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)
10
pabloaimarFeb 18, 2013
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 theThe 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. Expand
6 of 6 users found this helpful60
All this user's reviews
9
JamesEOct 15, 2007
Not as good as the originals, but defiantly gripping and intense.
3 of 3 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
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
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
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
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
8
Compi24Nov 28, 2012
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 problemsIt'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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
5
spadenxNov 29, 2011
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 franchiseFar 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. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
TheWalrus2000Mar 9, 2013
It loses its feel entirely but the acting and still sorta good plot keep it together.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
10
JohnnyStephensAug 30, 2013
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
LaMagiadeVirueAug 15, 2013
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 pelĂ­culas a las que uno le puede poner mas nota. Pero es un tanto aburrida con respecto a las anteriores.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
joao1198pedroNov 28, 2013
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
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