I have a double-question poll here. First, which ending do you think was more tragic: Michael alone with his flashbacks and conscience in GF II, or Michael dying alone in GF III? Which affected you more deeply or was more effectively executed to you?

Second, the ending image of GF II was very resonant, and I think it made the tragedy of it all indelible on the viewer's mind. You really saw that "crime doesn't pay." Do you think the opening up of the future with the GF III movie diluted that tragic image and message, or otherwise detracted from it?

Which ending was more tragic: GF II or GF III? single choice
	GF II. The final image of Michael alone with his flashbacks affected me more deeply as being tragic.
	GF III. The final image of Michael dying alone affected me me more deeply as being tragic.
Votes accepted starting: 12/31/69 08:00 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

Did the making of GF III detract from the final image or message of GF II? single choice
	Yes. GF II's final image and ending was just right. GF III was a mistake which disturbed that.
	No. GF III had to be made. I wanted to see what happened to Michael after GF II.
Votes accepted starting: 12/31/69 08:00 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I don't know if the ending of GF3 was "tragic" but it is probably my favorite sequence ever made (starting at the flashbacks and ending with him dying)

I personally think the ending of 3 showed more that "Crime doesn't pay" people want to be around you when you are in power and have the money but once you "retire" you are left with a folding lawn chair and a small dog (or dogs)

I think the most tragic part was the GF2 ending, but not the very last scene. It is the Hail Mary scene followed by the flashback to Sonny, Tom , Freod, Carlo , Tessio, connie and everybody. Wat a family it was at the beginning of GF and what it ended up with at the end of GF2

To me the message was never "crime doesn't pay" (sorry turnbull!), but "every man has but one destiny", as mentioned in the novel (look, I like the novel ). Coppola says that it was a tough job to resurrect a dead michael. He was really dead, he had no soul left. GF3 did dilute that image, but I don't think that was the only way GF3 could be made. They could have shown michael's goal to redeem a little more subtly.

A thoughtful poll, Cristina.
I thought III's end was more "tragic." While ordering Fredo's death at the end of II took a big toll on Michael, he had "cause" and he was was in "control" of it--and control was all-important to Michael. But in III, he thought he was within inches of being totally legit. In the penultimate scene, he's together with his whole family, including Kay, and a bullet intended for him kills his beloved daughter. Not expected, not in control, the final blow.
While I didn't think that III "had" to be made, I welcomed it wholeheartedly. Whatever its flaws--and there were many, many--it served as a denouement to the Corleone saga.
Note to svsg: I don't think that "crime doesn't pay" and "a man has but one destiny" are inimical to each other. I believe they can compliment each other. I'd say you were right: Michael did have one destiny, and he followed it despite having many opportunities to put the criminal life behind him. And I'd also say that his destiny was surrounded by the inevitability that crime doesn't pay. Despite his brilliance, his craftiness, his resiliency, Michael was constantly winning battles--and losing the war. Why? Because winning the battles was in aid of crime--and crime doesn't pay.

Yes, svsg, that's the ending sequence that was masterful: Michael slumping down in a chair in the boathouse after the shot that killed Fredo rang out; then the flashback scene of a younger Corleone family, striking the viewer with the fact that half the people in it are now dead; then as that scene fades, Michael's brooding face and downcast eyes as he sits alone, the autumn leaves swirling on the ground. The audience can practically taste the winter in the air and can feel the winter in Michael's soul.

This entire image weighs heavily in my mind when I view it. It holds so many complexities. A wistful nostalgia and a longing to turn back the march of tragic events echoes in each frame. The irony of the audience being able to see what Michael could not -- the blurring of his moral boundaries and the extent to which his psyche has been diseased by not being able to trust a single soul -- all underscore the regret and self-destruction inherent in the "business he's chosen." It is one of the most memorable and devastating of movie endings.

This is just my own opinion, mind you, but the ending of GF III is amateurish in comparison. Mary dies, Michael has some flashbacks, and then Michael keels over almost laughably -- like a Charlie Chaplin figure in a silent film. Yes, I felt sad when I first saw it; but I also felt manipulated. This ending blatantly tried to recreate the tragic portrait at the end of GF II, but without the subtlety or complexity ... just a visceral claw at the emotions. The GF II ending, flowing naturally from character and behaviour, appealed to the heart AND to the mind. The GF III ending, by comparison, is an appeal to the tear ducts.

At the end of GF II, we saw a shred of Michael that realized just how evil he had become. And that final shock -- that some things were irredeemable, that he could not resurrect his brother, that he would never know the face of his unborn child, that the murder of Carlo would never bring back Sonny -- was part of the kicker. At the end of GF III, I got the feeling that he should have known all that by now; he no longer seemed a tragic figure, but a slow learner who bumblingly lost his daughter more to a freak accident than to his life of crime, which he was trying to get out of.

In my view, GF III was a mistake that should have never been made. How could the filmmakers have possibly expected to top the superior ending of GF II? GF II was the perfect tragedy; it was Shakespearean ... and it should have been the end of the story. GF III dilutes the impact. We see Michael in Part III reconciled with his children, on civil terms with his ex-wife, being awarded for his charity work, etc. It's all too pat, almost as if the horrors of Part II had never happened.

I don't know about others, but when I see Michael confess his sins in Part III, the sum effect for me falls far short of what I imagined the torture in his soul must have been like at the end of Part II. By spelling it all out, Part III ruins Michael's future for me. I thought it was better kept in my imagination.

Verdict: GF II ending far more tragic, memorable, and a superior piece of film making. GF III should never have been made; it's too hard to follow up two masterpieces.

IMO the ending of GFIII completed the Michael Corleone saga. Not so much for the physical death that we see, but more so for the spiritual death that he suffered in exile. His way of life cost him both the love and the lives of all the woman that he so dearly loved with all his heart. His way of life cost him the love of Kay. His way of life cost him the love and the life of Appolonia, who he loved with all his heart. But to me the most important one was Mary. His way of life cost him the love and life of his flesh, his daughter. And I believe that right there, on those steps, as he watched his daughter die, Michael died spiritually and emotionally. After that he physically existed in body only.

Just a side note : Let's remember that when FFC made GFII, he wrote that ending with the intent of completing the story. It was suppoesed to be finished. Done. He never even thought of a GFIII at the time. If you look closely at Micahel at the end of GFII, he is made to appear older, his eyes are sunk in, dark, etc.


Don Cardi

I think that there is also a parallel between the deaths of Mary and Fredo. Remember when Michael confesses, when he describes Fredo's death, he says "I killed my father's son," as if, as a parent, he only now realized the enormity of what he did. It was as if the only fitting punishment for him was to feel the ultimate pain, that of a parent losing a child.

Although GF3 had some very bad moments, the premise of Michael seeking redemption was an interesting one. I loved how he tried to explain his life to Kay, how he he had done his dastardly deeds only to protect his family, just as Vito had. However, he went horribly awry. And I felt that his speech to Don Tommasino at the coffin was quite telling, as I think that not only is he speaking to Tommasino, but to his father as well.

I do feel that the ending of GF2 was far superior, I also feel that GF3 had some great scenes and did touch our hearts, which is a great accomplishment.

EXCELLENT observation SB! Excellent!


Don Cardi

Don Cardi beat me to it, but I have to reiterate: that is a terrific insight.
Yes, I agree. In fact, I thought FFC presented this very clearly in GF II. Michael had great love for his family. The whole reason he assumed control of the family business was for the love of his father and to protect his father's legacy, since he was the only suitable heir. And the reason he expanded his father's empire was to pass on an even stronger legacy to his own children. But the concept of "strength for his family" made Michael averse to any sign of weakness, making him believe he had to be the most powerful, the most feared, the most forceful. This corrupted his goals and made his dream go horribly awry, as you so aptly described.

It's just my opinion that this was so well portrayed in GF II that I didn't need it spelled out for me in GF III. I felt that GF III was spoon-feeding me with its repetitiveness. I do agree that GF III had touching moments. I just think that GF II, especially the ending, was done better. (But we both agree on that too. )

That's very interesting. I read another review where the writer also speculated whether the final image of Michael was actually one from years after Fredo's death instead of immediately afterward, since Michael did appear to have aged so much.

But to me, that just makes GF III all the more redundant. I thought I read that FFC was pressured to make GF III to get American Zoetrope, his production company, out of debt. If so, GF III was a financial, not an artistic, enterprise ... and it shows.

GF II was the perfect close of the Corleone saga. It just makes me so sad that the making of GF III places the Godfather masterpiece dangerously close to becoming a franchise, a la Indiana Jones.

Just my two cents ... I guess you can tell that I consider The Godfather Part II a masterpiece, and Godfather Part III an unworthy successor.

Cristina, Yes we certainly agree that GF2 is a far superior film than GF3. But I believe that they have very different stories to tell.

In GF2, we see Michael's corrupt soul for what it is, but he doesn't. He feels that he is doing what needs to be done, and he doesn't fully grasp what the consequences are. In GF3, he undertands and is trying to redeem himself. And that is a vast difference.

Dear Cristina.
I’m very glad that one more member who realizes the deficiences of GF3 came to the boards. I’m so tired fighting against it almost alone!
Of course it’s a shallow sight, and its utmost crime is the way it deals with existing characters, brilliantly written by Puzo and not too much spoilt by FFC in GF1. Even GF2 has its weak spots, if compared to original (I mean the book of course) but GF3 is simply organized crime in real life.
It cannot compete with GFR, of course, but definitely is the close second.
Maybe it will be interesting for you to read some discussions we had before about GF3, so here’s a further reading for you to enjoy.

Did Michael actually change?

GF3 thoughts

The murder of Fredo

Why keep Tom Out?

GF3 Question

Kay carping harpie

Another excellent distinction, Sicilian Babe. I must agree that the focus of the two films is completely different; and, in GF2, Michael is just as you describe. We see him degenerate further and further from the principled young man he was until he ultimately loses everything that mattered to him.

But I also don't think that pangs of guilt and repentance are the exclusive domain of GF3. We see some subtle indications that Michael is troubled by what his life has become. This is why he stares introspectively at Anthony's Christmas present when he returns from Havana; why he visits his mother for a heart to heart talk about losing his family; and why he aches to discuss with Kay the personal changes he's been pondering in order to keep her from leaving. When we see Michael sitting alone with his memories after Fredo's death, I believe it illustrates that he has a shred of a conscience left, and that it is greatly troubled by this last, and most evil, of the acts he perpetrated. He doesn't realize this until very, very late; but it sets the stage for GF3.

I know GF3 focuses on Michael's atonement, but I just don't think it did it very well. I thought the last shots of GF2 encapsulated his guilt and turmoil more eloquently than all of GF3 ... but that's just me.

So even though I agree with your post, I couldn't help but write another long essay. I love praising GF2 and its brilliant ending. I just can't help myself.

Cristina, You are correct in that Michael is starting to understand his actions in GF2. And I agree that the most telling scene is the conversation he has with his mother. I thought that scene one of the best and most touching in the film, especially the way it was lit, with the fire in the background.

Both movies are compelling. I guess to think of the word tragic I would have to go with GF3. In GF2 Michael's actions dictated the ending he got their. He might have been meloncholy and regretful, but I don't think him sitting alone in a nice house is what I would consider tragic. Seeing your beloved daughter killed in front of your eyes and dying with nothing around you but a skinny dog I would consider to be more so.

My brief opinion:

The ending (ending as in last couple of scenes) to GF2 is pretty much my favorite sequence in movie history. It was SO well done.

The ending to GF3 was THE perfect ending the trilogy. It could not have been shot any better. Absolutely perfect.

So I guess both a perfect, but in comparison II takes it for me.

Personally, what is more appealing to me in regards to the end of GFII is the flashback scene itself. Seeing Sonny again, the whole scene, the family sitting around the table. It's just a really great scene with some fantastic dialogue.

"They didn't know it was pop's birthday!"


Don Cardi

GF2 - definitely more tragic
- Michael alone in the world and he realizes that isolation because all that cares about is in the past - he has no future to with which to look forward - it's all about a past he can't recapture, only remember
GF3 - is the blossoming of what Michael sowed in GF2
-- the only thing that makes the final scenes of GF3 bearable is Pacino's silent scream, and the look on Kay's face - but it is as if she is watching for Pacino/Michael's reaction.
I really don't like being this negative, but I wondered if Sophia Coppola was as much a whiney nit-wit in real life as she played her character and that's why Dad got his revenge in blowing her away like that --- horrible acting that lowered the level of the whole movie. And the make-up on Pacino at the very end of GF3? Give me a break - there were better old man 6-year-old's at my door last night asking for candy.
I mean, I love the movies, and the aniticipation for GF3 was so high --- and it just kept going down hill all the way through. My two cents. Mea Dolta.

You're the comrade I've been looking for.

Absolutely. It's especially evocative considering that half the characters in that scene are dead, several of them killed by Michael's own hand. That's one of the reasons that I think the GF2 ending is so much better than the one in GF3; GF3 is just an imitation. At the end of GF2, we see that Michael is going to think long and hard about his crimes; they won't escape him. Speaking for myself while viewing GF3, it was a disappointment bordering on unbelievability to see that Michael was still involved in the underworld at all.

The final flashback of GFII was classic. But the ending of GFIII was pathos at its apogee. The silent scream and Michael's lonely death are emotionally overwhelming. To tell you the truth, I don't watch the GFIII ending anymore. It takes my heart away.

Both endings were beautiful. I find the final image of Michael sitting in Lake Tahoe all too effective - my favorite ending for a movie, ever.

However, I find III's ending more tragic. And the song playing all the way to the end... Its so sad to see Mary die, and then this... Definitely more tragic. Simply, because Michael paid the price "for the life he chose".

And no, III wasn't a mistake... I only wish they never named it PART III.

On a sidenote, IF the film was named DEATH OF MICHAEL CORLEONE, do you think public reaction would've been different? Do you think it'd still be a contender for 7 Oscars?

Personally both are awesome, I always took the GFII scene as a huge contrast between how things were and how they are now, the final comment about the contrast between Vito and Michael, it's lonely and dark and sad at the end. GFIII, IMO, is far more sweeping, and it's like FFC made us psychic for a minute to go over Michael's last thoughts, his fond memories of life and loves before he died, it was very moving, IMO.

I dont get it... in a world such as the one he was in(to save and legitimize the family) how could he be a corrupt soul... you either play hard and make up the rules as you go or you die.

We have the hindsight and leisure to disect all of his moves, etc. He had to make them and then quickly plan the next one.

Who is to say that GF3 is really the way that Michael Corleone would have went?

I could have seen him go a similar way as in GF2. Growth, power.. conquer another industry.

This is a very curious post.... "perception is everything right" LOL

If we would have known going in that it was the demise of Michael Corleone then maybe so many would not have disliked the storyline of the movie. I didnt.

Interesting... but we will never know....

Michael's heart wrenching scream towards the end of part 3 really hits the spot.You cant help but feel for the poor guy.

I appreciate them both in their own right.

Part II the regret was implied. You could realistically think that Mike thought he was justified in killing Fredo and everyone else without regret.

But the ending of Part III showed you that Mike was full of regret. It beat you over the head with it.

And I think the ending of Part III was fine. It was short and sweet. To drag it out any longer, to show Mike at a funeral, anything.... would have made the film longer than it needed to be.

I am with DMC. The silent scream to the credits of Part III is probably my favorite 90 secs or so of cinema. Simply amazing.