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 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
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

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

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 9 of 54: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 538 reviews in total 

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:


17 December 2001

Any true fan of THE GODFATHER series will not acknowledge this film ever exists and it was all just a bad dream.

The story begins in 1979, some 20+ years after we last left Michael Corleone, who had done the unspeakable at the end of THE GODFATHER PART II. He has just been given the highest civilian honor by the Catholic church, which basically frees him from all sin. Once again, the film starts with an extravagent party. Michael and Kay are now divorced; their children, Anthony and Mary are now grown. Michael has sold the casinos and has no interests in illegitimate business. He has turned the Corleone family in New York over to Joey Zaza (Joe Mantegna).

Michael is seeking redemption. He commited a big-time sin at the end of THE GODFATHER PART II and this still haunts him. His son wants nothing to do with the family business and wants to be an opera singer. Michael finds a prodigy in his nephew Vincent (played horribly by Andy Garcia).

This movie is bad. There is no other way to put it. Connie (Talia Shire) is weak for the first two movies, now all of a sudden she is strong and even helps in plotting a murder. The character of Mary (Soffia Coppola) is totally uninspiring. I still say Sofia Coppola can't act her way out of a paper bag. The film misses the Tom Hagen character (Robert Duvall) who is replaced badly by George Hamilton, playing a different lawyer to the Corleone family.

Like the other films, this also deals with double crossing and betrayals and family loyalty. I walked out of this movie in 1991 feeling very unfulfilled and am extremely angry at Paramount for not releasing the DVD's of the movies individually. I watched the first twenty minutes of this on DVD recently and realized why I hated it so much. Even the breath-taking scenes of Sicily couldn't do it for me this time. (ZERO STARS)

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:


Author: yossarian34 from kalamazoo, mi
2 October 2000

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SPOILER ALERT while i don't think that this movie deserves to be panned as much as it has been (critics and fans both) it fails to live up to the greatness of the first two. over the past week i have watch the entire trilogy. and you know the drill: part I, one of the greatest of all time; part II a notch below, but still a spectacular film; and part III the one everybody hates (including me).

the fact is part III should not have been made. it seems to me that coppola was struggling after being forced to make a lot of throwaway c**p in the 80s (peggy sue, tucker, blah...blah...) after apocalypse now disaster pretty much ruined him. he wanted to revive his career with the franchise that made him a legend of the cinema.

everything that worked in the first two (de niro, brando, du vall, even john cazale) is just not there in the third installment. tom hagen, one of the most important people the family, was just discarded (robert duvall knew part III was a bad idea). who do they replace him with? george hamilton? what the hell is george hamilton doing in a godfather film? for god sakes, he should be off woking on that tan. ridiculous. and casting his daughter sofia coppola as mary. she was god awful in the role. i mean she butchered every scene she was in. and mary's whole incestuous relationship with vinny. i could not understand her character at all. thats your cousin for god sakes. (also how did she get that huge nose? michael nor kay have a huge nose). i did enjoy andy garcia who plays hot headed heir very nicely. pacino is pacino, spectacular as always. but i could not understand they did not kill him in the end. its a gangser movie for god sakes, (damn you, coppola!), and in the end the gangster is supposed to die, not his nasty, big nosed daughter who we do not care about at all.

i really dont even consider this part of the franchise. it's showing daily down in sequel hell (say hi to speed 2 for me). i mean really. the fact is that this was really a bad movie by itself, and a disgrace if viewed as part of the franchise. im finished trashing this movie.

5/10, only for those who love pacino "i thought i was out, but THEY PULLED ME BACK IN!"

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

May have been better if made earlier.

Author: yenlo from Auburn, Me
11 October 1999

After watching this film the first time all I could think of was that Francis Ford Coppola waited too long to make it. It's not a bad film but it seems detached from the original and Part II. The actors seemed to be out of touch with their characters but clearly did the best they could considering the time frame between Part II and III. I came away with the feeling that had he made this motion picture four or five years after Part II it would have been a better film. Of course the story may have been different but who knows. However it's still a Godfather film by Francis Ford Coppola and still worth watching.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

God Father III

Author: Ibrahim Tariq from Iraq
20 December 2004

I think that the third part of this series is just as good as the previous two parts, And ANDY GARCIA's character was so interesting that it would make you feel like that he's been acting in this movie since form the very first moment of the 1st part, and I think that Al Pacino's character doesn't need any comment because it was just perfect and he did very well just like the 1st and 2nd part. Any way i just wanted to say that Francis Ford Coppola's talent in directing was so clear in the first and second parts , but in this part we discover the other talent, it's writing , I think he was very successful in writing with Mario Puzzo.

Was the above review useful to you?

Unfairly Criticized and Underrated

Author: Manya086 from United States
7 November 2015

This final installment of "The Godfather" trilogy, THE GODFATHER: PART III really is unfairly criticized and underrated. Though it lacks the intensity of the first two films, it's still rather enjoyable.

Al Pacino's final performance as an aging Michael Corleone is incredible and again, his character's transformation from beginning to end is very well done. I am very impressed by Andy Garcia's performance as Vincent Mancini, the role fits him perfectly. Though I do think Sofia Coppola's performance as Mary Corleone is a bit weak compared to the other actors, but it was not that bad. Diane Keaton's performance surprised me, especially in one particular scene; this is a side of her I have never seen before.

Overall, THE GODFATHER: PART III is a great ending to the trilogy and I enjoyed it very much. The story held my attention from beginning to end. Not being much of a fan of "The Godfather" at first, I can now say watching PART: III, Francis Ford Coppola won me over.

Was the above review useful to you?

The Third Entry of the Godfather Trilogy isn't that great but it still good and it has some moments

Author: ivo-cobra8 from Slovenia
17 October 2015

The Godfather Part III (1990) isn't the best film in the series like were the first two. This film should be release in 70's like the first two were, but it was released in 90's. This film still has some moments but is not that good just like the first two films were.

Real Power Can't Be Given, It Must Be Taken.

Some 16 years after Part II, The Godfather Part III brings us into the 1970's as an aging Michael Corleone has had enough of the family business as it was and wants to go legit. But other heads of New York families don't see it that way and he is forced to deal with his nephew, Vincent (Andy Garcia) who like his father (the late Sonny) wants to shoot first and ask questions later. Meanwhile Connie supports Vincent in his old school ways as she tries to sway Michael to stay firm on the old ways of the family. The subplot of the Vatican's interest in the Corleone family and the trails & tribulations of such offer a glimmer of purity for Michael or better yet his darkest fears. Godfather III never basked in the glory of Parts I & II, simply because it tried to hard to be just as perfect. Part III does have a solid story and great performances, but it just doesn't quite live up to expectations. Bottom line not quite the best swan song to the legacy of this series, but nonetheless a good effort by all involved.

The third act isn't the greatest film like, were his predecessors but it is still a good film. People: It's not that bad. In fact, it's really good. Okay, it isn't a classic like the first two, and it suffers further by comparison to "Goodfellas," which came out just a few weeks before it. But "Part III," was still one of the best movies of its year (1990), thanks in large part to a devastating and necessary ending: Up to this point, Michael Corleone's evil had never been repaid with adequate suffering. And the King Lear-like climax on the steps of the opera house in Sicily, punctuated by Michael's mostly silent scream, provides a legitimately Shakespearean finish to the saga.

What everyone knows about the film is that, at the last minute, Winona Ryder dropped out of playing the key role of Michael's daughter Mary Corleone and director Francis Ford Coppola unwisely replaced her with his own daughter, Sofia, who wasn't a trained actress. It showed. As an actress, Sofia is bland and whiny, though in her favor, it must be said that she seems much like the spoiled princess that Mary is supposed to be.

Part III" has much else to recommend it: A thrillingly chaotic, completely unexpected shootout in a rooftop meeting room in Atlantic City, an equally well-staged bloodbath at the Little Italy street fair the Feast of San Gennaro, an intriguing conspiracist take on the events at the Vatican in 1979 (when three popes presided within a span of two months) and several more classic lines of dialogue added to the canon.

The Godfather Part III is a 1990 American crime film written by Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola, and directed by Coppola. It completes the story of Michael Corleone, a Mafia kingpin who attempts to legitimize his criminal empire.The film also interweaves a fictionalized account of two real-life events into its plot: the 1978 death of Pope John Paul I and the Papal banking scandal of 1981 – 1982; both are linked to Michael Corleone's business affairs. The film stars Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, and Andy García, and features Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna, George Hamilton, Bridget Fonda, and Sofia Coppola.

The story is set in 1979 when, before retiring, an aging Michael Corleone tries to go legitimate by entering respectable real estate and communications deals, but is slowly drawn back into the world of organized crime against his will.

7.5/10 Grade: B Studio: Paramount Pictures Starring: Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, and Andy García, and features Eli Wallach, Joe Mantegna, George Hamilton, Bridget Fonda, and Sofia Coppola. Director: Francis Ford Coppola Producers: Francis Ford Coppola Screenplay: Mario Puzo, Francis Ford Coppola Rated: R Running Time: 2 Hrs. 50 Mins. Budget: $54.000.000 Box Office: $66.676.062

Was the above review useful to you?

An Underrated Masterpiece

Author: adonis98-743-186503 from Greece
4 October 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Godfather Part III is my 2nd favorite film after the Original 1972 Classic it's really underrated i don't really get the hate for the film. Al Pacino is amazing once more, Andy Gargia is good as well and the whole rest of the cast is great as well. It deserves a bigger respect than it gets i think the problem was with Sofia Coppola i think she was fine her acting was good i have seen worse. I'm amazed that the film even has a 67% on Rotten Tomatoes it deserves more like a 90% at least. And it's really sad the way Pacino dies in the end just like his dad. A really great and underrated sequel loved it a 10 out of 10 for me go check it out!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

A bit UN-decent ending for the trilogy, but as a standalone movie, wasting some time ain't gonna hurt

Author: nekoinesto
23 September 2015

I rated both first and second installment of the godfather series a 10/10. This is half the goods, which is 5/10. You see, when making movies like this, shaw shank redemption, green mile, you don't make a recipe for a movie style, the director just makes it happen, looks like godfather tried to make a special recipe and use it, and these movies don't have a recipe, but it is not the director to blame, he had a limited budget and a limited amount of time, to be honest, i didn't watch this a long time ago, but i remember it, it is a movie that you will remember, not maybe like part one and two, but OK. i say watch it, give it a try, there are some people who really liked it, so it is worth going to the cinema or buying a copy to re-watch it

Was the above review useful to you?

Very underrated. Great movie!

Author: Vicente Sobral from Portugal
30 August 2015

Very underrated. I read the book and for me this one is as good as the 2nd one. Of course... they forgot to tell us about Tom Hagen, and I find some characters not very interesting, and Sofia Coppola wasn't good. The only thing I disliked was the way they've ended the trilogy... in the stairs of the opera. The end was a bit forced, but is great at the same time. Al Pacino did a good job, as well as Andy Garcia- Vincent is a great character! As we all know, Copolla is a genius, but I felt the story was a strange continuation, unnecessary. But it still good! Everything is great: The soundtrack (the godfather waltz, the theme song - same for all the movies) and the actings make this the best trilogy ever!! (Sorry for my English)

Was the above review useful to you?

As an individual, the film holds its own but as a sequel. It lost its identity.

Author: Murtaza Ahmed
28 August 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Godfather Part 3 coming out in 1990, starring the likes of Al Pacino, Andy Garcia and Talia Shire is a commendable effort by the director legend Francis Ford Coppola. The film undoubtedly delivers a strong punch with exceptional acting, direction and screenplay scoring not one but seven academy award nominations. But as a huge Godfather franchise fan I can't help but feel disappointed. The first two films in the series are the hallmarks of the golden era of Hollywood. Especially The Godfather part II in my opinion is one of, if the not the Best cinematic wonders ever achieved. But then comes the part III in the sequence. There are so many points on which comparison can be drawn but let's just focus on the biggest one. The character of Don Michael Corleone. Michael Corleone the youngest of three sons of Don Vito Corleone succeeds his father's Huge underworld empire to become the next Mafioso Don of the entire States. He leads a dual life, one as the head of an immense empire and the other of a family man. His character is shown (in the first two films at least) as a very intelligent yet quite man who has an obvious aura of unquestionable power and authority. He seldom raises his voice or displays extremes of emotion e.g. anger or sadness. But when he does, you can not help but be awed. This completely changes or rather, Disappears in the third installment of the series. Michael Corleone who have aged considerably since, and is a father of two grown up teens, also divorced, is an unrecognizable man. The same person who once was a stone hearted, cold blooded killer and the head of a ruthless gigantic empire is now.. reduced, to an old man. Who can not seem to get a grip on his own family and ever slowly crumbling empire. The personality of this man is now utterly different, he openly celebrates with his comrades, dances around, laughing/crying publicly and even confessing to his previous sins! This to me was the most disappointing point of the entire film as I can not seem to find a single shard of similarity between the character of Don Michael Corleone of the first two Godfather films and the Don Michael Corleone of the Godfather Part III. The man who was so reserved and self-contained now seems to me to be the precise opposite. And let me clarify that age CAN NOT be an excuse in this case as such a huge change in personality does not occur in a lifetime let alone 20/30 years. As stated earlier that people watching part III of the installment without prior knowledge of the other two will enjoy it immensely, but die-hard fans like me can't help but be saddened. Thank you.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 9 of 54: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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