Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:46 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y' 
Author Message
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2428
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Number 1 - Man on Fire is better than Taken

Man on Fire is better than taken because -

1. It's a harder, more grown-up film

2. The protagonist, for all his faults, is more believable.

3. The story is more believable

4. It spends more time making you believe the relationship between the kidnapped and the protagonist

5. Taken, although sometimes mildly entertaining, is corny and ridiculous

6. Neeson has talent, but nearly no standards

7. The bit at the end of Taken with Holly Valance is off the f*cking scale embarrassingly bad and should be deleted from existence.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Mon Dec 05, 2011 11:07 am
Profile
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Aww, crumb. I was all ready to be educated on how X-titled movies are better than Y-titled ones.

You let me down, Hugh. You're on notice.


Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:02 pm
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Taken was better for me, (though I liked both films) mainly because the pacing was much tighter, Man On Fire was at least 20 minutes longer then it really needed to be IMO.


Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:12 pm
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
I actually agree with Sexy Vexy that Man on Fire was overlong to the point of damaging the overall experience. I think both are fine as run-of-the-mill thrillers, but honestly, especially in the case of Taken, they're pretty exploitive and borderline irresponsible in comparasin to something like Lilya 4-Ever, which looks at a capital-letter issue like Human Traffiking and doesn't simply use it for cheap thrills. Again, I'm not coming down on anyone who enjoyed either film, but part of me thinks people who watch Taken should be required to follow it up with Lilya.


Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:27 pm
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Shade wrote:
I actually agree with Sexy Vexy that Man on Fire was overlong to the point of damaging the overall experience. I think both are fine as run-of-the-mill thrillers, but honestly, especially in the case of Taken, they're pretty exploitive and borderline irresponsible in comparasin to something like Lilya 4-Ever, which looks at a capital-letter issue like Human Traffiking and doesn't simply use it for cheap thrills. Again, I'm not coming down on anyone who enjoyed either film, but part of me thinks people who watch Taken should be required to follow it up with Lilya.

Calling Taken "irrresponsible" is wildly overreacting. If Taken tried to be more like Lilya, it would've looked incredibly akward and felt out of place, they're completely different types of films and should not be compared to one another, though I don't agree that Taken was just about "cheap thrills" as it treated the subject matter very seriously. I'm glad Taken didn't delve too far into the subject trafficking, because it didn't need to, it was effective enough by leaving some details to the imagination, to me Taken would've felt much more exploitive if it had delved further into detail about the subject.

BTW, did you know there's actually a Taken sequel in the making?
Also the upcoming Jason Statham film Safe revolves around human trafficking and it looks like it's going to be a pretty dark film, so you might like that one better.


Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:58 pm
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Vexer wrote:
BTW, did you know there's actually a Taken sequel in the making?
Also the upcoming Jason Statham film Safe revolves around human trafficking and it looks like it's going to be a pretty dark film, so you might like that one better.


Not to derail the topic, but didn't Statham already "go there" in The Transporter? Not necessarily grittty, but the surface was scratched.


Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:12 pm
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
johnny larue wrote:
Vexer wrote:
BTW, did you know there's actually a Taken sequel in the making?
Also the upcoming Jason Statham film Safe revolves around human trafficking and it looks like it's going to be a pretty dark film, so you might like that one better.


Not to derail the topic, but didn't Statham already "go there" in The Transporter? Not necessarily grittty, but the surface was scratched.

Well Safe looks like it's going to be a very different type of film from Transporter, it sounds like it's going to have a MUCH darker take on the subject and go well below the surface.


Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:34 pm
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Just throwing some possible X and Y's for people...

The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2
The Illusionist and The Prestige
Alien and Aliens
...

Or is this even allowed NegatoryHugh?


Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:37 pm
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:38 am
Posts: 135
Location: Tornado Alley
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
ram1312 wrote:
Just throwing some possible X and Y's for people...

The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2
The Illusionist and The Prestige
Alien and Aliens
...

Or is this even allowed NegatoryHugh?


I can't even decide whether The Godfather or The Godfather Part II is the better film, let alone seven reasons to back up that claim. Same with Alien and Aliens.

_________________
Come watch me watch A Movie a Day IV: The Quest for Peace
"You'll howl with laughter!" —Earl Dittman


Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:04 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
7 Reasons Why the Godfather is better than The Godfather Part II

1. The Godfather has Marlon Brando. Godfather II has DeNiro doing a bad Brando imitation

2. The Godfather has a story to tell and a reason to exist. The Godfather Part II does not.

3. The Godfather has Michael Corleone selling his soul, killing a family member, and ending up on top, but isolated from Kay forever. The Godfather Part II has that all over again for some reason.

4. The Godfather has James Caan's wonderful Sonny for 2/3 of the film. The Godfather Part II has Sonny for 1 scene.

5. The Godfather is 175 well-paced minutes. The Godfather Part II is 200 poorly paced minutes.

6. The Godfather has Richard Castellano as Clemenza. The Godfather Part II has Bruno Kirby.

7. The Godfather has the scene where Michael eliminates the heads of the five families. The Godfather II has a pale imitation.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:34 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2428
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Batman Begins in better than the Dark Knight because -

1. The character of Batman is explored in reasonable depth in Begins. But neglected somewhat in the Dark Knight

2. Begins has a story that feels like it's been told by a storyteller, whereas the Dark Knight feels like a group of storytellers have competed to shoehorn in their own scenes.

3. Neeson in Begins is a better adversery than Ledger in the Dark Knight.

4. The pacing of Begins is better. It knows when to up the tension and when to back off.

5. Going back to what Ken once said, the Joker doesn't entirely add up in the context of the Dark Knight.

6. The Dark Knight is too long

7. Just because

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:12 am
Profile
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
NotHughGrant wrote:
Batman Begins in better than the Dark Knight because -

1. The character of Batman is explored in reasonable depth in Begins. But neglected somewhat in the Dark Knight

2. Begins has a story that feels like it's been told by a storyteller, whereas the Dark Knight feels like a group of storytellers have competed to shoehorn in their own scenes.

3. Neeson in Begins is a better adversery than Ledger in the Dark Knight.

4. The pacing of Begins is better. It knows when to up the tension and when to back off.

5. Going back to what Ken once said, the Joker doesn't entirely add up in the context of the Dark Knight.

6. The Dark Knight is too long

7. Just because


I agree with everything you said. The main character is neglected, there are too many chefs, the pacing is off, the Joker doesn't add up, and it's too long. The only thing I don't get is how you can think all of those things, then still call it a good movie.

7 Reasons Why No Country for Old Men is better than Drive

1. No Country has a plot; Drive doesn't.
2. No Country treats women as beacons of durability and hope. Drive treats women like dolls (the naked girls in the dressing room?).
3. Anton Chigurh is scary and awesome. Albert Brooks is a mid-level Soprano.
4. No Country has a great balance of humor and gruesomeness. Drive has no humor; it's just gruesome.
5. The Coens know when to hold back. The death of Brolin's wife is not shown, for instance. Refn, however, enjoys spraying a woman's head all over the bathroom.
6. All the Coen characters have personality, even the quiet Chigurh. Gosling's driver has none.
7. Both have open-ended conclusions. The Coens' is thematically significant. Drive's is not.


Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:28 am
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2428
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
I wasn't posting on here 3 years ago but I can assure you that I was a bit dissapointed with the Dark Knight on release owed to the above, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a bad film. It still has a number of things going for it.

Anyway, let's not destroy this thread....please?

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:36 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2428
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
ram1312 wrote:
Just throwing some possible X and Y's for people...

The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2
The Illusionist and The Prestige
Alien and Aliens
...

Or is this even allowed NegatoryHugh?


Of course it's allowed, sir. :D

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:38 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2428
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
JamesKunz wrote:
7 Reasons Why the Godfather is better than The Godfather Part II

1. The Godfather has Marlon Brando. Godfather II has DeNiro doing a bad Brando imitation

2. The Godfather has a story to tell and a reason to exist. The Godfather Part II does not.

3. The Godfather has Michael Corleone selling his soul, killing a family member, and ending up on top, but isolated from Kay forever. The Godfather Part II has that all over again for some reason.

4. The Godfather has James Caan's wonderful Sonny for 2/3 of the film. The Godfather Part II has Sonny for 1 scene.

5. The Godfather is 175 well-paced minutes. The Godfather Part II is 200 poorly paced minutes.

6. The Godfather has Richard Castellano as Clemenza. The Godfather Part II has Bruno Kirby.

7. The Godfather has the scene where Michael eliminates the heads of the five families. The Godfather II has a pale imitation.


I don't disagree with most of the individual points you've listed there, James. But at the same time I enjoyed 2 more.

Odd that hey!?

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:45 am
Profile
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
7 reasons why Aliens is better than Alien

1) Alien is a hounted house in space B-movie, Aliens is a full blown action A-movie

2) Alien takes itself very seriously, Aliens has moments of great humor and comic relief.

3) Alien holds back on the creature leaving a lot to the imagination, Aiens has the guts to go all-out showing every detail very convincingly.

4) Alien introduces you to a crew of people you really don't care that much about, Aliens has some fully rounded characters you really care about.

5) Alien has some great stage trained character actors, and some rather lackluster actors, delivering some rather casual and functional dialog - with the exception of Ian Holm as Ash in a brief moment, Aliens has some great Hollywood movie actors which are all fun to watch, with wonderfully written action-movie one liners - endlessly quotable. In other words: Alien is a bit artsy at times, Aliens has the balls to be an all out action movie.

6) Alien has a great set design and some nice special effects - Aliens has a brilliant set design and fantastic special effects.

7) Alien came up with the basic idea, Aliens took that idea with all the connections to the first movie in place - and took it - in a take no prisoners approach - to about three levels above.


Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:57 am
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
7 Reasons Alien is Better Than Aliens

1) Ash's malovelant and cold logical betrayal in protecting the creature trumps Burke's weasily protection of the creatures.
2) Aliens' eventual disposal of the queen (stowaway on escape ship, shoved out an airlock) is a retread from the conclusion of Alien. You can also throw in the ripped off motion tracker for dramatic tension and the ubiquitous "computer countdown to self destruct" retreads.
3) The character conflicts and interactions are more organic and realistic in Alien than in Aliens and they rely less on "one liners".
4) 1980's pop culture references make Aliens less "timeless" than Alien ("Game Over" and "illegal aliens" anyone?)
5) Alien follows the Spielberg "less is more" theory in revealing the creature, yielding better suspense and tension to illlicit an audience response rather than cheap flashes and bangs of Aliens.
6) There is a more thorough journey of discovery for the audience in Alien in that we follow along and learn about the creature with the crew; in Aliens we are forced to learn with the marines things that are already in Ripley's (and our own) head.
7) Alien does not need to rely on a hackneyed surrogate mother-daughter dynamic to make us want to root for the humans. Survival for its own sake is enough in Alien.

Bonus: In the canon of the entire Alien multi-movie story, it would have been better for all involved if Ripley and Hicks would have abandoned Newt. That sect of the aliens would have been destroyed, Hicks would have lived, Bishop wouldn't have been torn apart. In that light, the final 20 minutes of Aliens was actually counterproductive to humanity, from a story perspective..


Last edited by johnny larue on Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:22 pm
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Threeperf35 wrote:
7) Alien came up with the basic idea, Aliens took that idea with all the connections to the first movie in place - and took it - in a take no prisoners approach - to about three levels above.

That's an interesting way of putting it: three levels above.

So, in theory, if Alien is 9 levels tall and Aliens is 12 levels tall... Aliens is only 3 levels tall unless it stands on the shoulders of Alien!

(Flash fact: if you say the word "Alien" enough times, it loses its meaning.)


Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:24 pm
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
NotHughGrant wrote:
Batman Begins in better than the Dark Knight because -

1. The character of Batman is explored in reasonable depth in Begins. But neglected somewhat in the Dark Knight

2. Begins has a story that feels like it's been told by a storyteller, whereas the Dark Knight feels like a group of storytellers have competed to shoehorn in their own scenes.

3. Neeson in Begins is a better adversery than Ledger in the Dark Knight.

4. The pacing of Begins is better. It knows when to up the tension and when to back off.

5. Going back to what Ken once said, the Joker doesn't entirely add up in the context of the Dark Knight.

6. The Dark Knight is too long

7. Just because

Because I completely disagree with this, I will create my counter list- 7 reasons why The Dark Knight is better than Batman Begins:

1. Didn't spend too much time with the main character as he had been developed sufficiently in the first film (in other words: Nolan didn't insult the audience's collective intelligence by rehashing story from the first one).

2. It was a darker film that saw a major supporting character killed off.

3. The death of that major supporting character means that neither Katie Holmes nor Maggie Gyllenhaal will appear in future installments.

4. It gave us arguably the most gritty and dark portrayal of Batman's archenemy ever.

5. The film had an overreaching theme that was consistently underlying its plot.

6. It had a secondary storyline that could have easily been the focus of its own film, and this storyline was woven into the main plot beautifully.

7. It did not have a "happily ever after" ending like most superhero films do.


Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:25 pm
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Vexer wrote:
Calling Taken "irrresponsible" is wildly overreacting.


I stand by what I said, which was that it is borderline irresponsible.

Vexer wrote:
If Taken tried to be more like Lilya, it would've looked incredibly akward and felt out of place


If it had tried to tell a more perceptive and realistic story it would have been a better film.

Vexer wrote:
they're completely different types of films and should not be compared to one another


I've never bought this argument at all, for any film. A good film is a good film, a flimsy and crappy one is a flimsy and crappy one. Taken isn't crappy, but it's not good. I don't give it credit for simply not trying to be anything beyond a passable thriller.

Vexer wrote:
I don't agree that Taken was just about "cheap thrills" as it treated the subject matter very seriously. I'm glad Taken didn't delve too far into the subject trafficking, because it didn't need to, it was effective enough by leaving some details to the imagination, to me Taken would've felt much more exploitive if it had delved further into detail about the subject.


Lilya is a great film because it's not about Human Traffiking, it's about one girl's story that happens to involve that. Taken is not a great film because it's about nothing other than Liam Neeson looking cool and being a badass who can find his daughter halfway around the world within 24 hours. Taken doesn't take the issue or its characters seriously for a second. Two weeks after the ordeal, the daughter is doing fine and excited to meet a famous singer? No trauma? And I would argue that Lilya leaves more to the imagination than Taken does; the "auction" scene in Taken was beyond absurd.


Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:28 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jeff Wilder, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr