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 8 of 55: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]
Index 547 reviews in total 

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Stop while he was ahead

Author: mrbluto (studio4940@verizon.net) from United States
24 July 2000

Francis Ford Coppola turned Godfather 1&2 into two of the best movies ever to bad he dident put as much effort into 3. I did not believe for one single second that after all those years of being a ruthless killer Mike has turned into a kitty cat, I did not believe for one second that after being abused by Mike that his wife would forgive him so fast. The worst part was the acting of Francis Ford Coppola's daughter , I guess her father never relized she coudent act till the movie bombed at the box office. Now we know why Robert De Niro and Robert Robert Duvall refused to be in 3. 5 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Terribly disappointed

Author: Duck II
10 October 1999

In some ways it was wonderful seeing some of the original cast members (Pacino, Keaton, Shire) reprising their memorable roles. But in a lot of ways this third installment was just not necessary. If it was all about revealing Michael's wounded mind, and ensuring that he was 'punished for his sins', that was done (quite well, and in a much less graphic way) in Part II: You could tell he was undone in the very last scene. Part III was just overkill.

There were a few casting problems, as well. Sofia Coppola was just terrible, absolutely painful to watch. George Hamilton made the film look like a made-for-TV movie every time he appeared: What was he doing there?? I sure did miss Robert Duvall! The saving graces were Talia Shire as Connie getting her chance to dominate. Andy Garcia, though he didn't have the opportunity to really take off, was a lot of fun to watch.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Casting Coup

10/10
Author: prudhoeboy from United States
20 May 2010

I've read a lot of the bad reviews about this film and couldn't disagree more. In my opinion, this is a brilliant film that relies mainly on casting for its success. While the plot is a bit disjointed in places, the gaps make the viewer think more. I thought the Vatican scenes were a bit of a yawn and seemed to stray a bit from the main Hamlet-like theme (i.e., torment, guilt from the past). (Too bad, could have been a perfect setting to spook Michael with Fredo's ghost or Jesus on the cross or something. I could have seen him do a collapse routine overcome with guilt.) Michael's carefully chosen words clearly speak louder than the violent actions of his younger days as an ambitious mobster. Likewise, his restraint in dealing with enemies contrast with the hubris of his younger days. All the other characters revolve in his world and react to him. Everyone in the film looked Sicilian or Italian and were very believable. Eli The Ugly did not disappoint, reprising his role as the villainous worm he was in the spaghetti western genre. Perhaps he represents the mobster in grotesque, what Michael could have become if he did not have his family. I'm also amazed that Sofia Coppola was so good in this film! I think the criticism of her was off base and maybe just a little envious that a director's daughter could step in and do so well. I guess sometimes talent does run in the family. This movie is all about the journey of life and fragility of human existence, where a life can end in an instant and a tough guy can be brought to tears. It is a classic film evoking primal elements not unlike 2001. Part III completes the trilogy in a big way. It is a must see film.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Love the Godfather & II? Do NOT watch this

2/10
Author: johnnycandle from Cork
1 September 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Like, I suspect, many others, I saw this when it came out and years later rewatched it thinking " it's a probably better film than I remember. I was probably expecting too much" .

Indeed, many great films would suffer by comparison to the Godfather. It is sad then, that a sequel to what is generally lauded as one of the 5 best films of all time, should suffer by comparison to Adam Sandler movies.

And don't believe the popular myth that Sofia Coppola ruins this movie, it's so bad on so many levels that her performance is irrelevant. So bad is it, that like the Matrix sequels, it seeks to infect its illustrious predecessors with its shiteness.

Mostly the problem seems to be the writing, I double checked to see if Puzo was involved, unbelievably, he was. Here's an example:

Do you remember the "you'll never take my children" scene in II? Did you want to know that shortly after the credits have rolled, Michael has a rethink and sends the kids off with mummy?

Oh the horror! This, and so many other torments lie in store for you should you watch this movie.

But, maybe it's not all bad, Pacino shows amazing versatility by looking, sounding and acting nothing like the Michael. And, if you're the kind of person who thought the first two lacked exploding helicopters, horseback gangsters and martial arts, then you may find it a welcome improvement on the originals.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Worthy of its place

9/10
Author: n-mo from Paris, France
8 October 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Detractors of The Godfather part III have two main gripes: the most obvious is Sofia Coppola's acting skills as Mary Corleone, and the second is the character of Michael Corleone, who bears less resemblance to the cold, calculating criminal mastermind of the first two films. Regarding the first point, I have to agree that Sofia Coppola is insufferable in this film. Thankfully, she had little screen time. However, she looked wonderful: she was convincing enough as a "cute little lovestruck innocent daughter" that I could believe she meant a lot to her family and her father in particular.

As to the second point, some things need to be born in mind. The Michael Corleone of the first two films had descended into the lowest possible place, yes, murdering his own brother (among others) by the end. He had become everything he did not want to be and worse: his reign over his family's criminal empire was Machiavellian on a level his father had never dreamed of nor would ever have allowed.

But by the beginning of this film, a decade and a half had passed since he had crossed the terrible trough of fratricide. Michael's parents and brothers were all dead during this time, Tom Hagan passed away (although the loss of the character was a tragedy, it served the story very well to accent Michael's sense of isolation) and Connie was clearly far too unstable and too much of a yes-woman to ever provide true companionship. Michael was not a man easily resigned to being alone and he had a fierce protective instinct--even if it could be overrode by his jealous vengeful nature--for "his own." Remember that in Part I, he always hoped to return to the States as soon as possible and when this seemed a tenebrous goal, he sought a marriage and a new life in Sicily. Throughout Part II, he lost two more members of his family and his wife left him. It is not hard to imagine that the murder of Freddo would in fact be his moral trough, that the pent-up guilt could have spilt over into guilt at having deprived his young children of their mother and perhaps even a fear that they would grow up in his shadow, so he gave them up, even though he knew it meant further isolation.

But he knew all along that his cold, calculating criminality had taken him to this horrible place, and so he has spent the years since sloughing through the long marsh out while yet keeping his own person intact and out of prison. Obviously, given how much he aged from Part II to Part III, such a task has taken its toll, both physically and psychologically, and this is portrayed brilliantly. And what of Michael's sudden lavishness? I can tell you from personal experience that when you experience extreme isolation from those you love, you often cling as never before to the greatest treasures of your ethnic and religious heritage, cultivating them with the utmost sincerity partly because these are reminders that you are a real human connected with others and that you belong somewhere. The need to belong somewhere and to something and someone more concrete than the "global citizenry" is universal, and I don't know how either Puzo or Coppola could have known about this, but they did an amazing job.

"What good is Confession if you don't repent?" Good question. Michael longs for redemption and forgiveness, but almost to the end he seeks legitimacy on his own terms, a quiet retirement from the Mafia. The result is a subtle illustration of the observation of the Curé d'Ambricourt in Robert Bresson's Le journal d'un Curé de campagne: "You can't bargain with God. You must give yourself up to Him, all at once, as you are." Michael's sins live on apart from him, and by the end are visited full circle on the people he loves.

But the ending is cryptic enough that we have to ask: was Michael redeemed? Did truth and justice ultimately prevail at the Vatican? Will they ever prevail anywhere, even imperfectly, before the next life?

When Anthony Corleone asks of Sicily, "Why is such a beautiful country so violent?" he opens up yet another flood of mysteries. How to resign ourselves to living in a world of so much beautiful treasure and yet so much of it born in great crime (think, for example, of the great Deicide, of Christ redeeming mankind, nailed to the Cross)--and how and in what circumstances can they be ours for the legitimate taking and cherishing? The Godfather part III provokes such difficult questions in all those willing to see and ponder them.

If the acting and cinematography are not as polished as in the second installment, a film set anywhere in Italy needs little visual embellishment, and the music sets the mood for each scene perfectly. The Godfather part III reminds us of the world ever-present outside the closed sphere of Cosa Nostra and captures the struggle of one man teetering on the high-current edge. If you are unwilling to expand your mind beyond criminal exploits and into the personal anguish of their effects on real human beings, stay away. If, however, you have even a slight appreciation for psychology and/or Roman Catholic moral theology, you will welcome this rounding out of one of the greatest sagas ever invented.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Why the Heck Did They Even Make This?

3/10
Author: JoshtheGiant from United States
27 November 2005

Why did they even make this? It completely ruined what was before the best film series ever, Robert Duvall was right to have gotten out of this film as was Winona Rider, I still can't believe Al Pacino didn't join them. Not to mention Francis Ford Coppola who should have also known better than the make this. I must say this may not be one of the worst movies I have ever seen but it is for sure one of the most disappointing films ever, and also the biggest drop from one film to it's sequel, there usually big but from the second best film ever to this piece of crap? Not usually that big. The story and script are heavy handed and filled with clichés and bad dialogue. The performances are good by Talia Shire and Diane Keaton, and great by Al Pacino and Andy Garcia, but Soffia Coppola is amazingly horrible, she should have gone straight to directing. The direction is horrible what was Francis Ford Coppola asleep? Or did he just let the actors direct themselves? The visual effects are crap and just don't work, they are even worse than the other films made twenty years before. A heavy handed and lumbering sequel that wallows in cliché and should be tossed to the dogs.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Not as bad as you hear

8/10
Author: anonymous from Minnesota, USA
14 September 1998

What's the problem? The imagery is excellent, and the continuity flows well with the previous two in the series. I think it would have been better if both the church characters and assassins would have been better developed or more integral to the overall workings. The musical score could have been stronger, which I think greatly influenced the previous two. Still overall, a very moving story and solid ending to the trilogy.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Very Good

8/10
Author: Phil Tarry (itcsta@hants.gov.uk)
10 September 1998

It's an excellent film which neatly ties up the series.

It shows Michael's development and his redemption.

Sofia Coppola is not great but she brings a sense of family to the film.

It's problem is it is eclipsed by the other two films and if judged independently is a cracking good film.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Crime will never let you escape

1/10
Author: StoryCharts from Canada
19 July 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Godfather: Part III continues the theme of Family from the first two movies. In The Godfather, Michael had undergone an internal arc to go from outsider to Don of the family, dropping most of his morals along the way in order to protect the family. In The Godfather: Part II, this idea of the ends justify the means is taken to its logical extreme as Michael tears the family apart in order to protect it.

In Part III, Michael tries to make the family legitimate in order to redeem himself. Unlike the first movie, where Michael's internal change happens on screen, and unlike the second movie, where Michael's does not change at all, this movie has Michael shifting gears to try to pay for his past sins. But this change does not take place on screen. Michael starts the movie regretting his distance from his children and spends the whole movie trying to make up, his internal compass does not change through the movie.

So all we are left are two external plot lines: Michael's efforts to legitimize being constantly thwarted and his failure to protect his family because of his past sins keep catching up to him.

The movie seems to be about something like "Crime will never let you escape". But the movie doesn't really prove this because so much of what Michael is paying for is offscreen and in the past two movies. The whole movie just feels like a confession for past sins and the filmmakers showing us that bad deeds will always catch up to us. The idea is not proved by action and choice of the characters on screen. This movie is a necessary but not a worthy tribute to the first two films, it probably shouldn't have been made at all.

My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Godfather III

3/10
Author: Kyddwest from United States
5 April 2006

I was so excited to watch the third installment of The Godfather after watching the first two. I was horribly disappointed. The first two Godfathers were truly works of art. The acting and directing were excellent. Pacino and DeNiro were wonderful. The writers and directors wisely kept Keaton to a minimum in the first two. The first two were intriguing and really told the story of the Corleone family well. However, The Godfather III should not have been made. The acting was terrible. Even Pacino (i am a huge fan) came off as forced acting. Sofia Coppola was absolutely awful. Keaton was such a drag throughout the entire movie. The plot was weak and did not hold my attention. It also seemed like such a "recycled" movie from material from the first two. The first 15 minutes of the movie were clips from the first two (and definitely the highlight of III). There was too much Italian opera singing and repetition of the first soundtrack of The Godfather. This movie reminded me of the new Star Wars movies that came out in the 90's and later. Both The Godfather and Star Wars were created in the 1970's were classics and should not have sequels or prequels added to them. Really, if you enjoyed the first two Godfathers, don't watch the third one...it will spoil the experience for you.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 8 of 55: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [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