Godather Part 2 or Godfather Part 3?

[Joe Washington]

Do you think the Godfather saga should have ended with Part 2 or do you think Part 3 was a necessary addition?

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

I think most people wish that GF3 had never been made.

 

[PsychoPere]

Part 2 was a great film, definitely a worthy sequel. Part 3 was horrible.

 

[Caligula]

Part 2 is one of the most worthy sequels ever made. Part 3 is a decent enough film on its own, but suffers horribly when compared to what came before... and, no, it probably wasn't terribly necessary in the long run.

 

[cultcross]

Part 2 was a great film, definitely a worthy sequel. Part 3 was horrible.

This. Part II was in many ways almost a necessary sequel to finish the story. Part III was an utter waste of time.

 

[Kirkman1987]

Part II is the equal of the first, Best sequel ever made.

Part III is really worthless. I've only sat through it once all the way through. I tried a month or two ago to watch it again after going through the series and stopped watching about 20 or 30 minutes in. I was so bored and it was just embarrassing to what had come before.

 

[doubleohfive]

Part II is phenomenal. Perhaps even better than Part I.

Part III is definitely subpar in comparison but is also too often unfairly maligned. It's not a great film, it might not even be "good" ... but it's nowhere near as awful as some people make it out to be.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Part 3 would never have been made if Coppola and Puzo hadn't each had money problems in the late 1980s.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Part I is enjoyable.

Part II is boring, except for the DeNiro scenes. Too, it was a bit disconcerting that they didn't get the actor who portrayed Clamenza(sp?) since his character was the one who would go into the witness protection instead of the new character (I forget his name) created for Part II...

Part III is uneven, and some of the characters don't really work...or come off over the top. (Don't get me started on Al Pacino's over-the-top, open-mouth crying when Sophia Coppola dies)...

I recall a few years back, there was talk of Coppola doing a Part IV with Leonardo DiCaprio. (Obviously, that was scrapped).

 

[clint g]

Part 2 is one of the best movies of all time. I would say it's even better than Part 1. Part 3 is an abomination that should have been aborted early on.

 

[RodrigoBrowncoat]

I like all 3... but I prefer G3 to G2...

*hides*

 

[J.T.B.]

The first two are great though there are some parts of Pt. 2 that don't quite make sense. It would have been nice to have Clemenza in Pt. 2, but Richard Castellano's demands were ridiculous and Michael Gazzo was great as Pentangeli.

The third was a huge disappointment. It may be an OK movie on its own merits, but in comparison with the first two it's not in the same league. I haven't bothered to watch it since I saw it in the theater 20 years ago. And George Hamilton as a fill-in for Robert Duvall?! Pitiful.

--Justin

 

[Yoda]

What if Fredo was a girl instead? Maybe *she* doesn't sleep with the fishes. This opens many interesting possibilities for Godfather Pt3. Maybe Girl Fredo becomes the Godmother at this point ushering a new era in mob history?

 

[Harvey]

I don't dislike the idea of The Godfather Part III, but as executed it doesn't hold up to either previous film. The absence of John Cazale, James Caan, and Robert Duvall (as well as, for the most part, Diane Keaton, whose role is small) hurts the movie, and outside of Andy Garcia, it is unable to come up with suitable replacements. It does provide some nice scenes for Talia Shire, though.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Seriously? This is a serious question?

Of course it should have ended with Part 2.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The script for 3 was written in a much, much shorter time than the earlier two - to a deadline.

Godfather 2 is great, 3 is lamentable.

 

[Sky]

Part 3 is not nearly as good as 1 and 2 but I still think it finishes the story. When I rewatch the Godfather, I watch all three films.

And the 'over the top' end scene - it is Italian opera!

 

[Captaindemotion]

I don't dislike the idea of The Godfather Part III, but as executed it doesn't hold up to either previous film. The absence of John Cazale, James Caan, and Robert Duvall (as well as, for the most part, Diane Keaton, whose role is small) hurts the movie, and outside of Andy Garcia, it is unable to come up with suitable replacements. It does provide some nice scenes for Talia Shire, though.

Well, Cazale and Caan's characters were dead. Cazale himself was also dead and Caan would have been too old to play Sonny in flashbacks, as he did in Part 2. But the absence of Duvall was unforgivable. They simply wouldn't pay him his asking fee, replacing him with George Hamilton. Who isn't really fit to lace Duvall's shoes, never mind step into them.

 

[Kirkman1987]

The film is just devoid of the feel of the previous films. Most of the classic characters are dead or absent, Pacino doesn't seem to be playing micheal at all in the film.

I also think the 70's is just too modern. It doesn't have the classic look of the 40's and 50's.

Part II ended perfectly, it's the end of the Story. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in the Part II commentary Coppola stated that he considers it the proper end of the story, and III is just a "epilogue".

 

[ichab]

Meh, I enjoyed three. It's definetly not on par with the other two, but then again catching lightning in a bottle for a third time is almost impossible. I enjoyed the story on the mafia controlling the vatican and Michael trying to redeem himself.