The Godfather: Part III

1990

Action / Crime / Drama

438
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 67%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 78%
IMDb Rating 7.6 10 315220

Synopsis


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 382,478 times
March 04, 2013 at 09:30 PM

Cast

Al Pacino as Don Michael Corleone
Talia Shire as Connie Corleone Rizzi
Diane Keaton as Kay Adams Michelson
Sofia Coppola as Mary Corleone
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
1.11 GB
1280*720
English
R
23.976 fps
2hr 42 min
P/S 34 / 241
2.30 GB
1920*1080
English
R
23.976 fps
2hr 42 min
P/S 21 / 167

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by dvkatzprod-74759 8 / 10

A Passionate Requiem

I finally saw it ! As a total devotee of the two previous installments, I avoided seeing the third one, on purpose, people I respect had told me about the disappointment and, quite honestly, I didn't go there. Last night I did and surprise, surprise, it moved me no end. Maybe because I haven't seen the other two in four years. Yes at times is more Ken Russell than Francis Ford Coppola and in my book that's not a bad thing. I was, however, a bit taken aback by the healing in Pacino's Michael as far as Keaton's Kay is concerned. As it nothing had ever happened, while in Diane Keaton the memory of that pain is always present. Talia Shire is a lot of fun as a sort of Madame Sin. Raf Vallone, superb as the doomed Pope John Paul I and then a bit puzzling casting choices that I think they me code for something. George Hamilton, for instance, takes over from where Rubert Duvall left off. Helmut Berger plays the head of the Vatican Bank. Helmut Berger! Just as curious as to find Troy Donahue in The Godfather Part II - All in all, I'm really glad I've seen it and I'm sure I'll see it again.

Reviewed by Robert J. Maxwell 5 / 10

Dead End.

Coppola really didn't want to make this movie but the studio prodded him and provided a lavish budget so he took another stab at it. However, he was now unable to get the cast he wanted. Duvall asked for too much money, so the role of consiglieri was reduced to that of George Hamilton's infrequent appearance as a plain legal adviser. Coppola could now shoot on various locations without fear of being fired but it was no longer The Family he'd been so proud of.

I don't really have too much to say about this venture. It's a little sad. Coppola is a sensitive family man. He loves babies. And he blames critics for condemning the movie because he cast his daughter. I don't know whether he's right or not. She looks proper for the part of the virginal Italian girl, not exotic or spectacularly beautiful but innocent. Her performance is hard to judge from one role. She comes across as natural rather than as a seasoned actress. It fits her role but it's hard to tell what her range might be. Diane Keaton was available, probably because not many parts were coming her way, but there is no spark between her and Pacino, just a wan regret without moment.

But Coppola is wrong in believing that the movie failed because of Sofia. The movie failed because it was a watered-down and meandering story that seemed without point. The material -- Al Pacino, his family relationships and his intrigues -- is no longer fresh. There is no novelty in it.

And sometimes it seems as if the elements that are important to the director are more personal than portentous. He may find it shocking that a newly elected Pope could be assassinated. I doubt that most people care as much as he does, especially since we hardly get to know Raf Vallone. The whole Vatican provides not much more than a backdrop for colorfully robed figures having business meetings and enacting rituals.

I'm happy for Coppola that he was able to cast his father as the local band leader in Sicily. And I like Coppola's personality. He's growing wine now in Napa or somewhere. And when I lived in San Francisco he owned a small underground restaurant, Tomasso's, where the customers waiting for a table could tap the wine barrel in the dark, tiny room as often as they liked and get half lit during their wait. The wait was worth while. The clams cuscus were a rarely encountered treat.

I wish I could recommend the movie as highly as the restaurant.

Reviewed by Pjtaylor-96-138044 5 / 10

The overall effect of the piece is one of total disappointment, with an aftertaste of poor writing, bad acting and an utter lack of subtlety.

'The Godfather: Part III (1990)' feels like a total betrayal of character, a backtrack of immense proportions tacked onto the end of two terrific cinematic achievements. Only the incredibly brave or incredibly foolish would even attempt to touch this series with a ten-foot pole for fear of besmirching either its legacy or their reputation, though this unnecessary epilogue was surely only even attempted for monetary reasons. The insatiable studio was determined to milk this cash-cow with or without the talent that could make it even close to something worthy of its moniker, so perhaps it was best that Coppola and co came on board. Sadly, while it is perhaps better than it could have been and the picture does indeed have a few interestingly inspired moments, the overall effect of the piece is one of total disappointment, leading to an aftertaste of poor writing, bad acting and an utter lack of subtlety that makes you yearn for the first two features again. It almost seems like it's from a different franchise and, while it doesn't quite ruin what came before, you're probably better off not knowing what happens to our mafia-man protagonist once the credits roll on 'Part II (1974)'. 5/10

Read more IMDb reviews

6 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment