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.

chanakyakautilyanand I watched it completely for the first time today. Simply outstanding movie. High on emotions. It's sad some movie goers like to see the same thing every time and can't manage to see logical ending. It can't be nothing less than a 9 out of 10. I gave it a 10. Al Pacino is outstanding.

Marian20 Many have thrashed "The Godfather Part III" with one familiar quote from the first two "The Godfather" films by saying that this movie is "An offer you can refuse".No question that many movie fans have shown lack of respect and appreciation for this film by saying that it ruined the legacy of the two film which many - including myself - considered as both classics and each one a masterpiece.But the question remains,"Is The Godfather Part III an offer you can refuse?" The Godfather Part III was released 16 years after the sequel - The Godfather Part II - was show in theaters.It acts as the epilogue of the story of Don Michael Corleone,portrayed by Al Pacino, after he reluctantly replaced his father - Don Vito - into becoming the Godfather or primary leader of the Corleone organized crime family in the first part and how he turned into a ruthless and soulless Don during his protection of the business interests of the Corleone family in casinos and gambling after an attempt was made on his life in the second part.In the third part,we get to see Michael finally closing into his objective of the finally making the Corleone criminal empire into becoming a legitimate business operation with the participation of the Catholic Church particularly the Vatican Bank.In addition to that,we also get to witness the succession of the Godfather from Michael to the illegitimate son of his brother Sonny in Vincent Mancini,portrayed by Andy Garcia.Finally,we also get to see how Michael has to overcome the obstacles presented by the other gangsters like Joey Zaza as well as Don Licio Lucchesi and Don Altobello,both whom want to take part in Michael's legitimate business and to upset his goal of leaving the mob for good. No question that the third part still presents a great story.The plot was based on Pope John Paul I,who was only pope for 33 days, and the Papal banking scandal that occurred back in the early 1980's.The obstacles presented by the other members of the mob to Michael's legitimacy remains interesting as well as the corruption that the members of the clergy of the Catholic Church that could be capable of doing.In addition to the great story,there was a lot of great performances like Al Pacino,Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, Andy García, Eli Wallach and Joe Mantegna.Too bad that many saw the poor and much maligned performance of Francis Ford Coppola's daughter,Sofia Coppola.Despite of these great qualities that I have mentioned,I still must admit that it is not at level with the first two films.No question that the reunion of ex-spouses Kay and Michael as well as the romance between first cousins - Vincent Mancini and Mary Corleone - were somewhat not given much thought and I felt that these romantic stories proved as a distraction.Also,the sudden change of Michael from a ruthless and soulless character into becoming a benevolent person lacked better development. Added to that,familiar elements from the first two films remain present in this film.Finally,one must be really familiar with the first two parts of "The Godfather" to have better appreciation of this film.Evidently,it will not be a good stand alone film for one should watch the other films.But nevertheless,I must conclude that the third film remains "an offer one cannot refuse" for it is a great film despite being far from being a classic and a masterpiece unlike the first two films.