Ok, so its not very good, thats a given, but the ending is superb, from his screaming on the steps through to his dying on the chair, it makes watching the rest of the film worthwhile.

No it doesn't! I can't see Michael Corleone beyond the end scene of 'The Godfather Part II' where he is alone and in his own personal hell. No redemption and no stupid plots about the Vatican. Part III is a lazy sequel and just made to make money - about as worth watching as 'Exorcist II: The Heretic' & 'The Fly 2'...

Agreed. (with Wiseblood) for a change.

well in my opinion it does. And Pacino is still good in it.

Am i the only person ever, whom has watched all the godfathers and still cannot stand any of the!?!?!

What don't you like about them?

I think godfather 3 was needed to show that there was no redemption available to Michael.

not in the same class as the first 2.

i still enjoyed it though.

Well it's all opinion, but Godfather III felt like a sequel. It was just made for money and had a rubbish script, some mediocre acting (not just from Sofia Coppola) and was missing Robert Duvall (over money). The fact that Coppola wasn't the director he was after going on lithium for depression is also a factor - 'Goodfellas' showed how lame 'Godfather III' was - and this is from someone who thinks the first two instalments are fantastic having rewatched them recently. Am a particular fan of the 2nd one - Pacino is just doing his gruff shouty thing which he's fallen back on since returning in the late 80s...

got to admit i prefer Pacino in the 70's and 80's, but i still think Godfather part 3 got a bad rap, i don't know why i loved the ending it just felt that it was a great way to close. Godfather 2 is without a doubt the best in the entire series, maybe the best film ever, but i like to view the whole trilogy as michael's rise and fall and for me G3 closes it nicely.