GF III nowhere near as good as GF I & II but........

if it was a standalone movie and not part of the greatest trilogy of movies ever, would we be so critical?

Besides, it tells a sad and ultimately cruel story of a torn man.

My first posting so be gentle!!

First of course welcome to the board, and yes we are all very gentle. And this question has been asked many times before. I can't answer the question of you, because I find GF 3 the best of the whole Trilogy! But others here have different opinions. Listen to them.

Welcome to the boards! Good question.
FFC believed doing a sequel on The Godfather was a: "Sure way to fail.", he thought about it and decided to make GFII. The same thing was the case with GFIII, FFC absolutely wanted Michael to be the main character in GFIII, it would be a completely different GF, because Michael was different. He was gonna make a movie about Michael thinking about his sins, it was so different that FFC diden't even wanted the movie to be called GFIII, the executives of Paramount wanted the movie to be called: "The Godfather Part III.", FFC diden't agreed with this, he wanted it to be called somehing like: "The Dead Of Michael Corleone.". FFC diden't have that kind of power to decide what was gonna be the movie's name, so it was gonna be "The Godfather Part III.".

Welcome to the board!!!

I love the movie to no end!!! But, some of the quality of the DVD sucks in some parts of the picture.

Hey Paul, welcome from a fellow newbie! Where in "sunny" Scotland are you?

Good point about the 3rd part, would certainly be a lot more exempt from criticism if it was a stand alone movie without a doubt. Even FFC was loathe to call it "The Godfather - Part III" which is saying something.

Firstly, Thanks everyone for replying to my post (I now realise this was posted under the wrong heading as it was not specific to th DVD, but I'm sure you can forgive me just this once!!)
SCottish Don - I'm in Cumbernauld for my sins!
I've been here for 12 years now - moved up from Cardiff in 1991)

I take it you are in Dunfermline?

Yer i agree, 1 and 2 seem much mor classic to me than 3, 3 has like a totally different story kinda, a diff feelin than 1 and 2. The thing that still made 3 good was the way it was so sad..

I thought the third one wasnt as good as the other two and I think that if it was a totally different movie and had nothing to do with 1 and 2 i dont think many people would enjoy it as much as they do. Because it has alot of the same characters and because you can still follow the story, that is why it interests people to watch it.