The Godfather: Part III Reviews

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 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

I already saw this movie a couple of times before but since there was the new reworked version called 'The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone' on Netflix, I thought I might as well check it again in this new version. To be honest, even though I did watch this movie a few times already, I didn't remember it well enough to spot what had been changed. Eventually, even though this new version was indeed an improvement, it didn't seem that Coppola really did revolutionise his movie after all. Anyway, it always had a rather lousy reputation but what would you expect from a sequel that was supposed to follow 2 of the best movies ever made? Furthermore, Francis Ford Coppola was creatively crippled as he apparently only had a year to write, direct and edit the damned thing. Obviously, many criticized Sofia Coppola back then and she did have a hard time to convince everyone with her acting skills but you have to give her some slack as she was a last minute replacement. To be honest, even though she was definitely not amazing, I don't think she was so awful though. In fact, his short sting with the much more attractive Bridget Fonda was actually interesting but I was surprised by how quickly her character disappeared after all. Eventually, I still think it was a decent watch and, above all, it was just really neat to see Michael Corleone 16 years later after the second instalment. Indeed, the character, as usual very well played by Al Pacino, was still spellbinding to behold and, only for him, it is worth watching the damned thing. Anyway, to conclude, if you don't try to compare it too much with its predecessors, it is actually not bad at all and it is eventually definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre. 

Initial Thought: It took sixteen years for this to be released. At least I didn't have a gap between these last two like I did between the first two. It's a shame it didn't do as well as the first two. Anyways it's still considered good. I hope it offers something enjoyable for me.

Characters/Acting: Most of the cast once again returns. It's too bad Robert Duvall couldn't be a part of this one. He was one of the best characters of the first two. Andy Garcia is a welcome new addition though. I liked that there were people who returned from the first film although I don't quite remember them all. The interactions between some of the characters seems a bit artificial. They almost come off as cartoonish. Sophia Coppola like Nicolas Cage should not be on screen. At least she has the skills behind the camera. A few characters seemed kind of pointless or just faded away. Al Pacino was amazing as expected. I felt Andy Garcia could have done better. At first he came off as a bit amateurish then he started to mature throughout which was good.

Story: In the midst of trying to legitimize his business dealings in 1979 New York and Italy, aging mafia don Michael Corleone seeks to vow for his sins while taking a young protégé under his wing. So far this doesn't carry the same charisma as its predecessors. The best scenes here were the helicopter scene and the stuff near the end. Even though it was a fairly long movie it still had a sense of rush to it. Mary's death was more silly than tragic and impactful. I didn't really like the ending all that much. It kind of lowered the quality of the movie as a whole.

Directing/Writing: Most of the time these days you don't see trilogies helmed by the same director and writer. A lot of the time directors leave or writers leave. Anyways it's good to see that both of them stuck around for this part. I think it didn't end up as well as hoped due to time constraints. The writing was okay, but I think with more time it really could have been on the same level as the first two.

Final Thought: This was a good film sure. It did lack the magic of the first two films though. I don't think it was the right ending for the whole series. As it's own movie it was alright. Anyways as for recommending it I say go ahead. The most irritating thing about it though is Sofia Coppola. Her acting just craps on the film in it's entirety. Other than that it's a decent watch.

The Godfather: Part III doesn't quite match up to the previous two Godfather films but it is still a very good film to watch. It's minorly disappointing but I still really enjoyed it. The Godfather: Part III is the conclusion to one of the most famous trilogies of all time. It is filmed in almost the same way as the previous two films but the stories or performances quite sum up to it. It tells the story of Michael and him in his older days when he begins to go downfall and he begins to regret all of his crimes in the past such as the murder of his brother Fredo at the end of The Godfather: Part II and the divorce with Kay. There aren't many threequals that are classics but I have to say that this is a really good one but not the best one though. The best is The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King. The third installment of the trilogy comes after 18 years of The Godfather: Part II and I had a prediction that I the third film wouldn't be favourites of mine like the first two films are.


Al Pacino proves once again that he is the perfect actor for Michael Corleone. Michael doesn't seem to be a very powerful leader in this one as much as second one because he is aging as is the family drug business. Michael is just a beaten down old man in this one and rightly so because Michael gets everything he deserves in this film for what he did in the past. Diane Keaton was really good as Kay Corleone. Seeing Pacino and Keaton reprise their roles after 16 years was awesome obviously but quite weird because they look almost 20 years older in this one but playing the same characters. Andy Garcia's performance as Vincent Mancini was absolutely awesome which made this film even better than it already is. Sofia Coppola didn't impress at all. Her performance as Mary Corleone (daughter of Michael Corleone) was absolutely appauling which did become a minor disgrace to The Godfather trilogy.


Francis Ford Coppola is a fine filmmaker indeed. He didn't flaw at all in this one despite how disappointing some people find it. I think Coppola felt a bit under pressure with this one because I think he needed to make it just as good as the previous two films. The time of when it was made didn't really help very much because Coppola was working on other projects and I think that some people might have thought he'd lost his taste for making another acceptional Godfather film. No, this isn't a masterpiece compared to the first and second film but it is a brilliant conclusion to such a masterful trilogy.


The Godfather: Part III is the worst of the trilogy but is still a really good film that I really enjoyed. It doesn't quite live up to the previous two films but it isn't that far off. This would have seriously been bad if Coppola wasn't the director. The Godfather Parts I and II and Apocalypse Now are Coppola's best works but this third Godfather film is another fine achievement to his legendary career. The Godfather is one of the two trilogies to have all three films nominated for Best Picture and rightly so. The Godfather: Part III is a fantastic conclusion to one of the best trilogies of all time.

I was lucky in that I didn't see any of the Godfather movies til much later in life than most people. I didn't get the chance to watch 'em until sometime during my early college years. And the first one I saw was the third installment. So I got to see it without the comparison of it's 2 predecessors.
And, IMO, on it's own, it's a very good mobster movie. Obviously, it can't compare to the first two, but in the genre of mob-flicks, it kicks it's own particuler brand of mafia ass.
Plus, with it's redemption-themed, politically-charged corporation/Vatican storyline,
it's a pretty goddamn smart movie, too.
Now while I know that I will always be in the minutest of the minority in regards to this film, I don't care, I still like it, b#tchez. And I still find watching the whole series as a trilogy to be quite a fulfilling movie-viewing experience.
Now, if only Sofia Coppola would've gotten shot at the beginning of the film instead of the end, maybe this film would get a little bit more respect.