The Godfather: Part III
User Score
6.7 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 128 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 96 out of 128
  2. Mixed: 13 out of 128
  3. Negative: 19 out of 128

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. EricR.
    Mar 17, 2006
    4
    Horrible, horrible, horrible. How is it possible that Al Pacino could give such an inept performance. I hated it, hated the whole damm thing. Bad acting, lame cliche script. Coppola took one of the most complex characters in cinema and made him paper thin. Sophia's terrible performace is just icing on the shit cake. The only thing that was good was the ending. Everything else was dull beyond beliefe. At least the Matrix sequels were entertaining.… Expand
  2. joseap84
    Nov 25, 2011
    0
    I can't bring myself to give this movie in form of score, a pure "0". It's sad when a series goes from "good" to masterpiece", and finally to "garbage". There's nothing worth seeing in this movie.
  3. WillH.
    Jan 6, 2005
    3
    Talia Shire gives one of the worst performances of all time.
  4. FrankB.
    May 3, 2005
    2
    The mass-murder scene in the Casino penthouse is nifty, but script-writers seem intent on turning Michael Corn-leone into both a parody of clinical depression as well as into a woman.
  5. RexG.
    May 13, 2006
    3
    The film music alone made me dislike the movie from the beginning. It has been "hollywood-ized" - the atmosphere of the first two parts its missing entirely. I couldn't even watch it at once - I actually wouldn't have watched it to the end at all if it weren't for the money that I spent on the DVD. One thing they managed to get on screen though: The decline of the family by the decline of the movie itself.… Expand
  6. AAD
    Jul 17, 2007
    3
    Abysmal film. Unbelievable work from Scorcese. The film has lost all its glamour character and depth.
  7. KeithM.
    Jul 19, 2006
    1
    Watching this failure was the saddest experience I have ever had in a theater. Loony casting, derivative and unbelievable scripting, choppy or too-baroque editing, Godfather III proved we all expected too much of Coppola, whose taste and performance without close collaboration are loose cannons aimed at his product. The filming of the broken Michael's senile demise tells it all - Arte Johnson falling off his tricycle on Laugh-In.… Expand
  8. JaradC.
    Oct 21, 2007
    0
    Completely boring, it has twists and turns, but it is so flat and hollow. Very disappointing.
  9. JCA.
    Oct 21, 2007
    0
    Sucky, although well acted, I can see Oscars many times being nominated for this film, but I don't like how there has to be a part 3, when all this does is add on from part 2. What a draggy cinematic poor film, and why Al Pacino? his age is done in part 2, I think Andy Garcia (also starring in this film) could play the godfather really well, just think about it.
  10. JamesL.
    Jul 17, 2008
    1
    This one is the weakest film of 1990. The acting is poor. And Sofia Coppola is mistaken for being cast in the movie. Andy Garcia played his part well. Call that the most powerful film? NOT!
  11. RonD.
    Dec 13, 2005
    0
    Terrible acting, plot (what little unbelieveable amount there is) doesn't hold together. Took 4 viewings to watch the entire thing, that's how bad it is. Garcia acts as well as the average wrestler and shire/little coppola may as well have entered a hog calling contest.
  12. JoyceC.
    Oct 21, 2007
    0
    The first part fascinated me, the book is amazing, the film isn't as good, but part 2 wasn't as good, it was all right, but it never worked with Al Pacino. And this, Al Pacino is more tuff, grumpy, and more compromising, I found cheesy and terrible. Either it is good, all right, or terrible. Classics can be either of the three since I know what a classic is. And this is terrible.
  13. asylumspadez
    Nov 26, 2011
    4
    It lacks originality and is far too like the previous 2 films. The acting is fine but not as great as the previous films were. Overall it was a disapointing end to an epic series.
  14. Schmit93
    Feb 20, 2012
    0
    I love the first two. I would even dare to say they are two of the greatest American movies ever made. Then number three comes along and just ruins it all. Sofia Coppola does no favors to the already unbearably slow movie. Not to mention the whole opera scene. They also do not have the decency to give Michael a good death. I do realize that they are based off novels, but goddamn.
  15. aaronpaul121
    May 26, 2012
    2
    An enormous disappointment for Al Pacino and for the whole film. I'm expecting a lot about this movie thinking the fact that its predecessors are great (especially the first one which is one of the best films of all time). The acting is horrible, the script is lousy and the whole plot was ridiculous and boring. An incredibly terrible film, but still, it does not belong to the worst.............

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
60 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 19 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 19
  2. Mixed: 5 out of 19
  3. Negative: 4 out of 19
  1. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Owen Gleiberman
    100
    In this brilliantly sustained climax, Coppola unveils a vision of corruption that embraces the entire world, but he's also reveling in sheer theatrical magic in a way that only a master can.
    Read full review
  2. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Desson Thomson
    30
    It's hard to tell if this thing's serious or parody and, if it is parody, whether or not it's intentional. Is it a winky joke, for instance, to have lightweight performer George Hamilton as Pacino's business attorney, or just ridiculous casting? Hamilton's performance points to the latter.
    Read full review
  3. Christian Science Monitor
    Reviewed by: David Sterritt
    38
    The main performances are generally weak, although the smaller ones are sometimes brilliant, and the yarn never builds much momentum as it leapfrogs from one subplot to another. [28 Dec 1990, Arts, p.14]
See all critic reviews »