Featured Audience Ratings

• Chris W

  
  After a break of more than 15 years, Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo reunited for this: the long overdue final chapter of the saga of the Corleone crime family. And yes, while I agree that this is the weakest of the trilogy, it's not a bad movie, and not nearly as awful as… More
  After a break of more than 15 years, Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo reunited for this: the long overdue final chapter of the saga of the Corleone crime family. And yes, while I agree that this is the weakest of the trilogy, it's not a bad movie, and not nearly as awful as everyone regards it as being. Do I wish it were better? Of course. Do I understand why this didn't match the others? Maybe. I mean, so much time passed between films that maybe it was inevitable that they'd hit a pot hole and stumble eventually. Saying that it sucks because third films have a reputation of being isn't a good excuse. I'm just happy that we finally got a conclusion, and that, despite the flaws, it wasn't worse. The plot mixes together an aging and bitter Michael reflecting on his life, trying to finally go legitimate in the face of an oncoming mob war with fictionalized portrayals of the death of Pope John Paul I and the Vatican Banking Scandal of the early 80s. To call this ambitious is a major understatement. I do like that it tried to weave in real events, especially ones that are so fascinating. The soap operaish elements are good to, but also where the problems are, mainly the oft-mentioned casting of Coppola's daughter Sofia (before she became a director) as Michael's daughter, and the rather underwhelming way things pan out. I do think the ending is rather fitting given the big picture, though. Sofia herself admits she's a terrible actress, and was only there because Winona Ryder was unavailable. The character, I think, was supposed to be awkward, and that Coppola's performance just happened to be so wooden and uninspired because her dad and Puzo were in a rut and couldn't think of a way to do it better. At least Keaton and Pacino elevate things. It's also good seeing Garcia appear in an interesting call back to the first film. The production values, cinematography, etc are top notch. This is a grand epic on a grand scale. Yeah, the writing (in some areas) is troubled, but I applaud the ambitiousness. The film has problems, but I refuse to call it a bad film, because, in all honesty, it really could have been far worse.

• Alexander D

  
  After two incontrovertibly classic crime films, THE GODFATHER PART III is a major disappointment, heavily plagued by the "threequel effect". I'm referring to the syndrome that left marks on films such BACK TO THE FUTURE: PART III, DIE HARD: WITH A VENGEANCE, BATMAN… More
  After two incontrovertibly classic crime films, THE GODFATHER PART III is a major disappointment, heavily plagued by the "threequel effect". I'm referring to the syndrome that left marks on films such BACK TO THE FUTURE: PART III, DIE HARD: WITH A VENGEANCE, BATMAN FOREVER, and PSYCHO III. Out of all those, though, this film must be the biggest drop in its series. In the simplest of terms, this third entry transforms what was previously a heavy-headed crime drama with touches of family, into a lighthearted family drama with touches of crime. As the third and final film in the series, THE GODFATHER PART III closes the story of Don Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) and his attempts to improve his Sicilian Mafia empire, during the late 1970s and early 1980s. As what director Francis Ford Coppola claims is the "epilogue" to a two-part series, the film is pretty disoriented. Not until the final half an hour in this near-three-hour does this feel like a true epilogue. The majority of the film seems like a continuation on the story presented in the first two films, not a conclusion. It also feels like an introduction of newer, younger characters, as if a method to transition the film into an updated saga. Again, The Godfather: The Next Generation. Read the rest at themoviefreakblog.com

• Emil K

  
  Surprisingly weak film with an horrible acting by Sofia Coppola and Al Pacino who is over the top in almost every scene. This film is totally overblown in every possibly way and most definetly the weakest film by Coppola. Even his Jack is better than this.

• Jim C

  
  The Godfather Part 3 is the final and the weakest in the Godfather trilogy, but I am not saying it was not bad at all, in fact it was a beautiful conclusion and I loved it. The story now follows Michael as an old man, and he must deal with his life that is soon coming to an end. The… More
  The Godfather Part 3 is the final and the weakest in the Godfather trilogy, but I am not saying it was not bad at all, in fact it was a beautiful conclusion and I loved it. The story now follows Michael as an old man, and he must deal with his life that is soon coming to an end. The plot is much more complex and great than I make it sound, it was incredible how even after all these years Francis Ford Coppola was still able to create a genius conclusion the Corleone story that exceeded my expectations in almost every way, and I can honestly say the ending made me tear up a bit. The cast is just as good now as they were back then, Al Pacino and Diane Keaton were great, and Andy Garcia was a great addition I think, he really helped the story. The score makes you think back on all the wonderful moments in the past films, I just always love the score in these movies. The Godfather Part 3 had one fatal flaw, it didn't include anything to do with Vito Corleone, they could've added something to add his story some more like the second film did, but other than that this is one of the greatest threequels ever made, possible #2 (#1 being Toy Story 3), but anyways, I loved the final installment, and I honestly don.t understand all the negativity from critics, oh well, I guess they made them a offer they couldn't refuse.

• Zach B

  
  This is it: The end of the greatest film trilogy of all time and one that has yet to be beaten. Every moment of the previous films led up to this film and, for the most part, it does not disappoint. Now, this film has something of a reputation of being underrated and being a terrible… More
  This is it: The end of the greatest film trilogy of all time and one that has yet to be beaten. Every moment of the previous films led up to this film and, for the most part, it does not disappoint. Now, this film has something of a reputation of being underrated and being a terrible ending to the saga of the Corleone crime family. After me watching it, I do not find this as a terrible ending. Yes, it does not grab you like how the first two did, but if you allow yourself to re-fall into the world of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), you are in for a bittersweet ride as he tries to redeem himself in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of his children and, mostly, the eyes of the woman he loves: Kay Adams (Diane Keaton). When I first saw this film, the one thing that got to me was the first twenty minutes. I am not ruining anything by saying this, but the complete twenty minutes is complied by stock footage of the first two films and they all have to deal with Michael and Kay as we see where they are when part III starts. It does set the tone for what is to come and when we see it, it will surprise you by one person who passes. My reaction to the film was completion. The first film left me exhilarated. The second film left me with sadness with how Michael destroyed the empire his father built. This film left me with completion as we watch what is the true end to Don Vito Coleone's family. Is it sad? Yes. Will you shed some tears? Yes. And will you be left wanting more? No. This film fills you up and you realize that there can never nor should their be any other film in this saga. It is about Michael and it ends with Michael. One of the greatest crimes, as I said, about this film would be that it is underrated. That is true. This is a good to great film that, while it is not up their with the likes of its prequels, is worthy of the title of The Godfather and is just exhilarating. Now, let's get down to the details. Okay, for direction, we have Francis Ford Coppola returning for the final time to compose this film. When he takes this film, he does not completely take the film seriously, and my guess is this: He knows he had raised the bar beyond too high with Part II and as such, tries to make this film like any other sequel, but does so with honor. Some of the scenes in this film are beautifully shot and filmed. Mostly those that deal with The Vatican and Sicily that this film takes place in. For those areas, you can tell that Coppola as respect for those lands and he makes damn sure that they are filmed with respect and not sloppily. Visually, this film is gorgeous. Now, with him conducting the actors, he does mostly a good job with them, but a certain few just are not that good and could have been beyond better job, but looking back at how the story is, it might have been for the best. But, it would have been better if certain things were better. The only other thing that I can say about this film's direction is the ending. Just, how tragic it is with two shocking deaths and how it is filmed transcends through the screen and effects us, the audience. Coppola has made us part of this crime family and we have started to love and care about each and every member. When these deaths happen, Coppola makes sure that we shed tears during so. Now for acting. Pacino and the rest of the cast from the previous film (including some people we have not seen sense the first film) all have a part in this film even if it is just something like an arm or the presence of someone. This film was meant to go off with a bang, and the actors all do a beyond perfect job in the help of ending this film. But one particular character and actress has been talked about nonstop in talks of this film and is the one that most people blame for the downfall of this film. The actress in question is the real life daughter of the director: Sophia Coppola. Now, she plays the very bubbly and happy daughter of Michael and she is basically oblivious as to the extent of her family. She is aware of what happens, but she plays the character has someone who just does not care. This saddens me because I would of liked it if she were more serious about the evils that her family has done, but at the same time I can understand why it is that she played the character this way. Mary Corleone was raised by her mother to not be in this world. While Mary was in some early attacks during the previous film, she is mostly unaware of the rest of everything except for some bits she was told. She was raised away from the evil and wicked of this world and as such, she is not at all fully aware of how serious this world is. This is one of her flaws and this flaw was made by Sophia Coppola. While I am acceptable towards this one particular incident, I do wish that the character was more understanding of the situation and more intelligent in some areas and subplots she is associated with. Another person I want to mention is the actress of Connie Coppola: Talia Shire. Sense the first film, Connie has been my third favorite character in the entire trilogy. Why, you might ask? Simple: she is one of the most developed characters in the entire trilogy. In the first film, she was not interested with the family business and when Michael took over, she hated him due to how corrupt he became. In the second film, she was a total tramp through out, constantly with different men, forgetting about her own children, and not caring about her family. Until the end of the second film when she realizes the true horror of her own crimes and begs for forgiveness for her doubt and hatred of her brother. In this film, she is a totally different person. She now is taking control over parts of the family, ordering some executions, and above all else, being the one person that never left Michael as he continued down this spiral. Talia Shire gave this performance her entire power and strength and what resulted was one of the greatest characters I have ever seen in film. It is a pity that she was not nominated for this performance at all. She deserved recognition. Now, I told myself that I was not going to bring him up, but when talking about The Godfather, it is hard not to bring him up. Time for me to talk about Al Pacino. As a character and as an actor, he has grown tremendously from the first film. His character was tragic, evil, and at times a great antihero and it was all because of Al Pacino that we have loved and hated Michael so much. With this film, he makes the performance hopefully yet tiresome which is exactly how the script calls for him. I will admit that, like in the previous film, one particular scene in this film had me in tears that he was in, and if you have fallen in love with the story of The Godfather, then you will have that same reaction when you see this film. Pacino also makes this character tragic as Michael starts to regret all of the evil in his life and tries to make everything good. Pacino gives a strong performance and I find it a crime that he was not nominated for best actor. Pity. With the acting in general, it does disappoint me that the only two awards that were won were for Sophia Coppola and those were Razzies she won. I do not know what people were expecting with this film, but they had too high of expectations. Next the script. Being written again by the author of the original novel that spawned this film (The Godfather), this film's script just works with the tale and I am glad that Mario Puzo written it. He understood that his creation has created it's own life and he ended it before things got too stupid or out of control. Now, while the dialogue was no where near as good as the previous films, it was well written enough with plenty of those meetings talks that were in the previous film and the scenes that were spoken in Italian. Puzo had a gift for writing and, while this film did not show his true potential, this film does show very strong signs of that. Finally the score. Returning again is the composer for the previous two The Godfather films Nina Rota. The score is still breathtaking as it usually is, but this film it ends on a sad, but wonderful note as the saga comes to a close. My only true complaint (which is minor) is that I would wish that more was done to the score. Mostly to return it to how it was in the first film: One piano piece, numerous variations. But, overall, the score was beautiful and in numerous scenes, it worked. I like it. Overall, this is the true ending to the Holy Trilogy of cinema, and one that you should never miss. This is required viewing in cinema, regardless of what anyone else says.

• Eric A

  
  A descent movie, but this is minor league compared to the first two.

• Kristijonas F

  
  An inferior and under-rated, albeit sufficient conclusion to the greatest gangster-crime trilogy of all time. It mars the source-material and impact of the first two films, and I gotta say - It should have been named "The Death of Michael Corleone" like Coppola and Puzo… More
  An inferior and under-rated, albeit sufficient conclusion to the greatest gangster-crime trilogy of all time. It mars the source-material and impact of the first two films, and I gotta say - It should have been named "The Death of Michael Corleone" like Coppola and Puzo wanted. Damn those money-grubbing suits at Paramount!

• Carlos M

  
  Part three of the grand trilogy of Cinema, this deeply moving third act concludes the saga of the Corleones in a marvellous, heartbreaking note. Quite underrated, this film is just as wonderful as the two other parts, and the unforgettable final sequence brings the whole trilogy to a… More
  Part three of the grand trilogy of Cinema, this deeply moving third act concludes the saga of the Corleones in a marvellous, heartbreaking note. Quite underrated, this film is just as wonderful as the two other parts, and the unforgettable final sequence brings the whole trilogy to a perfect ending, as if it were all one perfect nine-hour film.

• Emile T

  
  As a whole movie, this third act might disappoint, but for what it's worth, the way Michael Corleone's character has been developed in this final film is nothing but superb and the final could not have been better. The moment I've heard of The Godfather, I have been… More
  As a whole movie, this third act might disappoint, but for what it's worth, the way Michael Corleone's character has been developed in this final film is nothing but superb and the final could not have been better. The moment I've heard of The Godfather, I have been told by others that Part III is supposed to be a disaster compared to the first two parts, but I happened to more than satisfied. The Godfather has been beautifully concluded.

• Martin S

  
  It was good. But far from the first two films. Still a solid movie. Don't have so much to say about it

• James A

  
  I would like to think of this more as a TV spin off that doesn't take place in actual Godfather continuity.

• Jennifer D

  
  I'll give it this much, the ending took me by surprise up until about 15 seconds before it happened. Though, can't say I was saddened by it. (Sorry, Sofia Coppola...) To play it against the first two, the story just did not compel me in the same way, which is surprising… More
  I'll give it this much, the ending took me by surprise up until about 15 seconds before it happened. Though, can't say I was saddened by it. (Sorry, Sofia Coppola...) To play it against the first two, the story just did not compel me in the same way, which is surprising because anything with dirty Roman Catholicism interests me! Perhaps it was the uninteresting romance between Coppola and Garcia. Eh. Half the movie of the first two, half the rating.

• Jeff "

  
  Considering the first two Godfather films are legendary masterworks in cinema, the third film in the Corleone crime saga is a bit of a disappointment. The film lacks the sheer power and intensity of the first two films. The film is almost a dud, and despite it's legendary title,… More
  Considering the first two Godfather films are legendary masterworks in cinema, the third film in the Corleone crime saga is a bit of a disappointment. The film lacks the sheer power and intensity of the first two films. The film is almost a dud, and despite it's legendary title, The Godfather Part III is an average film in the thrilling Corleone crime sage. Al Pacino manages to keep this film afloat, but Sofia Coppola takes it down a notch. This is a real shame because the first two films were so excellent. The only thing that was really entertaining about this film are the mob hits, which are creative and thrilling. The Death of Michael Corleone seems uninspired, and it seems that Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo were struggling to think up of a good story. For this third film, this was the best that they could come up with. An average end to a phenomenal saga. I believe that this third entry is weaker because the first two films, especially the second film in the trilogy was so great that how can you top one of the best sequels ever made? You can't you simply can't. All the trademarks which made the first two films great are here, but it's evident theres something missing. Everytime I watch the Thod Godfather I and II, I always ask myself do I want to watch this one again? I then say to myself, why not. The film completes the Corleone Saga. Maybe not the best, but not the worst.But considering this is a Godfather film, Coppola and Puzo could have at least rewritten a few parts, and reviewed the script a few more times to at least try to make this a somewhat better film. For all the flaws it has, The Godfather Part III is still enjoyable even though its not as epic as it's predecessor. Watchable, but you'll feel disappointed a bit in the end.

• Aaron N

  
  Michael Corleone: I spent my life protecting my son. I spent my life protecting my family! Kay Corleone: Let's be reasonable here, Michael. I mean, that's your big thing, isn't it? Reason backed up by murder. Michael Corleone: Oh, God, you hate me. You hate me. Kay… More
  Michael Corleone: I spent my life protecting my son. I spent my life protecting my family! Kay Corleone: Let's be reasonable here, Michael. I mean, that's your big thing, isn't it? Reason backed up by murder. Michael Corleone: Oh, God, you hate me. You hate me. Kay Corleone: No, I don't hate you, Michael. I dread you. Michael Corleone: I did what I could, Kay, to protect all of you from the horrors of this world. Kay Corleone: But you became my horror. The children still love you, though. Especially Mary. Michael Corleone: Well, that's something. We can build on that. For their sake. Let's try. Kay Corleone: Only if you let Tony go to live his own life. Away from you. Michael Corleone: I'll let Tony go. Kay Corleone: Thank you. I tend to undersell this movie both in my mind and to others, but the fact is, despite some flaws, this is still a very good movie. When there are two previous films in a series considered to be some of the best works in film of all time, it is of course hard to live up to have another entry live up to those standards; however, this film does manage to bring Pacino back to one of the most significant roles of his career and bring Coppola back to the realm of his very classy direction. Set in 1979, an aging and remorseful 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 problems of a hungrier gangster seeking to upset the existing Mafioso order and a young protege's love affair with his daughter. During all this, Michael deals with the sins he's committed in his past and how that now reflects on his life as a father and ex-husband to his one time love, Kay. There are really only two things that legitimately bug me about this movie. One is the lack of Robert Duvall, who has been replaced, after being written out of the story due to salary disputes. The character played by George Hamilton, who has replaced him, has no where near the cool that Duvall had as Tom Hagen. The other is the obvious factor - Sofia Coppola. There is no way around the fact that she just isn't very good in the role as Mary, Michael's daughter. Her presence just sucks life out of this movie. Now, beyond these factors, there are a lot of good things here. The presence of Andy Garcia in this film is awesome. He plays the hot headed, illegitimate child of Sonny Corleone, and everything he does is a lot of fun here. Joe Mantegna is also fun as the rival hot shot, Joey Zasa. Eli Wallach is always welcome, nuff said. Then you have Talia Shire, who previously annoyed me in both previous films as Connie Corleone, only to become a force to be reckoned with, as her age has turned her into a conniving planner out for her own gain to benefit the family. Pacino of course delivers, as he knows who the character that he is playing is. His older, reflective version of Michael is a perfect portrait of a once good man, turned evil through his actions originally meant for good, only to now be in a reflective stats as the years have passed. The story presented involving the Corleone's mixing it up with the Vatican could be seen as a little outlandish, but the work of subtlety and deliberate pacing portrayed by Coppola's direction certainly gives the film sure footing to make it work. All the staples of the Godfather films are once again present here, and this feature certainly blends right into the series without feeling out of place, for the most part. A solid final entry. Michael Corleone: Goodbye my old friend. You could have lived a little longer, I could be closer to my dream. You were so loved, Don Tommasino. Why was I so feared, and you so loved? What was it? I was no less honorable. I wanted to do good. What betrayed me? My mind? My heart? Why do I condemn myself so? I swear, on the lives of my children: Give me a chance to redeem myself, and I will sin, no more.

• Jeremy S

  
  The line that really sums up this film is: "Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in." The series could have gloriously ended with the second film but unnesecarily, tragically and ironically the series was revived for one more film. I say ironically because the… More
  The line that really sums up this film is: "Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in." The series could have gloriously ended with the second film but unnesecarily, tragically and ironically the series was revived for one more film. I say ironically because the film holdes several ironies, namely that despite adding little to the series the ending redeems the film and gives the entire series a triumph in tragedy. I find it also ironic that the one thing that really killed Michael, also nearly killed the film, Sophia Coppola, but had it not been for her death the film would have truly died. The casting, acting, story line was in itself adequate but compared to the greatness of it's predecessors was dismal. Frankly the ending of this film should have been the ending of the second. In the end unlike its predecessors, Godfathers Part I and II, Godfather Part III, critics and fans remain divided on its legacy to this day.

• Al S

  
  An excellent and truly magnificent film. A brilliant and superbly crafted piece of movie genius. Director, Francis Ford Coppola has concluded his trilogy with another astonishing masterpiece. Al Pacino is brilliant and deeply moving in his signature role, a performance different from… More
  An excellent and truly magnificent film. A brilliant and superbly crafted piece of movie genius. Director, Francis Ford Coppola has concluded his trilogy with another astonishing masterpiece. Al Pacino is brilliant and deeply moving in his signature role, a performance different from the past films, his character is more vulnerable and regretful and truly wants redemption. Pacino delivers with this performance gives it with all his heart. Andy Garcia gives a breakout performance, he shows an explosive and energetic side of himself that truly shines with movie star caliber. It's riveting, stunning, compelling and mesmerizing. A breathtaking and unforgettable conclusion to the trilogy. A devastating, fascinating and exhilarating crime drama that shows that a story like this only gets better with age. Final chapters don't get any better than this one. A spectacular and edge of your seat film that packs a wallop of violence, suspense and emotionally charged drama.

• Aditya G

  
  The Death of Michael Corleone: *** Warning: This review may contain spoilers *** After hearing about all the bad reports, I still wanted to see "The Godfather Part III", since the great feeling of having watched Part II still lingered! When I started watching, I… More
  The Death of Michael Corleone: *** Warning: This review may contain spoilers *** After hearing about all the bad reports, I still wanted to see "The Godfather Part III", since the great feeling of having watched Part II still lingered! When I started watching, I felt it was kind of disconnected from its predecessors, as is inevitable because of a gap of over 15 years between Part II and Part III. The story revolves around an aging Michael Corleone making a deal with the Archbishop and others in the Vatican as a step towards going completely legitimate. But as it turns out, they have plans of their own (along with some other people) to swindle him instead. Michael realizes that the more he tries to get rid of his old ways, the more he seems to be sucked right back in! This is one review which will have to start with its minuses rather than its pluses! 1. It is appalling to see an old, tired, ill Michael Corleone gone all "soft"! Also, he is no more the brooding, cold, calculating, heartless Michael we've come to know from the later half of Part I and the whole of Part II. Here's a guy who we have always known to not break into a hysterical fit over the death of someone close to him (e.g.'s deaths of Sonny, The Godfather himself and Mama Corleone). He always expressed his grief through his eyes; and always maintained a calm demeanor. Yet, in this movie, he goes completely over the top, insane with grief and screams like hell when his daughter is killed in the end! Not that he is not good in the scene; he is of course, great! But it is rather sad to see a regretful Michael, weeping every now and then! He just seems so weak and helpless. 2. Most of the characters I'd come to love after Part II are missing. One most important character is Tom Hagen! He is sorely missed and I cursed the film-maker for not giving Robert Duvall the salary he wanted and casting him in the role of Hagen again! Instead, Hagen's son makes a small appearance! 3. Andy Garcia has been introduced as Vincent, Sonny's illegitimate son! Personally, I have nothing against Garcia, and he has been good in all his other movies I've seen. But he just didn't seem a good fit here! He tries too hard, is short tempered like his father Sonny, but the whole thing just doesn't work for him! I am surprised he got an Oscar nomination! 4. And about Sofia Coppola as Michael's daughter Mary...the less said the better! 5. This is a sequel that rips some scenes off from the first and second movies. For example, there is a function in the beginning and Johnny Fontane makes an appearance to sing a song! Then there is Michael telling Santino's illegitimate son Vincent, "Never let anyone else know what you're thinking" (reminds one of the same thing said to Santino by Don Vito in Part I). The scene of the killing of Joe Zasa looks like a cheaper imitation of the killing of Don Fanucci from Part II! Both killings take place during a festival. Then the arrangement of a meeting with the members of other families, "to make peace": again a reminder of the powerful meeting scene where Don Vito makes peace with the heads of the other families, from Part I. Now the few pluses: 1. Acting from Al Pacino. He is now old, weak and sick, so he doesn't appear to be anything like the Michael we have known from Part II. Still, a great actor that he is, he does justice to what the script demands of him; although I would still have loved to see his ruthless old self! Acting from Talia Shire: she is good as the old Connie who is always by Michael's side. 2. The climax scene at the Opera. This is one scene that is reminiscent of the brilliance of the first two parts. Wonderfully directed! 3. The final scene of the death of Michael Corleone. I have to admit, it was very sad to see him die alone. That is a very powerful scene indeed. This movie is actually quite watchable and a fairly decent film, if watched as a stand-alone after possibly changing its name! But as a part of The Godfather series, it appears highly pale in comparison to the first two parts, and hence loses points. If only Coppola would've at least tried to come close to the greatness of Part II... 6.5/10

• Conner R

  
  While it doesn't have the brilliance of parts I and II, it is still a good film. Al Pacino really saw his portrayal of Michael Corleone until the very end. His performance really sold the movie and made the plot work as well as it did.

• Anthony L

  
  The Godfather part 3 isn't as bed as everyone says it is but when you compare Marlon Brando's heart attack in the vineyard scene and Pacino's falling off his chair scene, its clear that its on a different level and could have been a hell of a lot better.

• Robert C

  
  Knowing that this is the film that everyone seems to love to hate...I went into this determined to keep an open mind and to judge it on it's own merit. And I can honestly say that it was not easy. Sadly what could have been a substantial and really solid end to the trilogy,… More
  Knowing that this is the film that everyone seems to love to hate...I went into this determined to keep an open mind and to judge it on it's own merit. And I can honestly say that it was not easy. Sadly what could have been a substantial and really solid end to the trilogy, is ultimately only mildly satisfying for the most part. While once again the set design, music, costumes and (most of) the cinematography are truly exceptional...some of the editing and writing was a little week in my opinion. And at times it the story felt a little "pieced together" and not in a good or interesting way. And now for the biggest problem of all. I hate to write this because I know it's been said before, but I have to say it..."what the hell was Coppola thinking when he cast Sofia in the role of Michael's daughter Mary"? It is painfully obvious from her first scene that (aside from looking the part)she was horribly miscast and painfully out of place (as an actress) amongst the rest of this (mostly) stellar cast. I started out very forgivingly, hoping that she would get better as the story progressed, but it just NEVER happened. It was SO bad that I couldn't help but wonder: "Did her father (Francis Ford Coppola) not see how bad she was?" and "DId he keep trying for a "better take" and these are the best out of hours of footage?". It really is puzzling! Now it would be different if she had been in a lesser role, but "Mary" is a pivotal character and could have been a very powerful and defining role for a better actress. But sadly "Mary" ends up being the albatross around the neck of this film. Now I've come to love Sofia as a director and think that she has done some impressive work as a director and that great things can be expected from her in THAT arena. I suppose we can be greatlful in the knowledge that perhaps the harsh reviews of her performance here helped to "push" her in the direction of directing?

Read all 20 featured audience ratings