IMDb > The Godfather: Part III (1990) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Godfather: Part III
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Godfather: Part III More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 16 of 55: [Prev][11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [Next]
Index 545 reviews in total 

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A lot like Fredo...unfortunately

Author: jerk1483 from Iowa City
15 January 2002

I have watched all three Godfather films in a row, and this final installment leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's almost amazing how it fails to emulate and of the strengths of the first two films. The biggest strength of the first two films has always, in my opinion, been the characters and their relationships with each other. Michael and Kay's moral battle, Fredo's battered ego in relation to his family of strong individuals, Connie's innocence and awareness of her family's business, Sonny's passion and those effected by it, Tom's honor among thieves, and Vito's protection of his family.

It was always intriguing to see how Michael reluctantly inherited his "kingdom" from his flawed but honorable father, and how he wanted so thoroughly to give Kay a life she could be proud of. This was great stuff, a tale of a family to rival the greatest of stories.

Then Francis Ford Coppola moves on, forgets about his masterpieces, and so does everybody else. Sure, we all wanted to know what happens after the somewhat ambiguous ending of the second film, so why not make a third? There's nothing wrong there. Where Coppola, Puzo, and for that matter, Pacino, strayed was in the way they wrapped it up.

Despite what people will tell you, Sophia Coppola and Talia Shire are not talented actresses. They were in this film for one reason; They're in F F Coppola's family. Suddenly Connie has a more potent role than ever before. When once she was a smaller character poorly performed, she suddenly becomes her brother's Consigliere! Connie almost ruins this movie. So does Andy Garcia, despite his best efforts, his character makes no sense, and is not very intelligent. Robert Duval is sorely missed, replaced by a lesser acter playing his priest son, who is a needless character only present in scenes where family members are gathering. In fact, not one character makes sense or has any depth. Even Kay and Michael have dummy dialogue and no wit. The whole thing really stinks of too many writers trying and not succeeding to write a good follow up to two of the greatest films ever made.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Weakest of the trilogy...

8/10
Author: David Verdejo from New York
7 November 2001

By far does not match the greatness of the the previous two Godfather movies. I feel the movie suffered as a result of inferior acting jobs, primarily on the behalf of Sofia Coppola, Mr.George Hamilton. Andy Garcia was outstanding and the making of a Godfather IV with Andy as the Don is absolutely mouth watering.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Not necessary to see Godfather III

6/10
Author: MI$ gUy from Dallas, TX
22 October 2001

I just watched Godfather III for the first time. Godfather I and II were two of the greatest films of all time. However, although the third is a decent film, it is nowhere near the level of the others.

Michael Corleone, as the Don, is supposed to be a powerful man. In no point in this movie does Michael actually look like a Don. This is a far cry from the strong character he was in the second movie. This may well be showing the fall of organized crime, but I don't think that was Coppola's intention, and if it was he did a bad job of conveying that message. Also, Connie is suddenly a powerful character. Apparently all of Coppola's strong characters were dead so he had to take the only recognizable character that was left and make her some sort of family business matriarch. In the first two movies she had nothing to do with the family business. The plot in this movie is also disjointed and confusing. At the beginning of the movie it seems like Michael barely recognizes Vincent Mancini, but throughout the film Vincent is his right hand man. This made no sense at all.

******6 out of 10******

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Pacino, Pacino, Pacino

5/10
Author: Steven J. Juon (OHHLA) from Omaha, NE
21 October 2001

If you're a fan of Al Pacino's work as an actor, or fond of the first two installments of "The Godfather", this movie is worth seeing on either basis. Unfortunately for both the series and the actor this is not a GREAT movie. It suffers more by comparison to it's preceding chapters, but even as a stand alone film it would still be weak. It seems ironic that this is the movie that Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola supposedly collaborated on the most closely; but being over 10+ years removed from the success of Part II ultimately has as much or more to do with why this film suffers. A great cast is assembled, a great director is at work, and a great writer collaborated on it - and yet instead of being hot the film can only best be called tepid. The one driving force that keeps it interesting is Pacino's dilemma as Michael - can he save his soul and his family at the same time? It serves as a rather poignant contrast to his role in "The Devil's Advocate" so if you've only seen one I recommend renting the other.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Good,but can´t compare with the first two films!!!

7/10
Author: anton-6 from sweden
20 October 2001

First I must say that Al Pacino´s acting is brilliant as Michael Corleone.The film focuses more on the main character of the films and that´s interesting but the film is not at all as powerful as the first two films.And it´s also true that Sofia Coppola´s acting is not good. So I was almost sure that I would give it a 3/5 but when the shocking good ending came I coulden´t give it less then a weak four.I can´t recommend the godfather DVD collection enough.4-/5

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A good story ruined by one bad apple

8/10
Author: adube from Standish, ME
3 October 2001

I found Godfather Part III to be a plausible, but somewhat flawed, ending to the Godfather saga. The story of Immobiliare and corruption within the church was riveting. Most of the parts were acted well, especially Pacino's and Garcia's. The notable exception, as many have pointed out, was Sofia Coppola - she was definitely miscast for the central and crucial role of Maria. The woman just cannot act, at least in this film. A good film would have been a much better one had Winona Ryder stayed on.

Other shortcomings: the hit scene in Atlantic City was just not believable. More people would have fled that room than what was shown. Also, the final scene in which Mary is killed is overly melodramatic, while it defies the law of physics. I don't know of anyone who could take a shot in the chest from a 9mm at close range, then have enough strength to keep standing and say "Daddy" before collapsing (OK, maybe the guy from Halloween could).

Also, what happens to Connie, and Vinnie after the hit at the opera? A short glimpse of their lives after would have been good.

Despite the flaws, it is still a good film. It could have been much, much better, perhaps even one of the best in the saga, with better writing and casting.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

eh not bad

8/10
Author: the don-15 from dallas, texas
8 July 2001

this movie is underrated cause well if you think about it is a good movie as its own it doesnt live up to the first two but it has some good points in it. i like how michael is depicted in this one he is nearing death and he wants to clean his sins with holy water, and andy garcia has the qualitys of sonny and sometimes as an early michael.the plot is good but..here comes the but..there are flaws ..first robert duvall should have been in it.. he should have..second sofia coppola...god bless her should have been replaced by wynonna rider.and second the movie is missing one thing all of the movies or the first two have been father to son and in this one it is father to daughter? i mean she shouldnt have been givin that much screen time in it...but overall this movie is pretty good in its own ways. but it is a wonderfull ending to the corleone saga. 8/10

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Works Better Than It Should

Author: DanB-4 from Canada
21 May 2001

Godfather II and I are number I and II on my all-time movie list respectively. There are timeless, awesome, skillful films worthy of their Oscars and accolades. GIII does not make my top 25.

That's not to say it is a bad film. It is quite good. But take away these rich, wonderful characters and links to the previous classics and you have a long and confusing film.

The plot is well known - patriarch Michael Corleone's attempts to buy his way out of the criminal empire he built and ruthlessly ruled, thwarted by his enemies and his bloodthirsty, power-hungry nephew Vincent(brilliantly played by Andy Garcia), who is poised to take command of the family business. There is also the strong theme of Michael's guilt for his past offenses, most notably the murder of his brother.

It is a sad a grim tale, with what I thought was a very satisfying ending. Without spoiling, lets just ask this question - does a life long criminal and murderer deserve any better?

The movie's best scene takes place when Michael sees the wise and powerful Cardinal Lamberto and receives a reluctant absolution of his sins. I love this scene because the Cardinal understands him so well, and knows that he can be more than he is, but won't.

The movie has a flaw which comes very close to ruining it completely - and that is of course the infamous casting of Soffia Coppola in the pivotal role of Michael's daughter, Mary. A great deal of this plot revolves around the passionate, dangerous love of Vincent and Mary and it simply does not work. She lumbers around on the screen like an amateur and destroys every scene she has. I never bought in for a second that Vicent cared at all about her as anything more than a trick.

All that said, Diane Keaton, Eli Wallach and Joe Mantegna all offer wonderful supporting roles. Talia Shire shines again as Connie. The script is great and the theme of the trilogy is very clear - don't take sides against the family. I value this film a great deal primarily because it does a great job of winding up the story of Michael. Do not see this first, see the three in order.

***1/2 out of ****.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A disappointing finale to a great saga.

7/10
Author: ssjohnq from Chicago, IL
11 October 2000

As a huge fan of the first 2 movies, I was disappointed with Francis Ford Coppola's final chapter. Events surrounding the production of the movie doomed this picture to be a letdown from the start. Director Francis Ford Coppola cast his own daughter, Sofia, to play the part of Michael Corleone's daughter since Winona Ryder had backed out due to an illness. Ms. Coppola's performance was laughable at best. You would think that Mr. Coppola would have at least paid for some acting lessons. My other problem with this movie is that Robert Duvall was missing in his role as Tom Hagen, family consigliere. Mr. Duvall wanted way too much money which was rightly deserved. I couldn't get used to seeing a sun-baked George Hamilton advise the family. It's a shame that all this overshadowed great performances by Al Pacino, Andy Garcia, and Joe Mantegna as Joey Zaza, but it did. I would've enjoyed seeing Andy Garcia reprise his role as Don Vincenzo Corleone in a fourth installment but now that screenwriter/author Mario Puzo has so dearly departed us, we may be stuck with this disappointing third and final picture as our only memory of his legacy.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Ponderous and self-indulgent

6/10
Author: stills-6 from california
1 October 2000

Extremely disappointing given that it's supposed to be a "III" for the first two. Taken by itself, it's just not a good movie.

While the first two episodes are entertaining and spontaneous self-contained tragedies, this one is a ponderous epilogue for the entire story. Instead of a separate story to tell, this movie tries to fill in the previous stories with post-70s psychological motivations, like a middle-aged man looking back on his life and career when he should be focusing on his present life. It's not fun to watch.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 16 of 55: [Prev][11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history