The Godfather: Part III Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1904x1072 | 10526.07 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x720 | 8132.88 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x416 | 982.5 MiB | divx | |
|
320x192 | 654.94 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
All the power on earth can't change destiny.
Real power can't be given. It must be taken.
In the final instalment of the Godfather Trilogy, an aging Don Michael Corleone seeks to legitimize his crime family's interests and remove himself from the violent underworld but is kept back by the ambitions of the young. While he attempts to link the Corleone's finances with the Vatican, Michael must deal with the machinations of a hungrier gangster seeking to upset the existing Mafioso order and a young protoge's love affair with his daughter.
| Al Pacino | Don Michael Corleone |
| Diane Keaton | Kay Adams Michelson |
| Talia Shire | Connie Corleone-Rizzi |
| Andy Garcia | Don Vincent 'Vinnie' Mancini-Corleone |
| Eli Wallach | Don Altobello |
| Joe Mantegna | Joey Zasa |
| George Hamilton | B.J. Harrison |
| Bridget Fonda | Grace Hamilton |
| Sofia Coppola | Mary Corleone |
| Raf Vallone | Cardinal Lamberto |
| Franc D'Ambrosio | Anthony Vito Corleone/Turiddu (sequence 'Cavalleria Rusticana') |
| Donal Donnelly | Archbishop Gilday |
| Richard Bright | Al Neri |
| Francis Ford Coppola |
7.50 out of 10 (56486 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Not as bad as everyone makes it out to be.
posted on 30 Aug 2009Although The Godfather: Part 3 is not as good as the first two lets face it, it is hard to compete with arguably two of the greatest films of all time.
Part 3 is still a good movie. It has great story lines and plots and you still have Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, Andy Garcia,and Joe Mantegna starring in the film and Francis Ford Coppola directing it.
People, these are stars who know how to make a great movie and that is exactly what they did. Just because it is not as good as the #1 and #3 movies on the IMDb 250 doesn't mean it is not a great film. The film had so much to compete with that people got carried away in their reactions to the film. If you would study and rate it without comparing it to the first 2 you would realize how great the film is. A wonderful ending to the greatest cinematic story of all time. I would definitely recommend this film as well as the first two. 3.5*/4
There is no way out
posted on 30 Aug 2009The third installment is not as good as the other two. I've always had mixed feelings about Part 3. On the one hand we have Michael wanting out only to be pulled back in. On the other hand, we have the new don-Vincent(Andy Garcia)who wants to strike back on thier enemies-some things never change.I don't understand this Vatican bank stuff, so I won't go into that. There is also some miscasting here. The girl who played Mary is Sofia Coppola-the Daughter of Director of this film. I don't know how she got into this film, but she just doesn't have any life here at all.There's more violence here-of course. Violence begets violence. This is a good movie, but not great-it could have been better.
Just give it a shot
posted on 30 Aug 2009Yes, yes, yes...we all know that Sophia Coppola is lousy here. But while her part was an important one, the movie doesn't revolve around her. If you allow one of the supporting actors to ruin an entire film for you, I pity you.There's a complex, captivating story going on here. Of course it doesn't capture the same magic that the first two films did, but that would be impossible. This is a story about a tortured soul, a man desperate to escape his past but who never will. It's fascinating because Michael is overwhelmed by guilt and remorse for the decisions he's made over the decades, but even with the benefit of hindsight he doesn't see how he could have done anything different (and the audience needs to contemplate whether or not this is true). Meanwhile, this character study is all wrapped up in a riveting story of political intrigue, corruption, and deception.Pacino is his usual brilliant self. Garcia puts in a great performance and really does remind you of Sonny. Talia Shire (nepotism isn't all bad!) does a wonderful job as well, showing us a Connie who's evolved into a frighteningly cold and vicious woman. Probably the most underrated actor here is Eli Wallach as Don Altobello, a worthy foe for a criminal mind like Michael's. Yes, it was a mistake for Coppola to cast his daughter, who was a complete amateur at that time. And in an obvious attempt to replicate the assassinations/baptism scene from the original, Puzo and Coppola tried too hard and the result was an overly complicated and slightly confusing finale. But overall, this is one fantastic movie.A final thought (MINOR SPOILER HERE): Pacino's performance in the final scene, on the steps of the opera house, is one of the most incredible acting displays I've ever seen. Never in my life have I seen such believable anguish and pain.
Overwritten, overacted, and largely overcriticized
posted on 30 Aug 2009Despite all its shortcomings, this was still better than 99% of the movies that came out in the
90s. It deserved its Best Picture nomination, but the series was rightly denied its third Best
Picture Oscar. Sophia Coppola has since proved herself as a darned fine writer and director
-- a good thing, since she's an abysmally bad actor. The young Anthony Garcia doesn't have
half the chops, or a quarter of the charisma, as the young Pacino or the young DeNiro did,
and THAT's why we're not likely to see a Godfather, Part IV anytime soon. Trading Robert
Duvall for George Hamilton as the family consigliare ain't no small downsizing, either. Still,
worthwhile just to see Pacino gnaw on the gorgeous sets in that gorgeous sweater vest.
Part 3 is OK but the trilogy is over-rated.
posted on 30 Aug 2009A week or so ago i felt the urge to watch all three Godfather movies as i had not seen them before....well that's not true, i tried watching the first one when i was 10 but it bored me stupid but now i am in my late twenties i thought i would appreciate and understand them more. I got all three Godfather films the other day and started watching them in order one by one. The first still bored me but not quite as much. The second i found to be much better and then finally the Godfather that a lot of fans hate and say shouldn't have been made...Part 3! I was half expecting this to be worse than the first one but no, i can honestly say that it is slightly better than the first but not quite as good as the second. There is more action in this than the other Godfather's but it was obviously made for a 90's audience. Some of the story just like the previous two baffled me at times so there was plenty of rewinding to be done and maybe this one wasn't put together as good as the rest but i still found it mildly entertaining but just like The Godfather's one and two it was too bloody long. I didn't mind Goodfellas or Casino being this long because they were awesome but average movies shouldn't be near three hours long!!!I did find it funny near the end when that assassin guy kept missing his opportunity to kill Mike but kills four people in the process of trying to and he is clearly getting annoyed at the situation hehe. When Mike got told that this assassin never fails then you knew he would hahaha. That assassin was the highlight of the film for me.Just like at the end of the other Godfather's all the loose ends are tied up into a neat little package. The very last scene was a bit weak as the director has just skipped 20 or 30 years and in to a short scene with no talking and Mike as an old man is sitting there and just keels over (Presumably dead). Hmmm a very weak end for the main character of a trilogy that spanned 18 years. Either have him getting his head blasted off or don't have him die at all but not a weak end like that!For anybody who has still not seen any of The Godfather Trilogy and has a notion to, BEWARE!!! If you have a short attention span or are hopeless at following a complex story then stay away because you won't even make it past the first movie. Watch them all alone so there are minimal distractions and have the remote at hand so you can rewind back to something you don't understand.The Godfather Trilogy is vastly over-rated (mostly by bad boy wannabe's)and doesn't come close to the true brilliance of Goodfellas and Casino.The Godfather Part 3: 7/10 The Godfather Trilogy: 7/10
Magnificent Finale to the Series
posted on 30 Aug 2009Actually, I don't see what the big deal is with Sofia's performance in this film - I thought it
was as good as anyone else. Considering they looked at Winnona R and Madonna prior to
Sofia taking on the role . . . excuse me, outside of her videos when did Madonna ever turn
in a good performance? Oh well, to each their own. Frankly, I didn't think any given actor
was that great (certainly not Oscar-worthy), although Mantegna was pretty good in his
usual David Mamet-sort-of-way.The scene in the Vatican courtyard was almost embarrassing from the priests perspective -
way too many "go on, my son"(s) during Michael's confession.Having said that, the build-up on opera night was impressive and the death of Mary was
one for the ages and guaranteed to make any parent suffer.As usual, the music was fantastic (with a little Elvis C thrown in for toe-tapping).Not the best of the three, but it's had legs.
Still enjoyable...
posted on 30 Aug 2009Most people think that this is a bad sequel and a money-maker only.At the beginning, it does look that way, even to me. Where they're dancing, bringing old characters and remembering old memories from the old movies (this is what I hate most in bad sequels). But after a while, when the real story gets started, it's again as good as the old ones.<Spoilers>
The movie shows very well what some call "The fall of Michael Corleone". How he tries to save everything, fails, loses everything and dies miserably. Great acting, music and scenes. The ending is very well made specially the little dog if you understand it. The only problem I see in the ending, it just happens to fast, Michael's scream and then right after that the death scene. Although, IMO, it couldn't have been done any better. </Spoilers>The movie is worth watching if you have seen the other two. Just forgive Coppola for the first scenes and SPECIALLY for bringing in "Sofia Coppola" for such an important role. I know it's very lame ;)8.7/10
A good movie, despite a few bad elements...
posted on 30 Aug 2009..."The Godfather: Part III" is the last movie in one of the best (or the best) dramatic trilogies of all time. As many already know, this one focuses solely on Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) and his struggles for the Corleone family to become legitimate (he's been longing for so since the first film). Many bad things happen, including a corrupt Archbishop (Donal Donelly) and hotshot enemy Joey Zasa (Joe Mentegna). Helping Michael is Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia, in what may be his best performance) and sister Connie (Talia Shire).Of course, this isn't on the same level as the first two. There are many bad elements in the writing and some in the acting. For one thing, Puzo and Coppola really seemed to love making references to the first two films, most of which are unnecessary. Example: at one point Michael shows his son (Franc D'Ambrosio) the very same picture that he drew as a child in Part II.
This had very little relevance to the plot, and put it this way, if this small part hadn't been included in Part II, do you think a similar scene would be written for III? I think no.The acting, well, it has it's ups and downs. Pacino does well as always, but it's his worst performance of the trilogy. As many say, Sophia Coppola is "terrible" and "awful". Now, she's not by any means good, but I'd say the worst performance comes from both Mentegna (who never changes his facial expression or the tone of his voice) and D'Ambrosio. What was with D'Ambrosio's song? It was like "The Godfather: The Music Video".There is some very good acting too though. As I said, Garcia does incredibly well. The way he acts, he sells the character perfectly. Also, Donnelly does a creepily good job. An underrated and very well-done performance is Eli Wallach's as the cunning Don Altobella. The man was seventy-five when he did this film, and yet he has so much energy and life.
If Strasberg and Gazzo can be nominated for Part II, Wallach sure as hell can be for this one (not to mention he's been deserving since "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly").The direction is also fine. Coppola's use of still cam and tan shading is admirable. The ending shots are flawless.So, not the greatest film of the trilogy, far from it, but still quite enjoyable, 8/10.
A Very Good Film
posted on 30 Aug 2009This final installment of the "Godfather" trilogy has been, since its release in 1990, heckled and regarded as a terrible movie that puts the other two Godfather films to shame.Untrue.I would argue, as many movie-lovers would, that it is very difficult (if not impossible) to match the greatness of the first two films. However, "The Godfather Part III" is a very decent film and, although Robert Duvall is not in it, the story is solid, the acting is terrific (except for Sophia Coppolla), and the ending is subtly powerful and moving.I hope that everyone who enjoys the "Godfather Part I and Part II" sees the "Godfather Part III." It is a very, very good film.
Wardrobe from the 70's
posted on 30 Aug 2009I don't know if it's just me but it seems that the Producers of Godfather Part III didn't spend a single dime on wardrobe for this movie!!Isn't it supposed to be 1979?!? Where are the wide collars (and genereally awful clothes)?I think they weren't self conscious about detailing this flick.I agree with most of you - Godfather should have ended at Part II.
The worst of the trilogy but along with matrix revolutions not a bad movie at all!
posted on 30 Aug 2009I agree with many that this wasn't the strongpoint of the trilogy but it held its own through the 170 minute running time. It often confused me, but I got through it and lived! I liked this movie because it showed the end of Michael Corleone because if they had left it with the second one, we would have all wondered what happened to MC! At least that's what I would have wondered. I admit this was probably a way to cash in on a good name, but I'm glad they made it. I just wish that they would have killed MC off in a better way. Like maybe shooting him and Mary. That would have been good. But I guess this ending was good anyway. Now who here was grossed out about the relationship between Vincent and Mary. I was totally grossed out! That is incest! Hello?! What is that doing in such a great movie like GPIII? Anyway, this is a good movie and I will be owning the whole trilogy!
This movie is greatly misunderstood and it has become popular opinion to say it is bad.
posted on 30 Aug 2009The Godfather Part three is a great movie but many would contest. This final installment of the greatest trilogy ever made is misunderstood by most because they do not see what this film is really about. G3 is not about hits and gangland killings, but rather, G3 is about the end of Michael Corleone's legacy of crime in America. This movie shows him stepping out of the gambling and the other rackets because they have hurt him so badly. This movie is a masterpiece because it shows the conclusion to an incredible story. There had to be an end to this trilogy and this thoughtful way to do it exemplified the trilogy as an unbeatable one. Just because it doesn't end with a violent scene like the murder of the heads of the 5 families does not make it a bad movie, but in this case, a beautiful one. Please, don't feel you have to agree with the common view by proxy, but think on your own about what this movie really means and how it concludes and consequences the first two.
A good film, but not great
posted on 30 Aug 2009Whilst never really reaching the heights of the first two films this nevertheless still has its moments. A lot of the critics dislike this due to Sofia Coppola and I suspect that has more to do with her parentage than it does with her acting. Personally I think her acting is fair enough, but I think the film is rather let down by the Vatican plot line.Michael is still trying to achieve is goal by legitimising the organisation. This time it's the younger members of the family that are frustrated and their actions deny Michael's ultimate goal. Al Pacino puts in another fine performance that sees him become increasingly imprisoned in his position. Overall a good movie, but not a classic.
this movie blows (spoilers)
posted on 30 Aug 2009A story that has nothing to do with anything. Interminable wedding and opera scenes with no dramatic progression. Al Pacino doesn't seem like a mob boss. The first movie was based on the book (and so well done). The second movie was half based on the book. This movie seems to have been based on what actors were available. By the end I was wishing Mary Corleone had been killed at the beginning.Suggestion for those who loved the first movie: read the book and then go watch the first movie again. It's like putting on 3d glasses or switching from a black-and-white to color TV. But save yourself the anger of being duped and avoid GF3.
Mediocre movie, fantastic ending
posted on 30 Aug 2009If not for the brilliance of the ending, I would have rated this move a 5 instead of a 7.Spoiler--The ending with Sofia getting shot was kind of subpar, but what came after it was breathtaking. Pacino's silent scream and the expression on Diane Keaton's face was great, but the true artistry came afterwards. The flashbacks of Pacino dancing with Appolonia, Kay, and Mary suggest that Michael, for all his strength and self-sacrifice to ensure the safety of his family, has lost all the women in his life. Essentially, his whole life has meant nothing because he has lost everything he has ever loved. Then, the death scene was shattering. Michael, great man that he was, ends up dying alone and blind with only a small animal to witness his passing. And the music playing throughout this last scene, magnifico!Possibly the greatest and most moving ending I have ever seen in any movie. Just a shame that the film itself couldn't live up to it.
Don't Bother
posted on 30 Aug 2009Godfather III, like so many sequels, simply fails to deliver on the promise of the series. Godfather I & II, while essentially soap operas, both deliver brilliantly. They are well acted, well written beautifully filmed and engaging. But why else would they package III in the Godfather box set and with a bonus DVD? On its own it wouldn't sell. I found myself wanting to fast forward through scenes and wishing I would have rented instead of bought. Many situations (the parties, parades, disguised cop etc.,) are copied from the first two episodes, but just don't seem as convincing. Why did Joey Zasa have the helicopter wipe out the mob bosses before he knew the outcome of the meeting? Many actors are cardboard and George Hamilton is positively wooden. Is he an actor? I thought he was just on Hollywood squares? Diane Keaton seems out of place, like she walked in from the set of a Woody Allen film and landed in a gangster picture. Despite its 2&1/2 hours, you don't `feel' the relationship between Vinnie and Michael. How did he grow or `learn' the ropes to become a Godfather? He just changes from a leather jacket to a suit. Many scenes and dialog are laughable or cliché, The spinning newspaper that freezes on the headline, the assassin lurking in front of the opera poster etc., The only reason to watch this film is to see Andy Garcia steal scenes (he's the only actor who seems he really wants to be in the film) and a few good one liners. Otherwise the movie falls off the chair like the aged Al Pacino at the end of the movie, a dead, dried up shell of its former self.
Good, but not as good as the 1st
posted on 30 Aug 2009I think The Godfather part III was a good movie, but i think the Orignal was the best one out of the other godfather movies. The 1st defiently i think would take some beating as it is such a fantastic movie. I think it would be very hard to make such a good movie that has all the actors and actresses that can peform the characters well and for the writers who try and come up with fantastic ideas to make a movie like this and others. I give this movie 10 out 10. I'm not right sure if i think that there should be a 4th godfather movie because i think the orignals are always the best, but some movies can do better but if the writers of the godfather movies decide to make a part 4 of the godfather, then i think they should work hard on this to come up with another fantastic lots of ideas.
Weakest of the three, but still brilliant.
posted on 30 Aug 2009It really says something about a film when, even when it's the weakest of a trilogy, still manages to be a fantastic film too. While The Godfather Part III doesn't manage to scale the heights of the first two films, this still manages to be a powerful film and brings the story of the Corleone dynasty to a gut wrenching conclusion. The continuation of Michael's story, this time as an older man whose life has moved on to new areas since the second film has a lot to recommend it and it is truly not the disaster that many claimed it was when first released. The central performance of Al Pacino is extraordinary. Filmed in 1990, just when every other Pacino performance was all about screaming and shouting dialog, here he manages restraint as a man burdened with the guilty conscious of ordering the execution of his own brother, a piece of character development that leads to a brilliant moment where Pacino confesses his sins. Pacino's performance here is one of his best in his latter day career when every line of dialog he utters in any other film tends to be said with the volume turned up, but here he brings back that wonderful quality he had during the first two films as well as his career in the 70's.The rest of the cast is a highly mixed affair. Andy Garcia joins the cast as Vincent Corleone, the illegitimate son of Sonny and is superb. How his acting career floundered after this film is quite strange, but he settles into his character fantastically here. Good looking in the same way Pacino and De Niro were (sun tanned skin and thick dark hair), he looks the part and plays it fantastically. Being the son of Sonny the character has a fiery temper and Garcia plays it with the relish you would expect. When it comes to the romance with Michael's daughter, Garcia brings more of a Pacino/De Niro sensitivity to part, making it a wonderful hybrid of a performance that is fantastic to watch. Diane Keaton, once again, is superb as Kay and her scenes with Pacino are once again some of the highlights of the film. So, what makes the casting more mixed this time around? Well Sofia Coppola is the biggest weak link here. Looks wise she doesn't look like Pacino or Keaton and her acting ability is adequate at best. Original choice was Winona Ryder and it makes one quick to point out she would have been a better choice. Then there's George Hamilton as Michael's new lawyer, Tom Hagen having died off screen at some point. His performance is not bad, but he looks out of place in a film like this.In saying that, the script from Coppola and Puzo is once again marvelous, Coppola's direction is as assured as one would expect and the conclusion is shocking and downbeat. The fact that Michael dies alone gives the ending to the trilogy a very poignant and sad tone, more or less confirming that he was doomed to failure no matter what he tried to do with his life, his family and his business.This is still a fantastic film and makes this, overall, a superb trilogy.
Least of the trilogy because it cannot stand on its own
posted on 30 Aug 2009I have watched this film about 5 times and the other two about 10 times each. It is an exceptional movie overall despite some critical flaws with the casting and some of its themes. I didn't like Sofia Coppola's performance because she seemed arrogant and stuck up. The romance between Mary and Vincent feels forced and so does the rekindled one with Michael and Kay. There is also a horribly edited scene were Michael has a stroke and the cut between frames moves some of the products around in the kitchen. Probably the most disappointing thing about the film is that it depends upon the prior two movies to explain itself. A person could watch GFI or GFII and appreciate them independently. This film requires you to be fans of the first two and forgive its shortfalls and recycled philosophy. Knowledge of King Lear might also help you to be stirred up by this film.
Would Ryder and Duvall have saved this flick?
posted on 30 Aug 2009Winona Ryder was supposed to play the part of Mary, and Robert Duvall was supposed to come back as Michael's consiglieri, or at least as his attorney in place of George Hamilton. But Ryder left because of illness and fatigue, and Duvall held out because he wanted as much money as Pacino( a fact that has always really bothered me, being that Coppola pretty much gave Robert Duvall a forty year career by casting him in I). I think they would have made this movie much better; think about it, no Sofia Coppola who sticks out like a soar thumb, and could have had a genuinely provocative relationship with Vincent, and no George Hamilton, fresh out of the Mark of Zorro. But do you think they would have put it on par with the other two?