Which movie is better, and why?!

They are both my top 2 favorite war movies (that I've seen), but Full Metal Jacket is my favorite. It's just more entertaining. It has hilarious moments, terrifying moments, fun moments, action-packed moments, and any other type of moment you can think of. I think, quite simply, I just personally enjoy it more. It flies by like it's 30 minutes long, for me.

I would respond to this more completely, but it's too weird right now. I definitely believe that Full Metal Jacket is better than Apocalypse Now in almost every regard, except for surfing.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I Thought You Said AN Was Your Favorite War Movie.

Nope.

FMJ certainly is more entertaining for me. It is hard not to smile along with "Pvt. Pyle". Modine plays an excellent roll and narrates better than many. AN is certainly a great film, but Full ' holds more memories and is the better filck.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Now don't get testy, Mark. It doesn't bother me that you like the movie. I'm just trying to understand what you see in it that I missed. I'm perfectly willing to change my mind if anyone can convince it really was a much better movie than it seemed to me.

Because I mistakenly thought it was the same German in two scenes, that part of the movie seemed unrealistic to me. Now that I understand that two different German soldiers were involved, that part simply seems pointless. I assure you that my opinions about the film aren't that strong; strong would imply an extreme like or dislike of the film, and it really doesn't matter that much to me. Believe me, I've gone years without even thinking of it.

The one strong scene in that film was the German knifing the Ranger. Very realistic. On the other hand, having heard all the hype about the actors going through "boot camp" so they could like look and move real soldiers and of all the realism in the opening scenes of the Normandy invasion, I guess I was expecting too much from the movie and was deeply disappointed from the get-go. And I never could work up any interest in the squad or its mission. So maybe I wasn't watching as closely as I should by the time they got to what seemed like to me the third mini-movie in that film, the final battle. First mini-movie was the invasion, the second was the search for Ryan, and in the third mini-movie, they find him and fight the Germans in what I thought was a very strange manner.

Or maybe Spielberg put too much business on screen instead of sticking to what could have been a very moving simple story. I'm just not interested in a film that I have to watch multiple times to discern its "true meaning." If the message is that complicated, they need Western Union instead of a movie camera.

Now,see, we agree on this choice. Except that Full Metal Jacket had all the surfing scenes in which I was interested. Robert Duval's too brief appearance could not save the mess they made of Apocalypse Now.

If Im posting matchups too fast please tell me.


HEAT or No Country For Old Men?

Ok. I know NCFOM is a near and dear film to alot of you here. I know The Coen brothers are revered. The story is overrated, and yes its because the ending was a cop out. I know they followed the book, but the book ended badly hence was overrated. HEAT is so damn good for camerawork, acting, stories, and on and on where NCFOM "should have been better". We all have heard people say that....Psssst - Not that many people are stupid, and its possible for us Movie Is Art types to overrate something.

HEAT isnt overrated, and was loosely based on true events in 1960s Chicago. Michael Mann sat on his screenplay for years not being able to come up with an ending. He decided to go with what really happened for an ending. What movie has Al Pacino or Robert DeNiro made since HEAT thats been as good as? The answer's nada! Btw Val Kilmer was picked on unmercifully by Bobby and Al because they called him Batman all the time, and high maintenence Kilmer was upset.

Not saying anything other than: insert clapping hands here - about the followed the book statement.

Didn't I already explain NCFOM to you?

Anyway, to be honest I can't quite decide right now. They're both excellent, and NCFOM hasn't quite passed the whole "test-of-time" thing like Heat has. I'll come back later.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

To tell the truth, I wasn't exactly blown away by either film, but I do think NCFOM was more interesting because Tommy Lee is always interesting to watch. And surprisingly--since the manhunt in NCFOM is more drawn out as it ranges across most of West Texas and in to Mexico--it seemed to me to be faster paced than Heat, which seemed to me to drag especially when Pacino was on the screen. I'm not a big Pacino fan; I think from the Godfather days when Pacino was at his best, De Niro was still the better actor. As for the vaunted scenes of the two together on screen, I didn't see many sparks flying as say, when Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy co-starred in Boom Town, or Tracy appearing with a host of male Oscar winners in Bad Day at Black Rock.

Or for that matter, De Niro and Jean Reno in Ronin (1998), DeNiro and Harvey Keitel in Mean Streets (1973), De Niro and Chazz Palminteri in A Bronx Tale (1993), De Niro and Paul Sorvino, De Niro and Ray Liotta and Joe Pesci in GoodFellas (1990), also with Pesci in Casino (1995) and Raging Bull (1980).

I'm less than enthused about the upcoming new film that again teams the aging Pacino and De Niro together.

That "upcoming new film" is called Righteous Kill, and if the reviews are any indication, it offers a weak story, weak characters, and lackluster performances from both Pacino and DeNiro.

And for the record here, I've never seen Heat. I have seen No Country, however. So my vote goes to the latter (yes I thought it was good. Very good.)

Here's a comparision that occurred to me in a conversation with Tramp in another segment of this forum.

How would you compare Bull Durham (1988) vs. A League of Their Own (1992)

No. Bull Durham was a love story with comedic elements. League was a true story on womens baseball. Hard to find a good matchup w/Bull Durham as Ive deliberated on it for awhile.

Naw, Durham is a comic fantasy that dabbles in romance and baseball. League is a semi-true mostly comical story based on a real event; the reel story matched real life only as far as a war was going on, many baseball players were in military service, and a female baseball league was started. Durham was like real life in that there are minor leage teams and minor league players who hope to make it to the big leagues and former big league players whose careers are on a downward arc. In League, like Durham, most of the story is played out off the baseball field, including scenes in the locker room, on the bus, and in a bar, just like Durham. Durham had a pitcher wearing a garter belt; League had a catcher doing the splits as she caught a ball. Durham had players getting cut from the team, League had players getting notices from the War Department that their husbands had died. In both movies, both catchers leave their teams and go on to something else with their significant others. Thankfully, League doesn't force a love affair between the coach and his star catcher, but there is a lot of interaction between the two over the meaning of baseball and life. Same thing happens between the stars of Durham; it just includes a few sex scenes that League lacks.

The IMDb website lists Bull Durham as Comedy | Drama | Romance | Sport. It lists League of Their Own as Comedy | Drama | Sport, three out of the four classifications for Durham, which seems to me to be a pretty good match. Actually the movie that I think is most like Bull Durham is Slap Shot (1977) also listed as Comedy | Drama | Sport. Durham and Slap Shot are both sports movies about second class teams and an old pro trying to shape and guide younger players (one could say much the same about League). That it’s a different sport doesn’t really matter. Another baseball film that you might compare with Durham and League is The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings (1976) -- Comedy | Sport.

Or you might compare Durham with Mystery, Alaska (1999) Comedy | Drama | Sport. Frankly, I think Mystery treats sport more seriously than any of the other four films I’ve mentioned, but it’s also very funny and has some sex.

How about this, then? I'll freely admit to the fact that neither of these are real deep flicks, but they're both great to watch, and the debate over which is superior seems to be never-ending.

OK, I disagree muchly:

The ending made me think, which I liked. The ending was more honest to what many experience in life, unfairness and disappointment - which I liked. The bad guy wins and the good guys are either killed, or forced to reconcile with the fact that they can no longer fight against the powers that be. Even when fate intervenes the bad guy still gets away, portraying the earnest truth that sometimes life just ain't fair.

What's wrong with that ending? It's real and it wasn't spelled out, which I liked.

I'm not sure why No Country is being compared to Heat; to me they are two very different films, both delicious in their own right.

I wish I had seen Alien in the theater because that is what made Aliens one of my favorite films seen on the big screen. I love both movies, but the sound was excellent and the action breathtaking in Aliens. I say Aliens for just plain edge of your seat excitement.

Aliens A
Alien A-

Alien. It's hard to compare any movie in the series in my opinion, because each are a different genre. Alien is horror, Aliens is action, Alien 3 is drama, Alien: Resurrection is weird. I love each of them a lot, but I still like Alien the most. I guess just because.

Alien isn't the most original film in the canon, borrowing from both It! The Terror From Beyond Space and Planet of the Vampires, but with H.R. Giger along for the ride, and Ridley Scott using a painterly eye, it's one of the most handsome sci-fi flicks ever, and it also certainly qualifies as HORROR with capital letters.

Aliens is more of a high-tech action adventure set in space, but it's probably one of the very best sequels ever made, and it may well rival French Connection II as a terrific sequel which completely rewrites the themes and motives of the original film. Sigourney Weaver definitely gives a stronger performance in the sequel, especially if you discuss the director's cut. Oh yeah, it's also scary as Hell!

Even if I enjoy Fincher's and Jeunet's films, they just don't rate.