10 notable sequels that took their sweet time
Which of these belated follow-ups were worth the wait?
'The Godfather Part III' (1990)
Sequel to: 1974's "The Godfather: Part II"
Years between films: 16 years
Why it doesn't work: Given that "The Godfather: Part II" is arguably even better than the first installment, it might be understandable why director Francis Ford Coppola took a long pause before attempting the third. While the movie was hardly as bad as critics and moviegoers said it was, it couldn't help but suffer in comparison to the first two films -- and it didn't help that, after Winona Ryder dropped out at the last moment, Coppola recruited his own daughter to play Mary, Michael Corleone's kid. Sofia Coppola's stiff performance wasn't the only one that grabbed negative attention. Pacino, who had been tightly coiled and relatively understated in the first two films, gave a bigger, broader performance that jarred fans the third time around. Added to a disappointing ending and a sometimes convoluted plot, it was a film that made the case this was a franchise that didn't need to become a trilogy.