User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 193 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 20 out of 193

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. Jun 28, 2014
    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 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.
  2. Dec 15, 2013
    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 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.
  3. Nov 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.
  4. Aug 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.
  5. Aug 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 películas a las que uno le puede poner mas nota. Pero es un tanto aburrida con respecto a las anteriores.
  6. Apr 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 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
  7. Mar 9, 2013
    It loses its feel entirely but the acting and still sorta good plot keep it together.
  8. Feb 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 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.
  9. Nov 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 problems here and there, I find its merits to outweigh them deftly.
  10. May 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 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.............
  11. Feb 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 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.
  12. Jan 19, 2012
    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 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 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 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
  13. Nov 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 franchise has fallen.
  14. Nov 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.
  15. Nov 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.
  16. Mar 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 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

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]