Read Mixed User Reviews for The Godfather: Part III

6

TyranianApr 9, 2019

Big step down from previous films, has some of the sublime elements but just isn't as well written.

5 of 5 users found this helpful50

All this user's reviews

4

MovieManiac83Apr 24, 2015

As a nice little film about a bunch of hoods and their involvement in some complicated conspiracy involving the Vatican, The Godfather Part III works just fine, boasting first-rate performances from its two leading men and displaying enoughAs a nice little film about a bunch of hoods and their involvement in some complicated conspiracy involving the Vatican, The Godfather Part III works just fine, boasting first-rate performances from its two leading men and displaying enough clever directorial touches to suggest that this Francis Ford Coppola chap is a name to look out for. As the slavishly-awaited sequel to two of the finest films of the last 30 years, however, as the third episode in what may well be the Greatest Movie Story Ever Told, The Godfather Part III is, frankly, a dreadful disappointment.

It is, perhaps, unfair that this new production should be so smothered under the reputation of two films made nearly 20 years ago. By so closely adhering to the exact structure of his previous two instalments, however, and through his liberal employment of flashbacks, Coppola himself seems to beg for the comparisons, making it abundantly clear throughout that what is on offer here is no new departure, but simply part three of that old familiar tale of the familia Corleone. And as such, it simply doesn't work, lacking the strength of narrative, the menace, the sheer epic sweep of all that has gone before.

For about the first 30 minutes, however, everything seems to be very much in order. The familiar strains of Nino Rota's theme music never fail to send a shiver, the introduction of Andy Garcia as the suitably hotheaded bastard son of Sonny is a welcome addition to the ranks, while Pacino, all grey and shrunk, immediately conveys a telling portrait of immense power and obscene wealth, made all the more impressive by its confinement within such a wizened old frame.

The first hint that we may be going slightly off the rails comes with the gathering of the clans and the subsequent Die Hard-style interruption from the skies, a badly-handled set piece more reminiscent of Bond than the beautifully understated brutality of the tollbooth.

From here on, the violence becomes increasingly cartoon, notably Garcia riding a horse through the inevitable street festival, while things go from bad to worse as it gradually becomes all too apparent just how far out of her depth Sofia Coppola really is, floundering helplessly in her vain attempts to convince as both the Garcia love interest and daughter of the Don. By the time the much-vaunted operatic climax comes along, it is hardly surprising that proceedings finally slip into near-farce, as the supposed top assassin in all of Sicily takes a good half-hour and a fair portion of Cavalleria Rusticana to line up his sights. Miss Sofia manages to provoke the giggles amidst such supposed tragedy and all that is left is a basic re-run of your actual Don Corelone coil-shuffling routine to round things off.

Fans of the first two instalments are likely to find The Godfather Part III an unworthy heir to the tradition. First-time voters, meanwhile, will surely wonder what on earth all the fuss was all about.

Fans of the first two instalments are likely to find The Godfather Part III an unworthy heir to the tradition. First-time voters, meanwhile, will surely wonder what on earth all the fuss was all about.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

5

TrailesqueFeb 11, 2018

It is not as awful as I remember it being, but the final film in the Godfather trilogy is clearly the weakest. At the center of the story we have an older, more sympathetic Michael Corleone - now a respectable, rich businessman andIt is not as awful as I remember it being, but the final film in the Godfather trilogy is clearly the weakest. At the center of the story we have an older, more sympathetic Michael Corleone - now a respectable, rich businessman and philanthropist who is trying to reunite his family and make amends - but his mafia past keeps reaching out and dragging him back in. He begins grooming his illegitimate nephew (Andy Garcia) for a leadership role, and this hothead gets a romance going with Michael's daughter (his first cousin - yuk - in a part played by the director's daughter). A lot of the story involves the Catholic church and Michael's involvement in their finances - this was obviously based on a scandal that took place in the 1980s. Maybe I'm too much of a stickler for realism, but I never understood the financial picture or who was screwing who out of what. This should have been about the fall of the Corleones if it was to be a real "rise and fall of..." story, but they never really fall. Instead there is a wild series of murders at the end, intercut with an Italian opera taking place on a stage (referring to the similar sequences in the first two movies), but the logic of it was never clear to me.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

FilipeNetoFeb 19, 2018

This film follows the story of "The Godfather," which chronicles the journey of the Corleone family through the violent world of organized crime. In this film, an elderly Michael Corleone lives haunted by the crimes he committed and lookingThis film follows the story of "The Godfather," which chronicles the journey of the Corleone family through the violent world of organized crime. In this film, an elderly Michael Corleone lives haunted by the crimes he committed and looking desperately, but unsuccessfully, to clean his family of any taint through its legitimation and links to the Vatican.

Directed by Francis Ford Coppola, based on the novels of Mario Puzo, who collaborated in the writing of the script, it kept most of the cast of the previous films, made in the seventies, and bring new and important characters. The soundtrack goes from Nino Rota to Carmine Coppola, father of director and Talia Shire, actress who also enters this film. It didn't won any Academy Award but was nominated for seven statuettes.

More than fifteen years after "The Godfather II", this film is, almost, the black sheep of the "family". Criticized, misunderstood, even somewhat ridiculed, will always live in the shadow of the two films that preceded it, and which are undoubtedly two giants of cinema. And if we want to compare them, this is the loser because it can no longer surprise us, despite maintaining excellent action scenes and a Michael Corleone much more paternalistic, living threatened by his ghosts (in particular his brother, which is a very smart way to explore the cruelest act of the criminal life of this mobster). I didn't quite understand his position on the daughter's romance with Vincent, her cousin. The connection to the Catholic Church also seemed a bit forced, as if it had been snapped on in the script. Al Pacino has remained up to the challenge and managed to perfectly display the psychological contradictions of his character. Andy Garcia also had a great performance and Joe Mantegna can say that this, probably, it was the best performance he did. This is a film that is worth seeing, mostly if we didn't compare it to the previous two films.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

TiagoSantosSApr 9, 2019

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Infelizmente, não conseguiu superar seu antecessor. aqui, vemos mudanças absurdas nos personagens. não a nenhum problema aqui com isso. mas...nao me agradou muito. eu esperava uma conclusao epica. nao e ruim, e bom eu gostei. mas, faltou uma coisa, varias coisas. elementos importantes que precisavam estar aqui presente.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

MoviebuffreviewMar 15, 2011

Overall, as a standalone movie, it is definitely very flawed, but it has its moments. As a Godfather film, it is somewhat of a clunker. I didn't hate the movie, but with unconvincing and very less powerful performances, a somewhat cliche plotOverall, as a standalone movie, it is definitely very flawed, but it has its moments. As a Godfather film, it is somewhat of a clunker. I didn't hate the movie, but with unconvincing and very less powerful performances, a somewhat cliche plot at some points, and overall a slow pacing, The Godfather Part III is definitely a step bellow its predecessors. It wasn't a bad conclusion, and I didn't hate it, but if you are worrying that this will ruin the great series for you, then you might want to think twice about seeing it.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

4

aaronpaul121May 26, 2012

An enormous disappointment for Al Pacino and for the whole film. I'm expecting a lot about this movie thinking the fact that its predecessors are great (especially the first one which is one of the best films of all time). The acting isAn enormous disappointment for Al Pacino and for the whole film. I'm expecting a lot about this movie thinking the fact that its predecessors are great (especially the first one which is one of the best films of all time). The acting is horrible, the script is lousy and the whole plot was ridiculous and boring. An incredibly terrible film, but still, it does not belong to the worst.............… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

5

sinadoomApr 7, 2013

The Godfather 3, released 16 years after Godfather 2, has lost its cinematic touch. It's still a long film and follows Michael when he is older and in the process of retiring. The biggest let-down is how there is little connection betweenThe Godfather 3, released 16 years after Godfather 2, has lost its cinematic touch. It's still a long film and follows Michael when he is older and in the process of retiring. The biggest let-down is how there is little connection between some events, and the story is very thinly linked together and at points not well explained or explored deeply. It almost feels as if it was dragged out, and produced with few intentions other than for profit. There's no real story to tell. However, I can give it credit for somehow managing to make it feel engaging and entertaining for the whole length. It only really picks up in the last 20 minutes or so, but it's worth watching if you've got some spare time and have seen the other two films.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

TheWalrus2000Mar 9, 2013

It loses its feel entirely but the acting and still sorta good plot keep it together.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

joao1198pedroNov 28, 2013

this movie is not an masterpiece as it was the two first godfathers but it didn't mean it's an ok movie.Of course that is a lot of mistakes but it is still an nice movie.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

5

spadenxNov 29, 2011

Far too similar to the previous films, Lacks originality and its actually pretty boring and not all that interesting either. While it does end perfectly, The build up to that moment is shallow and shows just how far the one great franchiseFar too similar to the previous films, Lacks originality and its actually pretty boring and not all that interesting either. While it does end perfectly, The build up to that moment is shallow and shows just how far the one great franchise has fallen.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

4

asylumspadezNov 26, 2011

It lacks originality and is far too like the previous 2 films. The acting is fine but not as great as the previous films were. Overall it was a disapointing end to an epic series.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

LaMagiadeVirueAug 15, 2013

Nada que ver a las otras dos partes, "The Godfather: Part III" mantiene un buen enfoque a la vida mafiosa y una historia mejor que muchas otra películas a las que uno le puede poner mas nota. Pero es un tanto aburrida con respecto a las anteriores.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

DanteGodfather7Aug 18, 2015

Mikey returns in the the twilight of his life, to replenish himself and his 'family' of crime. After watching part I and II of Mario Puzo's: The Godfather, I have to say, this movie was a disappointment. It still is a great movie, but fromMikey returns in the the twilight of his life, to replenish himself and his 'family' of crime. After watching part I and II of Mario Puzo's: The Godfather, I have to say, this movie was a disappointment. It still is a great movie, but from my view, Al Pacino was greatly trying to re-enact what Marlon Brando perfected in part I. He failed. The whole point of Brado's performance was that he was always subtle. 'Michael' is a good character in his own right but a shadow in the greatness of 'Don Vito'. 'Vincent's' part in the movie was well executed by Andy Garcia, but yet again, Coppola tries to re-enact 'Michael' with 'Vincent'. This worked out better than the other one, but still had missing elements. The story was compelling with suspense and was a fitting end to 'The Godfather' trilogy. 6/10. Above average movie!… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

mellonheadDec 31, 2017

It's not so bad, not like everybody says. Sure, Sophia Coppola's acting sucks, but not throughout - a good portion of it I can stand. I would say if anything, it's Al Pacino's effort that's the most disappointing. It has a pretty weak plot -It's not so bad, not like everybody says. Sure, Sophia Coppola's acting sucks, but not throughout - a good portion of it I can stand. I would say if anything, it's Al Pacino's effort that's the most disappointing. It has a pretty weak plot - very weak compared to the first two and the dialogue is weak. It's too long - doesn't deserve or earn the length, like the first two. There aren't so many layers like the first two. If anything, repeat watches lessen my opinion of the film, because I just keep finding more and more flaws. The final couple scenes are nice, but maybe not worth a three-hour watch. Coming into the third, I expected very little, so it was a nice conclusion, but as a standalone, it's terrible. Don't watch it if you didn't like the first two, but then again, if you loved the first two, there's a good chance you'll hate this one. So maybe only watch out of morbid curiosity, or if you're one of those die-hard fans who will give it a 10/10 no matter what.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

EricR.Mar 17, 2006

Horrible, horrible, horrible. How is it possible that Al Pacino could give such an inept performance. I hated it, hated the whole damm thing. Bad acting, lame cliche script. Coppola took one of the most complex characters in cinema and made Horrible, horrible, horrible. How is it possible that Al Pacino could give such an inept performance. I hated it, hated the whole damm thing. Bad acting, lame cliche script. Coppola took one of the most complex characters in cinema and made him paper thin. Sophia's terrible performace is just icing on the shit cake. The only thing that was good was the ending. Everything else was dull beyond beliefe. At least the Matrix sequels were entertaining.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful

6

kyle20ellisMar 17, 2022

First off, I adore the first two Godfather films. They were wonderfully made, scored, directed and acted with compelling elegiac stories. However, while I do not think it is as bad as it is made out to be, The Godfather Part III is aFirst off, I adore the first two Godfather films. They were wonderfully made, scored, directed and acted with compelling elegiac stories. However, while I do not think it is as bad as it is made out to be, The Godfather Part III is a disappointment. I did like it in general, but in comparison to the first two it is like a distant relative.

Starting with the good things, it does look splendid. The cinematography is beautiful and the settings are superb. The music is also outstanding, and the direction is good. The acting is uneven, but not all of it is bad. Al Pacino does have a lot of fine moments as a more gentler Michael, while Andy Garcia is electrifying too.

However, I didn't like the story as much here. It lacked the elegiac feel of the first two, it has a lot of loose ends and there was a number of times I didn't know what was going on. The script isn't as thoughtful, intelligent or as sophisticated here, instead some of it is quite stilted. As much as I do love Diane Keaton I personally don't think she was necessary here, she served her purpose perfectly in the first two. Finally I have to concur about Sophia Coppola. She never convinces as the "symbol of innocence", and just comes across sometimes as embarrassing. Much has been said about the climax in the opera house, some loved it, others didn't. I think it was a mixed bag. I had no problem with Pacino, the way it was shot and the music but it did come across as very protracted.

So all in all, not awful, not great. 6/10 Bethany Cox… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

MarkG.May 18, 2007

It is a pity that people insist on holding this film against the brilliance of its predecessor and frowning down upon it. While nothing on its prequels, the films nonetheless features some fine emotional scenes, such as Michael by the casket It is a pity that people insist on holding this film against the brilliance of its predecessor and frowning down upon it. While nothing on its prequels, the films nonetheless features some fine emotional scenes, such as Michael by the casket of his friend, the dead Don, and Michael's confession to the priest. Its a shame that the film receives such harsh reviews as the editing is simply masterful. The silent scream Pacino emits at the end is brilliant, its just not the end the masterpiece trilogy everyone expected.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

GottlobF.Aug 14, 2007

First a message to AA D: this movie was not by Scorcese. Anyway, it's nowhere near as good as Parts I and II, but it was entertaining enough. Probably better than "Dances with Wolves", which beat it out for the Academy Award.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

superbatAug 27, 2020

This final installment is a tier below its predecessors, which are two of the greatest movies ever made. The Godfather: Part III isn't a bad movie by any means, but it lacks the strengths of the movies that came before it. The story isn't asThis final installment is a tier below its predecessors, which are two of the greatest movies ever made. The Godfather: Part III isn't a bad movie by any means, but it lacks the strengths of the movies that came before it. The story isn't as captivating or as well executed. The performances are underwhelming. In addition, there are several scenes which are unrealistic and are borderline laughable, such as that helicopter hit. Overall, The Godfather: Part III is not a terrible movie but it could've been executed better.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

arrivistJun 23, 2020

Pay Your Debts

Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope was in big debts after several flops. The obvious way out was to make another Godfather film, even though he'd said himself the saga ended with Part II. From the outset the film was cursed. ThePay Your Debts

Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope was in big debts after several flops. The obvious way out was to make another Godfather film, even though he'd said himself the saga ended with Part II. From the outset the film was cursed. The part of Mary Corleone was meant to go to Rebecca Shaeffer, but tragically, she was shot dead by her stalker on the way to the audition. The replacement Winona Ryder dropped out (literally) on the first days from 'exhaustion.' Cast members demanded more and more money, Robert Duvall dropped out after not getting his request of $5m to appear, and as a result the whole script has to be rewritten. Coppola asked the studio for this film to be a prologue rather than a sequel, and for it to be titled: The Death of Michael Corleone, which of course was denied. It would have made more sense as Part III doesn't hold a candle to its predecessors, even which the copycat cinematography. Although the character of Vincenzo Mancini is one of the more entertaining, the choice of Cuban-American Andy Garcia was a strange one. Garcia's pseudo-tough guy act becomes more toe-curling as his character's arc progresses. The rest of the cast also ham up proceedings, particularly Coppola's sister Talia Shire, whose line delivery of, 'Now they'll fear you,' drew audible groans in the screening room. Coppola's daughter, Sophia, stepped in at her father's request to fill the serially-doomed role of Mary Corleone, and received the most flack for her wooden performance and valley-girl accent; but she's not an actor, and even Pacino came across badly at times, so who can blame her. Ultimately this was a family effort to get Francis out of debt, and with a revenue of £137m from the box office; mission accomplished.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

LucaTJun 7, 2020

Part III. It’s an outlier. It’s more action movie than the drama that the other two were. Also, get outta here with that incest! Please and thank you!

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

LightsAndBulbsSep 18, 2022

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Despite being the shortest film in a series, The Godfather 3 feels far longer than its predecessors for numerous reasons. Firstly, the plot. To put it simply, the storyline involving the Catholic Church in this film is simply uninteresting. The scenes involving it move at a snail's pace, and the plot point as a whole feels as though it could have been far more interesting than it ended up being. Secondly, the acting. I know that people rag on Sofia Coppola a lot, and they're right to, but her scenes actually managed to entertain me because I was often able to laugh at them. Enzo Robutti on the other hand gives an annoyingly over-the-top performance as Don Lucchesi. Andy Garcia was decent, but there were points where I wanted him to emote a bit more than he did. Joe Mantegna was sort of laughable. I was unable to take Joey Zasa's character seriously, as he came across as mostly pathetic and slimy, as well as weak and quivering. To be fair however, that may have been the goal, and if it was, then I suppose I can't rag on Mantegna too much. Don Antobello was played rather well throughout the film, but his death scene was frankly embarrassing to watch. Finally, Al Pacino himself. I have no issue with Michael Corleone being portrayed differently in this film than he was in the previous films, as it has been years since the events of Part 2. But far too often I feel as though I'm watching Al Pacino's character in Heat rather than Michael Corleone. Moving on, the film generally has a sense of disengagement, as if there isn't a ton of care or passion being put into it. I say this because of how cheesy and ham-fisted certain scenes are, such as the helicopter massacre, Don Lucchesi being stabbed with his glasses, or that part where the assassin props up a guard's body to make it appear as though he is being strangled (seriously, did you even **** give a **** Francis?). Despite all the negativity I've been putting forth thus far, this movie isn't necessarily awful. Diane Keaton gives a really good performance, especially during the film's finale. There is some good cinematography in the film's latter half, and the set design, lighting, and costuming is all done very well and gives the film a generally gorgeous look and color palette. I also like the idea of a film revolving around Michael's attempt to atone for his sins, however I don't think that concept was executed especially well. Truthfully, while this is far from a dumpster fire, I'd be lying to you if I said that I had any desire to rewatch it.
-
Best Performance: Diane Keaton… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Chriscorc876Apr 9, 2023

The Godfather 3 definitely has its moments, but overall falls short of its predecessors. While the acting is still top-notch and the themes of power and corruption are still present, the pacing of the film can feel sluggish at times.The Godfather 3 definitely has its moments, but overall falls short of its predecessors. While the acting is still top-notch and the themes of power and corruption are still present, the pacing of the film can feel sluggish at times. Additionally, the plot is overly convoluted with too many subplots and characters to keep track of, which can be distracting. That being said, the final act of the film is well done and satisfying. Overall, The Godfather 3 is worth a watch for fans of the series, but it definitely isn't as impressive as the previous films in the trilogy.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews