Verizon Wireless' "Share Everything" Is a Terrible Plan

Not for the reason you think.  But because Verizon's marketing team are a bunch of brilliant nerds who have managed to pitch the perfect way to entice families to join Big Red.

In case you weren't paying attention Verizon Wireless no longer has unlimited data.  But that's not entirely true.  What they did is position the data in a way that makes no sense whatsoever.  In summary, a device that will use more data, pays less than a device that happens to use data but is not used for data primarily.  That's where the problems begin, and if they don't change the plans, I fear I won't be able to join the fun anytime soon.  They don't even have to get rid of the plan, just modify it slightly.  Let me explain.

I have had Verizon service for years, since around 2006 or thereabouts.  In that time I have been mostly satisfied with the service I've received.  They're a little expensive, but not dramatically so over the competitors.  Where they in is coverage: If I do drop a call, it's because I'm in some sort of shielded building, but I've even been able to make and take calls from underground at times.  The CDMA technology has a lot to do with this I'm sure.  I'm also a regular user of Verizon's 4G LTE, which can often be nearly as fast as my home internet.  I used it during the entire drive from California to Washington State, and while it did drop to 3G in remote places, it stayed 4G for the majority, which is impressive.

Being the borderline hermit that I am, and since I have no wife or kids, all I really need is a plan of my own that gets me through the day.  I don't make many calls - less than 100 minutes a month by my recent estimate.  But again, I do use and rely on data.  It's not primary, but I use it during commutes, which can be up to 2 hours a day.  That could be for turn-by-turn navigation, web searching, music streaming, or any other regular use case.  I'm not a heavy user by any means.  It just needs to work when I need it.  Currently I'm still on Verizon's unlimited data plan for 4G phones which means I don't have to worry or care about hitting or exceeding any sort of limit.  I just use it to my heart's content, and pay the $20/month that makes it happen.  Verizon's smallest voice plan is 450 minutes at $39.99 a month, so I'm stuck with that too.

With Verizon Wireless' new "Share Everything" plan, they are trying to appeal directly to families and households, rather than the single professional.  The single plans no longer exist.  If you sign up with Verizon now, you'll be forced into a "Share Everything" plan, even if you have no intention of using multiple devices.  What's worse the pricing is as anti-user as it gets.  There are three layers:  Basic Device, Data Only, and Smartphone Plans.  Let's start with Basic Device, because it's the most ridiculous.

In order to make sense of the above you need to see some terms.  There's "access" and then there's "device".  Normally these two are bundled as one price, a rate you pay based on how much you anticipate using it.  In the "Share Everything" world, they're two separate items.  This price schedule (and all of the later ones) are essentially saying that you'll pay a certain amount per month to access the Verizon Wireless network (on the right), PLUS a certain amount per month for the device to be used on the network (on the left).  So here, you're paying $30/month for the privilege of using a basic phone PLUS $10/month for 700 minutes, or $40/month for unlimited talk and text.  

Confused?  Don't feel bad.

Think of it as $40/month for basic cell service (Which is actually a ripoff, since others offer the same for $20-$30/month but not with as many minutes) or $70/month for an unlimited service and a tiny bit of data (which is a ripoff because others offer the same for $50/month).  There are higher access plan options available that give more data, but you're already at ripoff status.  What's more, the "basic phones" are totally insufficient for any sort of data use.  

Now, let's look at the Smartphone version of this plan.

Notice  the smartphone is $40/month, not $30/month.  Also, you'll notice the data tiers all have unlimited talk and text but varying amounts of data.  A smartphone is simply a device that has a larger screen and can get email.  That's it.   So, Verizon is basically punishing you for having a device capable of using that data, right.  But wait... before I go deeper I want to share the Data Only plans.

Here, we have hotspots, tablets, and home broadband.  As you can see the data tiers are SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive than the smartphone plans on devices that would use way more data than smartphones.  This makes no sense whatsoever.  What these two plans are saying is that you're being forced, whether you truly need it or not, to pay $40/month extra for unlimited talk and text on every plan even if you don't do much talking or texting on your phone.  I find the Data Only plans to be quite reasonable and would happily pay $70-$80/month for 10GB of data, because it's highly unlikely I'd ever exceed that amount AND the single data plan used to give you 5GB of data for $60/month so this is a great deal.  Problem is, Data Only plans prohibit you from having a device capable of doing voice and/or text.

So let's take my situation.  I have two active lines, three lines purposely suspended.  Both are smartphones, one with unlimited data, one with 4GB data (which isn't enough).  Under Verizon's ideal situation, I'd be forced into the following scenario.  Note, my current monthly bill is around $160, and one phone has unlimited data.


Assuming nothing changes, my bill would go up $20 a month even though I lose unlimited data.  Not an ideal option at all.  The argument about "free mobile hotspot" is negated by the fact that if I were to add it on my current plan it would add $20, putting me to $180, and again, I've lost unlimited data.  That's also assuming I don't add any devices on any of my other lines of service, or that Verizon does not treat the suspended lines as "activated devices", because if they do, it then ups to $300/month which is simply ridiculous.  Mobile hotspot from phones don't work nearly as good as standalone hotspot jetpacks, anyway, especially with Windows 8 for some bizarre reason.

So what could Verizon do to make this transition easier?  Simple: Allow smartphones to stay on individual plans BUT allow other lines to take advantage of Data Only Share Everything for secondary devices.  This would then encourage people like myself to consider devices they wouldn't otherwise consider - such as a data-enabled tablet (I can't stand iPads, but would at least consider it if this were an option).  So then let's assume that I were to go with a standalone smartphone, drop two of my suspended lines, swap my second line for a jetpack, and do a tablet on the remaining line - combining the jetpack and tablet on a Data Only plan.

Add to this my current monthly smartphone rate of $60/month and you get $150 - $10/month less than what I'm paying now, but I get way more out of it and my smartphone still has unlimited data for itself to use.  This would be a no-brainer for me.  But Verizon's insistence that you swap all-or-nothing makes it extremely difficult.

I get that they're trying hard to get more families and households on board.  But the reality is that the single professionals are the ones that come to Verizon, and there has to be some consideration for us.  They don't lose much money that they can't otherwise make up in other ways.

TemptingReview of "The Hobbit" (Theatrical Version, Blu-ray)

Wow.  And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't.  But there's a lot of ground to cover.

First, some context.  Believe it or not, I never read or was read "The Hobbit", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing).  I also never bothered to watch any of the "Star Wars" movies (no, none of them).  Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under.  I did watch the extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there.

For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself.  In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure.  It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the "Fellowship of the Ring".  While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up.  His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together.  The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along.

The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be "There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale", seen at the end of the "Return of the King".  What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure.  It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit..." and the whole first few sentences.  It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood).  This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure.

I had a number of problems with how this started.  It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character.  Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to "Lord of the Rings".  As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie.  Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions.  Why are they not questioning their being sent there?  Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person?  And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad?  Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time.  Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation.

Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story.  It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales".  For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said "purpose", he WAS Agent Smith.  Poor Hugo).  There's no epic battle with Albino orcs.  The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in "The Hobbit" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).

The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy.  Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie.  Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor.  He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).

Much has been made of Radagast the Brown.  Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely.  He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified).  I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see "A Wrinkle in Time" by Disney as a perfect example).  As with the aforementioned, if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.

My TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D).  So I was able to experience the "speed" of things that people were talking about.  The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props.  The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area.  Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking.  Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well.

If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them.  They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size.  Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck.  In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them.  This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything.  In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day.

Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum.  A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special.  The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable.

Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long.  I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here.  Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and "The Hobbit" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called "The Dwarven Quest" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively.  This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure.  In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch.  But don't expect it to blow you away.  It's a decent movie, not a great one.

TemptingReview of "Enigmatis: The Ghosts of Maple Creek"

I have to admit, when I read up on this game, I was under the clearly mistaken impression that it was so short as to not make it worth paying for.  I also had my doubts about the back story of the game; in fact, I still somewhat do if for no other reason than some of the rather haphazard telling of the story, but all in all I walked away satisfied.

Enigmatis is what is referred to as a "hidden object" game.  This genre is somewhat of an evolution of the old point-and-click and text style games of years past, where you'll play out the role of the main character and experience the world through their eyes.  You'll be presented with scenes that have a bunch of irrelevant objects and a select number of key ones that you have to identify.  Depending on the difficulty setting of the game, there may be a time limit, or some sort of punishment for tapping/clicking on the wrong item.  Often, the bulk of what you need to find is not used, but there will be one or two items that are used to advance the story.

In Enigmatis, you wake up in a pool of blood, dazed and confused, having lost your memory.  As the story advances, you will observe items that slowly restore your memory of what has transpired: a young girl has gone missing in the city of Maple Creek, and you've been dispatched to find out what happened to her and bring her home.  Strangely, the town appears mostly abandoned, but you will see various characters reveal themselves at points.  There are twists and turns that will have you wondering where the story is going to go next.  If for nothing else it was a great premise when it started.

My primary issues with Enigmatis were:

1. Not Enough "Creepy".  It started out excellently, dark and mysterious, using ambiance and audio to really bring you into the scene.  There's a part with a dead body and some footprints that will likely make your skin crawl, if for only a brief moment.  Shadows move in the background, catching your eye and tempting you to chase after them.  But then, about midway through the story, you'll trigger a key event involving a bell...and all of a sudden the creep factor is gone.  Shadows show up less, and then it just becomes a point-and-shoot exercise.  It's still a decent story told, but it would have helped a lot to keep up the "creep" factor more than it was.
2. Plot Drop Offs.  This is more about character development than anything.  While the story was pretty straightforward a lot of the story elements were simply abandoned with no further probing.  There's a character who tries to give you all of the collected materials; he then disappears and is never seen or heard from again.  You never find out what happened to him.  There is a church full of cultists (as far as you know) - after triggering the aforementioned bell event, they all run out of the church, never seen or heard from again.  There's a person who rips a photo off of a wall and runs off - you never find out who that person exactly is (their face is shown briefly, but it's difficult to make out who they are).  The ending, which I won't spoil, simply makes no sense whatsoever.
3. Backtrack, backtrack, backtrack.  I actually don't mind a tiny bit of backtracking but this game takes the cake.  It's not even the amount, but how far you have to go and the way you navigate.  For example, you'll find an obscure object in a boathouse that you have to use at the graveyard; the problem is that the path to navigate back to that graveyard is long and tedious.  Once you get there, you'll find an object that needs to be used at a farm; again though, long and tedious to get there since you have to navigate through another building's backyard to get there.  No shortcuts whatsoever to help with any of this journey and there were times I thought of quitting.  Compare this to a game like Adera, where the items you find are used for a future location, with backtracking every now and again, but not all the time.  
4. Hidden Object overload. There are specific places where these minigames occur and they're always the same.  The problem is, when you pass certain key points in the game, you'll have to backtrack (there's that word again) to each of these to see if there's a minigame, and then complete it.  So you'll be visiting each at least 3 times. They're a bit challenging to find certain objects, so if this is your bag then you'll be right at home, but going back to the exact same layouts over and over is not my idea of fun.
5. Pointless highlights.  Things that the game will encourage you to look at that have no useful purpose in the game.  There's a sign near some woods as well as what seems to be an exposed pipe at the top of a toilet.  They draw your eye and distract you needlessly.  You might spend minutes examining these in case they unlock something else, to no avail.
6. Too much dependence on evidence.  To the point that at times, you can't advance the story at all without going to the evidence wall to drag some photos into circles.  I get it; they want you to see things through the eyes of the detective, but to force the user to manually drag things into circles feels like game padding.  Should easily and definitely have just been some cutscenes where you watch the detective do this activity.

All that said, it's a fairly lengthy game.  I was playing in brief spurts for at least a week, so I figure I got roughly 7-8 hours out of the game, which comes in at just under a dollar an hour.  That's of course with me analyzing every corner of the town and not rushing to finish it.  Compared to some first person shooters with a 8 hour campaign at $60 ( over $7 per hour of gameplay!!) I found it to be a decent deal.  That said, this kind of game is a time passer.  It's not something that will go down as a legendary epic or anything.  It'll do, especially if you're on a plane or something passing time.

TemptingReview of "The Godfather Part III"

"What the hell?"

Those were the first words out of my mouth once the final scene concluded and the movie was over.  After a trying near 3 hours of movie, it wasn't that I was dissatisfied.  On the contrary, I was quite confused at what I had just seen: a movie that had a lot of emotion behind it, but also a lot of extremely confusing and often contradictory scenes that left me scratching my head.  It has been said that this was supposed to be considered as an "epilogue" to the first two, and not part of the trilogy.  But due to pressure from Paramount this was added in and named accordingly, to its detriment I would say.

Part III takes place an extended time after Part II and focuses mainly on Michael's attempts to further legitimize the business.  I mentioned this in the last review - and it rears its head again in this one.  There is a lot of regret and sadness with how these attempts are presented to the viewer, which is part of the good.  However, there are also smatterings of the same-old that show up every so often, which is the bulk of the bad.  The character dynamics have changed drastically, and most of them are no longer recognizable from their previous selves.  This is especially true with characters such as Connie - once a sniveling, whining, yelling, screaming battered wife who is now more cutthroat than Michael himself with no real explanation as to the reasoning.  There's Anthony, who once adored his father but now supposedly resents him (according to Kay, anyway), yet this is all thrown in the garbage later in the movie with no explanation (more later).  There's Mary, his daughter who is now running the Vito Andolini Corleone Foundation as a figurehead to money laundering...she dominates roughly a third of the movie, I kid you not.  This wouldn't be so bad except that she is not nearly as polarizing as Apollonia was in Part II, and Apollonia had only a few minutes to showcase the character yet ended up way more memorable.  Then there's Vincent, who I will get to in a later part.

In the first scenes we see Vincent Mancini arrive.  He's the son of Sonny Corleone, and apparently was an unplanned child, since he does not carry the Corleone name at this time.  He runs into Mary, Michael's daughter, who has grown up.  She mentions that they've met before, when he was 15 and she was 8, alluding to some sort of sexual encounter at a wedding.  Based on the ages this would put this event sometime after the events of Part II but before Part III, meaning that Vincent was already in his early teens during Part II but never introduced.  This scene threw me, because she mentioned they were cousins but I couldn't initially piece together how that was possible.  It was then that it struck me that I had forgotten that Sonny was Michael's brother...and I had forgotten because I seemed to recall that he wasn't a brother by blood, but that may have been my lack of attention during the first movie.  In either case, the blatant and thrown-together attachment of these two right from the jump annoyed me.  Apollonia from Part I was dismissive, shy, and partially disinterested at Michael's advances, and in turn he didn't have to do much to end up impressing her into their marriage.  Here, Vincent is portrayed as an irresistible ladies man that gets women to do anything, even drop their panties and risk death without a second thought.  This simply is not believable, as Kay herself will attest to repeatedly throughout all three films.

Despite the previous scene, Vincent takes a reporter home who wants a story from Michael.  This exchange makes absolutely no sense for a variety of reasons.  First, she never gets the story.  Second, the attraction is forced and has no energy behind it whatsoever.  Third, Mary seemingly doesn't give a care about this womanizer taking this hot blonde back to his place for some fun, and fourth, she is nearly killed during an attempt on Vinny's life but just calmly calls the cops at his behest.  She is then never seen or referred to again in the rest of the movie.  I'm still trying to figure out if this was just a blatant attempt to add more time to the movie - because they could have cut this entire 10-20 minutes off the movie easily and lost nothing.  The attempt on his life could have been better served without her involved.

I will give Vincent credit for the character itself.  It brings back very good and close memories of early Michael, immediately after he killed the other Dons in Part I.  The role is played to perfection, and at times you can almost wax some nostalgia about the mob days.  The problem isn't the character or the role, clearly.  It's that he is playing second fiddle to others who are pale shadows of their former selves.  Maybe that was the intent.  The problem is that some characters, in their pale shadowness, ended up being caricatures instead of standouts.  Take Michael Corleone, for example.

He is awarded a medal from the church, he is writing letters to his kids, he is doing "family" things and attempting to be wholesome.  That's fine...except when he goes back to the casino round table with the other Dons in Vegas and passes them a bunch of money, in an attempt to dissolve the underbelly and step away from it.  His intentions are good, but he purposely leaves out Joey Zaza, at the time the primary handler between all of the Dons.  It is assumed that this is Michael sending a message to Joey about the attack on Vinny, but it comes off as if Michael is still a strong part of the same crime dealings he always was, yet wants to escape from it.  This is made worse by a helicopter-based massacre, where nearly everyone is murdered.  With Vinny's help, Michael gets out safely.  I submit that this is where the movie really goes down hill -  not because of the action, which is good, but rather because the storyline gets so winded and tangled that you lose track of the reason behind anything.

All I can say from what I pieced out is that somehow, the Vatican is involved in banking in Italy, they have a huge real estate-related conglomerate called the Immortalie, and Michael wants a majority stake.  It's not clear why, but he says later that he wants it to be a legitimate business venture and not an underbelly to criminal behavior.  One of the other Dons, who is a long time family friend of Vito Corleone, makes repeated futile attempts to get Michael to share in the opportunity, but he refuses.  The problem with this section is that the whole Vatican involvement seems thrown in and and random.  It's almost like the whole scene was designed to do nothing more than to get an excuse for Michael to stay in Italy for an extended period until his son got a chance to do his opera thing.  I normally don't have an issue with plot devices, provided the plot device is interesting.  But I could never tell who was the bad guy here.  The bishop, the priest, the pope, etc.

Throughout all of this, Connie, who is an unmentioned Consigliere (the title Tom the lawyer had in Part I) is instructing Vinnie to commit murder and plotting and scheming like Michael used to do before.  The issue here is that it's totally not with her character to do these things, as she was totally repulsed by the very notion of crime in the family.  This repulsion was displayed in her moving away with the guy she married and only coming back to the house when Michael was at his greatest need (when the mom died).  Connie is cold, heartless, calculating, and totally without remorse in this episode, and there is no explanation as to this shock behavior.

Mary eventually begins to question her role as the chairman of the Foundation, thinking it may be a front for her father's illegal activities (it is), to which he denies the allegation and tries to convince her that he's trying desperately to go legit.  The Mary character is easily the most annoying of the bunch, because the only thing she does is whine.  Part of that has to do with the lines she was given, but there are frequent times when she doesn't even stand out as a character with the role.  I don't know that anyone could have done a better job, but I felt that again, this was simply a plot device to bring out the best and the worst in other characters (i.e. Vinny and Michael) rather than a standout on her own.  She is in this forbidden relationship with Vinny and Michael, though he says it's "dangerous" does not snap or go ballistic like he would before, and she seems perfectly fine having inappropriate relations with her cousin.  She also doesn't bat an eye at the fact that her father killed her uncle - though he denies it, it's obvious she knows for a fact that he did and yet does not express the emotion that she should about it.

For someone who "dreads" Michael Corleone, Kay spends a substantial amount of time with and around him in this movie.  It's a total about face from the Kay that we saw in Part II and this was annoying.  She did a good job with what she was given, but it was too painfully obvious that they were trying hard to make it seem like Kay had all the love in the world for Michael and he for her.  Yet, this is totally conflicting with Michael's reaction to Kay getting an abortion previously.  The forced reconciliation of these two was sickening and unnecessary...we didn't need to see it.  One scene would have been enough, but maybe they like the Kay character more than the rest of us.  I was secretly hoping that Kay would get blown up or something instead of Michael, since she is the only female to interact with him and not get beaten, shot, or blown up in the process, yet she is the one who needs it the most.

In defiance of Michael's order, and authorized by Connie and Al Neri,Vinny takes some guys and goes on a manhunt to take out Joey Zaza after the massacre.  The problem here is perception.  According to Michael, Zaza is an enforcer only and has no real power, but in this scene he's pretty much a Don.  It's unknown if there is some backing logic to this presentation or what, but it's explained that Joey could not have coordinated the massacre at his level. Regardless, Vinny and the guys execute the hit with a precision that is eerily similar to Vito's murder of Don Fanucci from Part II.  Later, Vinny and Connie are chastised  by a sick Michael - he didn't order the hit and it's not what he wanted, even if it was the right thing to do.  Michael being sick is right on the heels of a sudden diabetes-related stroke that is never explained, but the movie portrays this as being triggered at Michael's stress going up due to the massacre and Zaza's actions, so you instinctively feel sympathy for Vinny.  There are just too many unexplained things in the scene which cloud the ability to really appreciate what's happened.

Later, Michael is listening to his son's performance, and recalls the music.  It's the same song that was played during one of his encounters with Apollonia.  This causes him to tell the story to his children about her, and the fact she died because he was betrayed by his bodyguard.  Of the entire movie, I found this to be the greatest scene, because it makes you think that he simply doesn't trust Vinny, when the fact is he wants to keep his children away from what he knows will happen to him and Vinny eventually.  He's accepting the reality that he can't get away from the crime life no matter what he does, and he may even have come to terms with the fact that the more he eliminates enemies the more he gets in return.  The scene though is ruined by Mary and the piss poor lack of emotion she exhibits in saying "NO!" to her father's pleas to stay away from Vinny.  Anthony agrees with Michael that she should stop seeing him, but when she runs away, all of a sudden he's siding with her inexplicably.

After Vinny briefs Michael as to the potential future plots on his life, and admits that he wants the power to protect the family, Michael provides him an offer he simply can't refuse: He will retire as Don and elevate Vinny as Vincent Corleone.  The price, however, is steep...he must no longer associate himself with Mary.  This is Michael's brilliant attempt to keep Mary safe, and Vinny agrees with a brief hesitation.  The transfer of power is subtle, and not nearly as impactful as with Vito and Michael.  With Vinny now calling the shots, it is his duty to protect Michael from those who would harm him.  He hires professionals to keep him from harm as Michael prepares for his son's opera performance.  During this time, there is a lot of bloodshed.  Al Neri dies after a successful assassination attempt that is never really explained, and it is done in the exact same style as with what happened in Part I.  Connie poisons another character, with yet again no explanation for her cruelty.  The two men who are primary for guarding Michael are taken out by a pro assassin, yet the assassin does not go back to get his kill until later.  It is then that the least surprising yet most emotional scene of the movie happens.

The assassin encounters Michael leaving the opera, and takes a shot.  This scene is so flawed it's not funny.  Michael flinches hard as he's hit in the shoulder by the bullet.  He collapses backwards, but is not dead or anything.  Vinny comes out and shoots the assassin with one shot, killing him.  The camera then pans to Mary, who is still standing there, still alive, looks down at her chest to see that she's been shot dead in the sternum.  This seems to indicate a through-and-through: The bullet went through her and hit Michael, but she stayed alive that entire time and just stood there with no flinch.  She finally collapses, Vinny yells "NO!" but doesn't run to her, and Michael and Kay are both beside themselves.  Connie cries gently (again, for no reason since she had been cold hearted the entire movie), and people just stare.  Cops run right past them without stopping.  It just doesn't make any sense.

On a selfish note, I will share my FAVORITE part of the movie.

Yeah.

Anyway, the final scene of the movie shows a severely aged Michael sitting out in front of Don Tommasino's villa by himself, surrounded by dogs.  Nothing is said and nobody shows up, but he just collapses.  It's unclear if he dies from illness, a broken heart, or just the passage of time.

And so ends a movie that is unnecessarily long, with a convoluted story, complex and contradictory characters, and a bunch of bloodshed.  It's not clear what they were going for here.  There weren't many flashbacks so it didn't strike a ton of nostalgia.  Perhaps they wanted to emphasize the reality that Michael could never escape the mob life; I'm not sure.  In any event, I felt this movie was just not strong at all, and it's perfectly understandable why people were so upset at the ending.