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.