If it had been released in 1976, and was of the exact same quality as it was in 1990, it would have been just as (or very close to as) critically acclaimed as the first two films.

One of the problems I had with GF3 is that it took place in 1979 or thereabouts, but everything about it looked 1990.

Robert Duvall's absence would have been even more glaring, considering his status during that time. Plus 1976 was a damn crowded year when it comes to movies that are remembered today (Rocky, Taxi Driver, All the President's Men, Network, Carrie, and that's only a few). On name alone maybe it would have had box office success, and some pity nominations like it actually got, but acclaim? Any given year in the 70's would have kicked its ass even worse than 1990 in terms of acclaim.

I haven't seen the film in over twenty years- but at the time I didn't think it was nearly as bad as its rap. Nor did I think Sofia was all that terrible. Ryder was the "it" girl then so her replacement was already starting from a popularity deficit. Add nepotism to the mix and she didn't have much of a chance of getting a fair shake at all.
Maybe I'll feel differently when I see it again, but that was my initial impression.

As far as release closer to the originals affecting perception- The Vatican stuff is based on what happened in 78 with JPI IIRC. 1990 was enough distance to have some perspective on it as well as allow the conspiracy theories to resonate.

But I think that if somehow the whole priest/pedo scandals had blown up prior to this release, Or if the film was made 15 years later than it was, the perception of it as a whole might be radically different because perception of the church shifted so radically.

Two things I hadn't considered: Duvall's absence and the other 1976 films.

My theory is basically just that the long passage of time between the second and third movies made people treat the third harsher than they would have otherwise; I personally think the third is a lot closer in quality to the second than most people seem to ever give it credit for. But then I also think that the first is far superior to the second, and not everyone agrees with that.

Excellent points, though. I had forgotten what a hell of a year '76 was for competition.

As much as the movie gets bashed by the fans, it was nominated for 7 Academy Awards.

I think Godfather 3 suffers from 'Inferior 3rd movie syndrome' like most movie franchises. I think of Return of Jedi, Superman III, Spiderman 3, etc, as those franchises had great sequels, and a very average/bad 3rd movie. You can only milk a franchise so much before its gets stale, and the fact that Godfather II is a great movie is more of a testament then Godfather III being an average movie.

It's not a bad movie. It's actually a good movie. Problem is, Parts I and II are GREAT movies. So it's always going to be looked down upon. If Coppola makes a Part IV that's horrible, people will start liking III a whole lot more.

I am of the opinion that it is an excellent film. But the first two are just absolute masterpieces that it could never live up to expectations.

Exactly

Adding Duvall and taking out Sofia Coppola would have made a difference if made in 1976 so don't think it could have been the same quality. It would have delayed or perhaps never resulted in Apocalypse Now so glad it wasn't filmed. No matter when it was filmed or who it included Godfather III would never be as good as Apocalypse Now.

I have a question for those of you singing the praises of GIII: Did you see the film when it originally came out? Did you like it then? Or did you dislike it then and appreciate it only upon re-viewings in later years? Or did you discover it well after it came out?

I ask because I saw it in a theater when it came out and thought it was terrible then--on so many levels!--and have vowed never to go near it again. There was absolutely nothing in it that came anywhere close to redeeming it. Sofia was terrible but she was the least of the film's problems.

I did not see it when it came out. Some of us on here are not geriatric.

I saw it years ago and it was fine. I think lots of people were just pissed that Coppoloa cast his own daughter in an important role. Granted, she was an ugly duckling and horrible actress back then, but she's cool as hell now. IMO.

I recently watched it for a review and thought held up great. I think a certain segment of the movie going population hold the first two in such high regard that part III was going get shit on regardless.

If by "same quality" you mean that 1. Robert Duvall is not present and 2. Whoever plays the daughter was as awful as Sofia Coppola, then no...it would not have been critically acclaimed.

However, had Coppola made the film in the 1970's it probably would have been better quality because he still had "the touch" which he lost after Apocalypse Now IMHO.

I saw it when it was released on Christmas Day 1990 and thought it was good. Now the group of guys behind me felt differently. When the credits started rolling they said that it was the worse movie they ever saw because there was too much talking and there were no action scenes with Al Pacino blasting people.

There you have it: if Pacino had played Tony Montana in GODFATHER III, it would have been the awesomest thing ever!

Great movies have the 'it' factor, as I can't explain what 'it' is, but you just know it when you watch a great movie. Godfather I & II have 'it' as they are just great movies. Godfather III is a good movie, but I think the storyline was starting to get tired at that point, as the redemption of Michael Corleone just really didn't do much for me.

Although it did give us one great one line, "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!!"

Sofia Coppola gets a lot of shit for the film but Andy Garcia is what makes it painful to watch for me. Even if Duvall had been in it I don't think it would have been any good.

One problem I had with it was that I felt the new characters/actors added weren't very interesting. The 2nd film had great performances from Lee Strasberg, Michael Gazzo and Bob De Niro, and there was more of a focus on John Cazale as Fredo. I just didn't think that Andy Garcia's, Joe Mantegna's or (of course) Sophia's characters were nearly as memorable.

The only really memorable character left was Michael, and even he seemed different and not in a good way. It felt more like modern-day Pacino than the character I saw in the first two films.

Trying to redeem Michael Corleone was just silly. Somethings you just can't come back from or make up. In the end of Part II he became what he was always afraid of. It reminds me of what Lucas did with the prequels. Anakin killed a bunch of kids and ushered in a dictatorship because he had a temper tantrum. Killing the Emperor at the end of Jedi doesn't make up for shit.

Eli Wallach in GFIII =

Personally loved it when it was initially released in the theatres. Totally overlooked the film's weakness but I was a huge fan of the series and got excited about the closure of the saga. I loved how Coppola would place the Corleone story against the backdrop of historical events (fall of Cuba in GFII) and here with the Vatican Bank scandal. The production design was gorgeous under Gordon Willis' cinematography.

I think it's at least on par with Part II, which I thought was hampered by the flashback scenes.

I have a theory that people say they like II as much or more than 1 just to fuck with me.