeah that whole "I need more lawyers, not hitmen" thing of part III was a bit cheesy and forced. Michael sure got stupid if he thought he could leave his Mafia days behind just pretending to "go legal"; he had this legacy of crime and dangerous connections behind him and he refused to see the truth (that he was still in danger, as always) perhaps he was extremely tired, jaded and a bit crazy due to the guilt of Fredo's murder. If not for Vincent (and Connie! of all people), Michael would have died QUICKLY

I actuallt think that Michael got those "chess abilities" back during his travel to Sicily to deal with the Vatican gangsters but it arrived too little too late; in fact, BOTH Michael and Mary were supposed to die with that same shot, remember? But fate (God?) had something different for him...

And talking about Connie, it's funny and a bit disturbing how she acts like kind of a "surrogate perfect wife" for Michael in part III: I mean, they LIVE together, she supports him and allegedly has forgiven him for anything he did in the past (I don't buy that she thinks that Fredo died by drowning, it's just, I believe, that she fabricated this lie in her head so she could forgive Michael) AND she orders some hits here and there. Hey, that's how a perfect Mafia wife works in my book. I even see some kind of platonic (non carnal) relationship between Michael and Connie in part III, which is kind of erotic/cute for all the wrong reasons or perhaps I'm just a perv

JoeTyler said:

missfee said:

The thing with older Vito was that even though he was older, wiser and tried to put his ruthlessness behind him....there was STILL an element in him that was ruthless...you could tell that in younger days when he was making his bones that he was in fact a ruthless gangster turned powerful Mafia don. This is what's missing from Michael's character in III, the fact that they eliminated all traces of his ruthlessness is most likely the disconnect element I feel between this film and the first two.

I also believe that compared to both Vito and Vincent, Michael was far more colder and ruthless that them...and I'll tell you why. The younger Vito, killed men directly as well as order hits...same with Vincent. However with Michael, he was, IMO, all the more powerful, because he was more of a mastermind. You only actually saw him kill two people (together in one hit)...Sollozzo and Capt. McClunskey. The rest of the hits were ordered by Michael. Even though Vito was a great businessman and Don, Michael, by far was very much a chess player which made him brillant in his strategies. For this reason alone is why I consider both Parts I & II masterpiece films. Pacino literally EARNED his Oscar way back then, although the Academy didn't give it to him until 1992 for "Scent of a Woman".

Also, did you notice that in III, it's the first time you hear Michael curse? I know it's a weird observation but in parts I & II, it's like he had the words to express how he felt in a calm like manner which made cursing unnecessary, yet in III when he's this older and wiser man trying to reconcile his guilt, he's more unsettled.

Yeah that whole "I need more lawyers, not hitmen" thing of part III was a bit cheesy and forced. Michael sure got stupid if he thought he could leave his Mafia days behind just pretending to "go legal"; he had this legacy of crime and dangerous connections behind him and he refused to see the truth (that he was still in danger, as always) perhaps he was extremely tired, jaded and a bit crazy due to the guilt of Fredo's murder. If not for Vincent (and Connie! of all people), Michael would have died QUICKLY

I actuallt think that Michael got those "chess abilities" back during his travel to Sicily to deal with the Vatican gangsters but it arrived too little too late; in fact, BOTH Michael and Mary were supposed to die with that same shot, remember? But fate (God?) had something different for him...

And talking about Connie, it's funny and a bit disturbing how she acts like kind of a "surrogate perfect wife" for Michael in part III: I mean, they LIVE together, she supports him and allegedly has forgiven him for anything he did in the past (I don't buy that she thinks that Fredo died by drowning, it's just, I believe, that she fabricated this lie in her head so she could forgive Michael) AND she orders some hits here and there. Hey, that's how a perfect Mafia wife works in my book. I even see some kind of platonic (non carnal) relationship between Michael and Connie in part III, which is kind of erotic/cute for all the wrong reasons or perhaps I'm just a perv

Yeah and to be honest, I still to this day do not agree with Michael putting the hit on Fredo. Sure he was dumb, undependable, silly and naive, but all Fredo needed was a good beating to put him in the hospital. I do understand though that Fredo was extremely bad for business...he couldn't be trusted, so I understand why Michael did what he did, but it was still his own blood. Put him in a wheelchair, or lock him up in an insane asylum, but not in the grave.

Connie. I think that was the most laughable part of III. In Part II, Connie literally hated Michael's guts. Literally. Sure, she somewhat came around near the end (to plead Fredo's case when Mike was giving him the silent treatment) but in III, she's sitting up there telling Vincent "DO IT, DO IT!!!" like this was the job she's been waiting to do all this time! You had to think to yourself, where was this righteous attitude at when Carlo was beating your behind in Part I? As far as her acting as a surrogate wife to Michael...hmm I don't know. I guess I don't want to even go there, there was enough incest in that storyline for me to take. Since Michael was on the softer side in III, he kind of let it slide on by that Connie was involved with his "business affairs". That would have NEVER happened in his younger days. Could you imagine Kay giving Michael advice for who should be offed? Michael would had given her the side eye, possibly followed by a backhanded slap. Besides, he loved Appolonia more anyway.

missfee said:

JoeTyler said:

Yeah that whole "I need more lawyers, not hitmen" thing of part III was a bit cheesy and forced. Michael sure got stupid if he thought he could leave his Mafia days behind just pretending to "go legal"; he had this legacy of crime and dangerous connections behind him and he refused to see the truth (that he was still in danger, as always) perhaps he was extremely tired, jaded and a bit crazy due to the guilt of Fredo's murder. If not for Vincent (and Connie! of all people), Michael would have died QUICKLY

I actuallt think that Michael got those "chess abilities" back during his travel to Sicily to deal with the Vatican gangsters but it arrived too little too late; in fact, BOTH Michael and Mary were supposed to die with that same shot, remember? But fate (God?) had something different for him...

And talking about Connie, it's funny and a bit disturbing how she acts like kind of a "surrogate perfect wife" for Michael in part III: I mean, they LIVE together, she supports him and allegedly has forgiven him for anything he did in the past (I don't buy that she thinks that Fredo died by drowning, it's just, I believe, that she fabricated this lie in her head so she could forgive Michael) AND she orders some hits here and there. Hey, that's how a perfect Mafia wife works in my book. I even see some kind of platonic (non carnal) relationship between Michael and Connie in part III, which is kind of erotic/cute for all the wrong reasons or perhaps I'm just a perv

Yeah and to be honest, I still to this day do not agree with Michael putting the hit on Fredo. Sure he was dumb, undependable, silly and naive, but all Fredo needed was a good beating to put him in the hospital. I do understand though that Fredo was extremely bad for business...he couldn't be trusted, so I understand why Michael did what he did, but it was still his own blood. Put him in a wheelchair, or lock him up in an insane asylum, but not in the grave.

Connie. I think that was the most laughable part of III. In Part II, Connie literally hated Michael's guts. Literally. Sure, she somewhat came around near the end (to plead Fredo's case when Mike was giving him the silent treatment) but in III, she's sitting up there telling Vincent "DO IT, DO IT!!!" like this was the job she's been waiting to do all this time! You had to think to yourself, where was this righteous attitude at when Carlo was beating your behind in Part I? As far as her acting as a surrogate wife to Michael...hmm I don't know. I guess I don't want to even go there, there was enough incest in that storyline for me to take. Since Michael was on the softer side in III, he kind of let it slide on by that Connie was involved with his "business affairs". That would have NEVER happened in his younger days. Could you imagine Kay giving Michael advice for who should be offed? Michael would had given her the side eye, possibly followed by a backhanded slap. Besides, he loved Appolonia more anyway.

in fact, one my fav scenes of part III is when Zasa has already been sent to the morgue and Michael YELLS "ok...BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANTEEEED!!!!!!" and then he looks at Connie with that "yo think yo gangsta bitch???" attitude

and yeah, Michael started his longlife downhill after Apollonia's death

and I actually find hilarious () the thought of Michael putting Fredo in a wheelchair and saying "you know it was for the best" COOOOOOOOLD!

JoeTyler said:

missfee said:

Yeah and to be honest, I still to this day do not agree with Michael putting the hit on Fredo. Sure he was dumb, undependable, silly and naive, but all Fredo needed was a good beating to put him in the hospital. I do understand though that Fredo was extremely bad for business...he couldn't be trusted, so I understand why Michael did what he did, but it was still his own blood. Put him in a wheelchair, or lock him up in an insane asylum, but not in the grave.

Connie. I think that was the most laughable part of III. In Part II, Connie literally hated Michael's guts. Literally. Sure, she somewhat came around near the end (to plead Fredo's case when Mike was giving him the silent treatment) but in III, she's sitting up there telling Vincent "DO IT, DO IT!!!" like this was the job she's been waiting to do all this time! You had to think to yourself, where was this righteous attitude at when Carlo was beating your behind in Part I? As far as her acting as a surrogate wife to Michael...hmm I don't know. I guess I don't want to even go there, there was enough incest in that storyline for me to take. Since Michael was on the softer side in III, he kind of let it slide on by that Connie was involved with his "business affairs". That would have NEVER happened in his younger days. Could you imagine Kay giving Michael advice for who should be offed? Michael would had given her the side eye, possibly followed by a backhanded slap. Besides, he loved Appolonia more anyway.

in fact, one my fav scenes of part III is when Zasa has already been sent to the morgue and Michael YELLS "ok...BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANTEEEED!!!!!!" and then he looks at Connie with that "yo think yo gangsta bitch???" attitude

and yeah, Michael started his longlife downhill after Apollonia's death

and I actually find hilarious () the thought of Michael putting Fredo in a wheelchair and saying "you know it was for the best" COOOOOOOOLD!

Good movie.

Not a great one.

Had Robert Duvall and Winona Ryder actually been in the cast, it would have had a shot at greatness, but it ALSO suffered from I and II being immortal.

Love it......

Not that great of a movie. Once u see 1-2 which are both equally amazing. 3 is just chump change.

The 2 thing's that peoeple seem to constantly dislike about the film...

A. Sophia of course not the greatest acting ever... but not the worst.

B. The Godfather 1 & 2 where based of Puzos novels.. and this was a new thing written by Coppola & Puzo.

Plus it is a downer...

Michael dies alone & from what i can tell. He was ready to just fall over and die... which he literaly does

But i kind of liked that!. ike another classic Pacino character Tony Montana, Michael had done some very bad thing's in his lifetime and had fucked up a lot of family relationships. Him dying in the way he did made a lot of sense to me.