This is superficial, but was anyone distracted by Michaels haircut?

Agreed. I had to squint with my head upside down to see the same face as the Michael Corleone from Part 2. I think this was done to show that he'd vastly changed. But from an audience point of view this was too far a leap to make. His mannerisms were different as was his voice... okay. But giving him a vastly different look was a bridge too far. Making him look the same would've hit harder in showing that this really was the same man that had changed so much since Part 2

To me he looks like an aging punk rock singer who is too tired to live. Should have had his hair look like old Vito (Brando).

------
People only want to hear what they want to hear

The whole set and costume design of the movie fails to capture the 1979/1980 era and that most definitely includes the hairstyles worn by not only Michael, but his children, George Hamilton, Vincent and his crew, as well as the heads of the other families and Joey Zazza's crew. All you have to do is look at FBI surveillance footage of John Gotti and his crew from the early 80s where 70s chic was still somewhat in effect and you get an idea of how far off they are in this film.

I agree with you entirely but.......


QUOTE:
--------------
"This made him look less intimidating and less sophisticated. As if he just woke up or something."
--------------

^^^I think that was the point. Vito's meeting with Sollozzo (both in the film and book) also highlighted how weak and unsophisticated the Don looked. Another reason for the attampted assassination by Sollozzo.