Paramount Pictures | Release Date: December 25, 1990
7.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 376 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
298
Mixed:
54
Negative:
24
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
PatC.Jan 8, 2004
No new ground by itself. Filler for a consolidation involving the preceding films.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
WillH.Jan 6, 2005
Talia Shire gives one of the worst performances of all time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JackH.Nov 7, 2004
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
CharlesBOct 14, 2005
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
FrankB.May 3, 2005
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
RexG.May 13, 2006
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 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful
6
MarkG.May 18, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
AADJul 17, 2007
Abysmal film. Unbelievable work from Scorcese. The film has lost all its glamour character and depth.
0 of 3 users found this helpful
10
PatrickM.Sep 26, 2007
Yeah - definitely flawed - but still really great. Not so much a godfather film, as an attempt by Coppola to understand himself in middle-age.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
9
EddieM.Sep 8, 2007
Get a grip you lot - it's only a movie. And it's a really good movie too.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
7
MattP.Jun 7, 2003
The performances are 90% awfull, the script is utterly pointless. But it's quite good at the end.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
YoonMinC.Sep 28, 2003
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
EricR.Mar 17, 2006
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 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
1 of 4 users found this helpful
1
KeithM.Jul 19, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JamesEOct 15, 2007
Not as good as the originals, but defiantly gripping and intense.
3 of 3 users found this helpful
0
JaradC.Oct 21, 2007
Completely boring, it has twists and turns, but it is so flat and hollow. Very disappointing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JCA.Oct 21, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DouglasMJul 20, 2007
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
6
GottlobF.Aug 14, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JaredK.Nov 1, 2008
Sofia Coppla isn't nough to ruin this. The cast is stellar!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
JamesL.Jul 17, 2008
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!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
RonD.Dec 13, 2005
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 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
JoyceC.Oct 21, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
HudsonTNov 9, 2008
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.
2 of 3 users found this helpful
0
joseap84Nov 25, 2011
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.
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
4
asylumspadezNov 26, 2011
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
Schmit93Feb 20, 2012
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 theI 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
MoviebuffreviewMar 15, 2011
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 plotOverall, 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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
aaronpaul121May 26, 2012
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 isAn 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............. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
sinadoomApr 7, 2013
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 betweenThe 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews