The Godfather: Part III

Paramount Pictures | Release Date: December 25, 1990

7.7	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 584 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

OverreachTHISAug 17, 2015

This film has SO MUCH to dislike in it, you can get lost before you realize what is the central flaw. Coppola got away pretty much with not recasting Brando or Richard Castellano ("Clemenza") in GF, but those avoidable failures did not meanThis film has SO MUCH to dislike in it, you can get lost before you realize what is the central flaw. Coppola got away pretty much with not recasting Brando or Richard Castellano ("Clemenza") in GF, but those avoidable failures did not mean he could just skip Robert Duvall in III to save a few more bucks. The first scenes didn't work for me, and Diane Keaton's Bronze-ish angered-wife costume looked bad.

Inadequate performances were by goofy Eli Wallach, wooden George Hamilton, the guy playing Tom Hagen's son, even Mantegna, and Cuban-American Andy Garcia didn't quite pull off the Italian thing. Much-criticized Sophia C. was okay to me, but many people couldn't deal with it.

The Church mumbo jumbo was for the birds. And this guy is worth a billion dollars or so and he lives in a sub-average suburban little house? The helicopter attack on a conference room was completely ridiculous - nothing in any way like that happened in the whole history of the mafia.. And murder-by-eyeglass frames was a groaner.

But hat was really wrong was the central premise: Don Corleone the mass murderer wants redemption and to live a church-goer's life? OMG, please! Coppola's on video asking if the Don's heart betrayed him, didn't protect him? Heart smart for Chrissake, this is supposed to be a gangster movie! The old Michael and this Michael don't even seem to be relatives.

I am reminded of a line from Barton Fink where the studio boss get's angry at the misguided director: "We don't put Wally Beery in some fruity movie about a guy wrestling with his soul!" Similarly, Paramount Pictures don't put some fruity movie about a guy wrestling with his soul in the Godfather franchise! Moralizing Coppola's so far off track wringing his choir-boy hands because he ignored the main lesson: It's not a story about you and It's not personal, Francis. It's only business, movie business gone terribly wrong.… Expand

4 of 4 users found this helpful40

All this user's reviews

lofu_agfyNov 12, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Many of the reviews of this seem too positive. The movie was deeply flawed and love for the early Godfather films should not blind us to the fiasco that was number 3.

Casting problems: Diane Keaton said all she needed to say in part 2. Her presence in the part 3 added nothing whatsoever. We learn from her dialog that she will always love Michael but that she will never accept his gangster ways. Yeah. We learned that in part 2. George Hamilton as the lawyer/confident. Lame. Sophia Coppola as Mary. She comes across like a dull-witted 16-year-old that doesn't know a thing about acting but thinks it is fun to be able to stand in front of a camera. (spoiler alert) the primary dramatic event of the movie involved her death. By that time I was hoping that she would be killed off (or at least get no more screen time), so my ability to feel any emotional impact at the death of this air-headed monstrosity.

Dialog problems: The dialog in Michael's study in the initial scene is painful to hear. The movie gets better, but very awkward dialog pops up every 20 minutes or so throughout the movie. Part of the problem is the screen play and part of the problem is that at times the actors don't know how to effectively deliver their lines.

Plot problems: Awkward casting & dialog aside, I think this is the biggest problem. when you get to be one of the wealthiest business men in the world, wacking people no longer makes any sense. When you have untold millions at your disposal, you find that you a wide range of tools to accomplish your aims, and most of these tools work better than bullets (anyone remember the last time a Fortune 500 CEO was taken out in a mob hit?). (spoiler alert) There is a scene in which one of the baddies flies a helicopter outside a penthouse ballroom in a high rise building and then occupants of the helicopter riddle the ballroom with machine gun fire killing dozens of wealthy business men. This would be par for the course in the Matrix, or True Lies, or Commando, but this type of violence is not part of the real world we live in. It's cartoonishness is at odds with the other Godfather films and makes it difficult to take this film seriously. As well paced and tense as the final opera house scene was, it was also in the category of cartooney violence. Did the best assassin in all of Italy really think the cleverest way to kill one of the richest men on the planet was to slip into a well guarded public place, kill off a bunch of hired body guards and then shoot a man in front of 1000 witnesses? Well, I guess the screenwriter thought so. The end result was a complete mess. The narrative flow of the final film was a train wreck. The plot elements went back from somewhat believable to overblown Hollywood insanity and back again.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

robertoiglesiasJan 15, 2018

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. So this is the Godfather film that I can say is bad and not get a bunch of fanboys attacking me. Yay.
Unlike the subtle and quieter tone of the first 2 films, this is loud noise. The story is more of an over the top satire about ties to the Vatican bank, the pope, and even a subplot about incest! EW, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE A YOUNG GIRL HIT ON HER COUSIN!
The acting and writing are also inferior, and not done well.
There's even a part where a helicopter tries to kill a group of men. It's loud, obnoxious, and goes against the quietness of the first 2 films. Then there was that piss poor written part where this one idiot is like "MY LUCKY COAT!" What idiot wrote that dumb sh*t?!
The film is also 2 hours and 42 minutes. UGH! At least the first 2 Godfather films had a better tone, and way better writing.
So yeah, this film is bad.… Expand

6 of 7 users found this helpful61

All this user's reviews

Schmit93Feb 20, 2012

I love the first two. I would even dare to say they are two of the greatest American movies ever made. Then number three comes along and just ruins it all. Sofia Coppola does no favors to the already unbearably slow movie. Not to mention theI love the first two. I would even dare to say they are two of the greatest American movies ever made. Then number three comes along and just ruins it all. Sofia Coppola does no favors to the already unbearably slow movie. Not to mention the whole opera scene. They also do not have the decency to give Michael a good death. I do realize that they are based off novels, but goddamn.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

joseap84Nov 25, 2011

I can't bring myself to give this movie in form of score, a pure "0". It's sad when a series goes from "good" to masterpiece", and finally to "garbage". There's nothing worth seeing in this movie.

4 of 8 users found this helpful44

All this user's reviews

RexG.May 13, 2006

The film music alone made me dislike the movie from the beginning. It has been "hollywood-ized" - the atmosphere of the first two parts its missing entirely. I couldn't even watch it at once - I actually wouldn't have watched it to The film music alone made me dislike the movie from the beginning. It has been "hollywood-ized" - the atmosphere of the first two parts its missing entirely. I couldn't even watch it at once - I actually wouldn't have watched it to the end at all if it weren't for the money that I spent on the DVD. One thing they managed to get on screen though: The decline of the family by the decline of the movie itself.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

AADJul 17, 2007

Abysmal film. Unbelievable work from Scorcese. The film has lost all its glamour character and depth.

0 of 3 users found this helpful

JamesL.Jul 17, 2008

This one is the weakest film of 1990. The acting is poor. And Sofia Coppola is mistaken for being cast in the movie. Andy Garcia played his part well. Call that the most powerful film? NOT!

0 of 1 users found this helpful

RonD.Dec 13, 2005

Terrible acting, plot (what little unbelieveable amount there is) doesn't hold together. Took 4 viewings to watch the entire thing, that's how bad it is. Garcia acts as well as the average wrestler and shire/little coppola may as Terrible acting, plot (what little unbelieveable amount there is) doesn't hold together. Took 4 viewings to watch the entire thing, that's how bad it is. Garcia acts as well as the average wrestler and shire/little coppola may as well have entered a hog calling contest.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

JoyceC.Oct 21, 2007

The first part fascinated me, the book is amazing, the film isn't as good, but part 2 wasn't as good, it was all right, but it never worked with Al Pacino. And this, Al Pacino is more tuff, grumpy, and more compromising, I found The first part fascinated me, the book is amazing, the film isn't as good, but part 2 wasn't as good, it was all right, but it never worked with Al Pacino. And this, Al Pacino is more tuff, grumpy, and more compromising, I found cheesy and terrible. Either it is good, all right, or terrible. Classics can be either of the three since I know what a classic is. And this is terrible.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

imthenoobJul 11, 2021

Michael's daughter Mary, Vincent, and the inconsistent story that feels like we are viewing it out of the normal sequence of events ruin this movie for me. It feels like a forced sequel rather than one that they truly took time to develop.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

KeithM.Jul 19, 2006

Watching this failure was the saddest experience I have ever had in a theater. Loony casting, derivative and unbelievable scripting, choppy or too-baroque editing, Godfather III proved we all expected too much of Coppola, whose taste and Watching this failure was the saddest experience I have ever had in a theater. Loony casting, derivative and unbelievable scripting, choppy or too-baroque editing, Godfather III proved we all expected too much of Coppola, whose taste and performance without close collaboration are loose cannons aimed at his product. The filming of the broken Michael's senile demise tells it all - Arte Johnson falling off his tricycle on Laugh-In.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JaradC.Oct 21, 2007

Completely boring, it has twists and turns, but it is so flat and hollow. Very disappointing.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JCA.Oct 21, 2007

Sucky, although well acted, I can see Oscars many times being nominated for this film, but I don't like how there has to be a part 3, when all this does is add on from part 2. What a draggy cinematic poor film, and why Al Pacino? his Sucky, although well acted, I can see Oscars many times being nominated for this film, but I don't like how there has to be a part 3, when all this does is add on from part 2. What a draggy cinematic poor film, and why Al Pacino? his age is done in part 2, I think Andy Garcia (also starring in this film) could play the godfather really well, just think about it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

mg93108May 23, 2021

This movie sucked so bad!! How on earth could there be two fantastic movies followed by such a horrible movie. I got more and more upset with each passing moment. This could have been cut down to 45 minutes. No character development. The girlThis movie sucked so bad!! How on earth could there be two fantastic movies followed by such a horrible movie. I got more and more upset with each passing moment. This could have been cut down to 45 minutes. No character development. The girl who played Michael's daughter was good looking but a terrible actress. And the opera scene...perhaps I should say the opera movie, just dragged on and on and on. I hated this movie. The whole thing just sucked. I really have trouble finding any saving grace expecting the historical accuracy of the death of the two popes. 2 stars out of 10 is generous.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews