Most movies are overrated in IMDb, but this one is underrated

Rating: 10/10 (13 December 2004)

This movie is Rated a 7.2 here by IMDb voters; I feel it should be rated higher. Perhaps a 7.9, which might move it into the top 250 of all, and perhaps it deserves that.
The ending of this movie is sterling, of the highest quality. Pacino really lets rip.
The other actors? Sofia Coppola is, as others have pointed out, not all that great. Talia Shire? She was never that good, and she does an "OK" job here. Both of those actresses got into movies via their relative, Francis Ford Coppola, who directed this film. Nepotism....it shows. How Talia Shire ever got as much work as she has, I will never know....
Keaton is held back a bit in this movie, perhaps so as not to overshadow Pacino. Not one of her best performances.
Andy Garcia? I am not all that big a fan. I think his performance here is overrated a little bit. He is a ham. And Pacino is, too. But he has something Garcia will never have.
But many other rather good roles for a lot of great character actors, who perform well. Those character actors, along with Pacino, are the heart of this movie. That, and a very good script and production values and direction. Seamless direction!
A high quality film. Almost as good a script as parts 1 and 2.
I give it a 7.9.