MoviePro.net

We have taken some photos of "The Godfather: Part III". They represent actual movie quality.

• Very Disappointing posted on 30 August 2009

  I have to say I am a Godfather Fan-aticc ...Parts 1 & 2 are Wonderful!They were really getting down to the real nitty gritty, and I was very excited to hear that they were doing a Godfather part 3 .But sadly it was a very weak story line and I was very disappointed in the fact that there was no REAL thought put into the ending.I felt that the fans were a little let down.I think he should have left the movie ALONE and let the fans work out their own endings...Thats why we have IMAGINATION!!Some Saga's should never have an ending (ESPECIALLY IF IT'S GOOD)Anyways I heard something very interesting recently..That they are thinking of continuing the Andy Garcia(Vincent) storyline..I don't know about that idea (everyones dead except Connie,Anthony,Kay,)WHAT DOES THAT TELL YA!

• Not a masterpiece as the other two were, but an effective end to the saga posted on 30 August 2009

  This movie is, the consensus seems to be, great as movies go, but not quite up to par of Part I and Part II. I should have to agree. Sofia Coppola really truly should not have gotten the part as Mary. The only positive thing I can say about her is that she has nice hair, which is not much, is it? Andy Garcia, well, he was not bad but could have been much better. There are a couple of moments when he seems to have forgotten his lines. Is this Coppola's fault for letting us see it? And is he (Garcia) really strong enough to continue the Corleone empire? The movie doesn't quite let you make your mind up. Pacino is, as always, faultless, this time as the ageing Michael. Talia Shire is better in this movie than she was in the other two, though maybe this is because she is more involved in the actual plot.

• I gotta say, I'm a little disappointed. posted on 30 August 2009

  Real power can't be given. It must be taken.In the final installment 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 protégé's love affair with his daughter.Francis Ford Coppola the acclaimed director of 1972 best picture winner The Godfather and 1974 best picture winner The Godfather part 2 is back directing the third and final installment in "The Godfather Trilogy". Almost twenty years went by from 1974 to 1990, the release of The Godfather 3, and the question is "Was it worth the wait?". Id love to say yes, but the reel answer is no. My 6/10 could be a little under-rated but, I'm disappointed that this didn't go into the same league as the 2 original classic films. Sofia Coppola joins the cast and she is a horrible actress, she looked like she should have been in a crappy horror film from the seventies. Well thats all I have to say about this movie. Ill probably give it another shot in a few years.

• If only... posted on 30 August 2009

  No doubt a beautiful piece of art, heart-aching movie, spectacular romance, filled with family love, if Winona Ryder had been in it.

• worth a look posted on 30 August 2009

  I can't help but think that this Godfather was made for purely financial reasons and had nothing to do with an attempt to further elaborate the story presented in the first Godfather movies which are among the greatest movies ever made. The biggest problem with this Godfather is that it is missing the great characters of the previous two films. The first was an ensemble cast with Brando as its center. The second ,divided between the De Niro and Pacino episodes ,created a compelling dynamic. Here, Pacino has to carry the whole movie. Although Dianne Keaton tries her best, she has become too bitter to be anything but nagging to Pacino. And we know by this time he is already tortured enough. The rest of the cast just doesn't measure up to the earlier versions . It would have been nice to have Robert Duvall return as Tom Hagen rather than suffer through the "Lady Macbeth" histrionics of Talia Shire. The Godfather 3 is definitely worth taking a look at even if it doesn't measure up to the other two films. The talents of the principals still shine through to make this at least worth a look.

• An extremely disappointing film. posted on 30 August 2009

  An extremely disappointing film, which didn't make any sense. It lacked direction, moral, everything. I can't imagine what Coppola was thinking.

• The Godfather, Part III posted on 30 August 2009

  This is a complete failure and a waist of time, Oscar and Golden Globe nominated (!) Francis Ford Coppola surely should have made the finale more interesting than this. This the most boring film I have ever seen and nothing like the first two masterpieces. Golden Globe nominated (!) Al Pacino returns as an older Michael Corleone. It's pretty obvious he was going to die in the end. He dies twice actually, first time he's shot at the opera (and survives), and the second time he fell off a chair (probably because of a heart attack like his father). Also starring Diane Keaton as Kay Adams Michelson, Talia Shire as Connie Corleone-Rizzi, Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Andy Garcia as Don Vincent 'Vinnie' Mancini-Corleone, Eli Wallach as Don Altobello, Joe Mantegna as Joey Zasa, George Hamilton as B.J. Harrison, Bridget Fonda as Grace Hamilton, and Coppola's daughter, and director of Lost in Traslation, Sofia Coppola as Mary Corleone. If your're looking for a film to send you to sleep, this is a good choice. Plus, if you are going to make the concluding part to a trilogy, especially to the greatest gangster crime films ever, put more imagination into it. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Song for "Promise Me You'll Remember" (also nominated the Golden Globe) and Best Picture, and it was nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture, Best Original Score for Carmine Coppola and Best Screenplay. Poor!

• Not as bad as you hear posted on 30 August 2009

  What's the problem? The imagery is excellent, and the continuity flows well
  with the previous two in the series. I think it would have been better if
  both the church characters and assassins would have been better developed
  or more integral to the overall workings. The musical score could have been
  stronger, which I think greatly influenced the previous two. Still overall,
  a very moving story and solid ending to the trilogy.

• The Crown Jewel of the Trilogy. Godfather III : Most Underrated Film Ever. . posted on 30 August 2009

  Godfather I & II, were mere "Shoot-em-ups" by comparison.If you loved "Scarface" and "Casino," this masterpiece is not for you.For those that appreciate the depths of emotion, that real life will sooner or later send your way, you will not easily find another film that better displays the bitter harvest, of a life spent in a quest for power, at any cost.Every aspect of this movie rates a ten! Well, I could have done with a couple less assassinations, I guess.The music was beautiful. From the Italian opera house to Al Martino.Sofia Coppola is one I might pass on the street without noticing, but here I found her absolutely irresistible, when she molded pasta with Andy Garcia! Who knew common flour could be such a turn-on! The film has too many high points to mention. Joey Zaza getting' his in the street! The poisoned cannoli. Michael's sister Connie, devoid of the last shred of human tenderness. And best of all, Michael's predestined legacy of anguish.The film is evidently not for the masses, given their criticisms, but put that aside and let this movie speak for itself. A portion of you will be thrilled with it!

• Very Good posted on 30 August 2009

  It's an excellent film which neatly ties up the series.It shows Michael's development and his redemption.Sofia Coppola is not great but she brings a sense of family to the film.It's problem is it is eclipsed by the other two films and if judged independently is a cracking good film.

• superb conclusion to an amazing series posted on 30 August 2009

  SPOILERS Released 16 years after the previous part, it is not difficult to see why people were sceptical of "The Godfather: Part III". Doing badly at the Box Office and loosing out on awards due to "Dances With Wolves" and "Goodfellas", the film has always been viewed as an inferior film in comparison to it's predecessors. Whilst perhaps more inconsistent than the original two films, it is still however an amazing story with solid acting throughout.Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is getting old. Beginning to become burdened by the events of his life, this Godfather has plans to make his family's finances legitimate. Helped by his sister Connie (Talia Shire) and protégé Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia), Michael begins his progression to becoming a law abiding member of society. As he begins to realise though, the more you try to leave the old life behind, the more you get dragged back in.Released so long after the previous part, this film smacks of a next generation. Old faces like Michael and Connie are grown old, some are dead (Tom Hagen a notable absentee due to an argument over Robert Duvall's fee), and all the children of the previous films are grown up. In a way however, this does aid the film drastically. With absolutely mind blowing performances by some of the elder cast (Pacino in particular is jaw dropping good), the film becomes a chance for new blood to show their skill. Some do it well (for example Andy Garcia), some do it not so well (stand up Sofia Coppola).Ultimately though, like the two films before it, the key about this film is it's script. With a story involving the Vatican and corruption, it tells an interesting story, albeit not as riveting as in the first film.Perhaps there is one key flaw with this part of the series. In "The Godfather" we are given two magnetic performances by Pacino and Marlon Brando. Both thrive with a plot which suits them to the ground, and they work well together. Then in the second chapter, we have Pacino and Robert De Niro. Whilst never actually meeting during the film, these two actors again put in amazing performances. However, in this final part, the only main star is Pacino. He manages to once more put in a performance of true genius, but he is very much alone in this film. He is helped by a fine cast, but it is Pacino's film and his alone.It is a confusing truth that so many people condemn "The Godfather: Part III". Whilst it might not have the charisma of the first part and it may focus on one genius actor rather than two, it is still a stunning film and a worthy conclusion to the series. We have witnessed the finest Trilogy to have been made so far, and it will take a very long time to be beaten.

• Ugh posted on 30 August 2009

  The Godfather Part III is so bad you'd think James Cameron directed it.

• The Most Underrated Film of All Time posted on 30 August 2009

  The final chapter in The Godfather Saga is regarded by many people today as something that pales in comparison to the first two Godfather films. This is probably because of the acting of Sofia Coppola. But the first time I saw the film, I noticed nothing wrong with her. Even with further viewings, she seemed to be a fine actress. Now she's not the best in the film, but she's not bad at all.With that out of the way, I can get into the plot of this film. Michael Corleone (Pacino) wants to get out of his business in crime. He even goes as far as to confess to a priest about what he did at the end of the second film. This doesn't work as well as he planned. The young Vincent (Andy Garcia) now wants to follow in his Uncle Michael's footsteps. But he can only do this if Michael is there to guide him.Another reason why he can't get out is the fact that a younger mafia man, Joey Zasa (Joe Mantegna), wants to destroy the order of the old mafia. To stop this, Michael must reluctantly give in to his nephew and also deal with the rest of his family in the process.Every character in the film, like the first two, has its purpose. And everyone provides something that the film needs to become the great movie that it is. With this, Francis Ford Coppola gives us his final, excellent part in the masterpiece that is The Godfather Saga. Without this one, there's no real closure. That's why it was necessary to make this brilliant film.

• not perfect but good posted on 30 August 2009

  Godfather:part III was a little disappointment to me when I first saw it. Nevertheless it was a good conclusion of this great epic about Corleone family despite some big flaws such in giving the role of Mary Corleone to Sofia Coppola who isn't all that really.

• What Exactly is The Godfather Without 'Vito Corleone'? posted on 30 August 2009

  Godfather one was excellent, best movie of all time in my opinion, par 2 was still great and part 3 did disappoint me. I think this was because of the absence of Vito Corleone, every part on Part 1 was great, on part 2 the flashbacks to Vito's early career and life where the highlight of the movie and the Michael Corleone parts where boring, But number 3 was so boring i started playing phone games during it. It still had the ability to touch me in the end when Michael Corleone was reduced to tears as he witnessed his daughter die, very sad ending for a very sad and low par film. The dramatic effect of the 'Love Theme' Played on the violin is used frequently on part three where as on number one it is only used rarely on rather powerful scenes, but in this part of The Godfather it i used to much, which makes it predictable and have a less effect on the audience.

• Went to the well once too often posted on 30 August 2009

  This film is a poor shadow of its two monumental predecessors. It is more a run-of-the-mill sequel (read: pale imitation of the predecessor) than another film in the great tradition of the first two Godfather films.Admittedly, this film had gigantic footsteps in which to follow. Sadly, it doesn't come remotely close to following them. Al Pacino gives a solid if uninspired performance as the aging Michael Corleone. (He was saving his intensity for Scarface, I suppose.) The other performances are flat. Worse, the story lines seem generally less plausible. Part of what made the first two films so effective was the more or less close parallels to actual underworld events. This story did not succeed at that project.I suppose that seeing this version completed the full circle, but I did not need to see Michael's daughter (Sophia Coppola) take a bullet intended for him to get the idea that the gangster life had cost Michael everything he held dear. Part II completed that part of the saga with tremendous insight and subtle power. I did not need to be hit over the head with the idea in Part III.The movie is not a total dog, but it is not in the same league as the first two -- not by a long shot.

• Much better than most people seem to think posted on 30 August 2009

  The Godfather Trilogy is one of the richest cinema experiences ever, and many people think that the Godfather Part III is the worst of them all, with justification. However, this is only in comparison to the other 2 which were as close to flawless as movies come. If this was a single movie, released on its own, it would be called a masterpiece. This movie delves deeper into the character of Michael Corleone than any of the other 2 films. It has one of the most haunting and powerful endings that I've ever seen. Andy Garcia was phenomenal in this, and the Atlantic City massacre scene has got to be one of the trilogy's most memorable; that caught me completely off guard. And come on, I dare you to say that the part where Don Lucchesi gets his glasses stabbed through his throat was not cool! The only major downfall in this movie was the performance of Sofia Coppola. That really made me wince, especially compared to such great actors like Al Pacino or Andy Garcia. I swear J Lo could have done a better job on the character... In all, however, this is a fine movie, one that is unfortunately overlooked in respect to the other two. Despite this, though, the Godfather III is a masterpiece, and the fact that it is not on the IMDb Top 250 is a crime. However, be aware that this film is not meant for children. Many people are shot, often with pretty bloody results. As well, there is a hanging, and a man is stabbed through the throat with glasses (as mentioned above). Language is bad with almost 20 f words, and there is an incestuous relationship. However, if you can handle all of this, then this is the film for you. Intriguing, violent, and powerful, the Godfather Part III is a must see.

• I didn't like it, because I didn't understand it. posted on 30 August 2009

  I didn't like it, because I didn't understand it. A business deal involving a 6 billion dollar company was central to the plot. What exactly was the deal? Was he trying to buy the company or become its CEO? The Catholic Church owns 25% now. Would they continue to own 25%? If they were planning to sell their shares, why would they care if scandal broke out after they sold? They could treat it the same as any other business deal. Was Michael offering $6 billion in cash, or would he have to borrow money to make the deal work? Maybe he could offer shares. Instead of depositing $600,000,000 in the Vatican bank, he could have upped his offer by $600,000,000. Michael threw an awful lot of money around, but that bothered me. If he was a billionaire before the movie started, then what's his problem?Who was the bad guy and what was his motivation? Would he have lost money if the deal went through and how much? Why was the bad guy against the deal?SPOILERS - Did the guy who killed with eyeglasses end up dying and why was he willing to do that? Did the assassin kill the girl on purpose or accidentally? There was comment earlier in the movie that she controlled the money now.

• How to Make Godfather Three Enjoyable! posted on 30 August 2009

  Godfather III is a terrible movie. Its one of the most painful movies ever released... If... you have seen parts I and II prior to watching it.Had Godfather III been a stand alone movie, there would not have been such great expectation for it and rather then being a big let down it might have been embraced by the public.But, after watching some of the highest caliber acting, cinematography, direction, music, set design, costume design etc. The movie will make your stomach turn.So my suggestion is: If you haven't seen the trilogy, watch Godfather III first. Then watch I and II. If you do it this way then III will probably be a delight and the first two will blow you away.Save your self the heart break of what could have been the greatest trilogy of all time, bar none, and watch the third installment first.7 of 10

• The third installment posted on 30 August 2009

  The Godfather Part III is the weakest of the trilogy but a strong movie nevertheless. It is definitely the best Pacino performance of the three. Actually, you can see a change in Pacino's acting style following this movie. I think that this film definitely had a huge impact on him as an actor.By this time, the Corleone family is in Europe where Michael is aging and his children have grown. He is trying to keep his family and himself away from the business in order to have some peace of mind. His son is now an opera singer and his beautiful daughter, played by Sofia Coppola, is falling in love with the family bodyguard.