Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Hulkeasexo it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Sulla-2 OK it's not as good as the first two films but it's still a great movie. Those who trash it are just being silly. We have to consider that MIchael Corleone never wanted to be a gangster and throughout his leadership of the family he strove to be legitimate. Yes he did kill people when he had to and I can't forgive him for the unnecessary killing of Fredo. The main plot here is a bit complicated and you have to follow it closely. Pacino was excellent as usual and deserved an oscar nomination. Carcia was an excellent choice for his part but was still playing a gangster rather than the head of the family.So we get to Sophia Coppolla. Yes we know why she got the part. Never the less she is perfect for the part. I was very sad at the end

dvkatzprod-74759 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.

Aliyen There are some generous reviewers on here who claim that if not compared to the two "Godfather" movies that came before, this movie is not so bad. Nothing could be further from the truth.Although the begining of the movie is promising, with Michael Corleone now a much older man with fully grown kids, the introduction of Vincent quickly brings the film downhill into a structureless plot full of nonsense conspiracies and assassinations, which unfortunately have very little connection to anything that made the first two "Godfather" movies great (and that's not even the main reason why it's bad).As mentioned by numerous reviewers--even by those who gave this a high score--the acting is truly horrendous. But it's not just Sofia Coppola. Even though her scenes really stand as some of the most amateurish, even Al Pacino isn't good in this. Take the scene where he's repenting for all of his murders in the first two movies. There's really no indication in this scene that the real Al Pacino is thinking about anything else except his paycheck. I didn't believe for a second that this was the real Michael Corleone feeling bad for killing his brother. What's even more horrific is that I couldn't even believe that this was an actor trying to play Michael Corleone. I had no idea what was going through Pacino's head when he was doing this movie.Coppola clearly needed the money, otherwise he wouldn't have agreed to make a third 'Godfather.' I think the historical context on which this was based would have made for a very interesting Vatican movie outside of the "Godfather" timeline. Coppola probably could have released this film with the same title, "The Godfather: Part III," without Al Pacino, but then almost nobody would have went to see it.The only reason this gets three stars is because we at least get a small insight into what could have happened to Michael Corleone years after the events of the second movie. Unfortunately, when he does finally tip over as an old man and dies, it's figuratively not the first time we see his death.

maidmere I watched The Godfather Part 2 again after not having seen it for a number of years. I fell in love with it for the first time, especially the acting and the cinematography. I felt compelled to see 3 right after that, mainly because I was feeling the glow of the excellence of 2. I was hoping that that 3 was actually better than I had remembered from past viewing, and I was wrong. I've read lots of reviews about the plot and Sophia Coppola's wooden acting and still my major complaint from the get-go is the god-awful acting. Every one in the movie appears false! I just couldn't get beyond how forced each line appeared. Maybe the story was effective yet I couldn't get through enough of the film to understand the plot because of how painful it was to watch each actor deliver his/her lines. It's so excruciatingly obvious that Francis Ford Coppola was not inspired nor were his actors. All in all, the message this film conveys to me is that it was made under duress. It has no artistic connection whatsoever to the previous masterpieces of the same name.