criterionforum.org

dx23 wrote:

Wow, what a foxy babe! Oh, wait...

Fred Ward rules.

I'm pretty sure this has been posted before. But it needs repeating.

Why is Frank Sinatra's signature on the set?

So Prince of Pennsylvania is either... a wacky comedy about a crazy happy family and their loopy VW Beetle who drives around in a giant straw hat... or a post-apocalyptic Mad Max nightmare where kids tote shotguns, wage war on the police and wear the scalps of their victims.

I really was hoping that they would change the Godfather set's cover for the American release. The terrible irony is of course that Paramount spent so much time, money, and care restoring the films, only to end up with this atrocity of a box case.

And "amazing" is the best adjective they can come up with for these films?

Tom Hagen wrote:And "amazing" is the best adjective they can come up with for these films?

The question is why do they need to put sales text on the cover of the box at all? Isn't the legacy of these films enough? (And calling the Godfather Part III "amazing" is generous at best).

Antoine Doinel wrote:

Tom Hagen wrote:And "amazing" is the best adjective they can come up with for these films?

The question is why do they need to put sales text on the cover of the box at all? Isn't the legacy of these films enough? (And calling the Godfather Part III "amazing" is generous at best).

I don't know, I was pretty amazed at how badly that movie was executed.

Correction:

mfunk9786 wrote:I don't know, I was pretty amazed at how badly Sofia Coppola was executed.

colinr0380 wrote:Correction:

mfunk9786 wrote:I don't know, I was pretty amazed at how badly Sofia Coppola was executed.

I don't know. One shot to the gut and down she goes. I thought it was a good execution.

***SPOILER ALERT***
Just joking, we've all seen that shit

I've actually put off watching Godfather Part III since I got the trilogy on DVD, what, five years ago? I simply can't bring myself to spoil the fond memories.

Allow me to be heretical and say I like Part III exactly as much as I like Part II, which is to say, not a whole lot. I'll just be picking up the first movie this go-around and not blind-buying the whole trilogy.

kaujot wrote:I'm pretty sure this has been posted before. But it needs repeating.

I like the spine. That's all that matters to me, since ostensibly I would spend more time looking at it rather than the cover.

domino harvey wrote:Allow me to be heretical and say I like Part III exactly as much as I like Part II, which is to say, not a whole lot.

Rounding the pitchforks and torches . . .

I haven't watched my Part III disc once since I purchased the first box set in 2002. Aside from the horrible cover art, the continued bundling of Part III with the first two films is the only irritant involved in double dipping for this set.

I actually don't mind Part III. Sure it's far too long, Sofia is terrible and it is certainly the worst of the series, but there are some good scenes in there. I particularly like the finale assassination. The film would be an interesting companion piece to The Sopranos: Season 6.

chaddoli wrote:I actually don't mind Part III. Sure it's far too long, Sofia is terrible and it is certainly the worst of the series, but there are some good scenes in there.

This is where I would completely agree with Coppola on the commentary - even just calling the film The Death Of Michael Corleone would have served to reduce expectations of an enormous, booming "Part III" of the series and given the film a chance to stand up as an addendum to what came before rather than a continuation. I don't mind the film, but it was always going to have a tough time dealing with the slide into failure of the main character compared to the rise of the first two parts (albeit with major sacrifices along the way).

That's got the BFI Salo beat by a full nipple.

God, did that movie really deserve TWO spoofs?

Reeves is such a badass

That tagline is probably true.