How did the other warring families know where Micheal was when he was hiding in Italy? Did one of the Corleone family rat him out? Who? Freddy was in Vegas? Did he let it slip?
Him out? The body guard is not going to kill him for nothing?
Was it the old Don that killed Vito's brother and mother?
Yeah, I'm not sure how they found out that Michael fled to Sicily. I don't know if it was ever revealed in the movie. Maybe in the book, but I don't know.
The young mafiaso in Palermo were out to kill Don Tomissino (his protector) and she happened to be in the car. They were not even after Michael.
In the movie Micheal is taking the Car by himself. He even tells the guy who plants the bomb Apalonia is going in another car. When they chat when he is leaving after he learns of Sonny death.
In the movie they make it obvious that the bodyguard, who wanted
to go to America, ratted him out and planted the bomb (and in the uncut version you see that he then went to America and had a store there...and Michael ultimately found him and blew him and his car up).
"You're safe up in the mountains in a special farmhouse that I own.
The Palermo people have made their peace with me now that you are supposed to be dead,
so it was you they were after all the time. They wanted to kill you while making people think
it was me they were after. That's something you should know".
Those Palermo guys were good ... I was even fooled as reader.
Tom, can you get me out of this? For old time's sake?
Him out? The body guard is not going to kill him for nothing?
Was it the old Don that killed Vito's brother and mother?
Yeah, I'm not sure how they found out that Michael fled to Sicily. I don't know if it was ever revealed in the movie. Maybe in the book, but I don't know.
It was probably a common practice back then. Commit a high profile crime and run back to the old country to lay low. If Barzini was involved (according to the link above). He knew where to look - just a matter of time before Michael was found by another family who might have been looking for him. IIRC, Michael went to Sicily to hide from the law - not the other families. Maybe a threat from one of them never dawned on him or his protectors?
more like asking an opinion. I have never watched The Godfather 3. I've always heard that the acting was bad, and that the storyline isn't good. My question is, is it worth watching?
Fabrizzo was in love with Appolonia and was mad that Micheal stole her away. How would he know the Barzini family? He doesn't seem the brightest guy in the world.
more like asking an opinion. I have never watched The Godfather 3. I've always heard that the acting was bad, and that the storyline isn't good. My question is, is it worth watching?
They should have left well enough alone ... IMO. 3 is a bad movie. Save your money ... and time.
more like asking an opinion. I have never watched The Godfather 3. I've always heard that the acting was bad, and that the storyline isn't good. My question is, is it worth watching?
I mean I guess. The movie sucked, the plot sucked, the whole Michael's daughter falling in love with Sonny's son was garbage. The only good part was the end. Having said that, it's still the third part of one of the best, if not the best, movie saga in history. Just hold your nose and watch it.
more like asking an opinion. I have never watched The Godfather 3. I've always heard that the acting was bad, and that the storyline isn't good. My question is, is it worth watching?
Personally, I've long felt that G3 got a bad rap. The nepotism and Sofia Coppola's subpar performance aside, I never thought it was a bad movie - but lots of people can't see past those first two points.
I vote that you should watch it. There are worse things in life than sitting through a bad movie. And provided that you think it's bad you can at least say you suffered along with the rest of us.
more like asking an opinion. I have never watched The Godfather 3. I've always heard that the acting was bad, and that the storyline isn't good. My question is, is it worth watching?
Did Barzini order the hit (car bomb) on Michael before or after peace was made between Tataglia and the Don?
I think probably before.
Agree because at the peace meeting Vito says if anything were to happen to Micheal he would take it very personal and take revenge.
In the Funeral scene you can see Micheal staring at Barzini and knowing he is going to kill him for revenge(Business/Personal) for all the things he was behind. Its a great scene because Pacino uses his eyes instead of dialogue and you know He will have his revenge on the Dons (all of them shaking Barzini's Hand like he won a great battle with Vito dead, in front of the Youngest son and family.) and his wrath will not be contained.(I will wait till after the Christening) Barzini underestimates Micheal and pays for it.
A picture of the Eyes of a soul less man. Nothing left of what he was
If Pacino didn't get at least an Oscar nomination for that role he should have .... I can't remember any performance in any movie where a character (lead or otherwise) was ice cold and the actor pulled it off like he did. He was scary to witness in some of his scenes and I am not talking about the murder of the Police Capt. and Salazzo. I am talking about those scenes where he is speaking very quietly with that intense stare (Questioning Carlo, Kay at the door, etc ...).
If Pacino didn't get at least an Oscar nomination for that role he should have .... I can't remember any performance in any movie where a character (lead or otherwise) was ice cold and the actor pulled it off like he did. He was scary to witness in some of his scenes and I am not talking about the murder of the Police Capt. and Salazzo. I am talking about those scenes where he is speaking very quietly with that intense stare (Questioning Carlo, Kay at the door, etc ...).
Agree the movie is almost Shakespearean the way Micheal is taken down a dark path and transformed completely different from who he was in the beginning of the movie (that's my family Kay. Not me). His life/soul forfeited because his loyalty to his family(who he ends up tearing apart over time).
It's so sad when Vito tells him this is not what he wanted for him. But on deaf ears as Micheal has none of his fathers compassion in him.
by the Christening scene he is a ruthless man who will do what it takes Lie, Steal, and Kill(even a family member) for business. Kay tries to find the Micheal she loved and he closes her out. Only a tough Boss now.
IIRC, Michael's bodyguards, including the one who betrays him,
are present when Michael reveals his identity to Appolonia's father and tells him he could make a lot of money by turning him in, but his daughter would lose a father instead of gaining a husband. So Michael's blown his own cover.
In the book, the treacherous bodyguard winds up in Buffalo, and is working behind the counter in a pizzeria when Michael's assassin finds him and dispatches him.
RE: IIRC, Michael's bodyguards, including the one who betrays him,
are present when Michael reveals his identity to Appolonia's father and tells him he could make a lot of money by turning him in, but his daughter would lose a father instead of gaining a husband. So Michael's blown his own cover.
In the book, the treacherous bodyguard winds up in Buffalo, and is working behind the counter in a pizzeria when Michael's assassin finds him and dispatches him.
A deleted scene from the movie. Micheal finds and shoots Fabrizzio with a shot gun.
I respected Coppola more for even trying Godfather III than any other film.
I am reading into it but over the years here is where I came out
he did not succeed in his attempt to mix King Lear like motifs and his own earlier classics.
And he was widely criticized for putting his non actor daughter in a major role
Ok...so remember that Michaels major concerns in the movie and his only source of joy after tons of regrets was his children
Now remember that Cavelleria Rusticana ( a favorite opera) is about the tragedy that befalls loved ones when one person is trapped in the cycle of revenge. It serves as the backdrop of the trilogies finale
Now remember that the backstory is also about the actual real Vatican Bank scandals.
Lastly, despite many flaws the film really never got its due because the director chose his daughter. who also dies suddenly. and Michael sees her death at 22. and screams and screams in helplessness.
One year before filming started Coppola was on shore at his house in Annapolis and saw his 22 year old sons head cut off in a motorboat accident.
Now does it tie together a bit differently?
A miss...but its a great artists miss...not a hacks miss.
sense of betrayal that Michael develops for authority and the government. After fighting valiantly in WWII, distinguishing himself, and coming out alive, he sees the hypocrisy and corruption firsthand inherent in the government and police. It almost led to his father's death and manifested itself in the frantic scene with Enzo the baker in the hospital - and subsequent broken jaw from the police captain.
In that moment, he goes from war hero son with a great love of life and Kay to a cold-hearted, calculating and ruthless gangster willing to manipulate relationships, people and situations to achieve not only revenge - but in some sense a moral high-ground that let authority know it would not go unnoticed or unchecked.
It's something I wish P1 would have explored just a bit more with Michael. Did he always have his father's sense of fate in his heart? Or was it a conscious decision to "turn?"
2 with twin stories is also great but really is about Micheals descend to darkness and Vito's rise to power. Vito's sons all have parts of him but none have what made him special all of his qualities . Sonny his temper drive to succeed, Fredo his compassion and feelings,Micheal his cunning and ruthless nature and ability to strategize.
Vito preaches family and Micheal preaches business it's all just business.
In the third one Micheal wants redemption he doesn't want to be evil anymore but the Catholic Church fails him in the end too. Stealing from him and not being able to heal his soul. So he punishes them as his enemies get no compassion. No compromises in his world.
Micheal is a tragic character that will never find peace even dies alone. Three shows us that what Vito built and Micheal achieved Trying to go legitimate,will all be destroyed now by Sonny's Basterd and Connie's hate.
Vito's dream all destroyed along with the family.
You have to wonder if Apollonia doesn't die and Micheal feels redemption does he become more like Vito instead of a soulless machine that is only interested in business.
I heard there's a version that came out a year or so ago that does the best job of portraying 1-3 in the exact chronological order of events and also throwing in never before seen scenes.
It's about 8 hours long I think. There has been some version called the Saga for quite some time, but this is a newer/better version of that.
I haven't seen the trilogy in a long time and could use a rewatch. This could be a more enjoyable way to watch -- start with Deniro in G2, then start of G1, then to Lake Tahoe in G2, then G3.
Part of why I prefer G1 slightly over G2 is because it is one story and not two and flows better. But certainly G2 has awesome elements in it, and the saga probably depicts them better.
Let's be honest - for which franchise did the 3rd act of a trilogy
deliver a satisfying ending? It's a really hard thing to pull off.
Return of the Jedi? Matrix Revolutions? The Alien franchise? All ended up with weak 3rd acts, after good to great starts.
Return of the King was a worthy effort for the LOTR Trilogy, despite some aggravating departures from the themes of the books.
I'm in the camp that thinks GF 3 was sub-par, not awful. To me there is a little parallel to American History X in the story - Michael realized as he got older that his ruthless commitment to the old school Sicilian vengeance cycle had cost him his family, which in the end was what he always wanted to protect. But he couldn't save his family from the tragic ending, and realizes in the end it's his fault
sense of betrayal that Michael develops for authority and the government. After fighting valiantly in WWII, distinguishing himself, and coming out alive, he sees the hypocrisy and corruption firsthand inherent in the government and police. It almost led to his father's death and manifested itself in the frantic scene with Enzo the baker in the hospital - and subsequent broken jaw from the police captain.
In that moment, he goes from war hero son with a great love of life and Kay to a cold-hearted, calculating and ruthless gangster willing to manipulate relationships, people and situations to achieve not only revenge - but in some sense a moral high-ground that let authority know it would not go unnoticed or unchecked.
It's something I wish P1 would have explored just a bit more with Michael. Did he always have his father's sense of fate in his heart? Or was it a conscious decision to "turn?"
Everybody in the 'Family" knew Michael was the heir apparent even before Michael himself knew. Not sonny, not fredo, Michael was the one all along. Read the book the first 120 pages are amazing and answers your question I think. The movie as great as it is will never be an all time great movie in my opinion because it still doesn't do the book justice at all. Puzzo was a great artist, Coppolla was a jag in comparison.
RE: Let's be honest - for which franchise did the 3rd act of a trilogy
deliver a satisfying ending? It's a really hard thing to pull off.
Return of the Jedi? Matrix Revolutions? The Alien franchise? All ended up with weak 3rd acts, after good to great starts.
Return of the King was a worthy effort for the LOTR Trilogy, despite some aggravating departures from the themes of the books.
I'm in the camp that thinks GF 3 was sub-par, not awful. To me there is a little parallel to American History X in the story - Michael realized as he got older that his ruthless commitment to the old school Sicilian vengeance cycle had cost him his family, which in the end was what he always wanted to protect. But he couldn't save his family from the tragic ending, and realizes in the end it's his fault
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a universally loved one.
Return of the Jedi, but some think it's the weakest of the three.
The good, the bad, and the ugly. Not a traditionally trilogy.
For the most point I agree with you, but let's throw in The Last Crusade.
The movie as great as it is will never be an all time great movie in my opinion because it still doesn't do the book justice at all. Puzzo was a great artist, Coppolla was a jag in comparison.
Funny, that book-to-movie transition is often cited as an example of a mediocre book that was elevated when it was made into a movie. The book is certainly not great literature. It's a great page-turner, a really fun read, with memorable characters and situations. But it in no way is in the conversation for greatest book ever written, where the movie and the sequel are both in the conversation for greatest movie ever made.
If you look into the history of that film, you can also easily see it being a minor footnote to history. Especially if it had been, say, Ernest Borgnine as Vito and Ryan O'Neal or Robert Redford as Michael.
The first movie is one of the finest ever made. The plot is Shakespearean. The direction is very well done for the time.
The Acting was some of the best performances ever on film.
The second movie had a bigger budget so we got to travel and have more social commentary and Origin and look into the future.
The Third film is a Money grab but it does show you there is no salvation left on this earth for a man that lets revenge run his life.
I heard there's a version that came out a year or so ago that does the best job of portraying 1-3 in the exact chronological order of events and also throwing in never before seen scenes.
It's about 8 hours long I think. There has been some version called the Saga for quite some time, but this is a newer/better version of that.
I haven't seen the trilogy in a long time and could use a rewatch. This could be a more enjoyable way to watch -- start with Deniro in G2, then start of G1, then to Lake Tahoe in G2, then G3.
Part of why I prefer G1 slightly over G2 is because it is one story and not two and flows better. But certainly G2 has awesome elements in it, and the saga probably depicts them better.
I've got a recording of the Godfather Saga on my DVR (HBO had it on about a year and a half ago. It's great, and a lot of what you said is true, but it doesn't include GF3.
Was it the old Don that killed Vito's brother and mother?
Was it the old Don that killed Vito's brother and mother?
Yeah, I'm not sure how they found out that Michael fled to Sicily. I don't know if it was ever revealed in the movie. Maybe in the book, but I don't know.
In the movie Micheal is taking the Car by himself. He even tells the guy who plants the bomb Apalonia is going in another car. When they chat when he is leaving after he learns of Sonny death.
Link - ( New Window )
"You're safe up in the mountains in a special farmhouse that I own.
The Palermo people have made their peace with me now that you are supposed to be dead,
so it was you they were after all the time. They wanted to kill you while making people think
it was me they were after. That's something you should know".
Those Palermo guys were good ... I was even fooled as reader.
Quote:
Him out? The body guard is not going to kill him for nothing?
Was it the old Don that killed Vito's brother and mother?
Yeah, I'm not sure how they found out that Michael fled to Sicily. I don't know if it was ever revealed in the movie. Maybe in the book, but I don't know.
It was probably a common practice back then. Commit a high profile crime and run back to the old country to lay low. If Barzini was involved (according to the link above). He knew where to look - just a matter of time before Michael was found by another family who might have been looking for him. IIRC, Michael went to Sicily to hide from the law - not the other families. Maybe a threat from one of them never dawned on him or his protectors?
They should have left well enough alone ... IMO. 3 is a bad movie. Save your money ... and time.
She was ruthless. Micheal was weak.
I mean I guess. The movie sucked, the plot sucked, the whole Michael's daughter falling in love with Sonny's son was garbage. The only good part was the end. Having said that, it's still the third part of one of the best, if not the best, movie saga in history. Just hold your nose and watch it.
Personally, I've long felt that G3 got a bad rap. The nepotism and Sofia Coppola's subpar performance aside, I never thought it was a bad movie - but lots of people can't see past those first two points.
I vote that you should watch it. There are worse things in life than sitting through a bad movie. And provided that you think it's bad you can at least say you suffered along with the rest of us.
I think probably before.
I actually liked it.
Quote:
Did Barzini order the hit (car bomb) on Michael before or after peace was made between Tataglia and the Don?
I think probably before.
Agree because at the peace meeting Vito says if anything were to happen to Micheal he would take it very personal and take revenge.
In the Funeral scene you can see Micheal staring at Barzini and knowing he is going to kill him for revenge(Business/Personal) for all the things he was behind. Its a great scene because Pacino uses his eyes instead of dialogue and you know He will have his revenge on the Dons (all of them shaking Barzini's Hand like he won a great battle with Vito dead, in front of the Youngest son and family.) and his wrath will not be contained.(I will wait till after the Christening) Barzini underestimates Micheal and pays for it.
If Pacino didn't get at least an Oscar nomination for that role he should have .... I can't remember any performance in any movie where a character (lead or otherwise) was ice cold and the actor pulled it off like he did. He was scary to witness in some of his scenes and I am not talking about the murder of the Police Capt. and Salazzo. I am talking about those scenes where he is speaking very quietly with that intense stare (Questioning Carlo, Kay at the door, etc ...).
Quote:
If Pacino didn't get at least an Oscar nomination for that role he should have .... I can't remember any performance in any movie where a character (lead or otherwise) was ice cold and the actor pulled it off like he did. He was scary to witness in some of his scenes and I am not talking about the murder of the Police Capt. and Salazzo. I am talking about those scenes where he is speaking very quietly with that intense stare (Questioning Carlo, Kay at the door, etc ...).
Agree the movie is almost Shakespearean the way Micheal is taken down a dark path and transformed completely different from who he was in the beginning of the movie (that's my family Kay. Not me). His life/soul forfeited because his loyalty to his family(who he ends up tearing apart over time).
It's so sad when Vito tells him this is not what he wanted for him. But on deaf ears as Micheal has none of his fathers compassion in him.
by the Christening scene he is a ruthless man who will do what it takes Lie, Steal, and Kill(even a family member) for business. Kay tries to find the Micheal she loved and he closes her out. Only a tough Boss now.
In the book, the treacherous bodyguard winds up in Buffalo, and is working behind the counter in a pizzeria when Michael's assassin finds him and dispatches him.
In the book, the treacherous bodyguard winds up in Buffalo, and is working behind the counter in a pizzeria when Michael's assassin finds him and dispatches him.
A deleted scene from the movie. Micheal finds and shoots Fabrizzio with a shot gun.
I respected Coppola more for even trying Godfather III than any other film.
I am reading into it but over the years here is where I came out
he did not succeed in his attempt to mix King Lear like motifs and his own earlier classics.
And he was widely criticized for putting his non actor daughter in a major role
Ok...so remember that Michaels major concerns in the movie and his only source of joy after tons of regrets was his children
Now remember that Cavelleria Rusticana ( a favorite opera) is about the tragedy that befalls loved ones when one person is trapped in the cycle of revenge. It serves as the backdrop of the trilogies finale
Now remember that the backstory is also about the actual real Vatican Bank scandals.
Lastly, despite many flaws the film really never got its due because the director chose his daughter. who also dies suddenly. and Michael sees her death at 22. and screams and screams in helplessness.
One year before filming started Coppola was on shore at his house in Annapolis and saw his 22 year old sons head cut off in a motorboat accident.
Now does it tie together a bit differently?
A miss...but its a great artists miss...not a hacks miss.
In that moment, he goes from war hero son with a great love of life and Kay to a cold-hearted, calculating and ruthless gangster willing to manipulate relationships, people and situations to achieve not only revenge - but in some sense a moral high-ground that let authority know it would not go unnoticed or unchecked.
It's something I wish P1 would have explored just a bit more with Michael. Did he always have his father's sense of fate in his heart? Or was it a conscious decision to "turn?"
Vito preaches family and Micheal preaches business it's all just business.
In the third one Micheal wants redemption he doesn't want to be evil anymore but the Catholic Church fails him in the end too. Stealing from him and not being able to heal his soul. So he punishes them as his enemies get no compassion. No compromises in his world.
Micheal is a tragic character that will never find peace even dies alone. Three shows us that what Vito built and Micheal achieved Trying to go legitimate,will all be destroyed now by Sonny's Basterd and Connie's hate.
Vito's dream all destroyed along with the family.
You have to wonder if Apollonia doesn't die and Micheal feels redemption does he become more like Vito instead of a soulless machine that is only interested in business.
I heard there's a version that came out a year or so ago that does the best job of portraying 1-3 in the exact chronological order of events and also throwing in never before seen scenes.
It's about 8 hours long I think. There has been some version called the Saga for quite some time, but this is a newer/better version of that.
I haven't seen the trilogy in a long time and could use a rewatch. This could be a more enjoyable way to watch -- start with Deniro in G2, then start of G1, then to Lake Tahoe in G2, then G3.
Part of why I prefer G1 slightly over G2 is because it is one story and not two and flows better. But certainly G2 has awesome elements in it, and the saga probably depicts them better.
Return of the Jedi? Matrix Revolutions? The Alien franchise? All ended up with weak 3rd acts, after good to great starts.
Return of the King was a worthy effort for the LOTR Trilogy, despite some aggravating departures from the themes of the books.
I'm in the camp that thinks GF 3 was sub-par, not awful. To me there is a little parallel to American History X in the story - Michael realized as he got older that his ruthless commitment to the old school Sicilian vengeance cycle had cost him his family, which in the end was what he always wanted to protect. But he couldn't save his family from the tragic ending, and realizes in the end it's his fault
In that moment, he goes from war hero son with a great love of life and Kay to a cold-hearted, calculating and ruthless gangster willing to manipulate relationships, people and situations to achieve not only revenge - but in some sense a moral high-ground that let authority know it would not go unnoticed or unchecked.
It's something I wish P1 would have explored just a bit more with Michael. Did he always have his father's sense of fate in his heart? Or was it a conscious decision to "turn?"
Everybody in the 'Family" knew Michael was the heir apparent even before Michael himself knew. Not sonny, not fredo, Michael was the one all along. Read the book the first 120 pages are amazing and answers your question I think. The movie as great as it is will never be an all time great movie in my opinion because it still doesn't do the book justice at all. Puzzo was a great artist, Coppolla was a jag in comparison.
Return of the Jedi? Matrix Revolutions? The Alien franchise? All ended up with weak 3rd acts, after good to great starts.
Return of the King was a worthy effort for the LOTR Trilogy, despite some aggravating departures from the themes of the books.
I'm in the camp that thinks GF 3 was sub-par, not awful. To me there is a little parallel to American History X in the story - Michael realized as he got older that his ruthless commitment to the old school Sicilian vengeance cycle had cost him his family, which in the end was what he always wanted to protect. But he couldn't save his family from the tragic ending, and realizes in the end it's his fault
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a universally loved one.
Return of the Jedi, but some think it's the weakest of the three.
The good, the bad, and the ugly. Not a traditionally trilogy.
For the most point I agree with you, but let's throw in The Last Crusade.
Funny, that book-to-movie transition is often cited as an example of a mediocre book that was elevated when it was made into a movie. The book is certainly not great literature. It's a great page-turner, a really fun read, with memorable characters and situations. But it in no way is in the conversation for greatest book ever written, where the movie and the sequel are both in the conversation for greatest movie ever made.
If you look into the history of that film, you can also easily see it being a minor footnote to history. Especially if it had been, say, Ernest Borgnine as Vito and Ryan O'Neal or Robert Redford as Michael.
The Acting was some of the best performances ever on film.
The second movie had a bigger budget so we got to travel and have more social commentary and Origin and look into the future.
The Third film is a Money grab but it does show you there is no salvation left on this earth for a man that lets revenge run his life.
It is the Italian Star Wars.
I heard there's a version that came out a year or so ago that does the best job of portraying 1-3 in the exact chronological order of events and also throwing in never before seen scenes.
It's about 8 hours long I think. There has been some version called the Saga for quite some time, but this is a newer/better version of that.
I haven't seen the trilogy in a long time and could use a rewatch. This could be a more enjoyable way to watch -- start with Deniro in G2, then start of G1, then to Lake Tahoe in G2, then G3.
Part of why I prefer G1 slightly over G2 is because it is one story and not two and flows better. But certainly G2 has awesome elements in it, and the saga probably depicts them better.
I've got a recording of the Godfather Saga on my DVR (HBO had it on about a year and a half ago. It's great, and a lot of what you said is true, but it doesn't include GF3.