Moviepro (www.moviepro.net)

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

• Themes of Redemption, Pacino's performance, movie magic posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Part one and two were masterpieces, part three, although not completely having the power of the first two movies, does have something that sets it apart, the focus on one character, Pacino's Michael, the themes of redemption are powerfully acted, Oscar worthy, in my opinion Pacino's all time best performance, people are quick to look at some flaws like Coppola' daughters' acting, but its a small hole to complain about, a excuse to not praise the performance of Pacino and a character so richly put on screen.

• Weakest of the trilogy... posted on 30 Aug 2009

  By far does not match the greatness of the the previous two Godfather movies. I feel the movie suffered as a result of inferior acting jobs, primarily on the behalf of Sofia Coppola, Mr.George Hamilton. Andy Garcia was outstanding and the making of a Godfather IV with Andy as the Don is absolutely mouth watering.

• An old family head faces the question to let a family member of his marry his daughter who wants to become the head of the family. posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Godfather Part III is the turning point of michael corleone's life, as he faces the question to go on with his sins and brutality of his family or to choose the next head as he goes down on retirement. The theme of this movie's changed a lot since part II, in which Corleone family was a powerful mob family. Here the Corleone family's been shown as the absolute power and dominating force. The culminating is quite sad which with the enormous play of Al Pacino becomes one of the best emotional scenes in the history of Cinema.

• Not necessary to see Godfather III posted on 30 Aug 2009

  I just watched Godfather III for the first time. Godfather I and II were two of the greatest films of all time. However, although the third is a decent film, it is nowhere near the level of the others.Michael Corleone, as the Don, is supposed to be a powerful man. In no point in this movie does Michael actually look like a Don. This is a far cry from the strong character he was in the second movie. This may well be showing the fall of organized crime, but I don't think that was Coppola's intention, and if it was he did a bad job of conveying that message. Also, Connie is suddenly a powerful character. Apparently all of Coppola's strong characters were dead so he had to take the only recognizable character that was left and make her some sort of family business matriarch. In the first two movies she had nothing to do with the family business. The plot in this movie is also disjointed and confusing. At the beginning of the movie it seems like Michael barely recognizes Vincent Mancini, but throughout the film Vincent is his right hand man. This made no sense at all.******6 out of 10******

• Pacino, Pacino, Pacino posted on 30 Aug 2009

  If you're a fan of Al Pacino's work as an actor, or fond of the first two installments of "The Godfather", this movie is worth seeing on either basis.
  Unfortunately for both the series and the actor this is not a GREAT movie.
  It suffers more by comparison to it's preceding chapters, but even as a stand alone film it would still be weak. It seems ironic that this is the movie that Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola supposedly collaborated on the most closely; but being over 10+ years removed from the success of Part II ultimately has as much or more to do with why this film suffers. A great cast is assembled, a great director is at work, and a great writer collaborated on it - and yet instead of being hot the film can only best be called tepid. The one driving force that keeps it interesting is Pacino's dilemma as Michael - can he save his soul and his family at the same time?
  It serves as a rather poignant contrast to his role in "The Devil's Advocate" so if you've only seen one I recommend renting the other.

• Good,but can´t compare with the first two films!!! posted on 30 Aug 2009

  First I must say that Al Pacino´s acting is brilliant as Michael Corleone.The film focuses more on the main character of the films and that´s interesting but the film is not at all as powerful as the first two films.And it´s also true that Sofia Coppola´s acting is not good. So I was almost sure that I would give it a 3/5 but when the shocking good ending came I coulden´t give it less then a weak four.I can´t recommend the godfather DVD collection enough.4-/5

• Extremely disappointing posted on 30 Aug 2009

  After the first two classic installments of the series, I was hopingthat the third chapter would wrap up all the narrative threads, whilecontinuing the gripping performances and wonderful direction.Instead, this movie was 2 1/2 hours of bad direction, leadenacting, and boring storytelling. Al Pacino's Michael Corleonereplaced the quiet menace of his earlier performances withhammy overacting- proving that "The Devil's Advocate" wasn't justa fluke, and further marring the reputation of a great Americanactor. Sofia Coppola was simply terrible in a pivotal role- the worstexample of nepotism and directorial hubris ever. Nearly all thesurviving stars of the first two movies wisely steered clear of thisstinker, and Andy Garcia proved that he's no James Caan. Verydisappointing way to end a great series of movies.

• Somebody make me an offer for this film posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Weakest sequel of the three. I couldn't help thinking how Michael, who's supposed to be a man in charge, let's things get out of control. Can you imagine the scene where Garcia bites his enemy's ear off happening in the presence of Marlon's Don. Never! He was in control and you were too if you were near him. It's as if Michael never learned anything from his father.Everyone is talking about Sophia's casting...Garcia's casting is an affront to Italians. He's a Cuban for Pete's sake! He was nominated because of the name of the film. He didn't win and look what he's done since...nothing. He plays the shallow version of Sonny. This film tries to think too much. Tries to be too intriguing. It's neither.
  Too bad I had to pay for it in the DVD Godfather package, I would have left it in the store.

• More soapy this time posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Good drama that is vastly inferior in comparison to the first two GODFATHER films due to weaker story and below average screenplay.The directing is also average which is weird because we expect much more from such a top notch director.Coppolla seems to have lost a lot of his directorial instincts since APOCALYPSE NOW for some reason.Good performances from the actors here and I still recomend this movie for all GODFATHER fans,drama/action fans and big fans of the lead actors........

• One of the great performances of the decade posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Yeah yeah everyone knows the gf3 is not as great as the first 2 but dont see this and you're missing out on one of the best performances by any actor in the 90's . I'm talking about Al PAcino reprising his legendary role of Micheal Corleone .He is absolutely magnificent in this role . Hunched over and seemingly defeated but still emanating that intensity and power that was in part 2 . This is surely micheal corleone's saga and pacino does full justice to his role even if the movie does not serve him well . It also has one of the greatest delivered lines in movie history "Just when i thought i was out they pull me back in "

• Outstanding, But Sadly Forgotten and Somewhat Misunderstood by Many posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Many believed that the series was complete in 1974. Even Francis Ford Coppola thought that another installment was unlikely. However in 1990, some 16 years later, "The Godfather, Part III" was released with results that few could have perceived. The film was not very successful at the box office and many who did see the movie said "ho-hum". The critics were also indifferent to an extent. A Christmas release would create enough steam for the film to achieve a best picture nomination and seven nominations in all from the Academy (it failed to win any though). Of course "Dances With Wolves" dominated the night and that film along with "GoodFellas" are considered the class acts of that year. Why has "The Godfather, Part III" failed to achieve a following like its two predecessors (parts I & II)? I am not sure I can answer that question. Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is becoming an old man and his health is slowly worsening. He wants the family to become 100% legitimate and even makes a deal to link his finances to the Vatican. However Michael has become a bit naive and everyone double-crosses him. Now it appears that the only answer is to get back to the old ways. Younger sister Connie (Talia Shire) believes that Michael has grown soft and that Santino's (James Caan from the first film) illegitimate son should take control (Andy Garcia, in his Oscar-nominated performanece). He is ambitious and has the short fuse that his late father had and this is going to lead to fireworks for the family. He also starts seeing Michael's teenaged daughter (Sofia Coppola, Francis Ford's real-life daughter) and a romance blossoms. Meanwhile crime bosses Eli Wallach and Joe Mantegna pose threats to the Corleones. Kaye (Diane Keaton) has divorced herself from Michael and their son (Franc D'Ambrosio) has somewhat sided with her. Michael's health takes a turn for the worse as he actually goes into a diabetic coma for a time during the film and when he does recover (not completely though) he starts to reflect on a life of loss. The ordering of Fredo's death (John Cazale) in the second installment and his Sicilian wife's murder in the original haunt Michael and he tries to come to terms with his life, but learns from a Catholic cardinal while in Sicily that he deserves all the suffering he experiences and realizes that his suffering will be even greater in the future. In fact there will be a finale that will be the "fatal nail in the coffin" for Michael. "The Godfather, Part III" is focused on Michael and that is why it is unique to the series. The first two sported so many rich characters that it was impossible to focus on just one. This film could be best described as "Reflections of a Life of Loss". The film is excellent and even though it is likely the weakest of the three when you compare them, it is somewhat unfair to put the three "Godfather" movies together because they can all stand on their own. Great movies stand on their own and "The Godfather, Part III" does just that. 5 stars out of 5.

• A good story ruined by one bad apple posted on 30 Aug 2009

  I found Godfather Part III to be a plausible, but somewhat flawed, ending to the Godfather saga. The story of Immobiliare and corruption within the church was riveting. Most of the parts were acted well, especially Pacino's and Garcia's. The notable exception, as many have pointed out, was Sofia Coppola - she was definitely miscast for the central and crucial role of Maria. The woman just cannot act, at least in this film. A good film would have been a much better one had Winona Ryder stayed on.Other shortcomings: the hit scene in Atlantic City was just not believable. More people would have fled that room than what was shown. Also, the final scene in which Mary is killed is overly melodramatic, while it defies the law of physics. I don't know of anyone who could take a shot in the chest from a 9mm at close range, then have enough strength to keep standing and say "Daddy" before collapsing (OK, maybe the guy from Halloween could).Also, what happens to Connie, and Vinnie after the hit at the opera? A short glimpse of their lives after would have been good.Despite the flaws, it is still a good film. It could have been much, much better, perhaps even one of the best in the saga, with better writing and casting.

• As bad as you've heard, if not worse posted on 30 Aug 2009

  It's funny--photograph a film well, do a good set design and images, hire good actors, but have nothing to say, no story to tell--and a lot of people will be fooled into thinking they've seen something worthwhile. Look at every positive or even vaguely positive review for this film.Despite what anyone says, this is a long, annoying, silly film, with nothing to say. Yes, Sofia Coppola wasn't up to playing the lead role, but Al Pacino was just as uninteresting, due to his character's poor conception.Hell, even the boys at the Bada Bing club in "The Sopranos" know that part III is crap. Discount thoroughly the deluded movie geeks that write otherwise.

• Okay, Now I'm In Love... posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Can you believe the 3rd part in a trilogy can be BETTER than the first two!?! Godfather: Part III proves this with ease. I could watch the three parts anytime, and always notice something different and new. Al Pacino is of course the central, main character, and no one could've done a better job. I have bought all Godfather memoribilia now and am loyal to this epic!!

• Synopsis posted on 30 Aug 2009

  The Godfather Part 3 is for me the best in the trilogy. It is much more realistic and has religious issues attached. The new Pope is elected and dies...the Archbishop is murdered and Don Corleone's nephew Vinnie becomes Don when Michael suffers from a stroke.This film has to have the greatest ending ever. Michael and his daughter Mary are walking down the steps of the Opera House in Sicily and are shot at. Mary is shot through the chest and dies on the scene. Michael is sobbing and crying and screaming and shouting. It then cuts to a scene of Michael Corleone many years later when he is very very old and sitting by himself in a chair outside. He put on his shades. His head drops into his chest and he falls out of the chair...he is dead. The EndBrilliant

• The story comes full circle posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Just to get this out of my system, i'm going to yuk it up about the Sophia casting call by suggesting they should have replaced Andy Garcia with Nicholas Cage. Har! But seriously, I understood the fact that Coppola was trying to capture a photo gallery of her progression by casting Sophia a part in all three movies. But uhhhhh, with all close feelings aside, did you really think she was the most appropriate person to take up such a vital role? Quick note about the movie- Obviously what people have been coming around to realize is that the Godfather III is a last act in a complete parable about the consequences of taking such a destructive path in life. It comes full circle in the end, consuming Micheal Corleonne and everything he knows. If you reference back to the Godfather part one, Vito's face fell in silent agony when he learned that Micheal had taken up the mafia mantle. He wanted Micheal to stay clean and run a be a legitimate leader; to provide a link for which Vito could break free of his past. But he also knew that Micheal was the best suited of his sons to be successful in carrying on family affairs (much to his impending feeling of doom). Vito knew the consequences of his lifestyle. It consumed his sons, his family, and the grandchildren that would follow. The sins of the fathers were visited down upon the coming generations. And it consumed and destroyed them. The whole thing plays out like a modern day Shakespearean. Bravo.

• An offer I happily refuse... posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Atrocious. Why? Foremostly, probably the most obvious reason is the time gap between it and the previous films, is just too long. Second, there is no TOM HAGEN. There is also no DEPTH to the characters in the film.One of the best things about the first two Godfathers is that the characters were so well defined. In Part III it's just a bunch of actors trying to play the roles. I say "trying" because the performances were also ineffectual. Pacino's performance wasn't bad, but it wasn't that great either. Didn't compare to his performance in the first two films. Not to take anything away from him, but what more could he do with the same role for the third time? His performance was accentuated due to everyone else's sucking so greatly.Andy Garcia is an OK actor to me, but his role in this film just didn't work for me. Even as far as the action goes, they try but to no avail. It's BORING, BORING, BORING! Not to mention unwatchable. I say all of this no matter how many people are out there who deluded themselves into believing this film is good and comparable to the first two. Hell, I've even seen some say that this was the best...what a joke. They should officially unmake this film and issue an apology.

• Disappointing... posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Having seen the two other productions by Coppola/Puzo, I found this the third part incredibly disappointing. I rate the two first parts as two of the best flicks ever made in the history of film.Personally, I thought this one was barely viewable. Andy Garcia was the only character and actor who stood out. Pacino spiritless, so was Keaton, who obviousley not had a big part in this episode either.*Spoiler* The only scene that I liked was when Michael Corleone's son Anthony sang the opera. Especially the moment before he had hit the big stage, at Sicilly where he performs for his father in front of 20-or-so people. This very moment brought a tear to my eye as Michael thought back on his time with his girlfriend and wife in Italy and good times with Kay and children, a bit of the olden days from the earlier films. *Spoiler ending*.For those of you who have watched the Godfather Part I & II, I can recommend this flick, as it's rather vital for the whole story.

• best movie in the world posted on 30 Aug 2009

  this movie was the best movie in the world. i enjoyed watching this more than any other movie. the godfather part 3 will always stay at the top of my list. the godfather part 3 has the best actors and actresses that they make you believe they are really the person their acting. the music is the best. if u haven't seen it, i feel bad for you. so if i were you i would leave right now and go to your nearest movie store and rent or buy it. but i don't doubt it might be sold out or rented already. you won't regret it. make sure to share the movie with your friends and they will make you their best friends. this movie will easily be your favorite movie.

• eh not bad posted on 30 Aug 2009

  this movie is underrated cause well if you think about it is a good movie as its own it doesnt live up to the first two but it has some good points in it. i like how michael is depicted in this one he is nearing death and he wants to clean his sins with holy water, and andy garcia has the qualitys of sonny and sometimes as an early michael.the plot is good but..here comes the but..there are flaws ..first robert duvall should have been in it.. he should have..second sofia coppola...god bless her should have been replaced by wynonna rider.and second the movie is missing one thing all of the movies or the first two have been father to son and in this one it is father to daughter? i mean she shouldnt have been givin that much screen time in it...but overall this movie is pretty good in its own ways. but it is a wonderfull ending to the corleone saga. 8/10