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 películas 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
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
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. Collapse
0 of 0 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
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
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
7
devo-ncMay 16, 2015
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, butAndy 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
RegOzJan 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 becauseI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
SpangleJun 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 youngstersThis 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
axelkochDec 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 andThe 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
gzayas91Dec 21, 2014
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MovieGuysJan 6, 2015
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, "IAlthough 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
MarickJan 1, 2015
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 filmThe 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
MovieManiac83Apr 24, 2015
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 enoughAs 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
OverreachTHISAug 17, 2015
This film has SO MUCH to dislike in it, you can get lost before you realize what is the central flaw. Coppola got away pretty much with not recasting Brando or Richard Castellano ("Clemenza") in GF, but those avoidable failures did not meanThis film has SO MUCH to dislike in it, you can get lost before you realize what is the central flaw. Coppola got away pretty much with not recasting Brando or Richard Castellano ("Clemenza") in GF, but those avoidable failures did not mean he could just skip Robert Duvall in III to save a few more bucks. The first scenes didn't work for me, and Diane Keaton's Bronze-ish angered-wife costume looked bad.

Inadequate performances were by goofy Eli Wallach, wooden George Hamilton, the guy playing Tom Hagen's son, even Mantegna, and Cuban-American Andy Garcia didn't quite pull off the Italian thing. Much-criticized Sophia C. was okay to me, but many people couldn't deal with it.

The Church mumbo jumbo was for the birds. And this guy is worth a billion dollars or so and he lives in a sub-average suburban little house? The helicopter attack on a conference room was completely ridiculous - nothing in any way like that happened in the whole history of the mafia.. And murder-by-eyeglass frames was a groaner.

But hat was really wrong was the central premise: Don Corleone the mass murderer wants redemption and to live a church-goer's life? OMG, please! Coppola's on video asking if the Don's heart betrayed him, didn't protect him? Heart smart for Chrissake, this is supposed to be a gangster movie! The old Michael and this Michael don't even seem to be relatives.

I am reminded of a line from Barton Fink where the studio boss get's angry at the misguided director: "We don't put Wally Beery in some fruity movie about a guy wrestling with his soul!" Similarly, Paramount Pictures don't put some fruity movie about a guy wrestling with his soul in the Godfather franchise! Moralizing Coppola's so far off track wringing his choir-boy hands because he ignored the main lesson: It's not a story about you and It's not personal, Francis. It's only business, movie business gone terribly wrong.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
DanteGodfather7Aug 18, 2015
Mikey returns in the the twilight of his life, to replenish himself and his 'family' of crime. After watching part I and II of Mario Puzo's: The Godfather, I have to say, this movie was a disappointment. It still is a great movie, but fromMikey returns in the the twilight of his life, to replenish himself and his 'family' of crime. After watching part I and II of Mario Puzo's: The Godfather, I have to say, this movie was a disappointment. It still is a great movie, but from my view, Al Pacino was greatly trying to re-enact what Marlon Brando perfected in part I. He failed. The whole point of Brado's performance was that he was always subtle. 'Michael' is a good character in his own right but a shadow in the greatness of 'Don Vito'. 'Vincent's' part in the movie was well executed by Andy Garcia, but yet again, Coppola tries to re-enact 'Michael' with 'Vincent'. This worked out better than the other one, but still had missing elements. The story was compelling with suspense and was a fitting end to 'The Godfather' trilogy. 6/10. Above average movie! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
peraveenJan 23, 2016
This movie is really good contrary to the comman belief that this is
not the good film. Just omit and see the movie... This is the best end
of the trilogy.... Don't go for negative review... Cheers
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
aadityamudharApr 17, 2016
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
domnels234Mar 16, 2016
I think this is the most underrated movie of all time. Despite what people think i think this movie is great, a good way to finish the best trilogy in cinema history, and quite entertaining.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
duckhostJul 25, 2016
[PT-BR] A parte final de uma das melhores trilogias já produzida por algum humano na face da terra, Part III é mais fraca de todas infelizmente, mas o final ainda é satisfatório, o meu maior problema com esse filme é a Sofia Coppola que[PT-BR] A parte final de uma das melhores trilogias já produzida por algum humano na face da terra, Part III é mais fraca de todas infelizmente, mas o final ainda é satisfatório, o meu maior problema com esse filme é a Sofia Coppola que dizendo a verdade não é uma boa atriz, ela é uma boa diretora como o pai mas não uma boa atriz, e o papel que ela exerce nesse filme é um grande papel e a má atuação dela não ajuda e as vezes o filme não consegue equilibrar entre o Michael e o seu aprendiz, o filme te tenta criar algum afeto pelo aprendiz do Michael mas você não vai se importar com ninguém nesse filme a não ser o Michael. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
GgslmJun 1, 2016
The first two movies are two of the highest cinematic achievements ever and it's really comprehensible how hard for this movie is to top that. It just doesn't, but the directing, writing and acting (excepting Sofia's awful performance) areThe first two movies are two of the highest cinematic achievements ever and it's really comprehensible how hard for this movie is to top that. It just doesn't, but the directing, writing and acting (excepting Sofia's awful performance) are still good since there's experienced people doing it. It's certainly the "less good" of the trilogy, but it's not a bad movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
BroyaxJan 5, 2017
Superbe conclusion de la saga mafieuse que l'on pourrait résumer par "le crime ne paie pas" ou bien par "le crime tue", car comme de coutume, la voie de la facilité, la voie de l'assassinat et du nettoyage par le vide n'arrange pas lesSuperbe conclusion de la saga mafieuse que l'on pourrait résumer par "le crime ne paie pas" ou bien par "le crime tue", car comme de coutume, la voie de la facilité, la voie de l'assassinat et du nettoyage par le vide n'arrange pas les choses... bien au contraire mais ainsi va la violence de ces gens-là...

Cette observation, cette évidence, presque une tautologie -non que dis-je, une lapalissade- m'est venue à l'esprit à la fin de ce Parrain troisième du nom, une fin assurément dramatique digne d'une histoire à la sicilienne dans laquelle de vendetta en vendetta, tout le monde finit par s'entretuer alors que les prétendus marionnettistes tombent dans la toile de ceux qu'ils croyaient manipuler.

Ainsi, Michael Corleone le mafioso en quête de rédemption qui tente une opération "mains propres" afin de tirer un trait sur son passé et comme -si souvent- afin d'assurer l'avenir de sa et de "la" famille se retrouve encore une fois pris dans l'engrenage infernal de Cosa Nostra.

Conclusion édifiante et touchante mais sans complaisance, ce dernier Parrain est un véritable accomplissement pour Al Pacino qui a gagné en maturité et en expérience et délivre ici une extraordinaire prestation. Le jeune poulain, Andy Garcia, s'avère à la hauteur, ce qui n'est pas rien même si on sait déjà qu'il s'agit d'un acteur très estimable en règle générale. Quant à Eli Wallach en vieux grigou retors, que dire sinon que ce monstre sacré tire encore davantage le film vers le haut !

Moins long (tout de même !) que les deux précédents -mais un peu long quand même- Le Parrain 3 est toujours d'une ambiance inimitable faite de réunions de pontes duplices et de rencontres discrètes où l'on fomente les prochains meurtres comme l'on avance ses pièces sur l'échiquier du double jeu et de la fourberie.

C'est aussi bien évidemment un lourd passif familial -et sentimental- dont même un Don -ou certain Don- peut éprouver quelque remords et regret. Contrairement au Parrain 2, le scénario reste assez clair et suffisamment développé pour qu'on en suive les tenants et aboutissants sans migraine, alors que chacun tire les ficelles en coulisses.

Quasiment un sans-faute donc pour le grand final et le meilleur opus de la saga.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
soumyadeepdasJan 26, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The movie would have obviously been worse than both the first and second movie since they had set such high standards for any moviegoer. The reasons why this movie has been panned is because of the various subplots, the unnecessary romance scenes, its inadequacy of being a standalone film (unlike Godfather II), and the atrocious acting of Sofia Coppola. However, the highs in this movie are very high. VERY high. I loved the second half of the movie, especially when Michael tours Kay around Sicily, as it is one of the more tender and beautiful scenes of this movie, if not the Godfather trilogy. The chemistry between Diane and Al is utter beauty. The opera scene is the greatest poetic justice I have seen in the trilogy. Heck, I even find that scene better than the baptism climax of the first movie. Andy Garcia was fully fit as Sonny's bastard son Vincent, and his character is one of the best of the Godfather trilogy as it depicted a fruitful change from a brash, rowdy man to a more responsible, sacrificial Don. The family struggles are a vital part of the movie, as you would see from the start where Michael quarrels with Kay about Anthony becoming an opera singer. The religious undertones too are commendable, especially the subplot on the murder of Pope John Paul I. The climax of this movie, where Michael Corleone contemplates shows what he has lost: his three loves of his depressing life. He lost Apollonia due to mistrust, he lost Kay due to his business, and he lost Mary due to gangster rivalry. On paper, it may seem he died of old age, but he actually died due to these three aspects. In short, it is a flawed masterpiece. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews