Well, the fact is that because it is named 'The Godfather, Part III', and is the 'final' installment of what has since been named a Trilogy, and was for so long desired and anticipated by fans of GF/GFII, it is going to, and should be, forever compared to the first two.

Just as GFII was and had to be compared to 'The Godfather'. Same director, producers, writers, much of the same cast, and a natural continuation (as well as prequel) of the story.

And while the main underlying story is indeed very interesting as pointed out by La Cosa Nostra in the opening post, there were completely avoidable factors of GFIII that helped to make it a lesser film and THAT is the shame. Such as:

1. The miscasting of Sofia Coppola; even with Wynona Ryder out, the part should've been given to a more experienced actress.

2. The fabrication of Vincent Mancini, when Michael had several other nephews (including at least one son of Sonny's) who if included in the story could have provided sufficient rivalry and intrigue with or without the presence of their bastard cousin.

3. The ridiculous love affair between first cousins.

4. The absense of Robert Duvall, and thus Tom Hagan, due at least in part (and shamefully) to salary disputes.

5. The casting of George Hamilton who, although quite debonair, easy on the eyes and sufficient enough as a B-movie actor, was simply unable to be taken seriously in a production of this magnitude. Hamilton's presense, perhaps even more so than Sofia's, was a detriment to the film.

6. The over-the-top acting of Al Pacino, probably the biggest disappointment of all after the subtle, chilling complexity of Michael Corleone in the first two films (especially GFII).

So yes, while 'on its own' it probably would be considered an excellent film, it will never really be 'on its own', unless remade someday featuring a Family NOT named Corleone, and a cast NOT led by Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, and Talia Shire.

Apple