User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 261 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 21 out of 261
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. 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.
  2. JaredK.
    Nov 1, 2008
    10
    Sofia Coppla isn't nough to ruin this. The cast is stellar!
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. EddieM.
    Sep 8, 2007
    9
    Get a grip you lot - it's only a movie. And it's a really good movie too.
  8. JamesE
    Oct 15, 2007
    9
    Not as good as the originals, but defiantly gripping and intense.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. MattP.
    Jun 7, 2003
    7
    The performances are 90% awfull, the script is utterly pointless. But it's quite good at the end.
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
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]