Sorry I wasted my time on this one. After the first half hour of a boring party, with every now and then a muttered comment passing for "esposition" I almost gave up. Then came a scene with a guy killing two intruders. Then more boring. Then a shootup scene that looked like it was from "Batman and Robin" or some other lame comic book movie.....then more boring. If I wanted to see a movie about businessmen making deals I would watch "Wall Street". No, on second thought that was a better movie than this. I actually wondered who they dragged in to direct it, and then realized it was Francis Ford Coppola. I wondered who the boring actress was, and found it was his daughter. (Ugly too.....) Just one of the most boring movies I have seen.
The Godfather Part III
Time Out saysThe chief impression is of déjà vu: extravagant ceremonies, parties, shady meetings behind closed doors. The implausible story doesn't help: Michael Corleone (Pacino), grey and bowed in 1979, misses his ex-wife (Keaton) and kids so much that he decides to abandon crime and make the family business legitimate. If it's nicely ironic that bastard nephew Vincent (Garcia), Michael's right-hand man, is almost psycopathically violent, this strand is weakened when Michael objects to daughter Mary's falling for Vincent. And the unwise insertion of elements from real life - the laundering of money through the Vatican - founders because so many details are skated over that the exact implications of Michael's brush with Old World power-brokers are often obscured. Plot apart - much of which concerns Michael's struggles to defend both his empire and his intergrity against Mafia peers - it often looks like Coppola is going through the motions. The acting is merely passable, several characters are given nothing to do, and Michael's paranoid self-pity lends the film an absurd morality: Coppola expects us to sympathise with the semblance of virtue.
Cast and crew
Average User Rating
3.8 / 5
- 5 star:0
- 4 star:1
- 3 star:0
- 2 star:0
- 1 star:0
Although it feels downright awkward when compared to the first two films, I still found Godfather Part 3 to be a high quality movie in its own right. Almost EVERY movie looks weak compared to the first two films. It's a fact of life that they are cinema of the highest order possible, and an even sadder fact that they will most likely never be matched. The Godfather Part 3 is a good, entertaining gangster film that was deserving of its Best Picture nomination. Don't let the fact that it simply isn't on the level of it's masterwork predecessors ruin your enjoyment of this fascinating epic.
This sequel tries to hard too hard to match the greatness of its' predecessors. FF Coppola tries to move the move the Corleone family from Regional Hoodlum Importers (GF1) to National Gangster Casino Owners (GF2) to Corrupt International million dollar Financiers (GF3) and it just doesn't fly. On top of that, add the poor acting skills of Sofia Coppola matched up with greats like Al Pacino and it makes it painful to watch her every time she's in a scene. Add to that all the beautiful and expensive sets and scenery and this comes close to failures like monstrous failures like Heavens Gate and Waterworld.
Dreadful - I just wonder why Coppola bothered - its just slapped together and the ending is just silly. Pacino is dreadful, and Coppolla's daughter should have been somewhere else, she does not appear to know why she is in the film. I agree with previous comments - dont bother with this - but Parts 1 and 2 - ah, that is what film-making should always be
Dire. It is a complete mystery how a director who made the Godfathers I and II should have produced this drivel. Terrible acting; confused plot; no sense of narrative pace; no development of character; complete garbage. Don't ever watch it because it is truly so terrible and Pacino is so lame that it may even may spoil the other Godfather films for you.