Russ Hog I am glad this movie exists. Glad they went back to see Michael Corleone years after the devastation he endures at the end of Godfather 2. How his empire grew. His sister is still at his side. His ex-wife returns and has to deal with is own children. He becomes a surrogate father for his late brother, Sonny's child. There are a lot of full circle elements to this film. The exterior shots are beautiful. The action is the most of any in the series. It is a very different film from the first two. Less of a masterpiece and more of a love letter to those who loves the franchise. A nice finish.

noahharlen-13380 No, it's not as good as the other two by any stretch, and some scenes are downright strange. It suffers seriously from a lack of DUvall/Hagen. Why it's about accounting in the Vatican I really don't know. But the relationships between the core characters and young lovers feel like a natural evolution from where we left them, and that quotable line, "JUST WHEN I THINK IM OUT, THEY PULL ME BACK IN" is from this one, and don't you forget it. Coppola wanted to call this "the death of michael corleone" and sell it as an EPILOGUE to the first two masterpieces. Viewed with that understanding, its faults are much more forgivable and its pace appropriate. And listen, I am just not here for Sofia-bashing. She was young and inexperienced. She gave a somewhat stiff but in many scenes quite lovely performance. She talks and acts like a real rich teenager, not like a trained actress. And she never did anything to hurt you, so don't be mean.

bryangary65 Not a patch on one or two,but still worth a watch.Script a bit far fetched and pace of film hit and miss. However still enjoyed it and Al Pacino is always good. Despite what a lot of critics at the time of film release said, thought Sofia Coppola was ok and she looked stunning.

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.