To answer the original question of this threat the answer is yes.

To go back to the name of the topic...yea, you're probably the only one, but that doesn't make you a bad person.

The Godfather trilogy, is IMO, the greatest trilogy of films ever made. The first one was classic, and flawless in my eyes. Same with Part II. Then, there's Part III. I found the story interesting, and taken as a seperate, individual film, with no name to live up to, it's still a flawed movie. But it's still a good film, and definitely one of the better films to be released in 1990.

LIKES:
1) The story (though the plot has more gaps than a Tony Hawk game)
2) Pacino and Keaton

Dislikes:
1) The rest of the characters (Mary, Vincent, Anthony, Don Altobello, B.J. Harrision, etc.)
2) Sofia Coppola, in general. Thank God she's a decent director.
3) No Tom Hagen
4) a castrated Michael Corleone. Pacino played the role well, but I don't care how many times someone says "It shows a different side of Mike", blah blah blah, no one wants to see Michael Corleone without a set of balls.

I always thought they just forgot what it was all about and played their own story at the moment.

I disagree. A Part III where Michael Corleone acts like had in the first two movies wouldn't have been an end to the trilogy. It's like Darth Vader never turning good at the end of ROTJ. His character comes full circle. He learns to repent his mistakes. It makes for such a more powerful ending to a trilogy.

For example, what ending is stronger...

The ending to Scarface where Tony Montana plugs along, never changes, and eventually dies having learned nothing thus causing no emotion from the audience. A cool ending, but really, what's the point?

Or the ending to The Godfather Part III where a character who had been ruthless before, comes to terms with his life, tries to change, and ultimately fails, resulting in one of the emotional endings to a movie, period.

Which one is better and more powerful?

I don't even think we need an aswer to that question.

Very well said DBC.

I guess, to answer the question, no your not alone, but you are rare. I guess us Godfather III likers have to stick together.

I can understand how some people LIKE GFIII even though many do not.

But to consider it the BEST of the three Godfather films is something I'm finding difficult to fathom.

Even with it's numerous flaws that are discussed at length here on the Gangster BB...in terms of storytelling and complexity GFII is by far the best of all of them.

AppleOnYa

Apple, I could be way off here, but there is someone on this board who hasn't even seen GF3 before... is that you? And if so, how would you know that is impossible to fathom?

As for the people who think it's the best, I can understand why they would. It's the one people can relate to the best. Michael Corleone actually has a heart in this one. He tries to do good. And it has way more of an emotional payoff than the previous two movies.

Plus it's the last one. And more modern.

So like Johnny Fontane sang at the beginning of Part III, "To each his own." If someone thinks Part III is the best, it's fine with me. I consider all these movies to be one movie anyway, so I can't really pick favorites.

I've seen parts of GFIII and once even got through about the first 40 minutes before I had to change the channel just to stay awake. But you are partially correct, I've never seen the entire film straight through.

However the numerous parts I have seen, plus the infinite discussion about it here on the BB Board, plus the fact that many of those who DO happen to like it have made it clear that they don't consider it equal to the quality of the previous two....THAT is what makes it impossible for me to fathom how anyone can consider it the BEST of the Trilogy. The simple miscasting of both S. Coppola and G. Hamilton already bring it down a level from the almost perfect casting of the others.

Another mystery is how anyone can consider Pacino's cardboard cutout performance in GFIII to be better than those of the first two. I agree his silent scream at the end is one of the finest acting moments in cinema history; but overall, his portrayal of Michael Corleone in GF and GFII are far superior to that of GFIII.

AppleOnYa

Overlooked is the horrid performance of Eli Wallach as Don Altobello. Supposedly he is a long time friend of the Corleones...he is even Godfather to Connie. His connection to the family is never clear, however. I have argued as best I can for the performance of Sofia Coppola, which while nothing great, is not as bad IMO as some have ranted. George Hamilton is a total distraction, and much as I love Diane Keaton, even she mailed it in. I can never bring myself to dislike any of Pacino's work, but he didn't get any deeper in this role than he did in The Devil's Advocate...which is no Godfather picture.

Whenever his role is mentioned, the scene where zasa leaves the don's meeting angrily comes to my mind. Altobello promises that he would pacify zasa and bring him back. Absolutely hilarious scene.

I know I'am off topic here but can anyone else believe that Vincent in GF3 did not know what Michaels daughter Mary looked like? In the movie Vincent does not know who she is at the party that they are having in honor of Michael. Vincent hung around and knew Michael and Michael even said that he had offered Vincent jobs in the past. I cannot believe that Vincent did not know who she was. He had to of seen a picture of her somewhere. Even if he didn't it is Michaels daughter, the Godfathers daughter. He had to of known who she was.

Still though...the implication from Michael's letter to his children at the beginning of the film was that when older, they were taken care of by their mother, who oversaw their education. From this one might assume that Michael and Kay did try to keep them (or at least Mary) sheltered from Family Business. So it could be that bastard cousin Vincent (another GFIII fabrication I won't even bother to go into) did not see Mary for many years prior to their 'bumping' into each other at that opening party. It would make sense that he didn't recognize the adult Mary after so many years.

Apple

Very true but I cannot believe that Michael did not have pictures of his "older" children around the house or in his office. Vincent hung around michael he must have seen them.

Yes, there are pictures in the office, and you will recall Kay is looking at them right before the scene where she asks Michael to let Anthony be an opera singer.

There is a line in GF III however where Mary says to Vinny that the last time they saw each other was when she was 8 years old, so even if her picture was on the wall it is likely Vinnie paid no mind to it.

Although I don't dislike GFIII as much as most people, the film is filled with weak acting performances, and a weak storyline. Even on its own and not comparing it to Parts I and II, it will never be a great movie. The first 2 Godfather movies, from the direction, to the acting, to the storyline, to the score, are two of the greatest movies ever made.

Why do people insist on ranking the GF films, as if they are in competition? I thought that all three of the films complement each other. They all tell different parts of the same story, which surely should be judged as a whole?

Overall, the Godfather trilogy is a Rise and Fall story. Each part is like an act of a play rather than an individual work in itself (which may explain why Copolla lobbied for GFIII to be titled "The Death of Micheal Corleone"). For me, GFIII was the least enjoyable because it was upsetting to see the "hero" of the piece in decline-- the strong, infalliable Don in the autumn years of his life, spending his time funding foundations instead of whacking his enemies, making business deals rather than plotting bloody revenge.

But to have done otherwise would have been inconsistent with what I feel was the overriding theme of Micheal's command of the Family: the move toward legitimacy. It was inevitable that, by a third installment of the saga, the Don that had committed himself to legitimizing the business at a very early stage (and setting himself an unrealistic five-year timetable) would look more like a businessman. Of course it is disappointing to see Micheal shorn of his quiet danger, his silent menace. But the story could not be told otherwise. Whereas GFI and GFII impart excitement and awe, GFIII produces sadness and reflection.

For me, the only "objective" weakness of GFIII was the non-appearence of Tom Hagen. Clemenza's replacement in GFII was a stroke of (comic) genius; Hagen's replacement with that grey-haired guy was flat and dissappointing. Otherwise, GFIII was a well-done finale to (cliche alert): an epic saga.

Doc Box, that was the most intelligent thing I have ever heard or read on the subject.

I can't argue with you there, and especially agree about the gap left by Tom Hagen. However...to be completely consistent with Michael's quest for legitimacy, one can wonder why he would even give the time of day to his dead brother's ILLEGITIMATE son...or even not react more passionately to his daughter's love affair with a man everyone knows is her cousin.

The omission of Connie's children was a huge mistake. If FFC wanted to bring some family drama into the story to weave into the Family Business end...then he could've come up with far more creative ways than the fabrication of a bastard nephew and an incestuous love affair.

And THAT is how GFIII can be compared the other two...shoddy storytelling from which it cannot escape when put up against GF and GFII. While in some small ways it does 'compliment' the others, in other aspects it is somewhat of a letdown.

And it really didn't have to be.

Apple

I cannot agree more. I am sure that after the phenomenonal success of the first 2 parts, there would have been a lot of great scripts in contention for part 3. But somehow copolla made some very bad choices and what we have is this...

Pros and cons of GFIII has been discussed many times, these are the conclusions that I have come to.

-By it self it would have a been a decent film, but in the shawdows of I & II, its hardly worth seeing.

-Many of I & II's story line is used in III

-I believe that FFC admitted he really didn't want to make a third, but did it for the money.

-The story line was just too hard to follow with just one viewing.

-Yes Pacino was great, but everyone else seemed to just being going through the motions, and at best doing parodies of their characters. The brought no realism to their characters such as Brando, DeNiro and Pacino did previously.

Because it's not a whole. 1 part is arguably the best because it's based on the original novel, and for me its only faults are the few things from novel that FFC changed for no good reason.
GF2 is partly...er...legitimate , but the rest is composed as a sequel, and as every sequel, is not equal... Forgive me the rhyme...
GF3 has nothing at all in common with the original except the names of characters, on which it speculates for the sake of money, let us be honest.
Personally, I never consider even the "modern" parts of GF2 as a part of the original story.
Why should I grant such elevation to FFC's illegitimate offspring from raping Puzo?

I like Part I and II the best. Part III is OK.

Michael and his transformation in the first movie is very interesting. First he doesn't want to be like his father. "That's my family, Kay. Not me". But later in the film, when the Don is shot and injuried he becomes more and more involved in the family.

A scene in Part I I really like is when Carlo is dead and you see Michael walk along the road. Al Pacino said that this is how he sees "Michael Corleone" in his head.

Al.Neri, do you have any links for this interview?

While I can't argue that all movies are made with box office takings in mind, I would say that GFIII can be properly regarded as part of the saga, not merely tacked on. The foundations for it are laid in GFI, when Micheal tells Kay that "in five years time, the Corleone Family will be entiely legitimate". If GFIII had not been made, then we would all be left asking: so, did Micheal succeed in making the family legitimate? If so, how? And GFIII answers this question in an inevitable but satisfying way: Micheal gets legitimacy, but at a terrible price: senile diabetes and the death of his annoying daughter.

While it certainly is 'part' of the saga which is now known as 'The Godfather Trilogy'...it is in many ways also 'tacked on'.

The many winks and nods in GFIII to the loyal fans, have been discussed here in detail. There are several scenes, and conversations, including Michael's sobbing confession...which are there in most part to satisfy a thirst for closure or justification to things that happened or were said in GF or GFIII. There are certain words/phrases used that were obviously put there to ring a bell and remind us of the SAME words spoken in GF or GFII. Even though part of the story...hose incidents are most definitely 'tacked on'.

Apple

But not always considerations of art and sense are sacrificed to it.
I would say that this scene is the weakest one in the movie. Not acting, the way it's written. Read again that place in the book, if you don't remember. It's very important for our right perception of Michael's character that he did not seek a meeting and reunion with her, and never would. It couldn't be otherwise, it's absolutely unnatural. And he wouldn't persist on marriage, on the contrary, saying that he's a gangster and it's dangerous, and she must think everything over again and consult with her parents. And he doesn't give any promises, he says:“If everything goes right, Corleone Family will be completely legitimate in about five years. Some very tricky things have to be done to make that possible.” And he didn’t say that it was the chief aim of his life, and he would be very much upset if everything didn’t go right and it wouldn’t be possible. He was not being so naïve…
And the last moment: he tells that when she had already stated that she didn't care if he was a gangster, because she loves him.
The scene that was fabricated for the movie is unbearably direct and primitive for both characters. It's like they had some 100 seconds to patch the hole in the storytelling...
Why there should be a question? It's answered in the end of the book/1 movie: Corleones are completely legit after their move to Vegas. There's no question whatever. If FFC wished him back to make sequel, it's not poor Mike's fault, really.
It's strange that you find it eiter inevitable or satisfying, I'd say neither, absolutely unnatural. But of course, you're entitled to your own opinion.

I always thought that the haunting, solitary shot of Michael at the end of GFII...preceded by that ingenious flashback...really was the perfect ending to the saga. None other was needed. Yes, Part III did serve to answer some lagging questions and even though it was destined to be made...in reality there would have been nothing wrong with us being left with only GF and GFII. Many films have ended with unanswered questions such as 'what happened to...' or 'what if...'; it served as part of the entertainment, the mystique.

GFIII in a way destroyed the mystique of GF and GFII. Because we now know what happened to Michael, Kay and the rest of them all those years years later. Because of popular demand, FFC had to make up a story to tell us what happened.

Some were satisfied with the outcome, some were not.

Apple

Apple is correct, and I would add that many great books and movies purposefully leave you guessing and wondering. The author of the play "Doubt" which is now playing on Broadway suggests that the final act of the play is supposed to take place when the members of the audience disperse and go to dinner or whatever to discuss what they just saw. More to the point is Kafka's The Castle, which literally ends in mid sentence. The bottom line is GFIII, while not a horrible movie by any stretch, is not necessary to the telling of the Corleone saga.

I agree that it was kind of unnecessary to make Vincent Sonny's illegitimate son. Why couldn't they have used one of Sonny's real sons? Or one of Connie's?

Well, maybe Michael would have objected to his sibling's "real" children being involved with the family business, and it was OK for Vincent to get involved because he wasn't a real Corleone. Who knows, but I agree, it wasn't explained well enough.

As for the end of GFII being a good ending to the Godfather saga, I agree. It is implied that Michael is alone and regretful for his actions. But The Godfather Saga begged to be a trilogy, and it allowed fans to go back into that Corleone universe once more, which I am thankful for.

And although there are a few things in GFIII that are recycled from Parts I & II, that's what a Part III does in a trilogy. It brings everything to a close while going through the first 2 movies and bringing back various themes and imagery. Here I think Part III does a good job in that regard.

Sure Part III is clumsy, especially in the beginning, but once it gets moving in the final act, it can't be stopped. It's ambitious and at times, just as good as the earlier movies. And it definitely has the best ending, IMO.

That is something that always makes me mad!!! I understand that it may be more fascinating to leave it to the audience's imagination, but when it happens I somehow feel frustrated. Give me a plot, not a riddle!!!!