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 6 of 56: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 559 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Sofia Coppola is only part of the problem

Author: Thelma Stein
12 August 2017

The Godfather Part III was a huge disappointment. The film has major flaws. The story is very convoluted. There is a comic vibe to some of the mafia names. Joey Zaza sounds like a stand-up. As for other problems.

Kay becoming friendly with Michael was very stupid. Michael was a monster by the time "The Godfather II" was over.

Connie becoming "Michael's Protector" and somewhat a low lever boss. Andy Garcia and Al Pacino are too over the top.

I think the film could have been better had the film focused on Michael not trying to redeem himself but how everyone (Connie Kay and his Children) are doing everything they can to bring him to justice.

The final scene if the film would have been Connie killing Michael. After all Michael had her husband and brother killed. Connie finally getting revenge would have been a much better angle to pursue.

As for the casting of Sofia Coppola! She was so bad that she never recovered as an actress! She has gone on to write and direct films. However I have a feeling that the Oscar she won for Best Screenplay for "Lost in Translation" should have been given to her husband (at the time) Spike Jonze. The films she has made since "Lost" have been as good as her acting

The plot of this is Michael get roped into becoming the owner of the Vatican bank. Other mobsters are mad because they think they should be part owners as well. That's the story! And it takes 3 hours to get through it. Time not well spent. If you want never seen the film you can fast forward any scene Sophia is in (Beyond the opening party scene and the final 10 minutes) because they add nothing to the story. Her scenes will give you a headache.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Worth Watching Once

Author: Sober-Friend from United States
1 August 2017

After 26 years people were waiting for another "Godfather" film. In Late 1988 people were celebrating that the Saga of The Corleone was to continue when Paramount Pictures Announced "The Godfather Part III" was coming in 1990.

Now when "The Godfather Part 2" was released at first that was a head scratchier for many people because the film was told in two different time periods. It was the rise of the the father (Told in flashbacks) and the fall of the son. Then the reviews turned around quickly and :The Godfather Part 2" went on to win Best Picture of the year just like its predecessor. When Francis Ford Coppola decided to make "The Godfather II" he told this story in much different way as he did the other two films however this time he failed. However the casting of Sofia Coppola wan't the films on flaw. The story itself is confusing and not well told.

Another Problem is the character of Michael Corleone. By the time "The Godfather II" he was cold & alone. In this film he is trying to redeem himself. The other story is about the Vatican bank. This is really poorly told. I am sure most of the audience could not really tell you what really happened! By the end of the movie nobody could tell you what exactly what the story was and what was the point?

A major problem also with the film is that of Connie. She has new become vicious! It was established at the end of "Godfather II" that she was now "Taking Care" of her brother.

This film would of have been more better served if Connie had orchestrated the assassination of her brother Michael. After all he ordered her husbands death and their own brother. Her seeking revenge would of been a better story.

What we got here was a huge mess. If you loved the first two movies you will want to see this but you will be very disappointed!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:


Author: MaxHaydon1994 from United Kingdom
17 November 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Sadly the third Godfather film is very detached from the two greatest films probably ever made. It suffers in comparison to The Godfather and The Godfather II. That being said, it's still a very well made film If you ignore the roman catholic scenes that slightly plague the film.

Perhaps the biggest fault of the making of this film was the time it took them to find an idea for the film. The detachment from the originals came down to time... the characters have inevitably aged in the 16 years between the films. The story has moved on considerably, many things we've missed, that needed explaining in a subtle but continuous manor.

Al Pacino perhaps for the first time was the stand alone actor that gripped my interest in this film. The first and second films had Brando and De Niro respectively. An ageing Michael has been The Don of the family for nearly 20 years, following in his fathers footsteps. Although my review may sound mainly negative, I can assure you it's only because i'm focusing on the comparison. The first 2 films are a perfect 10/10, the third is in my opinion an 8/10 at best. it works well as a stand alone film but in regards to its place in the trilogy it lets the side down.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

The masterpiece

Author: Gabriel Marinho from Brazil
16 September 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Maybe it has some spoilers but let's agree, this is the godfather, so feel free to read without ruining your experience. I always thought Coppola made this one with a different intention from the first ones, that are as beautiful as this one by the way. If you check all the technical elements of this movie, you will see a tired, hopeless, and sad construction, all of it converging to Michael, who's already sick of the family business and can't wait to finish the illegal stuff, but it keeps coming towards him, creating an atmosphere of anger and anxiety. At the same time, softly rhyming with the first two ones, representing the part that will never come out of Michael, the Don he was and all the empire he kept from his father. A nice work Coppola does here is the relationship with religion, we see a more devoted, and supportive Don, creating a whole different mark. Altogether with the new rising member Vincent, whose actions remember a lot of his father Sonny, and Michael's relationship with Kay, that is treated in a trivial, but heavy way by Coppola. A touch that i always thought made people feel uncertain about this one, is the unattachment of everything with the first two ones, witch is the whole point of the movie, creating this feeling that is something different. For me this is certainly the best one from the trilogy, independent, all of them are great, the only thing is that this one feels for me like a redemption for all that happened in those years for Michael, brilliantly shaped, messing with all the feelings almost twenty years after the release of the last movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

The constable closure

Author: eagandersongil from Brazil
12 September 2016

Waxing of what is possibly the greatest movie trilogy, closing this is not very dignified, but convincing, "Godfather, Part III" is a great film, but IE Part II are brilliant, emblematic and unique, so the comparison is difficult and unfair, but with a lower route to the ancient but regular to good, great photography and unique soundtrack, this film has all the features of previous, perhaps the point here is the acting, the first we have Al Pacino and Marlon Brando at its peak, the second time Al Pacino and Robert De Niro in full swing, now in the third, we only have Al Pacino (already slightly below those of the 70s), not to mention that Sofia Coppola and especially Andy Garcia unconvincing, the best moments of movies are the flashbacks of the previous films, like the great scene of his children singing the song that makes Michael remember his time in Sicily, not to mention at the end that is a little weak, and the motivations that at certain times are silly, the film loses that truth of the previous ones, but "Godfather, Part III" is a good movie, touches on important points of the corruption in the church, the inversion of values ​​and the criminal monopoly of large organizations, as well as dealing with the decline of "Family" and the death of organized crime in the classic mold, he tries to pass a lesson water with sugar that crime does not pay. The film does not deserve to be so criticized, and although it is the weakest of the trilogy, has its merits and deserves our respect.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

not as good as the first 2, but still a satisfying movie.

Author: ali alqahtani from Saudi Arabia
9 July 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Yeah - definitely flawed - but still really great. Not so much a godfather film.

Everybody says this is a huge letdown, I say, I don't even care, I just want to watch Michael Corleone for the last time. But still, I've seen a lot of issues with how this film became a crushing disappointment to the Godfather trilogy. I've seen a lot of good and bad actors, but damn, when I saw Sofia Coppola acts in a role of Mary Corleone. That is one of the worst I've seen, I'm not hating on her or whatsoever, but obviously she's pretty damn nervous the whole time. I love the cast and the whole characterization. All I see is an old Al Pacino, who tries hard this time around. He is a brilliant actor that's for sure. The Godfather part lll. Undoubtedly falling short of its predecessors, the conclusion to this beautiful trilogy still ends on a well written note. No blame is given though since the role this film played was crucial and judged with such intensity that it may have been impossible to reach. Al Pacino stays true til the end and the story of Michael's reign over the Sicilian crime family finally comes to a satisfying end.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Unnecessary and overwrought but reasonably interesting and entertaining

Author: grantss from Sydney, Australia
29 May 2016

It is 1979, about 22 years since the events of The Godfather II. For Michael Corleone, the move to legitimacy is complete: the New York crime business has been handed over to Joey Zasa and all elements of the Corleone business empire are legal, non-criminal enterprises. Michael, approaching 60, is now thinking about his legacy. His charity, run by his daughter Mary, has just handed over $100 million to the Catholic Church. Michael also intends buying a large stake in International Immobiliari, a Vatican-run property company. Things are peaceful and stable but then Vincent Mancini, Sonny Corleone's illegitimate son, starts a feud with Joey Zasa. This has far- reaching, deadly consequences, including for Michael's deal with the Vatican.

Unnecessary, as The Godfather II didn't need a sequel. Francis Ford Coppola has stated that he only did it for the money.

The product itself is a bit hit-and-miss. Plot has some intrigue, with a Robert Ludlum-like Vatican conspiracy woven into a more conventional mafia story. This does mean a departure from the feel of the first two movies, and I'm note sure it's a good departure. The plot becomes unnecessarily complex and overwrought, making it less tight than the first two movies. Coppola also unnecessarily draws out the movie - every scene gets stretched to the limit and there's a lot of padding. He could easily have lopped 40 minutes (at least) off the movie without us losing any information or engagement.

Then there's the performances, which are mostly good, with two notable exceptions. The old guard - Al Pacino, Dianne Keaton, Talia Shire - put in solid performances. The change in Connie, from passive to assertive and decisive, was one of the positive features of this movie and Talia Shire is great in that role.

The new faces include some pretty big names: Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna, Andy Garcia, George Hamilton, John Savage, Bridget Fonda. Andy Garcia is great as Vincent Mancini, a worthy (potential) successor to Michael. Bridget Fonda is great but criminally underused, especially as it appeared that she would have a bigger role. Eli Wallach and Joe Mantegna are solid as Don Altobello and Joey Zasa, respectively, and John Savage has little screen time.

George Hamilton is badly miscast as BJ Harrison, Michael's attorney. He really didn't fit the part and comes off as somewhat unconvincing. He was stepping into Robert Duvall's shoes - Tom Hagen was meant to continue into The Godfather III but the character was dropped when Robert Duvall pulled out over a pay dispute - so he does suffer due to the comparison with Duvall.

Then we have the performance which almost single-handedly wrecks this movie: Sofia Coppola. She is absolutely atrocious as Mary Corleone, well deserving her 1991 Razzie wins for Worst Supporting Actress and Worst New Star. Her dialogue delivery is incredibly flat and unconvincing and even when she has no dialogue she seems awkward, like she doesn't know what to do with herself when she's on camera.

Her flat delivery results in lack of engagement with her character, and this ruins the climax of the movie. So, there are greater consequences to her terrible performance.

It's a good thing she took up directing - she's clearly better at that.

Apparently she wasn't first choice for the part, as Julia Roberts and then Winona Ryder were cast for the role but then had to pull out. So at least Francis Ford Coppola could say she was hired more out of desperation than being his daughter. Still, he really should have kept looking...

(Aside: Winona Ryder as Mary - how awesome would that have been? The mind boggles. And yes, I am a big Winona Ryder fan.)

Overall: not bad, but not that good either.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Not bad, but unnecessary third part of the series

Author: zetes from Saint Paul, MN
14 September 2014

I've seen the first two parts a few times each, but never got around to the much-maligned third installment until now. Not that everyone hates it. It was well reviewed and was nominated for Best Picture. It's that one element that garners most of the hate. You know which one. And, I have to say, Ms. Coppola's performance deserves the derision. It's a rare performance - a supporting one, at that - that drags the whole film down a level. She just has no business being in front of a camera. The film after her is hardly perfect, either. Pacino has entered his hammy phase. Keaton is mostly a non-entity. Frankly, the reason to watch, acting-wise, is Andy Garcia, who was the only actor in the film who earned an Oscar nomination. He's usually a bore, but he's excellent here. Talia Shire and Eli Wallach are both pretty good, as well. The film also lacks the focus of the first two films. With all that, though, it's still pretty good. Beautifully produced, of course, and Coppola's directing talent had yet to leave him (by my account, he had one more great film in him, Dracula, before he became worthless).

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

For the Love of Money

Author: utgard14 from USA
16 August 2014

Let's be honest: this movie wasn't needed. It doesn't detract from the first two movies but it wasn't something Coppola should have made. It's not a terrible movie but obviously in the shadow of the first two, it looks like a complete turd. It doesn't have any of the iconic scenes those movies did. There's really only one remotely memorable line and that's Pacino's "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in" line. The acting is mostly fine but nothing to write home about. The worst is Sofia Coppola, in a textbook case of nepotism in casting. She's terrible and doesn't "look" like she belongs. It's like taking somebody off the street and sticking them in a Hollywood production. Even if they are attractive, they just don't fit somehow. It's a watchable enough movie but not a great one by any stretch. Like I said, it didn't need to be made. Why was it? Well The O'Jays had a song called "For the Love of Money" that pretty well covers that.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Eli Wallach and Joe Mantegna make this worth watching.

Author: John Wayne Peel ( from United States
25 June 2014

I was fortunate to have been given a copy of this film before its release so I knew the story beforehand. Like the two films that preceded it, the story is based on real events and people. In this case, the Vatican and the mysterious death of Pope John Paul I. At this point, Michael Corleone is striving for a clean life in business as a philanthropist but it seems that they pull him back in. Eli Wallach is a.competing Godfather who Connie wants to deal with personally, Michael suddenly gas a half brother with his own violent agenda who is the collegiate son of Sonny Corleone and just as hotheaded. On top of this, he has it in for Joey Zaza, played expertly by Joe Montegna. Unfortunately, Sofia Coppola is absolutely amateurish and dull as Michael's daughter.

The problems in this movie really.get in the way towards the end which.seems to go on forever. But, as I have mentioned, Eli Wallach (whom we just lost at 98) and Joe Mantegna make it all worth the price of admission. That, and a stunningly heartbreaking end scene are the high points of this epic.

Al Pacino actually gives a measured performance as well. So to those who say this film "sucked" your less than objective criticism is what sucks.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 6 of 56: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [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