Metascore
60

Mixed or average reviews - based on 19 Critics What's this?

User Score
7.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 199 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: In this third film in the epic Corleone trilogy, Al Pacino reprises the role of powerful family leader Michael Corleone. Now in his 60's, Michael is dominated by two passions: freeing his family from crime and finding a suitable successor. That successor could be fiery Vincent (Garcia)...In this third film in the epic Corleone trilogy, Al Pacino reprises the role of powerful family leader Michael Corleone. Now in his 60's, Michael is dominated by two passions: freeing his family from crime and finding a suitable successor. That successor could be fiery Vincent (Garcia)... but he may also be the spark that turns Michael's hope of business legitimacy into an inferno of mob violence. [Paramount Pictures] Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 19
  2. Negative: 4 out of 19
  1. This lushly photographed, brilliantly acted and wonderfully entertaining movie has its own claims to uniqueness. It's the most thoughtful of the three films, and its climax brings the entire series into sharper focus. [25 Dec 1990, Daily Datebook, p.E1]
  2. Though definitely one of the best American movies of the year--a work of high ensemble talent and intelligence, gorgeously mounted and crafted, artistically audacious in ways that most American movies don't even attempt--it's still a disappointment… It's not the capstone we might have wanted Coppola to make. [23 Dec 1990, Calendar, p.9]
  3. 88
    It's strange how the earlier movies fill in the gaps left by this one, and answer the questions. It is, I suspect, not even possible to understand this film without knowing the first two, and yet, knowing them, Part III works better than it should.
  4. Andy Garcia, who first became noticeable in The Untouchables, has seductive strength, homicidal cool. One reason to look forward to Part IV is that he'll fill the center better than Pacino does. [21 Jan 1991, p.26]
  5. 50
    An air of embarrassing familiarity hangs over the entire project, as if it were a story told by an aging relative not quite aware of how many times, and how much better, he has been over the same material before. [25 Dec 1990, Tempo, p.1]
  6. Reviewed by: Barry McIlheney
    40
    A dreadful disappointment.
  7. 10
    The Godfather Part III isn't just a disappointment, it's a failure of heartbreaking proportions... It makes you wish it had never been made.

See all 19 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 24 out of 43
  2. Negative: 12 out of 43
  1. 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 lessThe 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
  2. JaredK.
    Nov 1, 2008
    10
    Sofia Coppla isn't nough to ruin this. The cast is stellar!
  3. 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 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
  4. GottlobF.
    Aug 14, 2007
    6
    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 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. Expand
  5. Nov 29, 2011
    5
    Far too similar to the previous films, Lacks originality and its actually pretty boring and not all that interesting either. While it does endFar 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
  6. Nov 26, 2011
    4
    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 wasIt 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. Expand
  7. RonD.
    Dec 13, 2005
    0
    Terrible acting, plot (what little unbelieveable amount there is) doesn't hold together. Took 4 viewings to watch the entire thing, 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

See all 43 User Reviews

Trailers