User Reviews

When i first saw The Godfather Part III with Coppola commentaries and he said that he want the film to be called The Death of Michael Corleone and it was a epilogue, even with him saying that he wanted to make a fourth one, being about a Younger Don Corleone at the time of World War II, and intercalating with Vincent Mancini who has become the new Don Corleone and will bring destruction to the family, but after Mario Puzo death, Coppola decided to don't go on with the project, the point is, the two original films that are basically one big movie, they are the major story and the third one being called The Death of Michael Corleone, is a much better title.

But judging this version of the film, this new editing took it off some key moments, they make a beginning that looks more like the one from 1972, repositioned scenes throughout the movie, for example the first scene of this new version only happens at the 39 mins of the original version, and the ending also took it off a lot of the emotional weight, when they don't show other memories of Michael's life, and about the death scene of the 1990 version, in this one he don't actually die, it is more like the death of who the character was, so to conclude, i prefer the original from 1990.

It's funny how some personal circumstances are the key elements that influence our judgment. In my case, "The Godfather Part III", was not the last opus of a magnificent saga, but the first film I watched from the trilogy, my first encounter with the Corleone Family, a cinematic love story that would never end.

Speaking of love, I always wondered how a movie like "The Godfather Part III" had crystallized so much hatred and disdain. The unforgettable "Never hate your enemies, because it clouds your judgment" is like a self-defense cry, from a film that wanted so much to be respected like its glorious predecessors, but apparently failed to, for even the fans will always concede after they say how the movie is great … "but not as great as the two others"

So, as a fourteen-year old kid, I loved "The Godfather Part III", I couldn't complain about the absence of Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen. I wasn't mature enough to judge Sofia Coppola's acting abilities though I found something physically odd in her. From Michael's relationship with Kay to his haircut, "Part III" was my reference. And I guess I loved the movie for what it was: a great story with an unforgettable climax.

Till now, I can't watch the ending, even the clip, without crying, it broke my heart the first time, and it always does, even after so many viewings. It was like I felt the devastation of a man whose life's only meaning was incarnated by his children, his only inspiration in his quest of redemption. And it's ironically the very part that kind of redeems the film, even for the non fans. The others deserving to be mentioned are Michael Corleone's sadness while hearing the 'Brucia La Terra' song played by his son, and his heart-breaking confession of Fredo's murder …

The film is about the redemption of a man who sinned so many times. Many would argue that his sins were necessary because they were the only ways to maintain the interests of his family, but hell is paved with many good intentions, and the way Michael ended at "The Godfather Part II", a ruthless cold-blooded zombie-like figure was demanding a sequel. The last shot of him, sitting alone in the park plunged viewers in a lot of interrogations and interpretations. What was he thinking? Probably, how he got in such a situation, and how this would end. And it's like Coppola, tortured by his own demons, felt there was more to do with Michael Corleone.

And the character's arc was concluded, with nothing I would reproach in Michael's portrayal, he's tired, sick as he had carried the weight of a lifelong guilt that ravaged his soul. He may be too pathetic, too different from the Michael we know,his use of profanity was quite out-of character, but who knows how killing his own brother could affect someone. Michael is still respected and feared, but is more melancholic, explaining how the movie needed to be driven by more active supporting characters. And after I finally watched the two other films, one year later … my opinions were mixed.

First, I was fascinated by the sight of young War hero, Michael Corleone, in Connie's wedding, it was so contrasting with the pitiful diabetic Mike of the third opus, watching Part I was an extraordinary discovery, a refreshing experience. Besides, the gallery of new characters, Sonny, Tom, Clemenza, Tessio, enriched the film and made it even more entertaining, Part II confirmed my fascination. And step by step, when I started to watch the first two a little more and while I was sharing my opinions on the Net and learning about Part III's reputation, flaws were becoming more visible: Sofia, Duvall's absence and replacement by that Hamilton guy who was certainly not to Hagen what Pentangelli was to Clemenza, the helicopter scene etc. And the reading of the book made me wonder why they chose as the successor, Sonny's illegitimate son.

But if the film could have been better, it also could have been worse. And when I watch it, I'm more generous, as I see the tragic ending of one of the most fascinating character's story, a man who's always been "pulled back in". The movie respects the spirit of Part I, with a succession on the Corleone's throne, true historical events as back-stories, and so many unforgettable lines. In fact, we can make a parallel between the trilogy and the Corleone brothers:

• The Godfather is like Sonny : fierce, brutal, yet tender and good-hearted, it's entertaining and deep in the same time. And we all just love 'Sonny' ...

• The Godfather Part II is Michael : deeper, darker, smoother, yes, even 'boring' sometimes, but it's more implacable and ruthless ... we can't love it with the same intensity as the first opus, but we respect the cinematic achievement, and it leaves us with an extraordinary feeling. It's not the most entertaining, but certainly the most fascinating.

And of course ...

• The Godfather Part III is Fredo : it tries too much, it has a good heart but it's weak and even sometimes 'stupid' but hey, it's still a blood brother of the first two films, we still feel Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola's touch and it features some heartbreaking moments, like Michael's silent scream that will haunt me forever. Some magnetism was lacking from the very start, but can we really hate 'Fredo'?

I'm sure those who prefer the first film also appreciate the last one and those who love the second film and think it's the best one, identify so much with Michael that they hate "Part III", with the same intensity and severity Michael expressed towards Fredo. They don't forgive any mistake ... and consider the last film a disgrace for the trilogy, and symbolically disown it.

Many believed that the series was complete in 1974. Even Francis Ford Coppola thought that another installment was unlikely. However in 1990, some 16 years later, "The Godfather, Part III" was released with results that few could have perceived. The film was not very successful at the box office and many who did see the movie said "ho-hum". The critics were also indifferent to an extent. A Christmas release would create enough steam for the film to achieve a best picture nomination and seven nominations in all from the Academy (it failed to win any though). Of course "Dances With Wolves" dominated the night and that film along with "GoodFellas" are considered the class acts of that year. Why has "The Godfather, Part III" failed to achieve a following like its two predecessors (parts I & II)? I am not sure I can answer that question. Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is becoming an old man and his health is slowly worsening. He wants the family to become 100% legitimate and even makes a deal to link his finances to the Vatican. However Michael has become a bit naive and everyone double-crosses him. Now it appears that the only answer is to get back to the old ways. Younger sister Connie (Talia Shire) believes that Michael has grown soft and that Santino's (James Caan from the first film) illegitimate son should take control (Andy Garcia, in his Oscar-nominated performanece). He is ambitious and has the short fuse that his late father had and this is going to lead to fireworks for the family. He also starts seeing Michael's teenaged daughter (Sofia Coppola, Francis Ford's real-life daughter) and a romance blossoms. Meanwhile crime bosses Eli Wallach and Joe Mantegna pose threats to the Corleones. Kaye (Diane Keaton) has divorced herself from Michael and their son (Franc D'Ambrosio) has somewhat sided with her. Michael's health takes a turn for the worse as he actually goes into a diabetic coma for a time during the film and when he does recover (not completely though) he starts to reflect on a life of loss. The ordering of Fredo's death (John Cazale) in the second installment and his Sicilian wife's murder in the original haunt Michael and he tries to come to terms with his life, but learns from a Catholic cardinal while in Sicily that he deserves all the suffering he experiences and realizes that his suffering will be even greater in the future. In fact there will be a finale that will be the "fatal nail in the coffin" for Michael. "The Godfather, Part III" is focused on Michael and that is why it is unique to the series. The first two sported so many rich characters that it was impossible to focus on just one. This film could be best described as "Reflections of a Life of Loss". The film is excellent and even though it is likely the weakest of the three when you compare them, it is somewhat unfair to put the three "Godfather" movies together because they can all stand on their own. Great movies stand on their own and "The Godfather, Part III" does just that. 5 stars out of 5.

"The Godfather III" is a beautiful film, visually wonderful, and of great importance, completing the tragic saga of the Corleone family... They are so tempting these Byzantine intrigues: Alliances betrayed with violence; assassins dressing up as priests; knives and poison invading the opera house; someone, in the deepest shadows, always whispering devious means...

Coppola's intention was clearly aimed at offering a story of redemption... Nominated for 7 Academy Awards, the motion picture reflects Coppola's masterful film-making...

Fascinating threads of continuity support this illusion: The bridesmaid (Jeannie Linero) who had a hurried meeting with Sonny in the first film, now makes a significant appearance as the mother of a vibrant new character, a suitable successor of Michael, the Godfather of the future Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia).

Vincent, strong, focused and loyal, shares his father's hot temper... He is the most suitable heir to the family business... His desire for a life of crime is driven by his greater desire to destroy a vile thug named Joey Zasa beautifully played by Joe Mantegna...

Connie (Talia Shire), tries to push her brother to take Vincent under his tutelage... Eventually Michael—a man haunted by the death of Fredo, his separation from his wife, his estrangement from his children—realizes that he can never truly leave his life of crime... We feel his frustration when he says, "Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in."

Worried about his children and the fate of his empire, Michael is torn between two characters: his warm-hearted daughter Mary (Sophia Coppola), whom he loves very much, and Vincent, who sees the death of his enemies as the only answer to every question...

There is also Kay (Diana Keaton), still the woman he loves, and the mother of his dear children... Family is crucial to Michael... His children are his reason for living... In his words: "The only wealth in this word is children... They are my treasure."

Michael wants Anthony to be a lawyer... Kay defends their son's aspiration to be an opera singer... The best scenes in the movie are between this lovely couple, passionately fastened in a struggle that started a time ago at that wedding party where an innocent officer and a gentleman told his non Italian girlfriend, he was not part of his family business...

The film has a great ensemble of supporting actors: Talia Shire, deliciously evil, and always counseling her nephew on how to get in Michael's good graces; Eli Wallach, the talented peacemaker with a stone in his shoe; Raf Vallone, the wise true priest; Franc D'Ambrosio, the artist, the voice in "Cavalleria Rusticana;" Donal Donnelly, the fallen archbishop; George Hamilton, the family attorney; Helmut Berger, the missing God's Banker; Richard Bright who heads to Rome to "light a candle for the archbishop;" Franco Citti, the old bodyguard; Mario Donatone, the "Ace in the hole;" Bridget Fonda, the sexy reporter; Al Martino, the Hollywood singing idol; and John Savage, the priest with an assignment in Italy...

Brilliant shots and unforgettable sequences:

• The opening sequence in which the camera travels over the wreckage of the Corleone's vacation house by the lake...

• The helicopter attack upon Michael and a group of old dons through the skylight of a hotel banquet room in Atlantic City, New Jersey..

• The trap and killing of a "small-time enforcer" on the streets of 'Little Italy' by a fake cop...

• The beautiful scene in which a kindly cardinal hears the confession of a penitent, desperate for absolution...

• Anthony dedicating a sweet song to his father ("Brucia La Terra"), and while Michael was listening to the melody, he was remembering his first beautiful and wonderful bride...

• The natural scenery of Sicily...

• The spectacular opera house finale that turns Michael's expectations into an inferno of mob violence...

• The cry that lets out that night on the stairway...

• The penalty... The terrible sentence...

Coppola's first two Godfather-films are a work of art... More famous for their superb acting and deep character studies, beautiful photography and choreography, authentic recreation of the period, and rich score...

"The Godfather III" is a mesmerizing film worthy to be taken on its own terms... It lays the seeds for a complex financial scandal involving the Vatican Bank as well as the mysterious death of Pope John Paul I in 1978...

Many of the reviews of this seem too positive. The movie was deeply flawed and love for the early Godfather films should not blind us to the fiasco that was number 3.

Casting problems: Diane Keaton said all she needed to say in part 2. Her presence in the part 3 added nothing whatsoever. We learn from her dialog that she will always love Michael but that she will never accept his gangster ways. Yeah. We learned that in part 2. George Hamilton as the lawyer/confident. Lame. Sophia Coppola as Mary. She comes across like a dull-witted 16-year-old that doesn't know a thing about acting but thinks it is fun to be able to stand in front of a camera. (spoiler alert) the primary dramatic event of the movie involved her death. By that time I was hoping that she would be killed off (or at least get no more screen time), so my ability to feel any emotional impact at the death of this air-headed monstrosity.

Dialog problems: The dialog in Michael's study in the initial scene is painful to hear. The movie gets better, but very awkward dialog pops up every 20 minutes or so throughout the movie. Part of the problem is the screen play and part of the problem is that at times the actors don't know how to effectively deliver their lines.

Plot problems: Awkward casting & dialog aside, I think this is the biggest problem. when you get to be one of the wealthiest business men in the world, wacking people no longer makes any sense. When you have untold millions at your disposal, you find that you a wide range of tools to accomplish your aims, and most of these tools work better than bullets (anyone remember the last time a Fortune 500 CEO was taken out in a mob hit?). (spoiler alert) There is a scene in which one of the baddies flies a helicopter outside a penthouse ballroom in a high rise building and then occupants of the helicopter riddle the ballroom with machine gun fire killing dozens of wealthy business men. This would be par for the course in the Matrix, or True Lies, or Commando, but this type of violence is not part of the real world we live in. It's cartoonishness is at odds with the other Godfather films and makes it difficult to take this film seriously. As well paced and tense as the final opera house scene was, it was also in the category of cartooney violence. Did the best assassin in all of Italy really think the cleverest way to kill one of the richest men on the planet was to slip into a well guarded public place, kill off a bunch of hired body guards and then shoot a man in front of 1000 witnesses? Well, I guess the screenwriter thought so. The end result was a complete mess. The narrative flow of the final film was a train wreck. The plot elements went back from somewhat believable to overblown Hollywood insanity and back again.

Series note: It is almost unthinkable to watch this film without having seen The Godfather (1972) and The Godfather, Part II (1974) first. This is a direct continuation of that story.

I suppose that if I do not love being a contrarian, I do not love anything, but it's not that I set out to be contrarian for its own sake. It just happens when I'm honest about my tastes and views. My latest flourish of contrarianism is that I think The Godfather, Part III is just as good as The Godfather, Part II, even though it's a quite different film, loaded with conspicuously different messages. And although most of Part III's scenes, except the extended climax, never quite reach the sublime excellence of much of Part II, Part III doesn't have near the flaws, either. Both films ended up being a 9 out of 10 for me, or a low "A".

Part III is all about Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) seeking redemption and forgiveness. We see him haunted by one of the stronger, more shocking moments from Part II. And so he has decided to sincerely go "legit", while getting back to his roots, trying to regain what he has lost and maybe even "redo" the mistakes he has made. Thus he heads back to New York and eventually back to Sicily. In the opening party scene we see him even trying to make amends with his ex-wife Kay (Diane Keaton). The most important plot points all have to do with Michael learning to compromise and even let go of some control. The most tragic elements of the film are rooted in the things for which he has difficulty relinquishing control, and we feel a much more "real" threat to Michael's safety because of the unintentional losses of control that he experiences.

Of course, the irony ends up being that the "legit" world is just as corrupt, if not more so, as the world he's trying to redeem himself from. Michael is "forced" to resort to his old modus operandi if he wants to participate, survive and succeed. Coppola and co-writer Mario Puzo thus create something of a classical tragedy, with a pessimistic message about human relations; one that also suggests a reinterpretation of the previous two Godfather films as metaphors for socio-economic machinations in general--not just a soap-operatic tale of a powerful Mafia family.

Unlike The Godfather and Part II, Coppola remains tightly focused on his principal themes here. Even though the film seems almost as sprawling as the previous two on first glance, and it suffers slightly from also having a bloated cast, in retrospect, there is nothing present in Part III that isn't meant to be tied in with the subtexts. Even seemingly inconsequential scenes, such as Michael and Kay encountering the marionette show, provide artistic, literary connections to significant plot points. In this case the scene provides both foreshadowing and metaphor for the most substantial element of the climax.

By the way, it's interesting to note that Coppola introduces somewhat erotic (though very tame) scenes for the first time here (that's not to say that past Godfather films didn't suggest romances or sex, but they weren't really erotic). Surprisingly, perhaps, the chief erotic scenes involve his daughter, Sofia, who is shown in a relationship as close to incestuous as possible without being incestuous, and who also has an unpleasant fate in the film. When we also remind ourselves of the filmic treatment that director Dario Argento subjected his daughter, Asia, and his significant other, Daria Nicolodi, to over the years, it might make us want to psychoanalyze Italian filmmakers, but it's helpful to remember that initially, Sofia Coppola's role was to be played by Winona Ryder, who was too sick at the time to begin shooting.

The cast in Part III is sometimes cited as one of the reasons for its inferiority, but despite the relative shortage of megastars, I think the cast, including Sofia, is fantastic here. Godfather newcomer Andy Garcia was particularly impressive.

Coppola again uses Part I for a structural template, just as he did in Part II, but he tries to throw in subtle variations and even red herrings. Like its predecessors, Part III begins with a party celebrating an important familial event related to religious ceremonies wherein we meet the principal players, the middle section deals with similar business dilemmas mixed with betrayals, double crossings and their consequences, and the ending parallels a major shakedown involving multiple parties with some other important familial event imbued with ritual/ceremony (the parallel was slightly different in Part II).

The subtle variations here involve what could be called "tags". For example, the beginning puts us in a more formal religious ceremony before we move to the party, and the ending has a tag that could be one of the most ingenious transitions/scenes that Coppola has written. We move from a profoundly tragic event to a point much later in time. Not one word of dialogue is spoken. Through mere appearance of character and setting, plus the final, sad event, there is as much "said" or implied in one elegant minute as there was in the entire film up to that point--although what preceded was necessary for the pithy implicature.

The technical elements, though good here, cannot quite match those of Parts I and II. This may be more surprising when we realize that the same people worked on both films in many capacities, but it just underscores that elements such as the intense, unusual, deeply lit scenes of Part II, for example, happened as much by a "magic" confluence of events as they happened intentionally, which may be why no one has quite been able to capture that look again, including here. On the other hand, even though the music is excellent in all three films, for my money, it might be best integrated in Part III, especially the melancholy theme that periodically recurs.

I am a big fan of the first 2 movies. Specially the second one, since there the main character is a cold blooded no remorse actor Al Pacino.

He's Machiavellian at his best.

However, the thing that annoyed me the most about 3 is that that Michael Corleone is gone.

Instead you have a WEAK Michael Corleone that wants to return with his ex, feels remorse, and is basically stupid.

I hate to see the transformation.

Anyway I like the silent cry, and the opera. Everything else is just crap!

"The Godfather Part III" isn't really a necessary sequel, and to be truthful it's not really one of the best sequels in recent memory, but is it a bad film? No. In fact, had it not been for the extraordinary first two films, I firmly believe this movie would have been hailed as an epic; but due to such a broad expanse of years from the second film (1974) to this one (1990), audiences were given too much time to work up extreme expectations, especially with the major success of the first sequel. Many people just expected another equal sequel. It's just a good sequel.

Al Pacino returns to his role of Don Michael Corleone, much older since we last saw him and with a daughter (Sofia Coppola, Francis' daughter). He is still split from his (ex)-wife, Kay (Diane Keaton), and Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) has since passed to the other side, though rumors have it his character was originally in Ford and Mario Puzo's script, only to be dumped when Duvall turned down the script because he believed Pacino was getting too much attention. (Though I have my doubts over the accuracy of that rumor.)

Michael wants out of the Mafia. He wants to work legitimate. He's been trying to turn his business into legit dealings for a while now, and he realizes that the sins of his past will never completely go away. He decides to hand the reigns of power over to his ex-brother Fredo's son (Andy Garcia), a young, eager soul with energy and excitement. But things do not go so well. Michael tries to be a mentor to his trainee but it is a difficult task. Michael goes through turbulent times, not to mention that he must deal with his daughter falling in love with the future head of the family (they're cousins, which, when you think about it, is just plain nasty).

Michael tries to get his son interested in becoming the head of the family, but he will have no part of it. He is bent on becoming an opera singer, to turn from his family's past and ignore his father's pleads. Michael is left with some difficult choices, and we see that all the power in the world can't control the inevitable.

"The Godfather Part III" has its flaws. One of them is the casting of Michael's daughter with Coppola's daughter - she has, one might say, no acting ability whatsoever. Garcia is bright and talented, and fits the part he is playing. Pacino isn't quite as energetic and powerful as he was in the first two films, in fact he looks pretty tired here, but I believe that's the point.

Some people really hate this film. I thought it was quite good. It's a good continuation, though I do not hesitate to admit it could have been much better. The film seems a bit corny at times, and there are some bad casting choices, one of which I have already mentioned above. But it is an entertaining film, one that no "Godfather" fan should go without seeing. It's a worthy (hopefully) last installment, one that gives more of the same but still manages to hold the audience's interest.

There are rumors flying everywhere of yet another "Godfather" entry, but quite honestly I think it's a bad decision. They should leave the series as it is and move on to other projects. Puzo is dead. Coppola hasn't made a good film in years - heck, he hasn't even produced a good film in years. Al Pacino's character would be hard to bring back, and if you've seen this film you know what I'm talking about. A prequel would just be messy and unexplained, not to mention confusing. To follow Andy Garcia's character would seem pointless - some things should be left to our imagination. I doubt as to the importance of another sequel, as it would, at this point, just be a cash-in.

The script by Coppola and Puzo is interesting, but it seems too try a bit too hard to be an epic at times. It just serves as a reminder that this film was not needed as an intallment in the series. "The Godfather Part" was great, "The Godfather Part II" was superb, "The Godfather Part III" is probably the best film of 1990. Which, looking back at twenty years from now, probably won't amount to a hill of beans. But it's a start.

4.5/5 stars -

John Ulmer

After its two excellent predecessors, this is bitterly disappointing. None of the various story lines are terribly interesting and I think that the kissing cousins plot was a dreadful idea. The best parts of the film are the scenes between Al Pacino and Diane Keaton, who play the tense relationship between Michael and Kay very well, but their performances are not on the same level as in the first two films. This would not have been a major problem if the film had been better but it places far too much reliance on the previous films to the point that it is difficult to fully understand or even care about the characters and events if you are not familiar with them.

I wasn't very interested in the idea of Michael's quest for redemption but could have been handled far better. The film was nominated for Best Picture but I don't think that it deserved to be. It felt more like someone else trying to emulate the "Godfather" films than a true "Godfather" film itself. For instance, the intertwining of the killings with the opera performance was a failed attempt to recreate the brilliant baptism scene of the first film. At 2 hours and 50 minutes, it was far too long and very badly paced. Honestly, my favourite line in the film is when Joey Zasa says, "And we got Don Ameche, who played the guy that invented the telephone" since Ameche is one of my all time favourite actors.

The best newcomers are the always brilliant Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna and Donal Donnelly. George Hamilton and Bridget Fonda are wasted. Robert Duvall's absence is extremely noticeable and Andy Garcia, who is not a very good actor, is just forgettable as Vincent. Sofia Coppola's performance as Mary Corleone is pretty horrific but much of the blame has to be attributed to her father Francis Ford Coppola for casting her. He should have been able to see that she could not act to save her life. One of her lines - delivered atrociously - is "Dad, why are you doing this to me?" I'd have said the same thing in real life if I were her. Coppola's well known propensity for nepotism proved successful in the casting of his sister Talia Shire in this trilogy - she has more screen time in this film than the first two combined but far less interesting material, incidentally - and his nephew Nicolas Cage in "Peggy Sue Got Married". However, after Winona Ryder dropped out of this film, it would have probably been a good idea if he looked for an actress outside of his immediate family to replace her.

Overall, this is not a dreadful or even a particularly bad one. It's just dull. However, I don't think that this is a film that needed to be made. This is the weakest final entry in a film trilogy that I have ever seen. It's certainly for the best that "The Godfather Part IV" was never made.

The Godfather Part I was a stunning look inside the fictional Corleone family and how an innocent young man was all but forced into circumstances he never wanted to have a part of. The Godfather Part II shows that young man's acceptance of his new role, his desensitization of character, as well as his complete loss of all innocence as he dives deeper and deeper into a life of crime. The first two parts of this saga of this transformation of Michael Corleone make for one of the greatest tragedies in cinematic history.

Then, along came The Godfather Part III. Michael Corleone is now the aging Don of the Corleone family. He shows remorse for his previous actions not through subtle behaviors, but by trying to use his powers for good and admitting all his wrongdoings and regrets to others. Very cliche and uncharacteristic of the complex character that is Michael Corleone. Michael's plans to use his powers for good are derailed by an ambitious young disciple and his enemies. Michael's daughter is eventually a casualty of the ongoing mob wars and her death predictably leads to Michael realizing that his entire life as Don has been worthless for he has failed in the one thing that was the reason for putting himself into the position he was in: protecting his family.

The Godfather Part II ends with Michael Corleone reaching the lowest of the lows: having his own brother killed. Before Part III was made, the Godfather saga was an emotionally riveting tale of an innocent young man's journey into darkness with the unbelievably tragic end of Michael forgetting his roots and abandoning the one thing that has always mattered most to him and those around him: family loyalty. Part III paints the picture of Michael as a man who is and always has been just a victim of circumstance. This greatly corrupts the meaning of the first two films.

The Godfather Part III is a horrible mess of a film that never should have been made. The only solution to the problem that is this final installment of The Godfather movies is to pretend that it does not exist and that the saga actually ends with Michael's shockingly horrible act of having a member of his own family killed.