IMDb > The Godfather: Part III (1990) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Godfather: Part III
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
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 3 of 56: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 553 reviews in total 

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

A Very Good Ending To the Trilogy...

Author: DonBrasco from Mgarr, Malta
23 February 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

... and OBVIOUSLY, also third best of the trilogy.

******** SPOILER AHEAD ***********

Those who say this is a terrible movie, should never have been done etc etc are just exaggerating. I Think that the plot for this movie is excellent and I also really liked how a real life event like the death of the Pope just after a month in 1979 is linked to the story.

The plot and the acting of Al Pacino and Andy Garcia are in my opinion the three great plus's in the movie. What fails to upgrade this from a 'very good' to an 'excellent' movie is one main element: The atmosphere, the set and 'fashion' surrounding the actors did not look like 1979 at all! It looked more like the present day or at least the early 90's. This is a big shame, when considering how 'devoted', Coppola was to such details in the first two movies.

Another thing that could have been improved was the music to the movie. Not that it wasn't good, but I feel that in this department, this movie is more detached from the other two. More use of the main Godfather Theme could have given it a more 'familiar' touch.

My Opinion about why many people are OVER-Critical about this movie is because their brain works inversely proportional after seeing the first two movies. Let me explain myself - The first two movies simply cannot be more perfect and after seeing them it is like having a cup, filled to the brim with water. This makes the slightest imperfection in the third movie 'spill a lot of water'.

Continuing on this analogy, I think that a forth movie would simply 'Empty the cup'!

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

A masterpiece!

Author: tiger-garcia from United Kingdom
3 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When i saw the godfather i saw them all in one day .And although i had already been told of the quality of this magnificent trilogy i was really impressed by some of the performances.Brando was Brando what else is to say about this unique actor,Garcia was a revelation to me but Pacino went beyond that line.I'll never forget that scene in the steps when his daughter die in his arms with him screaming in sheer agony but was the very last frame that really got me!So symbolic ,so bitter sweet ,back in Sicily as he always wanted realising that he failed to protect the ones that he loved the most. That scene contains no words but it really speaks volumes.He looks so fragile ,so defeated,utterly alone ...The fall of a great man who firstly wanted nothing to do with his dad's "business"but ultimately couldn't escape his legacy. It really moved me to tears and for the profound effect that had on me i'll always remember it as the best mob film that was ever done .A masterpiece!

Was the above review useful to you?

33 out of 61 people found the following review useful:

The horror, the horror

Author: fadeout from Los Angeles
22 June 1999

On its own, this film would be merely mediocre. But in contrast to Godfather I and II, and as a film marketed as part of a trilogy, it is a travesty. From the vanity casting of Sophia Coppola, to the stupefyingly boring subplot of the Vatican banking scandal, to the all-sunshiney cinematography, to the sophomoric references to King Lear, it is on a much lower plane than Coppola's earlier films. The boxed set is like getting Citizen Kane, Chinatown and Porky's III as a trilogy. Not to mention the fact that the beginning of Godfather III is inconsistent with the ending of Godfather II. The recent news story that a Godfather IV is in the offing is, after the invasion of Kosovo, the worst news I've heard this year.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

It simply doesn't work very well

Author: revival05 from Sweden
23 December 2011

Being an optimistic fellow I wanted to enjoy The Godfather Part III the first time I saw it - this was easy, since its a competent piece of film making, generally well paced, acted, it's coherent, Al Pacino's in it, Coppola has made this film from A to Z and on its own terms the film doesn't have any inexcusable flaws. (Not even, I might add, the notorious Sofia Coppola; she's bad, but her performance is benefited by the character she's playing, which is also weak). So for a long time I was one of those guys going "Hey, Godfather part III isn't as bad as everyone says. Sure, its not as good as the first two but not many movies are!" Later in life, presumably with heightened standards and a better sense of criticism, I started to suspect that the opposite could be true - that part III was really nowhere near as good as I'd recall - and after seeing all three films pretty much back to back I have to be honest (an approach I think wouldn't hurt the more enthusiastic defenders of this film) and conclude that The Godfather Part III, despite certain qualities, simply doesn't work.

(Excluded passage due to word limit; concerning how Coppola did the film for the money, and that it actually makes the film a little easier to appreciate)

I think the film really, on a whole, is perhaps not 'bad', certainly not horrible, but definitely a failure. The plot is underdeveloped and not engaging - Michael Corleone suffers from guilt. Its not unreasonable to say he did that at the end of Part II already. Where does his search for redemption lead him? Do "they" really pull him in again? Does his character do or say anything really memorable? Once or twice. But the script really is a long filler-session. And while everybody seems to just automatically praise Pacino because, well, he's Pacino I don't think his performance in this film is particularly good either, at least not by his merits. He's a great actor, and this is as fine a performance as any other he's made, but when you consider how truly versatile Pacino can be (compare Godfather part II with Scarface, with Serpico, Devil's Advocate, you name it, he's right there in character) its a disappointment that the aged Michael Corleone has turned into... well, Al Pacino. Obviously the character is not the same man that he used to be, but I never once really believed that I was watching Michael Corleone. He looked, and acted, too much like Al Pacino.

Not to mention Andy Garcia being nothing more than Andy Garcia, Joe Pantanglio, Eli Wallach, Talia Shire in a strangely awful performance (she's not a bad actress at all, but whatever happened here?). And of course Sofia Coppola; she isn't the crucial problem, but in the end she does become responsible for a lot of misfiring. The only one still doing a prime job is Diane Keaton as Kay - truly an unsung hero in these films, and to me one of the main reasons the drama work - and the film's best scenes were the one's she shared with Pacino. Why? Because then I felt like I was even watching a Godfather movie.

Much of everything else simply doesn't work. Whereas the original films were subtle and ambiguous, part III filters the story with melodramatic punches that are un-inspired and obvious. Michael's son, played by Franc D'Ambrosio, seems taken from Days of Our Lives and so many of the questions we ask ourselves - what does he remember from his childhood? What does any of the characters feel about Michael's marriage in Sicily? Did Tom Hagen ever move to Las Vegas? etc - are left completely by the road, as if Coppola truly isn't interested in telling this story. There are instead near-insulting reminders to the audience that the other two movies still exist (like the pointless scene where Michael have kept the drawing Anthony left at his pillow when he was nine or so; "I remember this" he smiles, though I'm not sure if we are to understand this as "I also remember they shot up the bedroom that same night"; once again, it seems Coppola simply forgets his own story). There are also awkward attempts at creating dramatic highlights in line with the horse-head scene and that very shooting in the beginning of Part II, involving a shooting during a parade in Little Italy and a stupid and ugly scene involving a helicopter. Making a Godfather sequel formulaic is truly a depressing insult to the originality of the first two films. The attempts Coppola takes on the Vatican are also pretty flat when you think about how Italian cinema has been doing this for half a century.

There's no reason to watch this film have you not seen the first two. And there's really no reason to watch it if you have seen them either. When you think about it, I don't see why the film's few merits are worth talking about. Movie newbies having seen Part I and II will naturally see III too, and I think many of them will come to the same conclusion. It's not all bad, but so what. It simply doesn't work very well.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:


Author: Don-146 from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
14 January 2000

This film came out about the same time as Goodfellas, and pales in comparison with the Martin Scorsese effort. I know the two shouldn't be compared, but the fact that they are both gangster films begs some sort of comparison.

Does Godfather III "complete" Coppola's Godfather series? Only in the sense that we see what happens to Michael when he is an old man. In my opinion, we didn't really need to know that. To me, the Godfather films ended with Michael Corleone as a shell of a man after losing his wife and murdering his brother.

Besides, I'm of the view that the best American films of the 20th century were made in the 1970s.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

The perfect end to the perfect trilogy ...

Author: Ken Vandenbussche from Belgium
15 October 2007

16 years after the last of two brilliant godfather-films, director Francis Ford Coppola returns to complete his thus far unfinished mafia saga. Despite rumours that the final godfather-film is a blemish on an otherwise magnificent tale of organized crime, it is in fact one of the most beautiful films ever made and a story that's just as riveting as any of its predecessors. It once again deals with familiar themes such as corruption, misuse of power, love, respect, remorse and of course the most inevitable of all … death! The endless amount of critique and insults that this film received must have something to do with the many years dividing part II and part III. In those many years the face of American cinema has changed radically. Back in the '70s method-actors like Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro were the true kings of the movie industry, but after a couple of years special effects started playing a bigger role in cinema and fantasy figures such as Indiana Jones, Darth Vader, aliens, terminators, gremlins and horror icon Freddy Krueger all became immensely popular and just as important.

Amazing is that "The godfather part III" didn't change one bit amidst this massive update of modern cinema. Surely: it takes place a few dozen years later, but it seems as though time has stood still. Even so: there are some significant changes to be had. The biggest change of all is how Michael Corleone has transformed from a strong and confident leader to a weak and aging Don desperately trying to deal with his tragic past. At the same time he wants to legitimize his crime family's interests and remove himself from the violent underworld. Method-actor Al Pacino does exceptionally well at acting out emotions with his voice in this final instalment. The last time I watched this film, I actually cried on two different occasions. That's how powerful and genuine his acting really is. The first moment that got to me was the confession of Al Pacino to a priest. Having never shown repent for any of his sins, he suddenly realizes the vast magnitude of his wrong-doings and ultimately breaks down in tears. Even more compelling is the ending of the godfather-trilogy.

But Al Pacino isn't the only great actor in this film. Andy Garcia plays his role of a lifetime as Vincent Mancini – the ferocious son of Michael's oldest brother Sonny and unfortunately for anyone involved he shares his father's hot temper. Especially small-time enforcer Joey Zasa seems to enrage him beyond all reason. This character is played by actor Joe Mantegna and he does a very good job. Mantegna would still get the chance to play an actual mob boss but only as the voice of Fat Tony in the highly successful television series "The Simpsons."

The one person who was attacked the most for her performance was Sofia Coppola; daughter of director Francis Ford. She evidently plays the part of the daughter of Michael Corleone. I have to agree that Sofia is much better behind the camera than in front of it, but to say that her acting was terrible is an overstatement. Diane Keaton and Talia Shire are still around playing their eminent characters, but not everybody returns for this third film. Robert Duvall got a little too greedy on his part and that's why his character consigliere Tom Hagen does not return. This is a real pity, but the film has found a very clever way to work around it … so this change is more than satisfactory; I think. Bridget Fonda is also present as a reporter but her role is of no real consequence. Suffice to say, "The godfather: part III" has a fabulous cast.

In short: Sequels simply don't get any better than this! This masterpiece is just as grand as part I and part II ... everything falls into place - from its wonderful actors to the delightful cinematography - "The godfather part III" truly is ... the perfect end to the perfect trilogy!!

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

A perfect conclusion

Author: daniel Carbajo López from Barcelona, Spain
30 July 2007

Years have passed and Michael Corleone is now an old man. HE has become THE GODFATHER, everything that happens in US passes by his hands, he puts and quits presidents, governors... But he lacks the most important for him: his family. In a latest attempt to recover them, he tries to abandon and crime and become a gentlemen, but the past will not let him do it. The best of the three? It is stupid to say it, all are just perfect. Al Pacino is as superb as the other two, and the inclusion of an extremely inspired Andy Garcia (bad luck he wasn't ever able to repeat such a good part) and the rest of the cast are just wonderful. The development of the drama, almost following a Shakespeare's drama, the strength of the scenes, it is a movie that deserves to be in the Olimp of the cinema. It is just a masterpiece. Unfrotunately, the Oscars were not in its favour (0/7 no way!)

Was the above review useful to you?

40 out of 76 people found the following review useful:

The Godfather Part III

Author: Tim Cox from Marietta, OH
17 June 1999

Well done finale to the fantastic saga of the Corleone family with Coppola's daughter Sofia being the only weak link in the acting area. Garcia is brilliant and carries the same vigor and power as Caan before him. Pacino still has that touch as Michael, now in his later years. The film moves along briskly and features great support from Mantegna, Wallach and a surprisingly well used George Hamilton. Wasn't as big a hit at the Oscars as the first two installments, but the saga is still one of the most important series of films ever made.

Was the above review useful to you?

72 out of 140 people found the following review useful:

If you enjoyed the first two, spare yourself the agony of this one

Author: (smaybee) from Canada
27 November 2001

-This movie is awful on two counts: as a finale to the trilogy and as a stand-alone film. This shows in the poor character development, the abundance of meaningless shots, and lastly, and most importantly in my mind, the meaninglessness of the dialogue. -All of the integrity of the characters from the first two Godfathers is completely done away with in the first sequence. -Michael, a taciturn, introverted, calculating megalomaniac in the first two films is lavish, loose-lipped, pathetic in his control over his family, and careless as he never was and never would have been by the first two movies. -Constanza is all of a sudden involved in the family affairs. Joe Mantegna plays a terribly thin enemy of the family, Joey Zasa, but can't be blamed as an actor with such a flimsy script. Andy Garcia overacts every one of Vincent Corleone's lines and every step--he practically goosesteps. Tom Hagan is missing and leaves a giant hole. It doesn't matter that Sofia Coppola can't act, because she had nothing to work with anyway--she plays a whinging, incestuous brat poorly, but convincingly (!). -The first dramatic sequence involves a conflict between Joey Zasa and Vincent mediated by Michael, who is trying to go legit, but can't seem to do it. Vincent tries to convince Michael that Zasa is "an enemy" in a very un-Godfatherly manner: a) he does it right in front of Zasa, b) he does so simply because Zasa supposedly says, "F*ck Michael Corleone," behind his back, and c) he disobeys Michael right in the room by biting Zasa's ear off. -This is juvenile drama. There is no tension that lasts longer than a sequence. There is no reason motivating the characters. There is no real respect for anything--all the subtleties of the family traditions are stomped on, which makes the highly visual sequences, loaded with symbols, cheap because the symbols mean nothing to the characters. -The haughty diction is only pretension void of any understanding of respect and the values that drive the family and Michael in particular. Michael, a very chiseled character in the first two movies, becomes paper thin, with no real idea that is central to his action. All his actions in the first movie and the facades he puts on as Don in the second movie show an aspiration to an ideal or, at least, an aspiration to appear as this ideal. He has none of this in the third film and this change of character doesn't happen on screen, nor is it explained. We're left only to believe that Coppola and Puzo tore this one off in a frenzied weekend when the purse got light. -The story lacks direction, focus, has nothing in particular to say, but that's not condemnable unto itself. The dialogue, however, is worthy of a pair of misguided high school kids who watched the first two movies and figured they knew what respect was because they saw one guy shoot another and a bunch of people get scared. None of the dialogue is loaded with the layers of meaning and subtlety that exist in the first two. All the characters are brash and stereotypical, or, in the case of a few, like Enzo the Baker and Bridget Fonda's character, tokens and a waste of celluloid. -Though Godfather III isn't worth its score in Scrabble, it is, however, a testament to Pacino as an actor, that with such flimsy stuff he still manages to act compellingly.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

The Godfather Part III: The Greatest Underrated Film Ever Made

Author: Desertman84 from United States
19 October 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Many have trashed the third part of The Godfather.Many fans of the first two movies have called it that the movie should have not been made.Some have said that this movie does not hold a candle to the first two movies as Parts I and II are considered American masterpieces as both have established a standard for cinema excellence.While others have coldly stated,"This movie is simply an offer you can refuse".LOL

Anyway,The Godfather Part III stars Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, and Andy García, and it features Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna, George Hamilton, Bridget Fonda, and Sofia Coppola.It is about an aging Don Michael Corleone,who seeks to legitimize his crime family's interests and remove himself from the violent underworld. Unfortunately,he is kept back by the ambitions of the young namely Joey Zaza and hungrier gangsters. While he attempts to link the Corleone's finances with the Vatican, Michael must deal with the machinations of a hungrier gangster in both Don Licio Lucchesi and Don Altobello,who are seeking to upset the existing mob order.Aside from that,it also involves Vincent Mancini,a young protégé of Michael who gets involved with a love affair with his daughter,Mary.The movie also weaves into its plot a fictionalized account of real-life events—the 1978 death of Pope John Paul I and the Papal banking scandal of 1981–1982—and links them with each other.

Director Francis Ford Copolla said the first two films had told the complete Corleone saga. In his audio commentary for Part II, he stated that only a dire financial situation caused by the failure of New York Stories compelled him to take up Paramount's long-standing offer to make a third installment.Coppola and Mario Puzo,author of The Godfather, requested six months to complete a first draft of the script with a release date of Easter 1991. Paramount agreed to give them six weeks for the script and, lacking a holiday movie, a release date of Christmas Day 1990. Given the conditions together with the casting of neophyte actress and the director's daughter,Sofia Copolla,whom many fans have vehemently criticized for her poor portrayal of Mary Corleone,I still believe that Part III is still a great film.

Part III still has great acting from the cast except from Sofia Copolla,whom I must really say deserved the Razzies he got from this film.Worthy of mention is of course,Al Pacino,Andy Garcia and Eli Wallach.Also,the movie's story still works despite missing Robert Duvall and his character,Tom Hagen,whom I believe was really essential in story as he plays an important role in the family. The screenplay was also good BUT one cannot fully comprehend this movie without watching the first two.And of course,other great features from the previous Godfather movies are still present in this movie like the great writing of Copolla and Puzo,the music of Carmine Copolla and Nino Rota and the direction of Copolla.Overall,it is still a great movie although not a masterpiece as compared to the first two.

After viewing The Godfather Part III once again after so many years before writing this review,I would say that if The Godfather is the greatest film ever made and The Godfather Part II is the greatest sequel ever made,this movie is definitely the greatest underrated film ever made.It is a great movie although it may not be comparable to the first two in terms of critical and commercial success.The Academy Award nominations it got attest to that.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 56: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [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