Yep I knew that it was the true foe. All he, Michael, I mean, had to do is look deep, deeper, or look even deepest enough into the mirror and see what he had become.
This movie is misunderstood. I loved it!!! A man that loved his family greatly and just wanted to protect them. Remember, he joined his father because he was in danger and needed to provide his wit and education to save him and his family. All Michale wanted was to go legit, but the higher he went, the more corrupt he found it to be. He desired redemption, but the price he has to pay was the loss of his daughter and the women he loved. This was punishment for his acts. He lived much longer to reflect what he has lost, but I believe, in the end, he redeemed himself and learned the lesson. As he stated, the older he gets, the wiser he becomes.
The true tragedy of Michael as an anti-Hero IMO is that he grew up seeing some of the cruder parts of his Family's operation and was exposed to possibly the most brutal theater of WWII, the Pacific. The tutelage of the Don completed his education. So the protective love he had for his Family could not really overcome the hardcore instincts he honed in battle. By the time he had reached his epiphany, he WAS exhausted; "forever ready, forever unprepared". Ultimately, when he topples over dead, the roots of his Family "tree" could not support him.
I believe that was the irony intended for the movie, he wanted to go legit for his family but along the way he lost the very thing he was trying to save or redeem.
I agree. I would also add that what made that more significant was the fact that Michael spent more time with Roth, so you see more of their relationship, and hear about the relationship Roth had with his father. And the fact that Roth had a personal vendetta, so under the chess moves there was a ominous tension as the plot revealed itself. One of the reasons why I loved the depiction of Roth so much, particularly his big speech (aside from the performance of the great Lee Strasberg) was what it revealed about his ability to figure things out. He was thinly telling Michael his feelings and motives, also that he completely figured out all of his plotting and activities. Michael is stone cold, but I have to believe he was humbled some after that - a healthy reminder that his complicated schemes and strategies may not be so complicated or hard to uncover to a master.
Micheal knew Hyman Roth was responsible, he wanted to know who the Traitor was! Fredo isn’t Innocent because he never came clean! Fredo went running to Hyman Roth after it was Revealed that he was a traitor!
What i really want to talk about is Al Pacino and Diane Keaton's chemistry. I couldn't help but praise these veterans' skills as an actor. They both bring out the vulnerabilities and hope in their relationship whether they are together. At the end when Mary dies and they both fall to their daughter's lifeless body, we experience 2 moments in cinema which, in my opinion, is one of the rarest display of traumatic emotions i have ever seen. From Kay's immediate realisation to Michael's hope that her daughter may still be alive; from Kay rushing to get daughter's body to Michael letting out the roar of agony as he realises that the worst he feared has happened, the thing he fought to do the most (keeping his family safe) has been taken away from him; from this scream to Kay's enraged look towards Michael as she blames it o him, the worst she feared for her children has happened. And then the montage of Michael's life to Michael's death, is simply one of the best endings i have seen in cinema. I think this movie is much better than the reviews painted it to be!
Michael paid the price of his entire life for the choices made by his father Vito He strived his life to transform the family towards legitimacy so that the next generation could be senators/governors. He lost his soul in due course. Pity
Hyman Roth was Michael's biggest rival. Hyman knew all of Michael's weaknesses before Michael had a clue. Hyman used the family against Michael which ultimately led to Michael taking the life of his own brother. But if there's anything Michael did learn, it was who he could trust and it wasn't Fredo, Tessio or Hyman Roth. Michael should credit his father and Frank Pentangeli because without either of them he might not have been able to find out who his co-conspirators against him were!
@@memati7199I'm a Jew: you think poorly of me because of that without knowing me? There's a name for that type of thinking. It's called antisemitism. That's hateful, irrational and childish.
You can tell in The Godfather part 3 it took a lot out of him mentally and physically..he was suffering for what he did in the past and now it started to catch up on him..When he lost his daughter that was the end of his life and die of a lonely man😥
There were plans in place to make "The Godfather - Part 4" when Part 3 came out, with Vincenzo taking the family down by not knowing how to play Washington politicians, "legitimate" business interests and keeping his temper in check, which was what got his father, Sonny, set up, ambushed and killed.
His true enemy was himself. He could have gotten out any time. He didn't need the Vatican deal. But his greed overcame him. He couldn't let anything go. No matter what he had to come out on top and it left him with nothing.
If your going to say that then it would have to be his family's infuence that was his greatest enemy. Since he was raised to believe family came first, i believe he thought the only way out was to legitimize the family, it was his duty as the head. That's what his father Vito wanted.
What😂😂? Honestly, Michael couldn't get out. He wasn't greedy. His plan was to make the Corleone Family financially stable and superior to the other Families to the point no one would want to touch them due to the repercussion it would have. Similar to Hyman Roth, who made himself so important by being a financial guru that no one wanted to move against him; or could because that would piss off other syndicates. Back to Michael. He was in Sicily, Barzini paid Fabrizio off to plant a bomb in Michael's car. If Vito hadn't called the meeting with the other Dons, one of the other Families would have went after him. In Part 2, Michael had no intention to kill Hyman Roth (at first). He just wanted to do business with him and invest in casinos and real estate. Hyman was the one who took the death of Moe Green personal and went after Michael first. Not just at Michael, yet at his family as well (wife and kids). Michael had to do what he had to. In Part 3, same thing. Michael didn't want to get drug back into the life, yet Joey and his backers went at him. I just hate that Michael got played, inflicted with diabetes, and just didn't feel like dealing with the situation himself. I mean he was trying as hard as he could to get out, yet all of their family's enemies kept gunning for him. There's only two ways out in that life: a body bag or prison. Very few can see retirement.
Coppola said he resisted calls to cast another actress when Ryder dropped out because it was important that Mary feel like a real teenager. (And besides, Sofia had partly inspired the character in the first place.) Mary’s presence feels like a formal gambit as much as anything: She cuts through the gravity of the proceedings, almost like someone from another planet, and exposes the ridiculousness of this world, with its rituals and unspoken mores. To put it another way: She is the one character in this entire movie, maybe this entire series, who hasn’t been damned by the Corleone legacy. By lying to her about his own past, Michael has kept her ignorant and, at least in his eyes, pure. When she dies, a light is extinguished, and he is consigned forever to his evil world. It is his final damnation. And this time, it will never end.
To think that's the Godfather saga ended with Michael killing Fredo is naive. Michael needed to pay for his ultimate crime, and he did with the death of his daughter Mary by a bullet that was meant for him. The three films need to be seen as a cohesive whole. Yes there were a lot of problems with the making of Godfather III, all of which can be blamed on Paramount Pictures. But in spite of this, Francis Ford Coppola was able to make a beautiful, exciting, interesting, and a worthy ending to, what is arguably, the greatest TRILOGY in the history of filmmaking!
The conclusion is almost Shakespearean and justly so. The end is perfect as Michael pays the ultimate price for his sins. He loses all he ever loved and cared about. It would of been to easy to just have him killed by an assassin. The ultimate price was to die a lonely old man that had witnessed the loss or death of everyone and everything he loved. Great movie and a fitting finale to the greatest Trilogy in Cinema history!
FFC's "alternate ending" to the Godfather Trilogy almost seems to suggest that Michael DIDN'T die! He's alive today at 100+, but the words after the last fade out seem to imply that contrary to the toast, living to be 100 was a curse, not a blessing, for Michael because it meant having to live with the tragedy he brought on his family and the memory of the actions that caused it. A Sicilian never forgets.
Hyman Roth was playing chess. Had Michael at check for a moment. One might even say, big picture wise. Roth checked mated Mike. Roth took Michaels family and soul.
Its all started after Kay adams abortion, killing Michael's unborn baby, even worse when she tells Michael about it, after that michael family started to crack, remember that revolution in havana scene? Michael still forgive fredo, but after his unborn child were murdered, he patiently waiting to murder fredo.
I’d say Michael’s toughest rival was Don Lucchesi and the Board of Immobiliare because at that point Michael was older, suffering from health issues and the memories of all the ppl he killed during his rise to prominence and power. He was tryna use his blood money to take control of a multi billion dollar real estate portfolio/company and the Board was tryna take him. In the end I assume he completed his mission of tryna take Immobiliare but he paid the ultimate sacrifice which was his daughter’s life
Barzini shot his father, killed his brother Santino and killed his wife Appolonia. Roth turned his brother against him, forced him to kill his brother Fredo and suffer lifelong guilt, and cost him his marriage to Kaye by shooting up the family home, which cost Michael the son Kaye aborted. Luchesi killed his daughter and killed all his dreams. All very horrible enemies - but I think Hyman Roth hated Michael the most and did him the most harm. For Roth it was personal. Barzini and Luchesi were trying to kill Michael, not his loved ones who died as bystanders. Fabrizio even checked that Appolonia wasn't supposed to be in the car. But Hyman Roth wasn't satisfied with killing Michael, he attacked Michael through his family. Ordering a hit in his home where his wife sleeps and his children play, that is even beneath Mafia murder standards. I even wonder whether Roth instructed the hitmen to shoot up the house but miss Michael, knowing the attempted hit in his home would make Kaye hate him. Is that why the curtains were open - so they could shoot and miss? Michael would have been better off dying than having his wife kill his baby as an abomination she wouldn't bring into this world. Roth turned Michael's loved ones against him. So Roth's psychological attack on Michael was the most vicious.
I disagree. Connie was just kind of there. The only thing she did was reintroduce Vincent to Michael. She wasn't a decision maker or a leader. In fact, Vincent had already decided to take revenge when Connie said "do it". Yeah, she poisoned an old man's cannoli. But, that was inconsequential as he could've been easily killed in other ways. What if he just came from dinner and was full or just didn't feel like sweets? What if he gave them to someone else? Her part in the plot for revenge just seems like a low ball
I wonder what happen to Vincent after Mary passed away? Did Micheal hold a grudge against Vincent or did he blamed himself? Did Vincent run the family well? Did he felt guilty of Mary's passing? Did he felt awkward around Micheal? Did they both stop talking? Did Vincent passed away aswell, went to jail, or quit? What happened to the family after this? Did Kay and Anthony got mad at Michael and what exactly happened to their relationship?
@@SumTimezTheyHaveClipUs Well if that's the case so did Micheal. He killed his brother, got his sister/female involved when his dad never did that, got his daughter shot, Kay and Anthony left him for dead like a dog with a dog... Literally.
The plot to assassinate him was well in advance before the torch pass. As such it was already established that Michael would be where he was. This also was a professional assassin, not some street goon. He looked like anyone else who would be attending an opera. None of this is Vincent's fault really. Kind of a bad take imo. Vincent was fucked up but he wasn't dumb. That's why Michael chose him, he had a street smart knowledge to him. Nothing stopped the helicopter attack either. Did Michael fail?
I just watched godfather part 3! As surprising as it may sound but I never heard Al Pacino's name before godfather and it now makes me realize how ignorant I was. This man defines acting! I m so moved by his performance! His straight face and calm yet soul searching eyes do magic! The climax scene made me weep! Michael Corleone is immortalised by Al Pacino. God bless you Al.
@@pedromolina9558 He was, of course he was, but the point is he was such a good actor you don't remember him _as an actor_ being in those movies because his characterisation was so good.
“It was Walter Murch who removed the sound from it and created the ‘silent scream.’ It was not me,” Coppola told me when I interviewed him last year, crediting his legendary editor. Michael’s silent scream brings the whole film and series together because it forces our imaginations to complete the moment (thus subconsciously drawing us more fully into Michael’s anguish), and also because it denies him any kind of release. Michael does finally let out a bellow we do hear - but as soon as he does, the sound fades out again and his voice becomes more distant. It’s almost as if Michael is screaming from another dimension, as if he’s already in hell. After all those years of quiet brooding, this is a shocking way to end a Godfather picture. This last entry in the series might be widely regarded as the least of the three films, but it finishes things off with one of cinema’s greatest gut punches.
I mean Michael really couldn't keep up w/ his enemies in GF3 based on his old age and weary look and attitude. But imagine a scenario where GF2 Michael went against them. I'm sure Don Luchesse and Altobello would be in deep struggle.
I think michael corleone from godfather 2 can defeat enemy from godfather 3 easily. Michael corleone become soft in Godfather 3. What you all think Reply.
@@bittu2507 Michael was not soft. He was grooming Vincent. However, he really did not want to go back into killing mode. His intention was being legitimate. He was devastated that Everytime he tried he was pulled back into a mess. Plus Don atrebello turning on him made him sad.
@@bittu2507 I think he softened a bit with age, the same as Vito. Young Vito returns to Italy to avenge his parents deaths. Old Vito does not want retaliation for Sonny's death. Young Michael is ready to kill a cop for beating him up, is willing to order the death of his brother. Older Michael looks for other ways to resolve the issue.
I always found the use of food in the recruiting of ‘family members’ in the original book to be fascinating. Tom, Neri, and even Micheal are all introduced to the business with food. The movies use oranges, but the book uses the deep red of grapes. Spaghetti and a deep red sauce, wine, and Michael’s Appolonia always having deep grape colors mentioned. It’s blood, it always has been.
Yes, his descriptions all through Sicily are absolute poetry. Lemon blossoms The red-purple crush of grapes. The imagery. Such a lyrical , visual writing style
Michael won the battle with his enemies as he succeeded in his plans to take over the company and all his enemies were dead. But the price of that victory was too high. As for Vincent’s failings, remember Michael’s own words “anyone can be killed”. In this case, however, not the intended target. The only way to fully secure the family at a public event would have been for Michael not to attend and that was never going to happen.
Tbf, Vincent was faced with an professional Sicilian assasin. Even Michael admitted something like "Then no one is safe". If someone like Michael is worried, everyone should be worried 10 times more and Michael should have gone back to the US. Great movies ♥ Masterpieces ♥
The Death of His Daughter Killed Him! He Had His Chance to Live in a Legitimate Society Before His Father Was Gunned Down!!! Hymen Roth Said it Best! This is the Business We Chosen!!! just How deeply did Michael understood That Statement . There was always That ever present Danger. of The Family Being in Danger.
I believe his greatest enemy was Hymen Roth. Not only did Hymen almost murder Michael in his own home, but got his own family to help him in the incident (even if Frado did not intent or know of the planned hit on Michael). Hymen had some really good contingency plans as well, like when he had Frank Pentangeli turn on Michael and almost screwed Michael in the hearing. But the worst incident was the fact that Michael felt he had to kill Frado his own brother for what he believed was for the families best interest. Puting aside wether that was the right choice, the guilt of killing his own brother really f*cked him up the rest of his life. So even in the third movie we see the effects of Hymen Roth's master plan.
The film still has problems that no amount of editing can change. In a needlessly confusing main plot, Michael tries to take over a European conglomerate called International Immobiliare. By buying the Vatican's shares, he'll be bailing out the corrupt Vatican bank. The family part of the story revolves around Michael's nephew, Vincent Mancini, the illegitimate son of his brother Sonny. Andy Garcia is as good a Vincent as you could hope for, handsome, swaggering, rough around the edges, dynamic on screen. But his character never makes much sense. Vincent has his father's explosive temper and appetite for violence, but somehow goes from a not-so-bright thug to a shrewd, controlled crime strategist in a matter of months. His change is far from the engrossing, methodical character trajectory that takes the young Michael from idealist to murderer in the first Godfather.
What is the biggest plot difference between The Godfather Release in the 90’s and the New Coda (GFIII$ release just recently 2021? I have seen the new one and feel intrigued. I read all your comments and you know a Lot about the movies. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Maybe the most important feeling I got from the film is the modesty and dignity that runs through all of the film's particles. Murders take place in the simplest yet most outrageous way possible, without bowing to anyone's eye, or playing exciting music, or slipping into a killer jacket and pants. I think this unity in the atmosphere of the film, which has a classic and heavy atmosphere in all its elements of architecture, clothing and behaviour, has made it one of the most memorable films in history.
The previous 2 movies were masterpiece as well as the third one. Nonetheless, it was a bit sad that we didn't see That frightening Michael Corleone like the previous movies, on the other hand this was exhibiting that Michael wanted an inception and redemption,he was tired of all these murders and Mafia stuff. I really love this movie and fortunately this part didn't tarnished The Legendary Godfather reputation and it is so hard that Francis Ford Coppola had made a movie on those hard days when he was not in a convenient circumstance(Personally) besides of audience expectations. I deeply suggest you to watch this and be expected of watching some new plots
Michael's biggest rival was his father. He never achieved the admiration, respect and loyalty his father had enjoyed from his family, friends and colleagues. And that's what he wanted most and tried the hardest to obtain. He ultimately trusted Vincent out of desperation, as he was the only one who came close, even though Vincent was too immature and not anywhere near ready to run or protect the family.
Vincent was very much his father.. impulsive, volatile, but talented in battle. One of the problems I always had with GF3 is the ridiculous rise of Vincent. He went from being a street punk, in a branch of the family business, but outside the inner workings and relationships to the family - to being Don of the whole Damm thing so quickly. Like you said, there really wasn't any choice.
Now, with his final outing as Michael Corleone, Pacino had triumphantly returned to his greatest role and found a way to make it new, bringing out the latent operatic qualities of the character. That same year, he also hammed it up (gloriously) as “Big Boy” Caprice, the villain in Warren Beatty’s gonzo comic strip adaptation Dick Tracy. Similar to how Coppola’s style had developed over the years, the Pacino we saw in the 1990s was a different actor than the one who had lit up screens in the 1970s. The wiry intensity of those earlier performances now gave way to something bigger, more theatrical, and, yes, riskier. In subsequent years, Pacino would get dinged for his overacting almost as often as he would be praised for his bold choices - sometimes, as in his Oscar-winning turn in 1992’s Scent of a Woman, within the space of one movie. But it all came with the territory for him, and many of his over-the-top performances from this era have aged wonderfully.
First! Also i love your videos, i am really into the Mafia, and with these videos i am learning more and more about them. Aswell as collecting valuable information and lessons in the Godfather trilogy. I love your videos, keep it up!
Coppola’s change to the last shot also points to how personal the project was for him. At the time, Coppola was still reeling from the 1986 death of his son Gian-Carlo, who had been killed in a freak accident in Washington, D.C., where they had been working on the production of Gardens of Stone. The finale of The Godfather Part III, with a father screaming in agony over the body of his dead child, was thus unbearably devastating to anyone familiar with the director’s ordeals during this time. It perhaps made sense in 1990 for the film to then cut to the father’s own death. But after three decades, Coppola clearly understood that to live with these memories is perhaps even harder to bear: “It’s worse that he doesn’t die. He lives with the fact that he destroyed his child, which is why he was doing it all.”
The Godfather 3 is so misunderstood, maybe they should’ve titled it differently. The Death of Michael Corleone. I really liked part 3. I wish Robert Duvall was in it.
His biggest rival was his ex wife. She wanted to see him suffer and did everything she could to hurt him. She knew she would get away with it, because Michael still loved her till the end.
It's kind of interesting how the enemies got progressively more powerful each successive movie. From fighting against other mob families in the first movie, then against another mobster and the US government, then the final movie against the Church and international bankers.
In my opinion , that's part of the message, Michael knew that the Big Powers of the world were dark, but he thought that the fact that 'they were legal' make them less dangerous than the Mafia, where in fact the Mafia is one of the toys they used, they are more intelligent, ruthless people, they planned years and even decades ahead.
Damnation. That’s the word that comes to mind when I think of the Godfather saga. All these films are about people who’ve been damned, whether they know it or not. And the movies’ respective endings often hold the keys to their meaning. At the end of the first Godfather, after Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) vanquishes his foes, we see him at home, greeting his underlings as one of them closes the door on his wife, Kay (Diane Keaton). If you read the basic action on the screen, it’s Kay who is being condemned, the one pushed outside the inner circle. But in truth, it is Michael who has consigned himself to the darkness.
The echoes with Coppola’s own life don’t end there. The director also noted that the film’s reception mirrored what happened in the movie itself. His daughter Sofia, a last-minute replacement for Winona Ryder, received torrents of criticism for her performance as Mary - so much so that some critics felt her acting had almost single-handedly ruined the film. “They came after Sofia so much that it was just like the story,” Coppola said. “The bullets that killed the daughter were really meant for the father. I felt that I did this to her.”
Enemies are a constant in life. I don’t think you can say definitively such and such is my biggest enemy. When you deal with one enemy, there is another one looming on the horizon, and usually is a bigger challenge. In the 48 Laws of Power, Robert Greene cites a great quote from Saul Alinsky, “ Life is war against the malice of men.” I would also add that Michael Corleone’s biggest enemy was himself.
Michaels Biggest Rival was his family's past. It was a simple mistake... If after Sonny's death they would have accepted Vincent as his child Vincent would never had made the mistake of not protecting the family above all else. It was because of this denial that Vincent grew up only protecting his mother and himself and therefore his reflex was not to prefect the family. So in the end Vito and Michaels biggest rival were their own ignorance or worse there "nose in the air" attitude towards there grandson and nephew who they knew was a Corleone but chose to isolate from the family. Cuz in the end their only failure was protecting the family
This may seem pretty surprising, but I think that Fredo was his biggest rival. Obviously, he was hardly a threat, but the fact that his own flesh and blood could pose such a risk, that Michael felt he needeed to be killed says a lot. More than anything, it would haunt him, and really was the beginning of his downfall. However, since Lucchesi's plan accidentally caused the death of his daughter, you could say Lucchesi was his biggest rival, but I would actually blame that more on Vincent's negligence. In regards to Fredo, I am thinking on more emotional grounds, so my suggestion is probably incorrect.
Fredo certainly became an unintentional foil. He was everything that Michael wasn't, both in good ways and bad. He was used against Michael and his assassination marked Michael's final step into total darkness. He then tormented Michael from the grave.
It might sounds cliche, but I guess his biggest enemies were time and his own offspring. Maybe if his heir was his own son, the demise of Corleone family would be prevented. But since Vincent was his successor, I just think that he’s not entirely understand enough the gravity of being the Don, as well as having necessary traits. Just my two cents on this hehe
Insteresting observation about Vincent's incompetence; I never realized it was Vincent who orchestrated all the security & deaths at the end; I thought Michael had made him a figurehead/underboss for the remainder of the time they were in Italy; at the very least, the death of Luccese is strongly implied to be under orders from Michael; the other deaths could've also been ordered by Michael, but left up to Vincent carry out.. The rumored screenplay for a 4th Godfather film actually would've juxtaposed the downfall of the Corleone family under Vincent's leadership with flashbacks of young Michael, Sonny, Fredo, Connie and Tom learning that Vito was a gangster for the first time.
Although Talia Shire got an Oscar Nomination for Best Supporting Actress in The Godfather: Part II, I think she really comes into her own in this one. Had it not been for male chauvinism implicit in the Sicilian culture, she'd be taking over the family business from Pacino. She's changed so dramatically over the course of the three films. In The Godfather she's the innocent daughter about to embark on marriage to a wife beater. In The Godfather: Part II, she's now entering middle age, overindulging in excesses, unhappy as a many time married widow, her first husband being killed in the original Godfather. She lives on the sufferance and tolerance of her brother. Now in The Godfather: Part III she takes an active interest in the family business and the family legacy. She realizes more than Pacino there's no escaping the Corleone roots. She champions Garcia as the new Don, she knows he's got the chops for the job, she hopes he can develop the smarts as does Pacino.
Like saying who is Toyota’s biggest rival , Honda or Suburu . I think Hyman Roth came the closest in taking Michael down and as someone speculated brilliantly on another thread . Roth might have gotten to Rocco too .
I never detested III like many of my friends did. I will say that for a strategic genius like Michael to have such a blind spot about Lucchesi's background kind of blows my mind. But it was excellent to see Calo kill him with the arm of his own glasses !
I too liked the third movie. But with regards to your statement about Michael sort of being blindsided by Lucchese you have to remember that without enemies or more to the point, worthy adversaries, people tend to lose their edge. It's having those enemies to outwit that keeps a strong cunning. As Michael hadn't had that in a long time, it's no wonder that he was out maneuvered in the beginning
I think michael corleone from godfather 2 can defeat enemy from godfather 3 easily. Michael corleone become soft in Godfather 3. What you all think Reply.
This movie is far too full of itself and aspires to greatness, but never achieves that rarefied air. The hand wringing and need of Michael for some kind of redemption just felt very tired, a laborious sojourn through excess pathos that reveals a spiritually conflicted Michael Corleone who I don't recall seeing in any of the other movies. perhaps this Michael is intimated in part II. I'll have to give it another viewing. I can't imagine anyone in Goodfellas having a guilty conscience, but this isn't Goodfellas - which is a far less romantic depiction of mafia life than the Godfather. all in all,Coda ain't that bad And I gotta love that line, 'When I'm dead I'm gonna be really smart..."
It’s amazing how subdued Michael is during these scenes. The Godfather films have their wildly emotional moments, but they are in many ways defined by their grim, submerged tension; this is probably the quietest blockbuster series in American cinema. By the time Francis Ford Coppola returned to the story in 1990 for The Godfather Part III (which he recently reedited and rereleased under a new title, The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone), his style as a director had become more florid, more emotionally extravagant and expressionistic (his next project would be Bram Stoker’s Dracula). But for this third installment of the Godfather saga, Coppola replicated the somber atmosphere and moody photography of the earlier entries. Then, he closed it all out with a truly grandiose, explosive ending - one that works not just as a finale to a single film, but to the entire series.
Suggestion: a video about Connie. Her life as the daughter of a powerful don. Her transformation from a battered wife, to a strong, confident woman. In Godfather 3, Connie was the de facto, consiglieri to both Michael and Vincent. .
Michael's good will to protect his father and family and his determination to it, sadly, turns out to be his greatest enemy, sacrificing his beloved daughter and his marital relationship.
I think you're being a bit too critical on Vincent. The Corleone family had dodged a lot of bullets over the years, the lifestyle finally caught up with them at the end of the GFIII. You also have to consider, although Vincent was the VERY NEW Godfather, Micheal at any moment could have voiced his concerns in the same way that Vito did for him.
See that's why I didnt like the ending to 3. He succeeded in creating the immobalary. That alone made him the greatest mafia boss ever and should have gotten him well beyond respected in his family. But instead they go from the death of his daughter straight to his own death in corleone. It's like they just skipped 10-30yrs of his life! We are talking about the most powerful former mafia boss in the world here!
Why the film is misunderstood Then and now, the series has largely been misunderstood. Crime movies like Coppola's and Martin Scorsese's are so seductive that audiences have embraced them for apparently glamorising the love of raw power and the concept of honour among thieves. Beneath the Mafia-friendly surface, though, they are built on ethical themes their more hot-headed characters don't grasp. The Godfather Coda tells us that crime really doesn't pay when you're ready to search your soul. The young Michael struggles with the idea of killing and crime in the first Godfather. The consequences of his decision are central to Part III, which takes place in 1979, 20 years after the events of Godfather II. Michael, a billionaire living in New York, has made his businesses legitimate and is left to grapple with his guilt for so many crimes, especially ordering the murder of his brother Fredo, who betrayed him.
Michael's greatest enemy was himself as he alienated so many people around him that he did not have a true friend or family member to help take on Immobliarie. Worse, Michael did not have Tom Hagen as the man to sniff out the faults in this deal and could have helped Michael plan a better defense. It just seemed that Michael blundered into this deal without seeing between the lines and sensing a plot against him. In Godfather Part III, Michael was always fighting a defensive fight and lost ground whenever he made a move. He also had too many vulnerabilities that were a threat to him and what he wanted to do. I would have to conclude that all the events of Part I and II have forever weakened Michael and therefore he could not be that powerful Don necessary to beat his enemies decisively without surrendering power or loosing his daughter. Now that I watch these reviews on Part III, I have a better appreciation for the movie. And also, we can see how devastated all things Michael went through took its toll on him.
The Godfather Part II closes on a similar irony - this time, Michael’s victims include his brother Fredo (John Cazale). So much of Part II is about Fredo’s betrayal and the growing divide between himself and Michael. By killing Fredo, Michael effectively condemns himself. The film ends on a flashback to a family dinner in 1941, when a fresh-faced Michael announced to his stunned brothers that he had dropped out of college to enlist. By the end of the scene, as everyone else goes off to greet their father, Michael remains at the dinner table - the odd man out, determined to evade the influence of his family. The brief, final image of the movie is of a much older Michael, alone, his name now virtually synonymous with the Corleone crime family.
An epic conclusion to The Godfather franchise. Francis Ford Coppola's films spanned 20 years in the making and gave us many memorable characters and a glimpse into the horrors of the Mafia. But the movie, in my opinion, deserves better reviews. Mostly the complaints of the critics are upon the fact that the movie doesn't seem to work as a standalone and Sophia Coppola's acting is bad, but considering someone watching today, in a world governed by movie franchises built in reference to predecessor movies, this argument falls flat. As for the latter, i do agree that her acting in acts1 and 2 were flat, but she quickly made up in the 3rd act.
I agree but in a film series made famous by it's Oscar worthy performances, Sofia's awful stiff portrayl of Mary with that creepy smile, really made me not care about her character at all. Which I'm sure is the whole point of part 3
Expectations were high because of the legacy of the earlier films, yet low because Part III came with a whiff of desperation and of selling out. Coppola had resisted making another Godfather for years, then wrote the screenplay (with Mario Puzo) and edited it in a rush to meet its Christmas Day release. It even got seven Oscar nominations, including best picture and director. It is an odd example of a movie whose reputation has declined over the decades.
Being that it came out 20 years after the first one, remember one thing. Most people hate new things. It came out so long after the first two that all the original fans got older and crotchety.
Then there’s Sofia Coppola. While people have said some atrociously harsh things about her acting, all I will say is that it was very bland but in her defense, she was a backup for Winona Ryder(something I would’ve loved to see) and she (Coppola) had never acted before. But she could’ve done a little better in my opinion. There’s also some excruciatingly cringy lines such as “My lucky coat!”. I mean come on! From “Leave the gun, take the cannoli” and “My offer is this- nothing. Not even the fees for the gaming license”, to “My lucky coat!” I mean, come on Mr Coppola! Are you even trying? Overall, despite good acting and some touching moments, this film should have never even been made. I mean, Michael Corleone doesn’t even feel like the same person anymore. That being said, it’s probably worth a watch for Godfather fans to see how it all goes down
This movie was always going to be judged in comparison to the first 2 movies. So it was always going to be on a "hiding to nothing". I struggle to understand the negative wrap Godfather 3 gets. It is an excellent film! Coppola had to bring the story forward to a new era in time with existing and new characters. Andy Garcia is exceptional in this movie and the glue that holds it all together. Pacino and Keaton as always top class. The bad wrap that Sofia Coppola gets is in my opinion is unwarranted. Granted she was not great but if she was not the Directors daughter I doubt anyone would of bothered being critical of her. The story can seem a little complex at first but unravels well and at a good pace. Michael is trying to find redemption for his life and getting to that is proving impossible for him.
An odd edit perhaps, given the new title of this revised version. “I loved starting the movie with such a statement, The Death of Michael Corleone, for a movie at the end of which he wouldn’t die,” Coppola told me. “And it was something worse than that, because indeed, Michael Corleone was not an angel. Someone who kills another person, much less a bunch of people, for money is beyond being called a member of the human family.” For all of Michael’s charisma, and for all our identification with the character over three pictures and multiple decades, it was important for Coppola to show him to be, once and for all, truly lost. The previous two films had closed on ironic damnations, with Michael triumphant but pulled further and further into the spiritual darkness. At the start of the final movie, however, he was repentant and desperate for redemption, going so far as to enter into a financial partnership with the Vatican that he hoped would help him save his soul. “Through the pursuit of this deal with the Vatican, Michael was trying to absolve himself of these terrible sins he knew he had committed,” Coppola said. Indeed, it was the director’s attempts to make this Vatican narrative thread clearer that wound up inspiring the new ending. “What you start to do when you make a new cut is you follow your nose,” he said. “As I started to go through [the film] and try to straighten things out and make the story clearer, I realized I was making a whole new cut and, ultimately, even a new ending.”
Arguments can be made for Lucchesi, Roth, Fredo, or even himself. I chose Lucchesi because of his influence and connections to both the criminal underworld and the legitimate one which posed a massive problem.
That was also my choice. Barzini held no real authority outside of the criminal worlds in the US and Sicily. Roth held power amongst both the criminal world and government, but Lucchesi CONTROLLED both worlds. Whereas Roth had power to have armed goons shoot into your bedroom, Lucchesi could have a helicopter attack your entire stronghold, with no legal repercussions at all, cause he could order it done by military.
Michael's greatest rival was Michael. He evolved from a level-headed, intelligent and independent guy to a ruthless killer too consumed with hatred to be able to ever break free of the mob. Michael spun out of control when he had Fredo killed. Michael could have neutered and banished Fredo, but he was too driven by his own demons. In the end, Michael lost everything including himself
I agree but I'm also firmly in the "Fredo had to go" camp. Banishing Fredo would have sent the message that Michael was weak but most importantly Fredo still knew a lot of important information, banishing Fredo would be like delivering him straight to Micheals enemies.
other members of the family would know that you can betray michael and 'if' you fail you can still survive. the reason carlo HAD to go was because of this as the whole family knew how much Connnie loved her skumbag husband.
@@TheMotz55 your right he totally could have been controlled the problem is the message it sends to the capo, consigli, underboss in laws nephews etc. which is "you can cross me with impunity"
Of course, the silent scream is not the final scene of the third Godfather film. As those who saw the original release will remember, Godfather III initially ended with the image of Michael, now a very old man, sitting in a chair by himself and then keeling over, dead. This echoed the moment from the first picture when Brando’s Vito Corleone died in a garden while playing with his grandson; by contrast, Michael was alone, bereft of everything. In his reedit of the film, however, Coppola cuts away from Michael before he dies. Instead, we see a lonely old man, still living with his demons, as some new text appears on the screen: “When the Sicilians wish you ‘Cent’anni’, it means ‘for long life’ … and a Sicilian never forgets.” In other words, Michael no longer gets the reprieve of death. He will be forced to live with his memories (and his sins) for as long as humanly possible.
After viewing The Godfather Part III once again after so many years before writing this review,I would say that if The Godfather is the greatest film ever made and The Godfather Part II is the greatest sequel ever made,this movie is definitely the greatest underrated film ever made.It is a great movie although it may not be comparable to the first two in terms of critical and commercial success.The Academy Award nominations it got attest to that.
Love these videos. Keep up the good work!!! One little thing I disagree with...here you said that Vincent is different than Michael because Michael and Vito always protected the family and succeeded. But he failed with Apollonia...I think her death is what really sealed his fate and sent him down the trajectory- maybe even more than killing McCluskey and Sollozo.
I liked The Godfather: Part III right up to and including Sofia Coppola's much maligned performance as Mary Corleone daughter of Don Michael Corleone, the one and only Al Pacino. I think she was unjustly criticized. In her performance she set out to play one of the innocent children of Al Pacino.
Michael's biggest rival was Hyman Roth no questions asked. It took him two sacrifices of professionals one treachery and one suicide as an aftermath to finish one sick and dying old man.
Found it. I didn't know that he got the deal. I thought that when the Pope died, it went away. Vincent would make a terrible Don. He's too hot headed like his father. I would still watch it, if it was ever made.
“The Godfather” is what it should be; Demonstration of human inexhaustible thirst for power, wealth and lust, all of which follows a particular path in each context. In the New York Italian district and in Sicily, this path goes through drug cartels, and as if they were all accepted, the church and police and the government find no other way than to join the Mafia. At this point, the film seeks to describe and display realities, and not so much as to critique and give a solution, although, in the realm of realities and massacres and corruption, the viewer will draw his own moral conclusions. Godfather is a men's movie and even made for men. Business worries and then family care are all part of the film. A business that is totalitarian and dominant, which is what needs to be increased in power and wealth, and ultimately in weapons and lobbying. The film is originally a narrative of the world of men, a world in which "family"-men end up in a never-ending struggle for pride, wealth, and power in an environment of undisturbed order, and of course this forest has its own law. One of these rules is the death of those are loved, As the Godfather's triple ending with the death of Michael's daughter.
I always said his biggest enemy was the woman he chose to start a traditional family with. She wasn’t with his program. It’s pretty difficult to take on the world when home isn’t straight, and they were wealthy. My opinion.
I just finished the movie, and yap, can't quite understand what happened. It starts strong, like the Vincent meeting gave me the same chill the first two movies did, but about half way through it gets weaker and weaker. Characters and plots that seemed like a big deal gone or doesn't do much, and carefully planned murders are now replaced with a god damn machine gun helicopter, like where are the cops in this film??? But the biggest issue of the story IMO, is Michel's daughter. Not just acting, she basically got no character development at all, she just randomly fell in love with a handsome cousin so she can be subjected to tragedy about how the mafia life makes u abandon women. The son on the other hand hates Michael for killing Fredo, and he's a crucial part of Michel's "Maybe I shouldn't try to force my good upon others" redemption, and damn the singing was fantastic, If he dies I'd be really sad, but the daughter... no amount of Al Pachino acting can make me feel sad about that empty vessel bleeding out. (Also stop shaking the body you are making her even more dead.) The most important thing is the way she died, it's not like Micheal loses her because he let his anger bested him or something, it's just a guy missing his shot, what could Micheal do to prevent that? Stayed in the seat in the theater so he could die instead? It's still a pretty good movie, and it still present some Godfather vibe from time to time, but yeah it's not a great film.
Back in 1990, this climax also represented a high point for Pacino, who had just begun to resurrect his career after an extended absence from the screen. He had found himself disillusioned with acting after a number of financial and creative disappointments (Revolution was an example of the former, Scarface an example of the latter) and had also gone broke in the meantime. The 1989 crime thriller Sea of Love, in which the actor played an alcoholic cop trying to track down a serial killer, had marked the start of his comeback. When I interviewed him several years ago, Pacino told me that the person who inspired his return was the very individual who would soon play his estranged wife in The Godfather Part III: “I was living with my great love, Diane Keaton, and she would look at me and say, ‘Well, what are you doing? … What, you think you’re going to go back to living in a room? Like the old days? You’ve had money for too long now. You gotta get back to work.’”
Lucchesi had not only mafia power, but like Michael and Roth he also had authority which extended beyond criminal connections. Among them all, he seems to be the criminal enjoying the highest level of criminal immunity. His authority isn’t behind the scenes like Barzini or a common Dons, but he openly commands government and orders full scale aircraft attacks with no worry about civil security.
A great end to a spectacular trilogy. The Godfather movies are the epitome of crime movies. The portrayal of Mafia life in these movies is just so absorbing and realistic. And this thrid movie might not have been the best, but a little dip in quality can be expected and tolerated for such movie franchises. As always, Al Pacino's Michael Corleone hits all the criteria for a great character. And the fact that he wants to be redeemed in his children's eyes gives him a human dimension that serves to sway the viewers away from remembering his ugly sins from the past. Redemption is always hard and costly, but never impossible. To me, that is the message of the Godfather's last iteration.
Michael’s biggest rival was himself
Yep I knew that it was the true foe. All he, Michael, I mean, had to do is look deep, deeper, or look even deepest enough into the mirror and see what he had become.
The Godfather Part 1;
"that's my family Kay, that's not me."
This movie is misunderstood. I loved it!!! A man that loved his family greatly and just wanted to protect them. Remember, he joined his father because he was in danger and needed to provide his wit and education to save him and his family. All Michale wanted was to go legit, but the higher he went, the more corrupt he found it to be. He desired redemption, but the price he has to pay was the loss of his daughter and the women he loved. This was punishment for his acts. He lived much longer to reflect what he has lost, but I believe, in the end, he redeemed himself and learned the lesson. As he stated, the older he gets, the wiser he becomes.
Me too, so many people hated it and had all sorts of criticisms about it. But I thought it was excellent.
Ephesians 6:12 explains where the puppet strings are controlled.
The true tragedy of Michael as an anti-Hero IMO is that he grew up seeing some of the cruder parts of his Family's operation and was exposed to possibly the most brutal theater of WWII, the Pacific. The tutelage of the Don completed his education.
So the protective love he had for his Family could not really overcome the hardcore instincts he honed in battle. By the time he had reached his epiphany, he WAS exhausted; "forever ready, forever unprepared". Ultimately, when he topples over dead, the roots of his Family "tree" could not support him.
I believe that was the irony intended for the movie, he wanted to go legit for his family but along the way he lost the very thing he was trying to save or redeem.
He dies of old age, not violently.
He was a successful Don, but that was it.
He failed as a husband, father, brother and friend
I'd say that Hyman Roth was Mike's biggest rival, he really was playing chess !!!
I agree!
I'd say Micheal's biggest rival was- Himself.
Fighting an internal war inside, between good and evil, that he could never win, and eventually, lost.
I agree. I would also add that what made that more significant was the fact that Michael spent more time with Roth, so you see more of their relationship, and hear about the relationship Roth had with his father. And the fact that Roth had a personal vendetta, so under the chess moves there was a ominous tension as the plot revealed itself.
One of the reasons why I loved the depiction of Roth so much, particularly his big speech (aside from the performance of the great Lee Strasberg) was what it revealed about his ability to figure things out. He was thinly telling Michael his feelings and motives, also that he completely figured out all of his plotting and activities. Michael is stone cold, but I have to believe he was humbled some after that - a healthy reminder that his complicated schemes and strategies may not be so complicated or hard to uncover to a master.
Micheal knew Hyman Roth was responsible, he wanted to know who the Traitor was! Fredo isn’t Innocent because he never came clean! Fredo went running to Hyman Roth after it was Revealed that he was a traitor!
@@alexdimic5864 Fredo was damn stoopid, that's why Mike found the traitor in his family, not sure otherwise.
What i really want to talk about is Al Pacino and Diane Keaton's chemistry. I couldn't help but praise these veterans' skills as an actor. They both bring out the vulnerabilities and hope in their relationship whether they are together. At the end when Mary dies and they both fall to their daughter's lifeless body, we experience 2 moments in cinema which, in my opinion, is one of the rarest display of traumatic emotions i have ever seen. From Kay's immediate realisation to Michael's hope that her daughter may still be alive; from Kay rushing to get daughter's body to Michael letting out the roar of agony as he realises that the worst he feared has happened, the thing he fought to do the most (keeping his family safe) has been taken away from him; from this scream to Kay's enraged look towards Michael as she blames it o him, the worst she feared for her children has happened. And then the montage of Michael's life to Michael's death, is simply one of the best endings i have seen in cinema. I think this movie is much better than the reviews painted it to be!
Girl who played Mary and the whole incest thing was bad
@@mariolisa2832 No it wasn't, it's like a Shakespeare tragedy, and the film is a masterpiece.
Pacino and Keaton had chemistry, alright. On AND off the set 🍆🐱
Michael paid the price of his entire life for the choices made by his father Vito
He strived his life to transform the family towards legitimacy so that the next generation could be senators/governors.
He lost his soul in due course. Pity
@@automatic_systematic Facts.
Hyman Roth was Michael's biggest rival. Hyman knew all of Michael's weaknesses before Michael had a clue. Hyman used the family against Michael which ultimately led to Michael taking the life of his own brother. But if there's anything Michael did learn, it was who he could trust and it wasn't Fredo, Tessio or Hyman Roth. Michael should credit his father and Frank Pentangeli because without either of them he might not have been able to find out who his co-conspirators against him were!
A jew, What did you expect ?!
@@memati7199I'm a Jew: you think poorly of me because of that without knowing me? There's a name for that type of thinking. It's called antisemitism. That's hateful, irrational and childish.
You can tell in The Godfather part 3 it took a lot out of him mentally and physically..he was suffering for what he did in the past and now it started to catch up on him..When he lost his daughter that was the end of his life and die of a lonely man😥
There were plans in place to make "The Godfather - Part 4" when Part 3 came out, with Vincenzo taking the family down by not knowing how to play Washington politicians, "legitimate" business interests and keeping his temper in check, which was what got his father, Sonny, set up, ambushed and killed.
@@nickdsylva932 I would love to see that if they make godfather part 4..But I know it won't happened
The death of Mary and Michael's reaction was heart-wrenching.
Godfather 3 is so bad i choose not to acknowledge it . It didn’t happen.
His true enemy was himself. He could have gotten out any time. He didn't need the Vatican deal. But his greed overcame him. He couldn't let anything go. No matter what he had to come out on top and it left him with nothing.
I wish I could've explained it as good as that.
…but they kept pooling him back in
If your going to say that then it would have to be his family's infuence that was his greatest enemy. Since he was raised to believe family came first, i believe he thought the only way out was to legitimize the family, it was his duty as the head. That's what his father Vito wanted.
What😂😂?
Honestly, Michael couldn't get out. He wasn't greedy. His plan was to make the Corleone Family financially stable and superior to the other Families to the point no one would want to touch them due to the repercussion it would have. Similar to Hyman Roth, who made himself so important by being a financial guru that no one wanted to move against him; or could because that would piss off other syndicates.
Back to Michael. He was in Sicily, Barzini paid Fabrizio off to plant a bomb in Michael's car. If Vito hadn't called the meeting with the other Dons, one of the other Families would have went after him.
In Part 2, Michael had no intention to kill Hyman Roth (at first). He just wanted to do business with him and invest in casinos and real estate. Hyman was the one who took the death of Moe Green personal and went after Michael first. Not just at Michael, yet at his family as well (wife and kids). Michael had to do what he had to.
In Part 3, same thing. Michael didn't want to get drug back into the life, yet Joey and his backers went at him. I just hate that Michael got played, inflicted with diabetes, and just didn't feel like dealing with the situation himself.
I mean he was trying as hard as he could to get out, yet all of their family's enemies kept gunning for him. There's only two ways out in that life: a body bag or prison. Very few can see retirement.
@@travisgames6608 I like what you just said, & how you broke it down .
Coppola said he resisted calls to cast another actress when Ryder dropped out because it was important that Mary feel like a real teenager. (And besides, Sofia had partly inspired the character in the first place.) Mary’s presence feels like a formal gambit as much as anything: She cuts through the gravity of the proceedings, almost like someone from another planet, and exposes the ridiculousness of this world, with its rituals and unspoken mores. To put it another way: She is the one character in this entire movie, maybe this entire series, who hasn’t been damned by the Corleone legacy. By lying to her about his own past, Michael has kept her ignorant and, at least in his eyes, pure. When she dies, a light is extinguished, and he is consigned forever to his evil world. It is his final damnation. And this time, it will never end.
To think that's the Godfather saga ended with Michael killing Fredo is naive. Michael needed to pay for his ultimate crime, and he did with the death of his daughter Mary by a bullet that was meant for him. The three films need to be seen as a cohesive whole. Yes there were a lot of problems with the making of Godfather III, all of which can be blamed on Paramount Pictures. But in spite of this, Francis Ford Coppola was able to make a beautiful, exciting, interesting, and a worthy ending to, what is arguably, the greatest TRILOGY in the history of filmmaking!
The 3th movie is not even close as good as first two.
The conclusion is almost Shakespearean and justly so. The end is perfect as Michael pays the ultimate price for his sins. He loses all he ever loved and cared about. It would of been to easy to just have him killed by an assassin. The ultimate price was to die a lonely old man that had witnessed the loss or death of everyone and everything he loved. Great movie and a fitting finale to the greatest Trilogy in Cinema history!
FFC's "alternate ending" to the Godfather Trilogy almost seems to suggest that Michael DIDN'T die!
He's alive today at 100+, but the words after the last fade out seem to imply that contrary to the toast, living to be 100 was a curse, not a blessing, for Michael because it meant having to live with the tragedy he brought on his family and the memory of the actions that caused it. A Sicilian never forgets.
Michaels daughter was his most important love. Much more than His 2 wives
Hyman Roth was playing chess. Had Michael at check for a moment. One might even say, big picture wise. Roth checked mated Mike. Roth took Michaels family and soul.
Never trust a Tribster.
How so? Michael defeated Roth.
@@jasonpalacios2705 But the cost was Fredo, and that poisoned his family.
Its all started after Kay adams abortion, killing Michael's unborn baby, even worse when she tells Michael about it, after that michael family started to crack, remember that revolution in havana scene? Michael still forgive fredo, but after his unborn child were murdered, he patiently waiting to murder fredo.
@@ammarhaziq919 It was because Kay didn't want their unborn child to be born in a Mafia world.
I’d say Michael’s toughest rival was Don Lucchesi and the Board of Immobiliare because at that point Michael was older, suffering from health issues and the memories of all the ppl he killed during his rise to prominence and power. He was tryna use his blood money to take control of a multi billion dollar real estate portfolio/company and the Board was tryna take him. In the end I assume he completed his mission of tryna take Immobiliare but he paid the ultimate sacrifice which was his daughter’s life
dirty life
WTF is "tryna"? Is it some ridiculously stupid way to say "trying to"?
Every dollar printed is someone’s blood money don’t ever think otherwise.
Barzini shot his father, killed his brother Santino and killed his wife Appolonia. Roth turned his brother against him, forced him to kill his brother Fredo and suffer lifelong guilt, and cost him his marriage to Kaye by shooting up the family home, which cost Michael the son Kaye aborted. Luchesi killed his daughter and killed all his dreams. All very horrible enemies - but I think Hyman Roth hated Michael the most and did him the most harm. For Roth it was personal.
Barzini and Luchesi were trying to kill Michael, not his loved ones who died as bystanders. Fabrizio even checked that Appolonia wasn't supposed to be in the car. But Hyman Roth wasn't satisfied with killing Michael, he attacked Michael through his family. Ordering a hit in his home where his wife sleeps and his children play, that is even beneath Mafia murder standards. I even wonder whether Roth instructed the hitmen to shoot up the house but miss Michael, knowing the attempted hit in his home would make Kaye hate him. Is that why the curtains were open - so they could shoot and miss? Michael would have been better off dying than having his wife kill his baby as an abomination she wouldn't bring into this world. Roth turned Michael's loved ones against him. So Roth's psychological attack on Michael was the most vicious.
Roth probably always had an issue with Vito and Michael inherited his father’s enemies.
In this film, Connie proved herself to be a true Corleone. She took out her own godfather. Finally, she, "made her bones".
I disagree. Connie was just kind of there. The only thing she did was reintroduce Vincent to Michael. She wasn't a decision maker or a leader. In fact, Vincent had already decided to take revenge when Connie said "do it". Yeah, she poisoned an old man's cannoli. But, that was inconsequential as he could've been easily killed in other ways. What if he just came from dinner and was full or just didn't feel like sweets? What if he gave them to someone else? Her part in the plot for revenge just seems like a low ball
Connie " Talia Shire" proved to be more ruthless than Don Corleone or Michael
After all the beatings she had from Carlo....she was ready to kill another speciem of the male species
I wonder what happen to Vincent after Mary passed away? Did Micheal hold a grudge against Vincent or did he blamed himself? Did Vincent run the family well? Did he felt guilty of Mary's passing? Did he felt awkward around Micheal? Did they both stop talking? Did Vincent passed away aswell, went to jail, or quit? What happened to the family after this? Did Kay and Anthony got mad at Michael and what exactly happened to their relationship?
The point is it doesn't matter what happened he ready failed at being a Corleone.
@@SumTimezTheyHaveClipUs Well if that's the case so did Micheal. He killed his brother, got his sister/female involved when his dad never did that, got his daughter shot, Kay and Anthony left him for dead like a dog with a dog... Literally.
@@SumTimezTheyHaveClipUs Michael failed at protecting his first wife from a car bomb. Does that say Michael failed at being a Coleone?
@@johnlane5704 Wow you went deep on that one. But you bring up an excellent observation.
The plot to assassinate him was well in advance before the torch pass. As such it was already established that Michael would be where he was. This also was a professional assassin, not some street goon. He looked like anyone else who would be attending an opera. None of this is Vincent's fault really. Kind of a bad take imo. Vincent was fucked up but he wasn't dumb. That's why Michael chose him, he had a street smart knowledge to him. Nothing stopped the helicopter attack either. Did Michael fail?
I just watched godfather part 3! As surprising as it may sound but I never heard Al Pacino's name before godfather and it now makes me realize how ignorant I was. This man defines acting! I m so moved by his performance! His straight face and calm yet soul searching eyes do magic! The climax scene made me weep! Michael Corleone is immortalised by Al Pacino. God bless you Al.
He was great in Taxi Driver, Die Hard and Lethal Weapon. A very versatile actor.
@@darthkek1953 no way was he in die hard wtf?
Bro, A.P. Is the greatest actor of all time. Watch Carlito’s Way, amazing movie and he’s playing a Puerto Rican. Lol
@@darthkek1953 lmfao. He wasn’t in those movies. Lmao
@@pedromolina9558 He was, of course he was, but the point is he was such a good actor you don't remember him _as an actor_ being in those movies because his characterisation was so good.
“It was Walter Murch who removed the sound from it and created the ‘silent scream.’ It was not me,” Coppola told me when I interviewed him last year, crediting his legendary editor. Michael’s silent scream brings the whole film and series together because it forces our imaginations to complete the moment (thus subconsciously drawing us more fully into Michael’s anguish), and also because it denies him any kind of release. Michael does finally let out a bellow we do hear - but as soon as he does, the sound fades out again and his voice becomes more distant. It’s almost as if Michael is screaming from another dimension, as if he’s already in hell. After all those years of quiet brooding, this is a shocking way to end a Godfather picture. This last entry in the series might be widely regarded as the least of the three films, but it finishes things off with one of cinema’s greatest gut punches.
I mean Michael really couldn't keep up w/ his enemies in GF3 based on his old age and weary look and attitude. But imagine a scenario where GF2 Michael went against them. I'm sure Don Luchesse and Altobello would be in deep struggle.
I think michael corleone from godfather 2 can defeat enemy from godfather 3 easily. Michael corleone become soft in Godfather 3. What you all think Reply.
Agreed 🤠😎
@@bittu2507 Michael was not soft. He was grooming Vincent. However, he really did not want to go back into killing mode. His intention was being legitimate.
He was devastated that Everytime he tried he was pulled back into a mess. Plus Don atrebello turning on him made him sad.
Maybe,but old Micheal still had his brains...
@@bittu2507 I think he softened a bit with age, the same as Vito. Young Vito returns to Italy to avenge his parents deaths. Old Vito does not want retaliation for Sonny's death. Young Michael is ready to kill a cop for beating him up, is willing to order the death of his brother. Older Michael looks for other ways to resolve the issue.
I always found the use of food in the recruiting of ‘family members’ in the original book to be fascinating. Tom, Neri, and even Micheal are all introduced to the business with food. The movies use oranges, but the book uses the deep red of grapes. Spaghetti and a deep red sauce, wine, and Michael’s Appolonia always having deep grape colors mentioned. It’s blood, it always has been.
Great insight
Yes, his descriptions all through Sicily are absolute poetry.
Lemon blossoms
The red-purple crush of grapes.
The imagery. Such a lyrical , visual writing style
Michael won the battle with his enemies as he succeeded in his plans to take over the company and all his enemies were dead. But the price of that victory was too high. As for Vincent’s failings, remember Michael’s own words “anyone can be killed”. In this case, however, not the intended target. The only way to fully secure the family at a public event would have been for Michael not to attend and that was never going to happen.
Tbf, Vincent was faced with an professional Sicilian assasin. Even Michael admitted something like "Then no one is safe". If someone like Michael is worried, everyone should be worried 10 times more and Michael should have gone back to the US.
Great movies ♥ Masterpieces ♥
The Death of His Daughter Killed Him! He Had His Chance to Live in a Legitimate Society Before His Father Was Gunned Down!!! Hymen Roth Said it Best! This is the Business We Chosen!!! just How deeply did Michael understood That Statement . There was always That ever present Danger. of The Family
Being in Danger.
I believe his greatest enemy was Hymen Roth. Not only did Hymen almost murder Michael in his own home, but got his own family to help him in the incident (even if Frado did not intent or know of the planned hit on Michael). Hymen had some really good contingency plans as well, like when he had Frank Pentangeli turn on Michael and almost screwed Michael in the hearing. But the worst incident was the fact that Michael felt he had to kill Frado his own brother for what he believed was for the families best interest. Puting aside wether that was the right choice, the guilt of killing his own brother really f*cked him up the rest of his life. So even in the third movie we see the effects of Hymen Roth's master plan.
The film still has problems that no amount of editing can change. In a needlessly confusing main plot, Michael tries to take over a European conglomerate called International Immobiliare. By buying the Vatican's shares, he'll be bailing out the corrupt Vatican bank. The family part of the story revolves around Michael's nephew, Vincent Mancini, the illegitimate son of his brother Sonny. Andy Garcia is as good a Vincent as you could hope for, handsome, swaggering, rough around the edges, dynamic on screen. But his character never makes much sense. Vincent has his father's explosive temper and appetite for violence, but somehow goes from a not-so-bright thug to a shrewd, controlled crime strategist in a matter of months. His change is far from the engrossing, methodical character trajectory that takes the young Michael from idealist to murderer in the first Godfather.
What is the biggest plot difference between The Godfather Release in the 90’s and the New Coda (GFIII$ release just recently 2021? I have seen the new one and feel intrigued. I read all your comments and you know a
Lot about the movies. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Maybe the most important feeling I got from the film is the modesty and dignity that runs through all of the film's particles. Murders take place in the simplest yet most outrageous way possible, without bowing to anyone's eye, or playing exciting music, or slipping into a killer jacket and pants. I think this unity in the atmosphere of the film, which has a classic and heavy atmosphere in all its elements of architecture, clothing and behaviour, has made it one of the most memorable films in history.
The previous 2 movies were masterpiece as well as the third one. Nonetheless, it was a bit sad that we didn't see That frightening Michael Corleone like the previous movies, on the other hand this was exhibiting that Michael wanted an inception and redemption,he was tired of all these murders and Mafia stuff. I really love this movie and fortunately this part didn't tarnished The Legendary Godfather reputation and it is so hard that Francis Ford Coppola had made a movie on those hard days when he was not in a convenient circumstance(Personally) besides of audience expectations. I deeply suggest you to watch this and be expected of watching some new plots
He did everything except he didn't protect the family 😔
He protected his family till he was God father but when vincent became god father he wasnt clever like michael and forgot to protect his family.
@@fashionboutique49 I'm talking about vincent
Michael's biggest rival was his father. He never achieved the admiration, respect and loyalty his father had enjoyed from his family, friends and colleagues. And that's what he wanted most and tried the hardest to obtain. He ultimately trusted Vincent out of desperation, as he was the only one who came close, even though Vincent was too immature and not anywhere near ready to run or protect the family.
Vincent was very much his father.. impulsive, volatile, but talented in battle.
One of the problems I always had with GF3 is the ridiculous rise of Vincent. He went from being a street punk, in a branch of the family business, but outside the inner workings and relationships to the family - to being Don of the whole Damm thing so quickly. Like you said, there really wasn't any choice.
Now, with his final outing as Michael Corleone, Pacino had triumphantly returned to his greatest role and found a way to make it new, bringing out the latent operatic qualities of the character. That same year, he also hammed it up (gloriously) as “Big Boy” Caprice, the villain in Warren Beatty’s gonzo comic strip adaptation Dick Tracy. Similar to how Coppola’s style had developed over the years, the Pacino we saw in the 1990s was a different actor than the one who had lit up screens in the 1970s. The wiry intensity of those earlier performances now gave way to something bigger, more theatrical, and, yes, riskier. In subsequent years, Pacino would get dinged for his overacting almost as often as he would be praised for his bold choices - sometimes, as in his Oscar-winning turn in 1992’s Scent of a Woman, within the space of one movie. But it all came with the territory for him, and many of his over-the-top performances from this era have aged wonderfully.
First! Also i love your videos, i am really into the Mafia, and with these videos i am learning more and more about them. Aswell as collecting valuable information and lessons in the Godfather trilogy. I love your videos, keep it up!
The legend Al Neri! 1:41
Coppola’s change to the last shot also points to how personal the project was for him. At the time, Coppola was still reeling from the 1986 death of his son Gian-Carlo, who had been killed in a freak accident in Washington, D.C., where they had been working on the production of Gardens of Stone. The finale of The Godfather Part III, with a father screaming in agony over the body of his dead child, was thus unbearably devastating to anyone familiar with the director’s ordeals during this time. It perhaps made sense in 1990 for the film to then cut to the father’s own death. But after three decades, Coppola clearly understood that to live with these memories is perhaps even harder to bear: “It’s worse that he doesn’t die. He lives with the fact that he destroyed his child, which is why he was doing it all.”
The Godfather 3 is so misunderstood, maybe they should’ve titled it differently. The Death of Michael Corleone. I really liked part 3. I wish Robert Duvall was in it.
I agree Godfather 3 should have been titled “the Death of Michael Corleone”
His biggest rival was his ex wife. She wanted to see him suffer and did everything she could to hurt him. She knew she would get away with it, because Michael still loved her till the end.
It's kind of interesting how the enemies got progressively more powerful each successive movie. From fighting against other mob families in the first movie, then against another mobster and the US government, then the final movie against the Church and international bankers.
I have never seen it that way. Thank you for pointing it out
In my opinion , that's part of the message, Michael knew that the Big Powers of the world were dark, but he thought that the fact that 'they were legal' make them less dangerous than the Mafia, where in fact the Mafia is one of the toys they used, they are more intelligent, ruthless people, they planned years and even decades ahead.
Damnation. That’s the word that comes to mind when I think of the Godfather saga. All these films are about people who’ve been damned, whether they know it or not. And the movies’ respective endings often hold the keys to their meaning. At the end of the first Godfather, after Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) vanquishes his foes, we see him at home, greeting his underlings as one of them closes the door on his wife, Kay (Diane Keaton). If you read the basic action on the screen, it’s Kay who is being condemned, the one pushed outside the inner circle. But in truth, it is Michael who has consigned himself to the darkness.
Your enemies get strong on what you get behind.
The echoes with Coppola’s own life don’t end there. The director also noted that the film’s reception mirrored what happened in the movie itself. His daughter Sofia, a last-minute replacement for Winona Ryder, received torrents of criticism for her performance as Mary - so much so that some critics felt her acting had almost single-handedly ruined the film. “They came after Sofia so much that it was just like the story,” Coppola said. “The bullets that killed the daughter were really meant for the father. I felt that I did this to her.”
Enemies are a constant in life. I don’t think you can say definitively such and such is my biggest enemy. When you deal with one enemy, there is another one looming on the horizon, and usually is a bigger challenge. In the 48 Laws of Power, Robert Greene cites a great quote from Saul Alinsky, “ Life is war against the malice of men.” I would also add that Michael Corleone’s biggest enemy was himself.
Michaels Biggest Rival was his family's past. It was a simple mistake... If after Sonny's death they would have accepted Vincent as his child Vincent would never had made the mistake of not protecting the family above all else. It was because of this denial that Vincent grew up only protecting his mother and himself and therefore his reflex was not to prefect the family. So in the end Vito and Michaels biggest rival were their own ignorance or worse there "nose in the air" attitude towards there grandson and nephew who they knew was a Corleone but chose to isolate from the family. Cuz in the end their only failure was protecting the family
Wot?
This may seem pretty surprising, but I think that Fredo was his biggest rival. Obviously, he was hardly a threat, but the fact that his own flesh and blood could pose such a risk, that Michael felt he needeed to be killed says a lot. More than anything, it would haunt him, and really was the beginning of his downfall. However, since Lucchesi's plan accidentally caused the death of his daughter, you could say Lucchesi was his biggest rival, but I would actually blame that more on Vincent's negligence. In regards to Fredo, I am thinking on more emotional grounds, so my suggestion is probably incorrect.
you are correct
Fredo certainly became an unintentional foil. He was everything that Michael wasn't, both in good ways and bad. He was used against Michael and his assassination marked Michael's final step into total darkness. He then tormented Michael from the grave.
Good point about Fredo. I remember Michael telling Fredo that he broke his heart.
It might sounds cliche, but I guess his biggest enemies were time and his own offspring. Maybe if his heir was his own son, the demise of Corleone family would be prevented. But since Vincent was his successor, I just think that he’s not entirely understand enough the gravity of being the Don, as well as having necessary traits. Just my two cents on this hehe
Insteresting observation about Vincent's incompetence; I never realized it was Vincent who orchestrated all the security & deaths at the end; I thought Michael had made him a figurehead/underboss for the remainder of the time they were in Italy; at the very least, the death of Luccese is strongly implied to be under orders from Michael; the other deaths could've also been ordered by Michael, but left up to Vincent carry out..
The rumored screenplay for a 4th Godfather film actually would've juxtaposed the downfall of the Corleone family under Vincent's leadership with flashbacks of young Michael, Sonny, Fredo, Connie and Tom learning that Vito was a gangster for the first time.
Although Talia Shire got an Oscar Nomination for Best Supporting Actress in The Godfather: Part II, I think she really comes into her own in this one. Had it not been for male chauvinism implicit in the Sicilian culture, she'd be taking over the family business from Pacino. She's changed so dramatically over the course of the three films. In The Godfather she's the innocent daughter about to embark on marriage to a wife beater. In The Godfather: Part II, she's now entering middle age, overindulging in excesses, unhappy as a many time married widow, her first husband being killed in the original Godfather. She lives on the sufferance and tolerance of her brother. Now in The Godfather: Part III she takes an active interest in the family business and the family legacy. She realizes more than Pacino there's no escaping the Corleone roots. She champions Garcia as the new Don, she knows he's got the chops for the job, she hopes he can develop the smarts as does Pacino.
I'd like to see a video explaining what happened to the Corleone family under Vincent's leadership.
you noticed that when he was in his office. he sat in his old chair and it was dimly lit...
Like saying who is Toyota’s biggest rival , Honda or Suburu . I think Hyman Roth came the closest in taking Michael down and as someone speculated brilliantly on another thread . Roth might have gotten to Rocco too .
I never detested III like many of my friends did. I will say that for a strategic genius like Michael to have such a blind spot about Lucchesi's background kind of blows my mind. But it was excellent to see Calo kill him with the arm of his own glasses !
I too liked the third movie. But with regards to your statement about Michael sort of being blindsided by Lucchese you have to remember that without enemies or more to the point, worthy adversaries, people tend to lose their edge. It's having those enemies to outwit that keeps a strong cunning. As Michael hadn't had that in a long time, it's no wonder that he was out maneuvered in the beginning
I think michael corleone from godfather 2 can defeat enemy from godfather 3 easily. Michael corleone become soft in Godfather 3. What you all think Reply.
Biggest enemies are always the ones who are in the family
This movie is far too full of itself and aspires to greatness, but never achieves that rarefied air. The hand wringing and need of Michael for some kind of redemption just felt very tired, a laborious sojourn through excess pathos that reveals a spiritually conflicted Michael Corleone who I don't recall seeing in any of the other movies. perhaps this Michael is intimated in part II. I'll have to give it another viewing. I can't imagine anyone in Goodfellas having a guilty conscience, but this isn't Goodfellas - which is a far less romantic depiction of mafia life than the Godfather. all in all,Coda ain't that bad And I gotta love that line, 'When I'm dead I'm gonna be really smart..."
It’s amazing how subdued Michael is during these scenes. The Godfather films have their wildly emotional moments, but they are in many ways defined by their grim, submerged tension; this is probably the quietest blockbuster series in American cinema. By the time Francis Ford Coppola returned to the story in 1990 for The Godfather Part III (which he recently reedited and rereleased under a new title, The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone), his style as a director had become more florid, more emotionally extravagant and expressionistic (his next project would be Bram Stoker’s Dracula). But for this third installment of the Godfather saga, Coppola replicated the somber atmosphere and moody photography of the earlier entries. Then, he closed it all out with a truly grandiose, explosive ending - one that works not just as a finale to a single film, but to the entire series.
Suggestion: a video about Connie. Her life as the daughter of a powerful don. Her transformation from a battered wife, to a strong, confident woman. In Godfather 3, Connie was the de facto, consiglieri to both Michael and Vincent.
.
Michael's good will to protect his father and family and his determination to it, sadly, turns out to be his greatest enemy, sacrificing his beloved daughter and his marital relationship.
Himself
Hyman Roth was Michaels biggest rivals he's ever faced as a young don
I think you're being a bit too critical on Vincent. The Corleone family had dodged a lot of bullets over the years, the lifestyle finally caught up with them at the end of the GFIII. You also have to consider, although Vincent was the VERY NEW Godfather, Micheal at any moment could have voiced his concerns in the same way that Vito did for him.
See that's why I didnt like the ending to 3. He succeeded in creating the immobalary. That alone made him the greatest mafia boss ever and should have gotten him well beyond respected in his family. But instead they go from the death of his daughter straight to his own death in corleone. It's like they just skipped 10-30yrs of his life! We are talking about the most powerful former mafia boss in the world here!
Thank you for explaining what all that money that that higher up in the Vatican was trying to get from Michael was really for. I never knew that.
Why the film is misunderstood
Then and now, the series has largely been misunderstood. Crime movies like Coppola's and Martin Scorsese's are so seductive that audiences have embraced them for apparently glamorising the love of raw power and the concept of honour among thieves. Beneath the Mafia-friendly surface, though, they are built on ethical themes their more hot-headed characters don't grasp. The Godfather Coda tells us that crime really doesn't pay when you're ready to search your soul. The young Michael struggles with the idea of killing and crime in the first Godfather. The consequences of his decision are central to Part III, which takes place in 1979, 20 years after the events of Godfather II. Michael, a billionaire living in New York, has made his businesses legitimate and is left to grapple with his guilt for so many crimes, especially ordering the murder of his brother Fredo, who betrayed him.
Michael's greatest enemy was himself as he alienated so many people around him that he did not have a true friend or family member to help take on Immobliarie. Worse, Michael did not have Tom Hagen as the man to sniff out the faults in this deal and could have helped Michael plan a better defense. It just seemed that Michael blundered into this deal without seeing between the lines and sensing a plot against him. In Godfather Part III, Michael was always fighting a defensive fight and lost ground whenever he made a move. He also had too many vulnerabilities that were a threat to him and what he wanted to do. I would have to conclude that all the events of Part I and II have forever weakened Michael and therefore he could not be that powerful Don necessary to beat his enemies decisively without surrendering power or loosing his daughter. Now that I watch these reviews on Part III, I have a better appreciation for the movie. And also, we can see how devastated all things Michael went through took its toll on him.
The Godfather Part II closes on a similar irony - this time, Michael’s victims include his brother Fredo (John Cazale). So much of Part II is about Fredo’s betrayal and the growing divide between himself and Michael. By killing Fredo, Michael effectively condemns himself. The film ends on a flashback to a family dinner in 1941, when a fresh-faced Michael announced to his stunned brothers that he had dropped out of college to enlist. By the end of the scene, as everyone else goes off to greet their father, Michael remains at the dinner table - the odd man out, determined to evade the influence of his family. The brief, final image of the movie is of a much older Michael, alone, his name now virtually synonymous with the Corleone crime family.
Michael's biggest rival was his destiny
His biggest rival was himself.
An epic conclusion to The Godfather franchise. Francis Ford Coppola's films spanned 20 years in the making and gave us many memorable characters and a glimpse into the horrors of the Mafia. But the movie, in my opinion, deserves better reviews. Mostly the complaints of the critics are upon the fact that the movie doesn't seem to work as a standalone and Sophia Coppola's acting is bad, but considering someone watching today, in a world governed by movie franchises built in reference to predecessor movies, this argument falls flat. As for the latter, i do agree that her acting in acts1 and 2 were flat, but she quickly made up in the 3rd act.
I agree but in a film series made famous by it's Oscar worthy performances, Sofia's awful stiff portrayl of Mary with that creepy smile, really made me not care about her character at all. Which I'm sure is the whole point of part 3
Expectations were high because of the legacy of the earlier films, yet low because Part III came with a whiff of desperation and of selling out. Coppola had resisted making another Godfather for years, then wrote the screenplay (with Mario Puzo) and edited it in a rush to meet its Christmas Day release. It even got seven Oscar nominations, including best picture and director. It is an odd example of a movie whose reputation has declined over the decades.
Being that it came out 20 years after the first one, remember one thing. Most people hate new things. It came out so long after the first two that all the original fans got older and crotchety.
Then there’s Sofia Coppola. While people have said some atrociously harsh things about her acting, all I will say is that it was very bland but in her defense, she was a backup for Winona Ryder(something I would’ve loved to see) and she (Coppola) had never acted before. But she could’ve done a little better in my opinion. There’s also some excruciatingly cringy lines such as “My lucky coat!”. I mean come on! From “Leave the gun, take the cannoli” and “My offer is this- nothing. Not even the fees for the gaming license”, to “My lucky coat!” I mean, come on Mr Coppola! Are you even trying? Overall, despite good acting and some touching moments, this film should have never even been made. I mean, Michael Corleone doesn’t even feel like the same person anymore. That being said, it’s probably worth a watch for Godfather fans to see how it all goes down
Excellent Breakdown, thanks.
That guy onscreen at 2:00 does a really good Silvio impression.
This video is awesome. Thanks
2:20 what you thought would be heaven turns out to be hell
~Tupac
This movie was always going to be judged in comparison to the first 2 movies. So it was always going to be on a "hiding to nothing". I struggle to understand the negative wrap Godfather 3 gets. It is an excellent film! Coppola had to bring the story forward to a new era in time with existing and new characters. Andy Garcia is exceptional in this movie and the glue that holds it all together. Pacino and Keaton as always top class. The bad wrap that Sofia Coppola gets is in my opinion is unwarranted. Granted she was not great but if she was not the Directors daughter I doubt anyone would of bothered being critical of her. The story can seem a little complex at first but unravels well and at a good pace. Michael is trying to find redemption for his life and getting to that is proving impossible for him.
Athul P Thomas Agreed
An odd edit perhaps, given the new title of this revised version. “I loved starting the movie with such a statement, The Death of Michael Corleone, for a movie at the end of which he wouldn’t die,” Coppola told me. “And it was something worse than that, because indeed, Michael Corleone was not an angel. Someone who kills another person, much less a bunch of people, for money is beyond being called a member of the human family.” For all of Michael’s charisma, and for all our identification with the character over three pictures and multiple decades, it was important for Coppola to show him to be, once and for all, truly lost. The previous two films had closed on ironic damnations, with Michael triumphant but pulled further and further into the spiritual darkness. At the start of the final movie, however, he was repentant and desperate for redemption, going so far as to enter into a financial partnership with the Vatican that he hoped would help him save his soul. “Through the pursuit of this deal with the Vatican, Michael was trying to absolve himself of these terrible sins he knew he had committed,” Coppola said. Indeed, it was the director’s attempts to make this Vatican narrative thread clearer that wound up inspiring the new ending. “What you start to do when you make a new cut is you follow your nose,” he said. “As I started to go through [the film] and try to straighten things out and make the story clearer, I realized I was making a whole new cut and, ultimately, even a new ending.”
Arguments can be made for Lucchesi, Roth, Fredo, or even himself. I chose Lucchesi because of his influence and connections to both the criminal underworld and the legitimate one which posed a massive problem.
That was also my choice. Barzini held no real authority outside of the criminal worlds in the US and Sicily. Roth held power amongst both the criminal world and government, but Lucchesi CONTROLLED both worlds. Whereas Roth had power to have armed goons shoot into your bedroom, Lucchesi could have a helicopter attack your entire stronghold, with no legal repercussions at all, cause he could order it done by military.
Michael's greatest rival was Michael. He evolved from a level-headed, intelligent and independent guy to a ruthless killer too consumed with hatred to be able to ever break free of the mob. Michael spun out of control when he had Fredo killed. Michael could have neutered and banished Fredo, but he was too driven by his own demons. In the end, Michael lost everything including himself
I agree but I'm also firmly in the "Fredo had to go" camp.
Banishing Fredo would have sent the message that Michael was weak but most importantly Fredo still knew a lot of important information, banishing Fredo would be like delivering him straight to Micheals enemies.
other members of the family would know that you can betray michael and 'if' you fail you can still survive.
the reason carlo HAD to go was because of this as the whole family knew how much Connnie loved her skumbag husband.
@@kevinpeterwareham8131 I agree, Carlo had to go but I think Fredo could have been controlled
@@TheMotz55 your right he totally could have been controlled the problem is the message it sends to the capo, consigli, underboss in laws nephews etc. which is "you can cross me with impunity"
@@TheMotz55 Controlled how? You gonna make a guy stay with Fredo at all times? How do you make sure he can’t meet someone with bad intentions?
Of course, the silent scream is not the final scene of the third Godfather film. As those who saw the original release will remember, Godfather III initially ended with the image of Michael, now a very old man, sitting in a chair by himself and then keeling over, dead. This echoed the moment from the first picture when Brando’s Vito Corleone died in a garden while playing with his grandson; by contrast, Michael was alone, bereft of everything. In his reedit of the film, however, Coppola cuts away from Michael before he dies. Instead, we see a lonely old man, still living with his demons, as some new text appears on the screen: “When the Sicilians wish you ‘Cent’anni’, it means ‘for long life’ … and a Sicilian never forgets.” In other words, Michael no longer gets the reprieve of death. He will be forced to live with his memories (and his sins) for as long as humanly possible.
I'd say his biggest rival was he himself; he put up goalposts too lofty to attain. "Human, all too human. " ~ Nietzsche 😏
Bazini was his biggest foe. He was older and Michael had it all to prove to his family and competitors.
Been waiting on this one !👌👌👌
After viewing The Godfather Part III once again after so many years before writing this review,I would say that if The Godfather is the greatest film ever made and The Godfather Part II is the greatest sequel ever made,this movie is definitely the greatest underrated film ever made.It is a great movie although it may not be comparable to the first two in terms of critical and commercial success.The Academy Award nominations it got attest to that.
His biggest enemy was himself
Love these videos. Keep up the good work!!! One little thing I disagree with...here you said that Vincent is different than Michael because Michael and Vito always protected the family and succeeded. But he failed with Apollonia...I think her death is what really sealed his fate and sent him down the trajectory- maybe even more than killing McCluskey and Sollozo.
I liked The Godfather: Part III right up to and including Sofia Coppola's much maligned performance as Mary Corleone daughter of Don Michael Corleone, the one and only Al Pacino. I think she was unjustly criticized. In her performance she set out to play one of the innocent children of Al Pacino.
Michael's biggest rival was Hyman Roth no questions asked. It took him two sacrifices of professionals one treachery and one suicide as an aftermath to finish one sick and dying old man.
Michael's biggest enemy was his own desire to be legitimate! If you are going to be a criminal be the best criminal you can be! Be true to yourself
In my opinion, Don Michael in Part III was like Paulie Castellano.
Micheal’s biggest rival was himself.
Found it. I didn't know that he got the deal. I thought that when the Pope died, it went away. Vincent would make a terrible Don. He's too hot headed like his father. I would still watch it, if it was ever made.
Good break down thank you for the video
I envy part III well but thank you for plot exposing, You have actually redeemed it as part of masterpece.
They did destroyed him when they killed Mary
I love on sopranos when they quote the godfather. Just when i thought i was out they pull me back in
“The Godfather” is what it should be; Demonstration of human inexhaustible thirst for power, wealth and lust, all of which follows a particular path in each context. In the New York Italian district and in Sicily, this path goes through drug cartels, and as if they were all accepted, the church and police and the government find no other way than to join the Mafia. At this point, the film seeks to describe and display realities, and not so much as to critique and give a solution, although, in the realm of realities and massacres and corruption, the viewer will draw his own moral conclusions. Godfather is a men's movie and even made for men. Business worries and then family care are all part of the film. A business that is totalitarian and dominant, which is what needs to be increased in power and wealth, and ultimately in weapons and lobbying. The film is originally a narrative of the world of men, a world in which "family"-men end up in a never-ending struggle for pride, wealth, and power in an environment of undisturbed order, and of course this forest has its own law. One of these rules is the death of those are loved, As the Godfather's triple ending with the death of Michael's daughter.
I always said his biggest enemy was the woman he chose to start a traditional family with. She wasn’t with his program. It’s pretty difficult to take on the world when home isn’t straight, and they were wealthy. My opinion.
Your opinion is moronic
I just finished the movie, and yap, can't quite understand what happened.
It starts strong, like the Vincent meeting gave me the same chill the first two movies did, but about half way through it gets weaker and weaker.
Characters and plots that seemed like a big deal gone or doesn't do much, and carefully planned murders are now replaced with a god damn machine gun helicopter, like where are the cops in this film???
But the biggest issue of the story IMO, is Michel's daughter.
Not just acting, she basically got no character development at all, she just randomly fell in love with a handsome cousin so she can be subjected to tragedy about how the mafia life makes u abandon women.
The son on the other hand hates Michael for killing Fredo, and he's a crucial part of Michel's "Maybe I shouldn't try to force my good upon others" redemption, and damn the singing was fantastic,
If he dies I'd be really sad, but the daughter... no amount of Al Pachino acting can make me feel sad about that empty vessel bleeding out. (Also stop shaking the body you are making her even more dead.)
The most important thing is the way she died, it's not like Micheal loses her because he let his anger bested him or something, it's just a guy missing his shot, what could Micheal do to prevent that? Stayed in the seat in the theater so he could die instead?
It's still a pretty good movie, and it still present some Godfather vibe from time to time, but yeah it's not a great film.
Back in 1990, this climax also represented a high point for Pacino, who had just begun to resurrect his career after an extended absence from the screen. He had found himself disillusioned with acting after a number of financial and creative disappointments (Revolution was an example of the former, Scarface an example of the latter) and had also gone broke in the meantime. The 1989 crime thriller Sea of Love, in which the actor played an alcoholic cop trying to track down a serial killer, had marked the start of his comeback. When I interviewed him several years ago, Pacino told me that the person who inspired his return was the very individual who would soon play his estranged wife in The Godfather Part III: “I was living with my great love, Diane Keaton, and she would look at me and say, ‘Well, what are you doing? … What, you think you’re going to go back to living in a room? Like the old days? You’ve had money for too long now. You gotta get back to work.’”
Only Hymen Roth was above Michael in power. Rests were below his power level.
Lucchesi had not only mafia power, but like Michael and Roth he also had authority which extended beyond criminal connections. Among them all, he seems to be the criminal enjoying the highest level of criminal immunity. His authority isn’t behind the scenes like Barzini or a common Dons, but he openly commands government and orders full scale aircraft attacks with no worry about civil security.
A great end to a spectacular trilogy. The Godfather movies are the epitome of crime movies. The portrayal of Mafia life in these movies is just so absorbing and realistic. And this thrid movie might not have been the best, but a little dip in quality can be expected and tolerated for such movie franchises. As always, Al Pacino's Michael Corleone hits all the criteria for a great character. And the fact that he wants to be redeemed in his children's eyes gives him a human dimension that serves to sway the viewers away from remembering his ugly sins from the past. Redemption is always hard and costly, but never impossible. To me, that is the message of the Godfather's last iteration.
"When A Plot Against The Emperor Failed, The Plotters Were Always Given A Chance To Let Their Families Keep Their Fortunes..Tom Hagen
Lucchesi for some reason looks like the leader of East Germany, or even a Stasi Agent…. or is it just me?