The Godfather, Part III Reviews

  • 3d ago

    A train wreck of a movie. No cohesive flow to it, the story here of billionaire Micheal Corleone makes no sense whatsoever. He also doesn't seem like Micheal, the mob boss, he seems like an aged Al Pacino, and while Pacino is one of the finest actors, this is by no means his best performance or role. Whatever problems I have with The Godfather II, at least it made sense and also that he WAS Micheal in it, here he's just Pacino. This movie was made because the studio offered Coppola an incredible amount of money so he "gave in" for more millions. The product is the excrement he gave the world in exchange for more riches.

    A train wreck of a movie. No cohesive flow to it, the story here of billionaire Micheal Corleone makes no sense whatsoever. He also doesn't seem like Micheal, the mob boss, he seems like an aged Al Pacino, and while Pacino is one of the finest actors, this is by no means his best performance or role. Whatever problems I have with The Godfather II, at least it made sense and also that he WAS Micheal in it, here he's just Pacino. This movie was made because the studio offered Coppola an incredible amount of money so he "gave in" for more millions. The product is the excrement he gave the world in exchange for more riches.

  • Sep 05, 2019

    Because Parts 1 and 2 hung the moon for so many, this film lacked the conspicuous plaudits by the film intelligentsia--in some cases it was actually met with striking animus and some have quipped that watching this film is akin to a fool's errand. As such, the third installment seems like collateral damage to its own successes. But, instead of volleying polemics at this movie, I will be a bit milquetoast. Instead, I will stand on my dignity and actually subvert the norm by extolling GF 3. I thought this movie was actually worth its salt and implore the critics to beat their swords into plowshares. I don't swoon over this film, but definitely vivaciously recommend it to those looking to finish the narrative arc of a classic cannon--in fact it behooves you to watch it. Under the aegis of Pacino and Garcia, this film manages to pass muster and still curries favor to the card-carrying GF zealot. So, stop equivocating and go enjoy this operatic opus.

    Because Parts 1 and 2 hung the moon for so many, this film lacked the conspicuous plaudits by the film intelligentsia--in some cases it was actually met with striking animus and some have quipped that watching this film is akin to a fool's errand. As such, the third installment seems like collateral damage to its own successes. But, instead of volleying polemics at this movie, I will be a bit milquetoast. Instead, I will stand on my dignity and actually subvert the norm by extolling GF 3. I thought this movie was actually worth its salt and implore the critics to beat their swords into plowshares. I don't swoon over this film, but definitely vivaciously recommend it to those looking to finish the narrative arc of a classic cannon--in fact it behooves you to watch it. Under the aegis of Pacino and Garcia, this film manages to pass muster and still curries favor to the card-carrying GF zealot. So, stop equivocating and go enjoy this operatic opus.

  • Sep 04, 2019

    I really wanted to be able to defend this film because from the outside it looked like there was possibility of it being genuinely great but alas I must agree with everybody else and state that while the film has considerable merits it's flaws have the ability to sink it. Part of the difficulty of appreciating the film on it's own is the fact that it references the two superior films that preceded it so often and leaves you yearning for those legendary cinematic achievements in which every scene hummed with tension and energy. Sure everything appears normal as the cinematography and score are heavily reminiscent of the previous films and the dialogue sounds similar but at the end of the day something is wrong. Sofia Coppola's atrocious acting, the film's choice to focus on relationships that were difficult to invest in and the lack of emotional attachment we feel towards the characters means that this film is not worthy of being compared to those masterpieces. Were this to be a film that focuses on the mob with no connection to the Godfather films maybe we could all appreciate it more but I would still call it significantly flawed. An aging Michael Corleone, Al Pacino, is wracked with guilt over the actions he took in his rise to becoming a powerful crime boss but as he faces the increasing threat of assassination he must employ his ability to be a cold and ruthless leader. He takes on his nephew Vincent Mancini, Andy Garcia, as a protégé of sorts as he plans to retire and be a proper father to his innocent daughter Mary, Sofia Coppola, who develops an attraction to Mancini. As espionage and intrigue carry on with the various dealings of the mafia Corleone's family affairs head into disarray with the incestuous relationship between Mary and Mancini being of particular concern due to the danger this relationship would cause for Mary. As Corleone's demons come back to haunt him he loses his grip on the family and gives power over to Mancini fully before tragedy strikes. Firstly, I must note my absolute favorite part of the film: Talia Shire. While she gives fantastic performances in the first two films she doesn't get a chance to shine in them as much as she does here. Every time she appears on screen she is a bright spot as while Pacino and Garcia give good performances Shire is magnificent as a woman completely committed to the way of life that her father espoused. In one of the most delicious scenes in the film she informs Corleone that she is absolutely loyal to him despite being aware of his ordering of the assassination of Fredo. The passion in her voice and the even keeled tone she maintains allow us to understand what has changed about Connie from the first two films but Shire is careful to incorporate the characteristics that will always be fundamental to the character. How she wasn't nominated for Best Supporting Actress I will never understand as I think she easily gives a better performance than Mary McDonnell in Dances with Wolves (1990) and Whoopi Goldberg in Ghost (1990). Unfortunately the other major female performances in the film never really work. In what was presumably meant to be Sofia Coppola's breakout role she flounders as her delivery of lines is unbelievable, her Californian accent thick even as she is surrounded by actors with New York accents and she generally seems uncomfortable. This makes it difficult for us to believe that there is an intense romantic connection between Mary and Mancini who is played by the far more capable Garcia. The scenes between the two feel uncomfortable not because they feature a couple engaging in incest but because it is hard to watch someone fail so miserably at acting. Diane Keaton also struggles to imbue her character with any sense of life as while she never reaches the depths of awfulness that she went to in The Godfather Part II (1974) she seems superfluous whenever she is on screen and fails to capture our interest. We don't care about either of these women, who are meant to humanize the male leads in the film and therefore the ending does not devastate us and we don't really care about anybody because they don't seem human as portrayed by these actors.

    I really wanted to be able to defend this film because from the outside it looked like there was possibility of it being genuinely great but alas I must agree with everybody else and state that while the film has considerable merits it's flaws have the ability to sink it. Part of the difficulty of appreciating the film on it's own is the fact that it references the two superior films that preceded it so often and leaves you yearning for those legendary cinematic achievements in which every scene hummed with tension and energy. Sure everything appears normal as the cinematography and score are heavily reminiscent of the previous films and the dialogue sounds similar but at the end of the day something is wrong. Sofia Coppola's atrocious acting, the film's choice to focus on relationships that were difficult to invest in and the lack of emotional attachment we feel towards the characters means that this film is not worthy of being compared to those masterpieces. Were this to be a film that focuses on the mob with no connection to the Godfather films maybe we could all appreciate it more but I would still call it significantly flawed. An aging Michael Corleone, Al Pacino, is wracked with guilt over the actions he took in his rise to becoming a powerful crime boss but as he faces the increasing threat of assassination he must employ his ability to be a cold and ruthless leader. He takes on his nephew Vincent Mancini, Andy Garcia, as a protégé of sorts as he plans to retire and be a proper father to his innocent daughter Mary, Sofia Coppola, who develops an attraction to Mancini. As espionage and intrigue carry on with the various dealings of the mafia Corleone's family affairs head into disarray with the incestuous relationship between Mary and Mancini being of particular concern due to the danger this relationship would cause for Mary. As Corleone's demons come back to haunt him he loses his grip on the family and gives power over to Mancini fully before tragedy strikes. Firstly, I must note my absolute favorite part of the film: Talia Shire. While she gives fantastic performances in the first two films she doesn't get a chance to shine in them as much as she does here. Every time she appears on screen she is a bright spot as while Pacino and Garcia give good performances Shire is magnificent as a woman completely committed to the way of life that her father espoused. In one of the most delicious scenes in the film she informs Corleone that she is absolutely loyal to him despite being aware of his ordering of the assassination of Fredo. The passion in her voice and the even keeled tone she maintains allow us to understand what has changed about Connie from the first two films but Shire is careful to incorporate the characteristics that will always be fundamental to the character. How she wasn't nominated for Best Supporting Actress I will never understand as I think she easily gives a better performance than Mary McDonnell in Dances with Wolves (1990) and Whoopi Goldberg in Ghost (1990). Unfortunately the other major female performances in the film never really work. In what was presumably meant to be Sofia Coppola's breakout role she flounders as her delivery of lines is unbelievable, her Californian accent thick even as she is surrounded by actors with New York accents and she generally seems uncomfortable. This makes it difficult for us to believe that there is an intense romantic connection between Mary and Mancini who is played by the far more capable Garcia. The scenes between the two feel uncomfortable not because they feature a couple engaging in incest but because it is hard to watch someone fail so miserably at acting. Diane Keaton also struggles to imbue her character with any sense of life as while she never reaches the depths of awfulness that she went to in The Godfather Part II (1974) she seems superfluous whenever she is on screen and fails to capture our interest. We don't care about either of these women, who are meant to humanize the male leads in the film and therefore the ending does not devastate us and we don't really care about anybody because they don't seem human as portrayed by these actors.

  • Aug 08, 2019

    In most trilogies, the third part is bad or is the worst of the three, and let's be honest, this is no exception, of the three this is the worst, because the movie simply doesn´t stand out in any way,the only good performances in this movie are those of Al Pacino and Diane Keaton, the others are passable,well some because the performance of Sofia Copola is horrible. Well maybe i´m talking as if the movie didn´t like me, and that´s not the case, i like this movie because Michael tries to fix his past mistakes with the help of the Catholic Church that's something realistic in a way, but does the movie sometimes have meaningless lacks like someone can explain to me why they want to kill the Pope?With this i mean the movie doesn't bother explaining these things to you. What if the movie has the best end of the three parts, an emotional ending that reminds us of this path we traveled together in these movies, giving an end to the best trilogy in history.

    In most trilogies, the third part is bad or is the worst of the three, and let's be honest, this is no exception, of the three this is the worst, because the movie simply doesn´t stand out in any way,the only good performances in this movie are those of Al Pacino and Diane Keaton, the others are passable,well some because the performance of Sofia Copola is horrible. Well maybe i´m talking as if the movie didn´t like me, and that´s not the case, i like this movie because Michael tries to fix his past mistakes with the help of the Catholic Church that's something realistic in a way, but does the movie sometimes have meaningless lacks like someone can explain to me why they want to kill the Pope?With this i mean the movie doesn't bother explaining these things to you. What if the movie has the best end of the three parts, an emotional ending that reminds us of this path we traveled together in these movies, giving an end to the best trilogy in history.

  • Jul 29, 2019

    (SPOILERS) Although it improved toward the end, Part III is a mediocre and unnecessary continuation of an already-great series. Al Pacino and Andy Garcia as the cunning Vincent Mancini are really the only performances in this movie worth applauding. Sofia Coppola does not make Mary Corleone's character likable enough for me to care about her death in the end. Pacino, on the other hand, does the opposite, proving his brilliant acting skill by somehow completely changing his initial portrayal of Michael Corleone, who is now overcome with shame and guilt of his violent past. The Godfather Part III is a decent movie, but the series would have been just as good if not better off without it.

    (SPOILERS) Although it improved toward the end, Part III is a mediocre and unnecessary continuation of an already-great series. Al Pacino and Andy Garcia as the cunning Vincent Mancini are really the only performances in this movie worth applauding. Sofia Coppola does not make Mary Corleone's character likable enough for me to care about her death in the end. Pacino, on the other hand, does the opposite, proving his brilliant acting skill by somehow completely changing his initial portrayal of Michael Corleone, who is now overcome with shame and guilt of his violent past. The Godfather Part III is a decent movie, but the series would have been just as good if not better off without it.

  • Jul 04, 2019

    Not as great as the other Godfather movies, but it is worth watching to find out how the Corleone story ends.

    Not as great as the other Godfather movies, but it is worth watching to find out how the Corleone story ends.

  • Jun 26, 2019

    I enjoy this movie quite a bit. It is definitely not in the same league as 1 or 2, but I really enjoy the story. Andy Garcia, Pacino and Eli Wallach are all fantastic.

    I enjoy this movie quite a bit. It is definitely not in the same league as 1 or 2, but I really enjoy the story. Andy Garcia, Pacino and Eli Wallach are all fantastic.

  • May 16, 2019

    A good movie, but unfortunately isnt able to achieve the high standard set by its predecessors.

    A good movie, but unfortunately isnt able to achieve the high standard set by its predecessors.

  • May 02, 2019

    Its not that bad as people says, but its a disappointment in comparation to the other two.

    Its not that bad as people says, but its a disappointment in comparation to the other two.

  • Apr 21, 2019

    Easily the best movie in the trilogy, with a surprisingly powerful performance from newcomer Sofia Coppola.

    Easily the best movie in the trilogy, with a surprisingly powerful performance from newcomer Sofia Coppola.