User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 240 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 21 out of 240
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Feb 18, 2013
    10
    The amount of suspense towards the end is crazy and the ending really lets it all out, I haven't seen a scene more heartbreaking. There's less of the Godfather theme to it because its not as dark and it has no Marlon Brando, but its still the same characters and actors and it doesnt fail to show the fate of the Corleone family. One of the greatest movies Ive ever seen.
  2. JamesE
    Oct 15, 2007
    9
    Not as good as the originals, but defiantly gripping and intense.
  3. EddieM.
    Sep 8, 2007
    9
    Get a grip you lot - it's only a movie. And it's a really good movie too.
  4. DouglasM
    Jul 20, 2007
    9
    I just saw Godfather Part 3 for the first time two days ago. While it still ranks as a great film, it lacks the emotional intensity of the first two films. The earlier two movies had incredibly well-acted and engrossing supporting characters like Fredo. Godfather Part 3 with Sofia Coppola, Joe Mantegna, and George Hamilton (while none of them were bad) just do not measure up to the I just saw Godfather Part 3 for the first time two days ago. While it still ranks as a great film, it lacks the emotional intensity of the first two films. The earlier two movies had incredibly well-acted and engrossing supporting characters like Fredo. Godfather Part 3 with Sofia Coppola, Joe Mantegna, and George Hamilton (while none of them were bad) just do not measure up to the quality of the first two movies. Expand
  5. Nov 28, 2012
    8
    It's almost common knowledge that this film gets a boatload of flack, but I actually found "The Godfather Part III" to be quite an engaging and gratifying conclusion to the truly epic trilogy. While the film does have a few flagrant problems here and there, I find its merits to outweigh them deftly.
  6. HudsonT
    Nov 9, 2008
    9
    Not perfect, but certainly better than part two. Ultimately, after hearing about how everyone was so disappointed with three, I was surprised by how good it was.
  7. PatrickM.
    Sep 26, 2007
    10
    Yeah - definitely flawed - but still really great. Not so much a godfather film, as an attempt by Coppola to understand himself in middle-age.
  8. 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 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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 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
  11. AAD
    Jul 17, 2007
    3
    Abysmal film. Unbelievable work from Scorcese. The film has lost all its glamour character and depth.
  12. JaredK.
    Nov 1, 2008
    10
    Sofia Coppla isn't nough to ruin this. The cast is stellar!
  13. 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!
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Mar 15, 2011
    5
    Overall, as a standalone movie, it is definitely very flawed, but it has its moments. As a Godfather film, it is somewhat of a clunker. I didn't hate the movie, but with unconvincing and very less powerful performances, a somewhat cliche plot at some points, and overall a slow pacing, The Godfather Part III is definitely a step bellow its predecessors. It wasn't a bad conclusion, and IOverall, as a standalone movie, it is definitely very flawed, but it has its moments. As a Godfather film, it is somewhat of a clunker. I didn't hate the movie, but with unconvincing and very less powerful performances, a somewhat cliche plot at some points, and overall a slow pacing, The Godfather Part III is definitely a step bellow its predecessors. It wasn't a bad conclusion, and I didn't hate it, but if you are worrying that this will ruin the great series for you, then you might want to think twice about seeing it. Collapse
  19. May 26, 2012
    4
    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.............
  20. Apr 7, 2013
    5
    The Godfather 3, released 16 years after Godfather 2, has lost its cinematic touch. It's still a long film and follows Michael when he is older and in the process of retiring. The biggest let-down is how there is little connection between some events, and the story is very thinly linked together and at points not well explained or explored deeply. It almost feels as if it was dragged out,The Godfather 3, released 16 years after Godfather 2, has lost its cinematic touch. It's still a long film and follows Michael when he is older and in the process of retiring. The biggest let-down is how there is little connection between some events, and the story is very thinly linked together and at points not well explained or explored deeply. It almost feels as if it was dragged out, and produced with few intentions other than for profit. There's no real story to tell. However, I can give it credit for somehow managing to make it feel engaging and entertaining for the whole length. It only really picks up in the last 20 minutes or so, but it's worth watching if you've got some spare time and have seen the other two films. Expand
  21. Nov 29, 2011
    5
    Far too similar to the previous films, Lacks originality and its actually pretty boring and not all that interesting either. While it does end perfectly, The build up to that moment is shallow and shows just how far the one great franchise has fallen.
  22. Mar 9, 2013
    6
    It loses its feel entirely but the acting and still sorta good plot keep it together.
  23. Aug 30, 2013
    10
    Only the ending was good I think. Francis For C., after many many years, thought to close the Godfather with a third film. Not a good decision at all!!! I didn't like so much. The worst movie of the trilogy.
  24. Aug 15, 2013
    5
    Nada que ver a las otras dos partes, "The Godfather: Part III" mantiene un buen enfoque a la vida mafiosa y una historia mejor que muchas otra películas a las que uno le puede poner mas nota. Pero es un tanto aburrida con respecto a las anteriores.
  25. Nov 28, 2013
    6
    this movie is not an masterpiece as it was the two first godfathers but it didn't mean it's an ok movie.Of course that is a lot of mistakes but it is still an nice movie.
  26. PatC.
    Jan 8, 2004
    6
    No new ground by itself. Filler for a consolidation involving the preceding films.
  27. WillH.
    Jan 6, 2005
    3
    Talia Shire gives one of the worst performances of all time.
  28. JackH.
    Nov 7, 2004
    9
    While it doesn't quite live up to the cinematic greatness of the other movies, I still thoroughly enjoyed it and see no reason to disparage it.
  29. CharlesB
    Oct 14, 2005
    7
    When looked at in comparason to the original two this movie is aweful...but as a stand alone movie it holds its own. There is nothing particularly new or different from the origional, but tries to use the same type of elements that make the origionals great and that in a sense makes this movie good.
  30. 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.
  31. MarkG.
    May 18, 2007
    6
    It is a pity that people insist on holding this film against the brilliance of its predecessor and frowning down upon it. While nothing on its prequels, the films nonetheless features some fine emotional scenes, such as Michael by the casket of his friend, the dead Don, and Michael's confession to the priest. Its a shame that the film receives such harsh reviews as the editing is It is a pity that people insist on holding this film against the brilliance of its predecessor and frowning down upon it. While nothing on its prequels, the films nonetheless features some fine emotional scenes, such as Michael by the casket of his friend, the dead Don, and Michael's confession to the priest. Its a shame that the film receives such harsh reviews as the editing is simply masterful. The silent scream Pacino emits at the end is brilliant, its just not the end the masterpiece trilogy everyone expected. Expand
  32. MattP.
    Jun 7, 2003
    7
    The performances are 90% awfull, the script is utterly pointless. But it's quite good at the end.
  33. YoonMinC.
    Sep 28, 2003
    7
    This movie has so many stupid misconceived things that it's a wonder it works at all. The pluses are leftovers from the previous Godfather films--Pacino, Shire, and some minor Italian actors(though Keaton's sappiness is again unbearable)--, Coppola's direction, and the great cinematography. However, the script is caca, the story is ill-conceived, and the new This movie has so many stupid misconceived things that it's a wonder it works at all. The pluses are leftovers from the previous Godfather films--Pacino, Shire, and some minor Italian actors(though Keaton's sappiness is again unbearable)--, Coppola's direction, and the great cinematography. However, the script is caca, the story is ill-conceived, and the new characters--Garcia and Sofia Coppola--are major minuses(while Mantegna, Wallach, and Hamilton do their best with limited material). Worse, the first two Godfather films were operatically grimy with compelling human drama which has been washed away with soap here. And, if tensions mounted in parts I and II because Michael's position in the world was both powerful and shaky, in part III he's less Godather and simply God. He's so rich, powerful, and influential it plays more like the lifestyles of the rich, famous, and criminal minus the narration by Robin Leach which would have been more welcome than alot of the dumb speeches here. And, Tom Hagen is soarly missed, perhaps the only crooked lawyer who could have given this movie a fix. Still, Pacino's dedication to the craft of acting is total and retains some of the tragic power. His confession to the Pope is on par with anything in the earlier Godfather movies. Let's just hope there's no Apocalypse Now II. Expand
  34. 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 - 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
  35. JaradC.
    Oct 21, 2007
    0
    Completely boring, it has twists and turns, but it is so flat and hollow. Very disappointing.
  36. 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.
  37. GottlobF.
    Aug 14, 2007
    6
    First a message to AA D: this movie was not by Scorcese. Anyway, it's nowhere near as good as Parts I and II, but it was entertaining enough. Probably better than "Dances with Wolves", which beat it out for the Academy Award.
  38. May 16, 2015
    5
    Andy Garcia is one of the most memorable parts of the godfather trilogy, he is the persona the first two movies were lacking. Part 3 though is an interesting story that in the end is a satisfying ending to the story of Michael Corleone, but is it really his story? As a character he has never fully interested me, they spent too much time focussing on his character in Part 2, I liked himAndy Garcia is one of the most memorable parts of the godfather trilogy, he is the persona the first two movies were lacking. Part 3 though is an interesting story that in the end is a satisfying ending to the story of Michael Corleone, but is it really his story? As a character he has never fully interested me, they spent too much time focussing on his character in Part 2, I liked him most in this film, but the vision for me has become lost as to what the overlaying story arch originally set out to be. I feel this film cleaned up some of the problems I had with the first two films but at the same time never really finds it's footing here in more blatant ways Part 2 gleamed. Expand
  39. Jan 19, 2012
    9
    I know this movie has been subject of harsh criticism, especially when compared to the previous two. It is important to emphasize, however, that this film has merit by its own. At first, one may not feel very connected with this movie because the absence of those characters that we learnt to love in those 2 previous 'The Godfather'...but I think we all know the reasons why they were notI know this movie has been subject of harsh criticism, especially when compared to the previous two. It is important to emphasize, however, that this film has merit by its own. At first, one may not feel very connected with this movie because the absence of those characters that we learnt to love in those 2 previous 'The Godfather'...but I think we all know the reasons why they were not there. Thus, there was a need to think in a new storyline that was also engaging but could survive without those old characters. The plot is different and it may be perceived as forced and lame..Yet when located in the right context it does make sense. I believe the performances were good, and I enjoyed seeing the other side of Michael Corleone...here we see that he was after all human, although he never regretted what he did. In The Godfather I and II his character was all negative. Michael is presented as emotionless, controlling, obsessive, and ruthless. Governed by his ego and desires of revenge. Here...we can see a different side, the one of a lonely man...one that in spite of his power can never be in peace and doesn't seem to get anything he wants no matter what he does. As a result, he questions his means..especially considering the fact that his children have chosen different paths. Overall, I have to say that I enjoyed this movie more than The Godfather II . Finally, I would like to add that even though I have heard that some disliked Sofia Coppola's performance. I did not.. He performance was not outstanding but I do not believe it was bad. Her character was relevant to the plot but it was never meant to be central...thus; her characterization doesn't really affect the value of the movie. I give it a 9 Expand
  40. Jun 28, 2014
    7
    This one is not as good as the first two for sure, but it has many positives. For starters, Al Pacino is great once again in his role as Michael Corleone. The changing landscape of the families is also well presented as we see many youngsters trying to come into the business, while many of the key players from before are now on their way out. In addition, the homages to the first two filmsThis one is not as good as the first two for sure, but it has many positives. For starters, Al Pacino is great once again in his role as Michael Corleone. The changing landscape of the families is also well presented as we see many youngsters trying to come into the business, while many of the key players from before are now on their way out. In addition, the homages to the first two films and footage from the first two were brilliantly used and really added a nice touch here. For the most part, it was nice to see some things brought to a closure from the first two and how the family has progressed and regressed over all of these years. However, the negatives here really are what hold the film back. Firstly, the plot can be overly complicated at times, likely due to poor storytelling. At times, things would happen and you are trying to figure out what just happened and why. However, the major issue is the acting. Andy Garcia is fine for the most part, but at times, he fails to step up to the plate. I still feel like he had the charisma and energy for the role, I just wish his performance did not slump at times. Sofia Coppola was horrendous. I always thought people were overstating how bad she is, but you simply cannot overstate it. I think my dog could have been a better Mary than her.

    Overall, this final entry into the Godfather trilogy is much like the raisin cookie to the first two's chocolate chip. No matter what, you are disappointed that it is not chocolate chip, but if you like raisins and can overcome that disappointment, you somewhat enjoy the cookie anyways. But, not everyone likes raisins and can overcome that disappointment.
    Expand
  41. Dec 15, 2013
    7
    The last instalment in the Godfather trilogy, The Godfather Part III, has some obvious flaws. Including real life events out of the time of the Vatican’s crisis in the late 70’s and early 80’s, for one, let the whole plot seem a bit weird and didn’t work all the time. Even more crucial, the casting of Sofia Coppola as Michael’s grown-up daughter Mary. Although we’ve come to experience herThe last instalment in the Godfather trilogy, The Godfather Part III, has some obvious flaws. Including real life events out of the time of the Vatican’s crisis in the late 70’s and early 80’s, for one, let the whole plot seem a bit weird and didn’t work all the time. Even more crucial, the casting of Sofia Coppola as Michael’s grown-up daughter Mary. Although we’ve come to experience her directing qualities a decade later, she just didn’t succeed in her role and was utterly unconvincing throughout the film. And, as in the two first films, it’s also more than a tad too long, which makes for some rather dreary moments.
    Nevertheless, The Godfather Part III is a very good film and can very well compete with the rest of the series, despite being yet another step back from The Godfather’s initial quality. Not only can the audience still enjoy fabulous cinematography, set design, and score work (all of these securing the film’s respectable amount of Oscar nominations), but also some final 20 minutes that will keep The Godfather Part III in your memory. As we can relish in the insanely well-made shots of all the people that have just died under most unnatural circumstances, the crew concocts what are, in my opinion, the three best shots of all three films: Frederick Keinszig, hanging dead from a bridge, Calò stabbing Don Lucchesi with his own glasses, and Archbishop Gilday falling to his dead.
    It may be just a bit too little of everything to establish Part III’s place on the same shelf as the first two films in the series, but it’s still the great Francis Ford Coppola that directed it and made the most out of a story significantly less interesting than I had expected.
    Expand
  42. Dec 21, 2014
    10
    The best film by Coppola. This is a King Lear film, a Shakespearian tragedy. A film that deserves oscars, five stars, and respected, espiacally Sophia.
  43. Jan 6, 2015
    7
    Although it can never live up to the first two, Part III isn't totally horrible. However, many problems are abound, and I can't decide which one is the worst. Maybe it's Sofia Coppola's botox-looking face with her wooden, emotionless, "I don't give a damn I'm the director's daughter"-like acting. Maybe it's the occasional dragging scene that weighs the movie down. Maybe it's the fact thatAlthough it can never live up to the first two, Part III isn't totally horrible. However, many problems are abound, and I can't decide which one is the worst. Maybe it's Sofia Coppola's botox-looking face with her wooden, emotionless, "I don't give a damn I'm the director's daughter"-like acting. Maybe it's the occasional dragging scene that weighs the movie down. Maybe it's the fact that Andy Garcia looks way too Cuban to be of Italian descent. I don't know. The first 2 hours are just kind of there, but the movie does come to a stunning climax at the end, and is a nice resolution to the trilogy. Yes, it might be a cash-grabbing sequel effort, but you must watch it to close out the series. Expand
  44. Jan 1, 2015
    9
    The Godfather Part III is a 1990 American crime film written by Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola, and directed by Coppola. It completes the story of Michael Corleone, a Mafia kingpin who tries to legitimize his criminal empire. The film also weaves into its plot a fictionalized account of two real-life events: the 1978 death of Pope John Paul I and the Papal banking scandal ofThe Godfather Part III is a 1990 American crime film written by Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola, and directed by Coppola. It completes the story of Michael Corleone, a Mafia kingpin who tries to legitimize his criminal empire. The film also weaves into its plot a fictionalized account of two real-life events: the 1978 death of Pope John Paul I and the Papal banking scandal of 1981–1982; both are linked with the affairs of Michael Corleone. The film stars Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, and Andy García, and features Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna, George Hamilton, Bridget Fonda, and Sofia Coppola. Expand
  45. Apr 24, 2015
    4
    As a nice little film about a bunch of hoods and their involvement in some complicated conspiracy involving the Vatican, The Godfather Part III works just fine, boasting first-rate performances from its two leading men and displaying enough clever directorial touches to suggest that this Francis Ford Coppola chap is a name to look out for. As the slavishly-awaited sequel to two of theAs a nice little film about a bunch of hoods and their involvement in some complicated conspiracy involving the Vatican, The Godfather Part III works just fine, boasting first-rate performances from its two leading men and displaying enough clever directorial touches to suggest that this Francis Ford Coppola chap is a name to look out for. As the slavishly-awaited sequel to two of the finest films of the last 30 years, however, as the third episode in what may well be the Greatest Movie Story Ever Told, The Godfather Part III is, frankly, a dreadful disappointment.

    It is, perhaps, unfair that this new production should be so smothered under the reputation of two films made nearly 20 years ago. By so closely adhering to the exact structure of his previous two instalments, however, and through his liberal employment of flashbacks, Coppola himself seems to beg for the comparisons, making it abundantly clear throughout that what is on offer here is no new departure, but simply part three of that old familiar tale of the familia Corleone. And as such, it simply doesn't work, lacking the strength of narrative, the menace, the sheer epic sweep of all that has gone before.

    For about the first 30 minutes, however, everything seems to be very much in order. The familiar strains of Nino Rota's theme music never fail to send a shiver, the introduction of Andy Garcia as the suitably hotheaded bastard son of Sonny is a welcome addition to the ranks, while Pacino, all grey and shrunk, immediately conveys a telling portrait of immense power and obscene wealth, made all the more impressive by its confinement within such a wizened old frame.

    The first hint that we may be going slightly off the rails comes with the gathering of the clans and the subsequent Die Hard-style interruption from the skies, a badly-handled set piece more reminiscent of Bond than the beautifully understated brutality of the tollbooth.

    From here on, the violence becomes increasingly cartoon, notably Garcia riding a horse through the inevitable street festival, while things go from bad to worse as it gradually becomes all too apparent just how far out of her depth Sofia Coppola really is, floundering helplessly in her vain attempts to convince as both the Garcia love interest and daughter of the Don. By the time the much-vaunted operatic climax comes along, it is hardly surprising that proceedings finally slip into near-farce, as the supposed top assassin in all of Sicily takes a good half-hour and a fair portion of Cavalleria Rusticana to line up his sights. Miss Sofia manages to provoke the giggles amidst such supposed tragedy and all that is left is a basic re-run of your actual Don Corelone coil-shuffling routine to round things off.

    Fans of the first two instalments are likely to find The Godfather Part III an unworthy heir to the tradition. First-time voters, meanwhile, will surely wonder what on earth all the fuss was all about.

    Fans of the first two instalments are likely to find The Godfather Part III an unworthy heir to the tradition. First-time voters, meanwhile, will surely wonder what on earth all the fuss was all about.
    Expand
Metascore
60

Mixed or average reviews - based on 19 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 19
  2. Negative: 4 out of 19
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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]