The Godfather, Part III - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Godfather, Part III Reviews

Page 1 of 589
February 12, 2018
I can not believe people like this movie. It is so awful. The story line awful. Some the acting is awful. The characters are all bad guys. The fist movie of the Godfather is better and this an awful movie. The Godfather II is a better movie and that is an awful movie.
½ January 5, 2018
This is easily the worst of the trilogy. Michael is a completely different character in this movie. He shouts frequently and goes on temper tanrums. It may seem like the writers are being unfaithful to Michael Corleone's masterful character arc of the first film but there is a reason why Michael is much different this time around. Michael is a man who has had to live with the horrible things that he has done for many years. It is because of the things that he has done that causes him to lose his family. Francis Ford coppola tells many interesting themes about redemption and family in The Godfather part 3 that many fans overlook but there are also a few problems with the film that prevent it from being the masterpiece that previous Godfather films were. The acting by Al Pacino was very good in this film. It isn't up to par with his acting in The Godfather part 2 but considering that he had to change the mannerisms of the character completely he pulls off a very powerful and convincing performance. Andy garcia is great and is also believable as sonny's bastard son. All of the performances across the board are amazing except for Sofia coppola. She was awful as Michael's daughter. The incest subplot between her and Garcia's character was pointless and their was no chemistry between them. When you have to devote so much time to an incest subplot in a film who know that there isn't a whole lot going on. Many characters are left with little to contribute to the overall narrative and instead they refer to scenes in the previous two films. I also thought that Michael and Kay's relationship in this film was an insult to their relationship in part 2. Michael slamming the door in Kay's face was one of the most heart wrenching and genius endings to a relationship in cinematic history and it should have stayed that way. The Godfather part 3 informs us that Michael gave his children to kay. This is a clear contradiction of the character as Michael stated in Part 2 that he would never allow his children to leave him. Much of the film was predictable and weak.
January 4, 2018
Boring, silly, hammy, and worst of all: unnecessary. Not that Godfather Part II was all that necessary in my opinion, but this in particular is a story that really feels like it didnt need to be told. Sophia Coppola's performance is pretty bad, sure, but she's hardly what ruined this film.
½ January 2, 2018
Absolutely horrific. A travesty and an insult to the first two.
½ January 2, 2018
How? Why? ...I try my best to refuse this cinematic error even exists. But, pop culture keeps tossing it in my path. It is not unusual for sequels to fail to live up to the original films, but FFC actually did the impossible when he made Part II -- it was actually a bit better than the first part (which was flawless from the start) --- yet here we are given a very bad final chapter to two true cinematic masterpieces. This film is just awful. Al Pacino is so over-the-top it is comical and poor Sofia Coppola is about as interesting to watch as a string of pasta. Just pretend it isn't there.
January 2, 2018
Having watched 1 and 2 and after a 20 year lay off , I revisited hoping time would improve.
Not a chance , a disgrace to the trilogy , carnt think of anything positive to say about it .
January 2, 2018
Just kinda wrapping the story up. No where near as good as 1&2
½ January 2, 2018
January 2, 2018
Oh what this movie could have been! Its still good, but not great. You can feel how it wanted to be though, which makes for an overall frustrating viewing experience.
January 2, 2018
just as good if not better than the first godfather. a preaquel and a sequel rolled into one.
½ January 2, 2018
So boring! Just when you think it's about to get interesting, it bores you even more. I could only be bothered watching about half and even that was an effort.
January 2, 2018
Nowhere near as good as the first two Godfather movies. It's worth watching, it's not very well written or acted. However, it's better than people make it out to be.
January 2, 2018
The Things Men will do for Love...
January 2, 2018
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

(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.
½ January 2, 2018
Definitely the weak sister of The Godfather movies
January 1, 2018
It doesn't live up to the grandeur of its two predecessors and its weaker in matter of quality, still it manages to bring some remarkable acting (mainly Al Pacino and Andy Garcia).
Rating: 6.7 out of 10.
January 1, 2018
I think this movie is better seen as a distant epilogue to the life of Michael Corleone, a subversion of the tropes found in the first two Godfather movies. The real-life-inspired events of the film (the death of Paul John I, the crack of Banco Ambrosiano, the Blackfriars Bridge Incident, et cetera) strengthen this impression for me. It also undoes all the romanticization of gangsters seen in Part I and II, by showing how a family can be utterly destroyed by this life. Sure, Part II had done the same, but it ultimately left Michael Corleone triumphant...which kinda lessened the blow, making it a bit more palatable than this film's attempt at it.
It may have just been a movie that Coppola did just for money but, then again, so were the first two Godfathers. I didn't much mind Sofia Coppola's acting (let's not forget she was a last-minute replacement for Wynona Rider), and Pacino makes Michael Corleone's fall from grace very believable. I also liked how the usual familial themes of the Godfather were played out, even if I admit it took a second viewing to really get the feel of it.
The Godfather Part III is an underrated movie, in my opinion.
December 19, 2017
Puntaje Original: 6.5

Todo lo que volvió genial al Padrino la parte 3 se encargó de aniquilarlo; sin embargo las brillantes actuaciones de Al Pacino y Andy Garcia pueden compensarlo.
November 19, 2017
Nothing like the first two.
November 13, 2017
Taking place 15 years after the sequel, part three is more of a character piece for Michael Corleone has he tries to dissolve his relationship with mafia business men, restore his family, and come to terms with his brother's death. The third (and final) chapter of Coppola's epic crima saga is better than most films and is too often compared to its predecessors, which is a shame because this is a fine movie on its own.
Page 1 of 589