Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Lets pretend one is better for the sake of the thread, our forum community, and because arguing about movies can be fun too.

First topic...

Tombstonehttp://www.profilemile.com/images/143.jpg or Unforgivenhttp://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...en-Posters.jpg
SPOILERS

For me you wanmt to say Unforgiven, but if you think about it Tombstone was just loaded with good scenes and performances. Freeman and Hackman were awesome in Unforgiven, but Kilmers performance as Doc Holiday was comparable to Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lector in Silence Of The Lambs.

Best ending goes to Unforgiven hands down. "but that didnt scare little Bill did it?!" as Eastwoods swiggin off the bottle getting his blood up, and everyone in the theatre watching Clint be a bumbler thru the film is rewarded completely with the real deal! That ending shows how Clint Eastwood is the only man on the planet on par with John Wayne.

Hackmans performance reinvented the bad guy, and Clints directing reinvented the western. Yeah Unforgiven is better for impact on film, but Tombstone was a blast entire. Kurt Russell, Sam Elliot, Bill Paxton, Val Kilmer, Michael Biehn, Powers Booth, and even ol Billy Bob Thornton delivered the best performances in each of their careers, AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME. That movie was an adrenaline rush, and laden with the best quotes in film.

Maybe a way to decide this is comparing Holidays "Im your hucleberry" scene against the ending to Unforgiven with Muney drunk. Idk. Your thoughts?

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

My thoughts? Well, since you asked....

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...40/9534111.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:..._mustaches.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:.../tombstone.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...toneSPLASH.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...om/24qltw0.jpg

I think Tombstone is a horrid piece of *****, a Western made for people who don't like or know Westerns. I find it to be poorly made from a hack script that badly steals from three dozen better movies without any wit or craft, and on top of that it is badly acted. Val Kilmer's performance is amusing in and of itself, and his anachronistic Doc from the planet Mars is memorable, but it doesn't fit with any other performance or element in the entire bad movie. It'd be better suited for a Western parody, which sadly Tombstone is not. Well, not an intentional one, anyway. There aren't many movies I out and out hate, but Tombstone is one of them. And while some of that hate comes from how bad a movie it is, what really makes me furious is that kids who were ten or fifteen when they first saw Tombstone, likely as their first Western, regard it as a fantastic movie. It's not even competent, but in their limited knowledge of the genre and cinema in general to hail it as magnificent makes me want to scream.

Unforgiven is a masterpiece, not just as a Western but as a piece of cinema, and to me having to defend it against a smoldering turd like Tombstone is the same as defending Lawrence of Arabia against The Waterboy. It's both patently unnecessary and a complete waste of time.

http://www.moviemaker.com/magazine/i...Image_0001.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...forgiven01.jpg

But, you know....your mileage may vary.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Unforgiven by far...

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I don't like westerns, but this isn't even a competition. Unforgiven. By mmmmiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllleeeeeeeeesssssssss.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

"Let's pretend one is better", eh? There isn't any pretending about it. Unforgiven is better.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

While I'm inclined to agree with Holden on some level, I don't know that I would go so far as to call Tombstone a "piece of ****". It had it's moments. This is pretty funny actually, because this is sort of a bone of contention with me and one of my friends. We often got into a battle of Wyatt Earp vs. Tombstone for some reason, and I always argued on the side of Wyatt Earp, extolling the virtues of the more timeworn and aged "authentic" look of the wardrobe and set design in Wyatt Earp to the more bombastic Hollywood flourish in Tombstone. I think really though it was that Costner was able to convey a sense of stoicism you instinctively relate to a time like that, where Tombstone just seemed a bit more contrived. Tombstone felt like I was watching Kurt Russel trying to be Wyatt Earp, and Val Kilmer trying to be Doc Holiday. It just smacked of big Hollywood production, straining to convince the audience.

To compare Tombstone to Unforgiven is almost criminal, it's not even in the same league as far as I'm concerned. If you're looking for action for the sake of action, explosions and one-liners, then yes, Tombstone is your movie. I'd personally say go rent The Long Riders, and get your moneys worth, but Unforgiven is a whole other league of movie. The type of movie that warrants Academy Award nominations, for its sweeping epic cinematography, its uncompromising attention to detail, it's compelling character acting, and most importantly an incredible story about a real person that suffers real problems. Life is cheaper in the Unforgiven, and you get this sense of fallibility in its starring characters that you don't see enough of in movies. It's that vulnerability that makes the audience relate so well to both Munny and Logan. When he rides into town, it matters quite a bit more than in the typical western where that has become obligatory.

These are two different movies, and they don't compare like Wyatt Earp and Tombstone do. If you're asking me to choose between Unforgiven and Tombstone, I'd say Unforgiven hands down. If I was 12, I might say Tombstone, but thankfully, I'm not.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Wow. I thought it would be close. Now I do agree Unforgtiven is better, but dayuuuuuum y'all are treatin Tombstone like a narc at a biker rally! Easy now it was a good movie, and even if you found no enjoyment in it realize that everyone still talking and watching it as much as Unforgiven. Much more than Wyatt Earp. Idk I liked Tombstone, and people still regard Vals' Holiday as the second best part in his career (behind The Doors) so describing it as a Pauly Shore level of performance is a gross exagerration.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Who are those "people" who assessed Kilmer's career that you refer to? And who here compared Val Kilmer's performance to Pauley Shore?!? You're the one doing the exaggeratin', Tex.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Which movie is better, and why?!
I select, Tombstone.
I like the great dialog in the movie.
I use lines from Tombstone in my daily life.
Here is an example.
Doc Holliday: Nonsense, I have not yet begun to defile myself.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

i think tombstones reasonably good ok val kilmer is a bit ott i preferred quaids version.tombstone is one of those films that you can put on and get a dummys guide to wyatt earp but unforgiven is more akin to conventional westerns im sitting on the fence because i can watch both depending on my mood.holden pike im gonna go out on a limb on guess you dont like silverado either

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I actually appreciated "Wyatt Earp" more than "Tombstone". "Tombstone" seemed to be produced as the main feature for patrons of Short Attention Span Theater whereas the screenplay for "Unforgiven" is one of my favorites and can be appreciated without even seeing the film.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Unforgiven... hands down. I watch Tombstone for some mindless Hollywood type action/western fair. But Unforgiven is one of the finest movies I've ever seen.

I'm not the best judge though I've barely scratched the surface of what a good western even is. But for my money Unforgiven is one of them.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Are you naming Pauly Shore because of the Waterboy remark? That is Adam Sandler, in case you got them confused. Although many people would put them on the same level.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

No no no! Adam Sandler is a thespian extraordinare compared to Pauly "What's Up Buuuuuud-dy!" Shore. Oh! Once I had to take a girlfriend to see Biodome. Damn movie gave me a headache. Ex wife made me see Ernest Scared Stupid.

Ok Unforgiven is the winner by the roar in unison of approval from the crowd! Holden Pike I enjoyed your posts though I disagree with your description of Tombstone.

http://images.teamsugar.com/files/up...caddyshack.jpghttp://media.bladezone.com/contents/...ingsaddles.jpg
Caddyshack or Blazing Saddles

To me its Caddyshack. Bill Murray, Ted Knight, Rodney Dangerfield, and Chevy Chase were in the zone. Mel Brooks flick is a classic, but it didnt make me laugh as much as Caddyshack. When it comes to comedies thats all thats important imo. For instance if anyone laughed harder, and more often in Annie Hall than both of these flicks you might have a smart answer why, but I doubt a convincing one.

Spoilers
Funniest scene in each flick. Blazing Saddles I have to go with the campfire scene, and their beans. Caddyshack had to be the Baby Ruth in the pool. When Bill Murray says "Its ok!" then bites into it somewhere up there the Bambino laughed his balls off.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I'd actually rather watch Bio Dome than either of those flicks right now. But if I did have to pick between those two, I would definitely go with Caddyshack. It's just a lot funnier, ya know? They're both waaay overrated, though. I love Bill Murray and everything, and I realize his gopher schtick in Caddyshack has become borderline iconic, but I think it gets old fast. You've still got Chevy Chase on the very the top of his game, though, and the movie in and of itself has held up pretty well. As for Blazing Saddles, I think of that film as the perfect microchosm of Mel Brooks' career. It certainly has its moments, but it's very uneven and very hit-or-miss. And, ultimately, it just leaves me feeling very unfulfilled.

Caddyshack is funny, though. :yup:

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I see you've moved onto another argument, but I love this post and agree 100%. I think Wyatt Earp is seriously underappreciated. And Michael Madsen steals the film!

And as to Tombstone v. Unforgiven -- is there really any debate here? Unforgiven is pretty amazing piece of work.

And I pick Blazing Saddles. I gather that is because it's uproariously funny and the best parody of westerns ever made. :)

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I honestly didn't care for either. However, I did like the gopher in Caddyshack.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

http://www.homevideos.com/freezefram...Saddle141.jpeg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...ng_saddles.jpg http://www.homevideos.com/freezefram...Saddle117.jpeg

I like Blazing Saddles a lot, but at the same time I don't think it's anywhere near as good as Young Frankenstein or even The Producers. But it is a groundbreaking comedy, has tons of classic bits and characters, and I've seen it well over thirty times. Gene Wilder, who was a last-minute replacement as The Waco Kid, really adds a layer of charm to it all, and I've always thought Cleavon Little's contribution is consistently underrated - no, he's not Richard Pryor, but he's wonderful. However it's the supporting cast that makes the movie what it is, most especially Western character actor Slim Pickens as the henchman Taggert and the lovely and talented Madeline Kahn doing her best Marlene Dietrich as Lili Von Shtupp ("A wed wose; how womantic..."). Then you throw in Harvey Korman, Alex Karras, Burton Gilliam, David Huddleston, John Hillerman, Mel Brooks himself...it's a terrific cast.

It's one of those comedies where Brooks just throws everything he can think of at the wall and sees what sticks. Some of the jokes fall flat, especially upon repeat viewings, and in general I wish he would have tread more closely to a parody of the Western genre, like the perfect use of Frankie Laine for the opening theme song, instead of just general anachronistic craziness - although one of my favorite and least-mentioned gags is the reveal of Count Basie and his entire orchestra out on the prairie playing "April in Paris" after Bart's made Sheriff with his Gucci saddlebag- great stuff, and like something out of a Bugs Bunny cartoon! As a matter of fact, the great Warner Bros. cartoons are referenced directly with the candygram that finally subdues Mongo.

http://www.morethings.com/fan/blazin...addles-515.jpg
*CLICK on the photo above to see the scene via YouTube

So while I suspect it might have benefited by staying closer to the genre, which I believe is the root of the genius of Young Frankenstein, it's silly to argue with the results at this point. Blazing Saddles isn't perfect, but it is a comedy classic. A scatological, irreverent, anarchic, insane classic.


http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.c...evy_chase2.jpg http://entimg.msn.com/i/BillMurray/C...ck_300x298.jpg

Caddyshack too is flawed, but also an inherently rewatchable classic with dozens of hysterical moments. For me Caddyshack has many more dead spots than Blazing Saddles, as when the story focuses on Danny and the young caddies it invariably slows down and the laughs are less frequent. But whenever Chevy Chase, Rodney Dangerfield, Ted Knight or Bill Murray are on the screen, chances are something funny is happening. Murray and his demented groundskeeper often feel like they're in another movie and clearly Bill was given room to just do whatever in the Hell he wanted, but it yielded some all-time classic lines, first among them the story of caddying for the Dali Lama ("So I got that goin' for me, which is nice..."). I'm an unabashed Chevy Chase fan, no matter how his career petered out, and he has some great moments, too. Rodney is great being Rodney, of course, but for me other than Murray's best bits the element that makes me laugh the most over and over again is Ted Knight's deliciously over-the-top uptight Judge Smails. This was Second City Alum Harold Ramis' directorial debut, and for how chaotic and seemingly improved as it must have been he manages to pull it off. But while it's full of so many classic moments, it's definitely not the tightest piece of cinematic comedy you'll come across. If you read the script it wouldn't be confused for a Preston Sturges or Billy Wilder piece.


So, a close one. But since I don't think there would have been an Animal House or Kentucky Fried Movie or Airplane! or Caddyshack without Blazing Saddles, well, blazing the trail, I'm gonna have to give the edge to that comedy touchstone and, to paraphrase one of its lines, say, 'Screw you, I'm goin' with Mel Brooks!'


But I do watch Young Frankenstein at least ten or fifteen times for every one viewing of Saddles.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

OK. I thought you were confused about who starred in The Waterboy.

Get out of here!

It's a tie for me. I love both films. I'll agree, Young Frankenstein is much better than Blazing Saddles. I honestly don't believe that I watch either one of these movies, anymore than I do the other. If I were made to watch one right now, which I do own the both of them, so this is very possible . . . Anyway, I'd choose Caddyshack. So there you go.

Caddyshack

Yes, I know that that was a pathetic way to choose one.


p.s. I never voted earlier, but my vote surely would have been for Unforgiven. :yup:

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Tombstone is the king

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Of course it is. It's not a masterpiece like, say, Southland Tales, but it surely is the king.

Of what I have no idea.... Dog turds, perchance?


But then it's difficult to argue with you since you have completely neglected the "and why?" part of the assignment. :indifferent:

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Southland Tales need never be uttered in this fine thread again. That 2 1/2 hour long drip o **** need NEEEEVER be mentioned with the likes of such great films discussed. Damn even Biodome deserves existence, but Southland Tales is like cinematic Cthullhu "That which should not be!". The Rock and Sarah Michelle Gellar might have made it big one day, but this career killing albatross ended that dream. Buffy wept.

Yes DeathDealer! Tombstone deserved at least one vote.

Destiny choosing which ones better by which one you'd watch next makes more sense than any argument Ive made so far in this thread.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Well according to DeathDealer's favorites list, it's the second-best movie he's ever seen. So back off!

Hey, maybe a pairing of Tombstone and Southland Tales would finally net that horrible excuse for a Western some real votes?

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

hehe OK!

I don't want to irritate you, but what in the hell is Southland Tales?

It must really suck. I'll go look it up.


Sorry!

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I have to edge it out to Caddyshack, but just barely.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Quick video break -

http://www.break.com/index/try-not-to-laugh.html

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Hey, People picking one movie over another...

...and why?

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

oh yeah:

Well C.S. has a soft spot for me...I mean Bill and golf together...
It is tough to describe. I am not saying that B.S. is not great...well yes I am I guess. B.S. is good, C.S. is great.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Well: I got soul, but I am not a soldier.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I would go for Caddyshack, but that's only because I haven't seen Blazing Saddles, much to the chagrin of a few people.

So, don't count my vote since it's unfairly biased.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Blazing Saddles, for sure, if only for this (I sometimes like being politically-incorrect):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gj9uEeuDtQ

I still think that Holds is correct concerning other Brooks' movies. Holds won't even go this far, but I may even like The Twelve Chairs better than Blazing Saddles, but Saddles it remains.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I'd have to give it to Blazing Saddles.

Yes, Caddyshack is funny and irreverent and all, but Blazing Saddles is immensely quotable and has some of the funniest damn scenes ever. And besides, I can't stand Chevy Chase.

Oh, and I agree with Mark and Holden that BS is not Brook's best movie (Young Frankenstein and The Producers are definitely better, and The Twelve Chairs, while not as funny, is right up there with YF as one of the best crafted movies Brooks ever made).

This isn't to say that I dislike Caddyshack: I think it's very funny; Rodney Dangerfield, Bill Murray, and Ted Knight are all just great, but it's hard to argue with all the hilarious bits in Blazing Saddles.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

As I have to pick one, it's Caddyshack. I don't have a clear recolection of either one, but I do remember that I thought Blazing Saddles was shockingly unfunny, whereas I think I laughed a couple of times at Caddyshack. To be honest, I think I'd rather watch Swedish Chef watching Biodome than either of them.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

http://ad3065.k12.sd.us/Year/images/...mbs_poster.jpg http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a...sary_Editi.jpg

Silence Of The Lambs or The Exorcist

People have assumed The Exorcist to be the scariest thing ever put on film. For me Silence Of The Lambs seemed more realistic, and so more scary. The first night I was on my own after moving out of my parents house. I was in Tampa all alone, no furniture, and bored. So I went to see this film (SOTL) that I knew nothing about. After the flick walking to my car Im looking over my shoulder, and so was everyone else walking out of the theatre. SOTL got a nationwide fearful reaction not sen since JAWS like I was Hopkins scared us all, absolutely reinvented his career, and Foster sold for him like a champ. Demme never has been as good since. Friedkins flick IMO has been passed up by ....sadly...a more realistic horror film.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Ah, now this is interesting. I don't really care for either film.

Meh, I'll give it to The Silence of the Lambs then.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I'd say Silence of the Lambs. Frankly, good as it is, I never found The Exorcist to be all that scary. Maybe it's because I read the book (which was truly terrifying) before I saw the movie.

Silence, on the other hand, is exquisitley crafted, with standout performances by all involved. It's a first-rate film, and scary as hell.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I like them both (although not quite as much as most people), but I wasn't scared by either of them. I enjoyed Silence of the Lambs a tad bit more, and it's much more well-crafted in every aspect than The Exorcist. So, Silence of the Lambs.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Silence of the Lambs. The characters were more interesting. The acting was better.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I like both movies, but Silence of the Lambs excels over The Exorcist in every way. The scene where Starling is completely in the dark scared me more than any other scene in any other movie. Jody Foster nailed it.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

If someone else wants to make a matchup to post please feel free. I like to speculate too!

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I missed out on the second round but being that I'm me I'll just go ahead and weigh in anyway dig?

Caddyshack is just one of those movies that I will always return to when I need a comedy fix. It is so quotable and great God almighty I have been a using them lines for many a year.

I also love Blazing Saddles but for every one time I watch it, I will have seen Caddyshack probably twice as many times. I also agree with the sentiment that it's not Mel's best flick. I know I will be chastised for saying this but I even like Spaceballs better than Blazing Saddles. Sue me.

http://blogs.brilliantbutcancelled.c...ls_260x220.jpg

"Your Schwartz is bigger than mine!"

As far as the next match up goes I really love them both and I'm not sure if I could pick the one I like better.

Silence of the Lambs has some spectacular performances and I doubt that anyone who has seen it can go the rest of their lives without saying "It puts the lotion on its skin...", at least 10 or 20 times. I often like to tell people of Anthony Hopkins interview on Inside the Actors Studio when Lipton asks him about the movie and the funny little look he had on his face and as he said: "I started to read the script and almost immediately put it down because it was such a good part." Thank the Powers that be that he got the part eh? I don't think Kevin Costner would have pulled it off with quite the same *Ahem* gusto... ;) Ted Levine has played some rather interesting roles over the years to say the least and this is obviosly one of his best, I wish he would do more films. And often overlooked is little Jodie Foster who I thought was just phenomanal as is just par for the course typically when I see her in a movie, any movie really. She just captivates me.

But then there is The Exorcist perhaps one of the most parodied and copied movies of all time. And I don't know about you folks but that scene with the crucifix has stayed with me from the very first time I saw it to this day. It is a solid horror flick and I think it deserves to be on any top ten horror list out there. That may be why I'm more than a little torn as to which one I like better. The Exorcist is a true horror film and to me Silence of the Lambs is a Police drama.

In a pinch I'll go with Silence of the Lambs mostly because of the cast.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Ok then.

http://www.cinema.com/image_lib/5069_poster.jpg http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/MG/189530.jpg

Platoon or Saving Private Ryan

The first half hour of Private Ryan is the best war scene ever in a movie. Without that scene this movies would be exposed. Great film I love it dont get me wrong, but IMO when you do war do it right and real or dont.i detested The Thin Red Line and abhored the constant philosophical prattling that oppresively......"ahem" sorry.

Basically Ryan suffererd from the classic Speilberg touches. Like the german that they let go and then he comes back or that over the top unrealistic finale.

Platoon scared me so bad I considered for the first timer in my life draft dodging as an option, and Im not trying to be funny. Platoon was real.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Which draft were you considering dodging?

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I agree with you that "Steamboat Willie" comes back and that some could call the "finale" unrealistic, but what about it do YOU find unrealistic? I'm just wondering because many people don't even understand what happens during the last half-hour of Ryan.

I'm not sure that I ever considered Platoon "real", but it was certainly suspenseful. Coming on the heels of Aliens, it made the last half of '86 pretty tense (and I'm not even mentioning Reagan here :D ).

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Going back to Silence vs Exorcist, it has to be The Exorcist every time. Whilst neither of them is scary, Silence is hugely overrated (I didn't even know that it was meant to be scary. It just came off as a well made TV movie) while The Exorcist is one of the best horror films of all-time. Friedkin did a magnificent job directing the film, pushing the actors to get the most 'real' performance that he could from them. Also, at a time when special effects were mechanical, the ingenuity needed to create of some the effects was groundbreaking for the time.

Onto Platoon vs Ryan, this is another no-brainer for me, it's Platoon all the way. Ryan is another film that gets far too much credit and, while the fight sequences were brilliantly crafted and their length helped to give the viewer some idea of just how brutal and hellish the war was, that's all there is to the film. I found everything else about Ryan to be fairly standard, especially for someone with the talent of Spielberg. A bombastic but disapointing film and, as I've listed it as one of my 'eternal hell' films on another thread here, I really couldn't choose it over Platoon could I?

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

As far as The Exorcist/Silence of the Lambs, I'd say they're too close to call, but I definitely believe that The Exorcist is a far-deeper and better-acted film. I believe that Ellen Burstyn, Jason Miller and Max Von Sydow were truly mind-boggling, and for anyone who wants a complex story open to interpretation, it certainly works. The novel was superior, but it's one of my all-time faves. The Silence of the Lambs is a super-duper movie movie though, even if I don't think it deserved all those Academy Awards.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I am watching Platoon tonight, so I can't say which I prefer (I ironically watched Saving Private Ryan only a few days ago.), but I just have to say that the "finale" (last 40 minutes) of Saving Private Ryan was the best part of the film for me. It blew me away and was the fastest 40 minutes in any film I have ever experienced. Unrealistic or not. :D

I have high expectations for Platoon, though - I've been very interested in Vietnam War movies for the past few weeks! Hope it's as great as I hear it is. :)

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

^^^^^ Curious if the movie seems dated to you. please post after watching it.

Chef after watching Platoon - any draft. I read an interview with Stone in Playboy, and he based Elias and barnes after two captains he served under. Those things rumored about in war were shown front & center brazenly. Every scene from a villager girl getting raped in the background or a spastic teenager killing an innocent or each other, the corruption, and madness of it.

After watching Ryan I left the theatre knowing I saw an incredible movie (I hate you Shakespeare In Love). Again after watching Platoon......it was heavy on so many levels other than the firefights.

Ok heres this - Tom Berenger and Tom Hanks were both nominated for Best Actor for their respective roles in Platton/Private Ryan. Neither won, but if I had to choose one to win...it really would be Berrenger. Im sorry but Berrenger was incredibly powerful in Platoon, brought in a performance better than what most a-list actors deliver, and his talent is overlooked still. Hanks is the man, deserves his awards, but imo not in this comparison.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Berenger and Dafoe were both nomed Supporting Actor, and Hanks was nomed Actor. True, none of 'em won.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

:D I love that movie.

Tongo, dude. Ex-Squeeze me, but you haven't been totaling them up since the first set. Sure, I haven't voted much, but that's really not the point.

I wouldn't have voted on either of the last set, anyway.

Platoon gets my vote this time. They are both fine movies, but I have this love for the 80's, that I just can't fight.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

No this isnt a vote total announce the winner type of thing. Just your choice, and why.

Berrenger should have won if it was for supporting.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

OK, I just assumed it was, because you named the winner on the first set.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I'll go with Ryan on this one. Spielberg and company seem to get a lot of flak for that flick. Shakespeare in Love's oscar was more a product of Ryan backlash than a pro-Shake in Love movement. Some people love the film, but some people just seem to hate it with every fiber of their being. But you can put me in the camp that loves the movie for what it is. I don't think it's as important a film as some of the more vocal supporters make it out to be. It's a little too long and it's got some typical spielberg trappings, sure. Those bookends, for examle, are just totally unnecessary and lame. But i like the movie and I'm due to watch it again.

Platoon is a good movie, too, but it loses a lot of its punch the second or third time through. Private Ryan, meanwhile, just seems a lot more rewatchable. I don't think any of the performances in either film were especially noteworthy, but i think Hanks' performance is better than any of the three main guys from Platoon. Plus, yeah, nothing in Platoon even comes close to touching that opening scene from Ryan.

I think I'd grade 'em...

Saving Private Ryan (but it's a very high 3.5)
Platoon

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

What are these "Spielberg touches" you guys are talking about? Just curious. :)

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Just, you know, those typical hokey Spielbergian flairs that spring up in his movies at just about the worst possible moments. Overblown sentimentality and preposterous and cliched situations. A perfect example has already been mentioned in this thread. The German soldier Jeremy Davies' character sympathizes with and ultimately lets go winds up in the final battle at the bridge somehow. And I think the German soldier actually smiles and waves at the Davies character before he's shot to death.

Another example are those horrible bookends on Ryan. Not necessary, Steven :nope:

And yeah, I could probably reel off at least two or three of these sort of flaws in each and every one of Spielberg's flicks. But I still really like the guy and he's made some of the most enduring classics of American cinema, so he gets away with a lot.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I'm going to go with Saving Private Ryan, it deserved all of the so-called accolades it received, I says. Platoon is a pretty good flick but it isn't the best Vietnam war movie by a long shot. Hamburger Hill is a good deal more "real" to what that war and what the people fighting that war were really like. When I was much younger one of my counselors growing up told me he re-conned that hill from the movie and he told me that that was the closest thing to being there that he had ever seen.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Wow nice match up.

This is a difficult choice. I'm going to have to vote for Saving Private Ryan and I'll say why...I'm even going to go as far and say that I think I'm biased because I saw it on the big screen and the Omaha beach D-Day scene is one of the single most captivating theatrical experiences I've had. It blew me away...

The extreme attention to detail, the doc filming style, score, sound design and Tom Hanks, are just a few things that make this movie extremely special. It's one of my favourite films and probably my favourite War film. True, as mentioned Speilberg cheeses it up with that German soldier bit, but he doesn't hold back on a lot of other things and the movie is gritty, violent, disturbing and touching. Not many Directors can pull that off and maintain all the fine technical details to make it feel so real.

Platoon is also a remarkable movie. man, it won Best Picture 1986...how can you beat that?? The performances in this film are even better than SPR, you can practically feel the confusion, fear and hot sticky heat of the jungle. This film is grimey and relentless. And you're left with a bad feeling in your stomach, and personally...sadness. It's an excellent anti-war film, **** it paints a candid, practically real picture of a aweful time in history. no shoulders to cry on here...god what a terrible world we live in sometimes. Definately Stone's best film hands down.

Both amazing amazing films. But I have to go with Saving Private Ryan, literally because I am into a bit of the cheese, and like those Spielberg cliches to soften up such harsh, brutal action. But it's very close, both are incredible films by incredible Directors.

Saving Private Ryan http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/4.5box.gif

Platoon http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/4.5box.gif

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Lets move it down in intensity a notch...

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Die...C10286176.jpeg http://www.movieposter.com/posters/a...n/27/MPW-13542

Die Hard or Lethal Weapon

For me this is an easy one - Lethal Weapon. I agree Hans Gruber is one of the best villains ever, but hey at least Busey was sober! LOL! Mel & Dannys interaction really helped fill out LW, and Willis' and Veljohnson (Capt. Al) were ok in comparison.

Action scenes are dated now, but a ton of unecessary sequels erupted from these two ingenious action films.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

No need to worry, Tongo. In every war ever fought, more men survived military service than ever fell in battle. In fact, more men remained civilians than became soldiers.

With all due respect to all of you who just loved either or both of these films, I thought Platoon and Saving Pvt. Ryan both were a waste a film, because neither one has a single character who I give a damn whether he lives or dies.

Y’all did sorta solve one mystery for me: I once argued with someone that the German soldier they let walk away from the machinegun nest in SPR couldn’t possibly be the same German who shows up later. I based that on the fact that he was in two different uniforms, with two different classifications. First he was in a regular German army outfit serving with a machinegun crew; but when we see him next, he’s a rifleman in the uniform of a more elite unit, one of the Nazi member storm troopers as I recall.

That really doesn’t matter because some of the dumbest parts of the plot revolve around those two scenes. In the first scene, with little more than a normally 8-man rifle squad under his command, Capt. Tom Hanks decides at the last minute to make a frontal assault on a dug-in machine gun. In basic training, they tried to tell us we could take out a machine gun position with a minimum of two rifle squads if we first flanked it, but I never for a moment believed it. Then on top of that, they take along their only medic in the assault. Medics were not supposed to carry arms during WWII, so he could be of no help in the fight. So better to let him remain behind so you have someone with field experience and some expertise to tend to your wounded after the shooting stops. But he goes along and of course becomes the only casualty. And following the death of a man who they had served with for many months and supposedly liked, we’re supposed to believe they take one totally unharmed prisoner in the process? Well, the moment he tries to give up, you’ve got the same problem that they wrestle with later—do you send him back under guard, weakening your already weak unit, or do you kill him and move on? It’s one or the other—letting him go is never an option. If you’re going to shoot him, better to do so in the heat of action when your blood is up. Or put a bullet in his head as soon as he surrenders. But why go through the BS of having him dig a grave??? They shouldn’t even bury their own casualty—that’s what the grave registration unit is for. Leave ‘em where they drop and get on with the mission. But if you let him just walk away, then you’re jeopardizing everyone in the outfit, because he’s going to tell where you were and the direction you went as soon as he finds some more Germans.

And if that were not enough, the German himself repeats the same mistake when in the final battle he walks past the cowering clerk-typist without putting a bullet in his head. He not only leaves an enemy behind him, but an armed enemy who could have killed him the moment he turned his back—as happened to John Gavin playing a German soldier who kills a more realistic German soldier as he was about to shoot three unarmed Russians in some sappy war movie in the 1960s. Gavin tells the Russians they’re free to go, and when he turns to walk away, one of them picks up the dead German’s rifle and shoots him in the back.

Well, the SPR German learns the same lesson when the cowardly typist shoots him after he surrenders (look at all the time and lives that could have been saved if they had done that in the first place!). But then what does the dummy typist do—he let’s the other three Germans go free! Gawd, no wonder the war lasted so long!

Lots of folks make a big deal about the realism of the Normandy invasion at the start of the film, but I’m afraid that washed right by me too. I remember the scene of a uniformed extra carrying a plastic arm that supposedly had just been severed from his body and it looked to me exactly like a uniformed extra carrying a plastic arm. I think there also is a something in the law of physics that says a bullet traveling underwater so slowly that you can see it probably lacks the punch to kill or even wound a person under several feet of water. I think the Myth Busters on TV tried that trick and found that even a couple of feet of water can safely slow or even stop a bullet.

I pick on SPR because I actually had high hopes for the picture based on the one shot of Mother Ryan sinking to the porch as the three Army officers come up the walk to tell her of her dead sons. But then I forgot how Spielberg likes to keep piling it higher and higher in a film.

Like I said, I’m not trying to flame anybody. If you love the film, that’s fine with me—I’m not trying to change your mind. If you want to discuss it, that’s fine, too; In fact, I’d enjoy it.

And if you want to see a couple of war movies that I think is more realistic than Platoon and SPR, check out The Red Badge of Courage and A Walk in the Sun. Even Willie and Joe with Tom Ewell and David Wayne playing the famous World War II cartoon characters, if you can find a copy.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

This is what I'm talking about, rufnek, at least I think so because I'm unclear what you mean from your explanation of what you say happens in Saving Private Ryan. "Steamboat Willie", the German who's released halfway through the film does reappear at the bridge, but he's a totally different German than the guy who walks by Upham on the stairs after knifing the Jewish American. Two different characters played by two different actors whose only resemblance is basically they have shaved heads.

P.S. Saving Private Ryan usually wins "Best War Film" in polls of American veterans so I believe that they have as many different ways of seeing things as the rest of us.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

This is the most difficult one for me so far. Not because I don't know which side I'll choose, but because I don't think the film I'm going to choose is as good as the other.

I'd pick Die Hard each and every time I was given this choice, but, although it's been a long, long time since I saw Lethal Weapn, I think Weapon is the better film. Gibson actually acts (and shows that he's rather good at it, even with a character as hokey as Martin) and, if I remember correctly, the film looks pretty great too and, in terms of quality, it's far and above all of the sequels that came after it put together.

But Die Hard... Well it's Die Hard isn't it? I'll always pick a loved one over anything else, no matter how much better the other is. I'd pick Charlie's Angels over Les Enfants Du Paradis. Sick I know, but I would.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Die Hard. No sequels involved, then it's Die Hard, at least for me.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Alright, I just finished Platoon. I prefer it over Saving Private Ryan. As I said before, there were a few dull scenes in Saving Private Ryan, and frankly some things I just didn't like, even though I was amazed at the last hour.

Platoon, though, just had me captivated throughout. It's a great character study, with great character development. It's also deeper and has more plot than Saving Private Ryan.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

This one is easy for me. They are both nice holiday fa la la la la movies, and all, but I watch Die Hard every year. I even like the sequels. Well, I never bothered with that 4th one. It had too much CGI horse ***** in it for my taste. In order, I love the first one a lot, I really like the third one, and the second one is OK.

With Lethal Weapon, I've never really been into it enough to watch it numerous times. I've seen it maybe 3-4 times. I own all of them, just like I do with Die Hard 1-3, but I'm not very interested in the Lethal Weapon sequels. I've never watched Lethal Weapon 4, but I will eventually. Mainly because of Jet Li.

So yeah, Die Hard it is.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Jet Li is the man! Seeing Fists Of Legend is a must for any Jet Li fan. As for Lethal Weapon 4 Jet Li was the only good thing in it. In an interview he said that they had to slo-mo the camera for his action scenes so people could see what he was doing.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Allow me to post a vote for Lethal Weapon.
I know y'all think I'm crazy, but I just don't like Die Hard. Sure it has some great action set pieces, but the cardboard characters and their downright stupidity is hard for me to overcome.

Lethal Weapon is smart and funny and has plenty of action. I just like it better.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

OK, let's see if I understand you correctly. The released German shows up at the bridge but as a different character than the guy in the knife fight. Two different actors playing two different characters yet in the same scene near the end of the movie?

If that's the case, then I was right in my original argument with that other party that the released guy was a different person from the one in the knife fight in that they were in different uniforms and to me, didn't even look the same--seems I remember the Kraut in the knife fight being taller than the other. If the released German showed up again, I never noticed him.

That's the problem when you take a bunch of young actors who I haven't seen that much and put them in uniforms with helmets that hide their face at times--I sometimes just can't tell them apart. Had a hell of a time keeping up with who was who in Memphis Bell when the whole flight crew were in oxygen masks, too! :)

Well, regardless of who played whom, letting an enemy walk away on a battlefield is just asking for it to bite you in the butt later!

Don't know if my dad (an air corp veteran of the Pacific Theater) has ever seen SPR, but I gave up on his taste in movies when he told me how funny Grumpy Old Men was. :)

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

The released German ("Steamboat Willie") is the guy who

SPOILERS (highlight to read): shoots Hanks at the end and is subsequently shot by the coward. We never find out what happens to the German in the knife fight.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

No guys SPOILERS the german they released is the same german in the knife fight passing the translator at the stairs. I dont believe anyone was revealed as Hanks killer. At the end of the film when the translator has all the germans lined up the one that says "Upman?!" like a buddy since he let the translator live at the stairs plus they chit chated when they released him, and then the translator kills him. A huge Speilberg touch that got lost due to everyone being in helmets.

The movie is much better (www.dvdhots.com)
 

John Adams (HBO Miniseries）(action and adventure):p :D


Yor must remember that many people have made the journey before you ,some of them enjoied success,some of them experienced failure .All of them can teach you something. Role models can enable you to both learn from experience you havn’t had yet or you may never have.This movie ispire everyone ,no matter what you have been through ,where you come from ,who you parents are .None of that matters .What matters is how to choose to experience ,how to live through your work ,through your family,through what you have to give to the world.:eek: :rolleyes:

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Well gee whiz, thanks for that. WTF!?!

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

No he isn't. Go and watch the movie again. The German who kills Pvt. Mellish played by Adam Goldberg is a completely different person than the "Steamboat Willie" that we first meet and then subsequently see again later. I agree with you though about him not killing Captain Miller (Hanks), I thought Upham killed "Steamboat Willie" because Upham was so upset at seeing him again after they let him go the first time.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Jeez, PW, they are obviously a John Adams fan.

Sorry I missed the whole Platoon/Saving Private Ryan argument. I like both of them, but watching Platoon makes me incredibly uncomfortable (I remember my hands being clenched in the theatre, and I saw it decades ago!) and Saving Private Ryan is a tad bit more enjoyable. I also cry at the beginning. I see those graves, hear that music, and I'm gone. In terms of trying to ascertain which is the better film, though, I think Platoon is bloody brilliant in all aspects.

And Die Hard/Lethal Weapon?! OMG, I sincerely cannot choose! Die Hard has the great Alan Rickman in it, it's so much fun, and I even like Bruce. And then Lethal Weapon is the king of buddy movies with a great scene of Mel eating pistol and doing the Three Stooges.

How can anyone really decide??? AH.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

About Saving Private Ryan:

You guys have me totally confused. The german they let go is the same guy in the stairs, right? And then the guy who kills Miller isn't really anyone we've seen, right? And the translator kills the german that had been let go and seen again, right?

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Yeah, I can't pick either. I love them both way to much. Tie.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

No Im right. How else would the german know Uphams name.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Check the ending of Ryan again. I've probably watched it more than anybody here, but it was crystal the first time through in the theatre. "Willie" greases everybody's fave teacher. There isn't even any editing for anybody to question it. :eek: :bawling:

The guy on the stairs is a different guy. Miller "runs into Steamboat Willie" again, Bastard!

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Also, in case you don't remember this part either, Upham witnesses "Willie" shoot Miller at the bridge. There is no ambiguity at all here, but I've been listening to people misinterpret this part of the movie for 10 years now. Just take a deep breath and watch it. Nothing is even slightly confusing.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

The one they let go . . .

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...ds/Pic0002.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...ds/Pic0004.jpg

The one on the stairs, from the knife fight scene . . .
(That scene disturbs the hell out of me. I need meds now! :( )

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...ds/Pic0001.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...ds/Pic0006.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...ds/Pic0005.jpg

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

'Settle down Beavis'

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

OK, Butt-head!

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Although I have watched SPR many times I have never picked up on this. Thanks mark f !!

Trying to find out more about this I found this from the Saving Private Ryan Online Encyclopedia:

http://www.sproe.com/images/steamboat-willie.jpg

Sometime before June 13th, 1944, this German soldier (Joerg Stadler) was manning a machine gun nest located beneath a bombed-out radar station somewhere in the Normandy region of France. The emplacement was attacked by a small squad of Rangers, and only one of the Germans survived. Having lost their medic in the assault, the Rangers treated their prisoner harshly. Forced to dig graves for the medic, as well as paratroopers who had earlier been killed by the machine gun, the German struck up friendly conversation with Corporal Upham, who had been assigned to the Rangers to translate.

When the Rangers returned with weapons in hand and blank stares on their faces, the German expected the worst and frantically began pleading for his life in German and in what little English words and phrases he knew. Drug off and blindfolded, the German was told to walk towards a nearby field and turn himself over to the nearest Allied unit he encountered. Most of the Rangers had wanted to execute the German, but their commanding officer, Captain John Miller, had prevented them from murdering a prisoner of war.

Fortunately for the German, he was found by his own forces and integrated into a Waffen-SS unit. This unit later participated in an attack on the French village of Ramelle, at which time the German soldier encountered the Rangers once again. As Rangers and 101st Airborne Division paratroopers retreated across the Merderet River, the soldier took aim and killed a Ranger. The man he shot was Captain Miller, the officer who had spared his life earlier. A short time later the German and his comrades were surprised when an American solider, Corporal Upham, appeared from behind their position with a rifle trained on them. Silencing the Germans attempt to make conversation, Upham fired his first shot of the war and killed the former prisoner.

http://www.sproe.com/images/screensh...t-08-large.jpg

This character is unnamed in the movie, but is referred to as "Steamboat Willie" in the credits. One very common mistake that viewers make in watching Saving Private Ryan is assuming that the German soldier set free by Miller is the same one that kills Private Mellish. The soldier that kills Mellish is from the Waffen-SS, while Steamboat Willie is a regular soldier in the Heer (Army). The two characters do bear a superficial resemblance to each other, largely due to their shaven heads and basic Germanic racial characteristics. In reality German soldiers did not have such closely-cropped hair, but for reasons unknown the production crew made sure that the German extras all received the same haircut.


"Steamboat Willie" was played by the actor Joerg Stadler

The actor who plays the Waffen-SS soldier who kills Mellish I believe was the actor Erich Redman: http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV...100_SY125_.jpg

Additional:

During the ending sequence when Upham emerges from hiding, he speaks in German without subtitles. Roughly translated, he says, "Hands high! Lay down your weapons!" (repeated) says, "I know this soldier. I know this man." Upham responds, "Hold your snout!" The German soldier responds, "Upham," then after a pause Upham shoots him. Then, to the rest of the soldiers he says, "Scram! Vanish!"

As the German soldier stabs Mellish to death, he says: "Gib' auf, du hast keine Chance! Lass' es uns beenden! Es ist einfacher für dich, viel einfacher. Du wirst sehen, es ist gleich vorbei." This translates: "Give up, you don't stand a chance! Let's end this here! It will be easier for you, much easier. You'll see it will be over quickly." The words are spoken in accent free German.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

OK, I'm inclined to agree with mark, he's usually pretty dead on when it comes to memory stuff. :D Also, Wiki is saying the same thing. I just missed that bit during the fire fight at the end. I didn't realize that they made it seem so clear that "Steamboat Willie" was the one that shot Capt. Miller.


If mark and Wiki are saying it then that's good enough for me.

Now. To be clear. Tramp and Tongo. This is a different man than the man who kills Pvt. Mellish in the room with a knife as Pvt. Upham cowers on the stairs.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Alright enough of this, how about a new match up. The last one was way to tough and the Saving Private Ryan thing has taken over the thread.

How about this one?

http://design-newyork.com/blog/wp-co...vie-poster.jpg

Vs.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_...anet_leigh.jpg

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Gah!!! What a choice!
I love, love, love Psycho, but Halloween would have to be my choice here, just by a hair.

Both movies are very well crafted and scary as all get-out, but Carpenter's superb camera work and unforgettable musical score put Halloween over the top for me, and solidify its place as my third favorite horror film, period.

This is not to say I don't appreciate Hitchcock's camera work (the slow pull back of Janet Leigh's eye in the bathroom counts as one of the greatest camera shots of all time), and Bernard Hermann's score, but Halloween is, for me, the more effective movie, and comes in ahead of Psycho.

That being said, I could completely understand if anyone felt otherwise.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I have learned something about Saving Private Ryan.

For me I liked Carpenters The Thing more, and have to go with Halloween over Psycho. Halloween wouldnt even be allowed for releasal the year Psycho came out so this isnt a fair comparison. Hitchcock would say Halloween was better, but if Carpenter got in the time machine and went back to the 50s made a movie with those limitations would he deliver better than Hitchcock? Hell no! My evidence is the last 20 years of works Carpenters put out.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

psycho was before my time there is no arguing its status as iconic and without it we probabily wouldnt even have halloween,but its carpenters classic for me all the way despite the fact his myers characters spawned a series of alikes itselfs [maniac cop,jason voorhies etc] its a masterclass in how to make an inexpensive film which still delivers the scenes where "the shape" can just be seen in the background while your attention is fixed on whats happening in the foreground makes me still look to see if ive missed anything everytime i watch it,if only he had a dead stuffed mother hmmm.....

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Oh my, with three votes for Halloween so far, I must get in here and vote for Psycho.

From the beginning when Hitchcock shifts gears from who we think is the "heroine" and star, to the twisted mind of Norman Bates, to the classic shower scene, to the final shot, Psycho is the standard bearer.

:D

And hey, thanks for clearing up the Saving Private Ryan thing. I feel rather stupid. ;)

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Agreed. I know there are many Halloween lovers here on this board. Destiny will probably want to cane me for saying this but I am not one of them. In fact I sort of think the movie is crap. I agree that the musical theme has become iconic and perhaps even transcends the movie to some degree but for me there isn't much else to it that I particularly enjoy. Sure the Shatner mask is pretty cool I guess and so-called scream queen Jamie Lee Curtis was decent enough. But to me Carpenter is pretty much a rip off artist. Sometimes that doesn't bother me at all but like I said in this mini review here. I think this flick is a little better than Halloween.

As for Psycho, its simply a timeless classic that set the bar rather high for many horror/slasher flicks to come. And let's not forget that it also had its own very catchy piece of music and probably to this day one of the most memorable shower scenes of all time.

So yeah, Psycho for this cat, all the way.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em.
Darrell Royal

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

PW, interesting, I didn't even know about that film.

As to Carpenter being a rip-off hack, Halloween has it's place, don't you think? The music has become iconic and the film sparked a big interest in teenage/slasher films. I think it deserves a decent amount of praise, even if I am not a fan of the film. ;)

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

No, don't be silly. It's not your fault that you have crappy taste at times. We all do. ;)

Yes it is, BUT I prefer Rear Window, and a few others, over Psycho. My favorite John Carpenter movie is Halloween, with The Thing nipping right at it's ass.

With that being said, my vote goes to Halloween. Like duh!

Don't get Lennon going on that opposable thumb theory again.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Wait a minute.

Carpenter is pretty much a rip off artist.

Who did he rip off? They got Friday the 13th going because of Halloween.

I need a list of who all he ripped off, and where he then used these ideas for making Halloween.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

It was pretty good, (as far as these "types" of movies go) I hope you see it someday.

Sure it belongs in the same pile of 50 movies that I have in this box set that I'm watching right now. All of which can labeled as "crap" or "out dated" films and yet a good number of them do have "cult" followings. Carpenter just got lucky and has a bigger following than some of these other "cult" films.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

*sigh* did you see my earlier post? I made a pretty clear case about the movie that he completely ripped off before he made Halloween.

EDIT: Have you seen The Demon Des?

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Obviously I didn't, or I wouldn't have asked you what I asked. I'm running late, so I'll scroll for the damn thing when I get back home.

Next time try a . . . "Here, maybe you missed this" . . . and link me to it.

No.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Psycho and Halloween are both fantastic movies.

Psycho, to me, is a little bit technically superior to Halloween.

But I prefer Halloween. If anything, simply because it's one of the movies that got me interested in film.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Well, I just watched my copy of The Demon; it's part of one of those nine-horror-movies-for-ten-bucks collections, which I only bought in the first place because it included Bava's Kill, Baby...Kill! and Argento's Deep Red. Although both the liner notes and Amazon.com list the release date as 1976, the fact that a billboard for The Amityville Horror appears in one scene confirms IMdB's release date of 1979, one year after Halloween. So let's just put the "Carpenter is a ripoff artist" to bed, shall we?

Aside from that, the movie is mediocre at best. Some of the scenes, especially the kills, are so poorly lit it's hard to tell what the hell is going on, the camera work is uninspired, and the film itself is poorly constructed with, apparently, two different heroines, which dilutes any sense of tension or suspense. With actors sleepwalking through the production, and the fact that it borrows heavily from Carpenter's Halloween and Bob Clark's Black Christmas, all I can say is "I want my 90 minutes back!"

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

My vote is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzAnE4zuYuA