Reply to Topic
As I think I've said before, though I've seen some of The Marriage Of Maria Braun, I can't remember if I've seen it all or not and I certainly don't remember any of it. I love Mildred Pierce, though. Obviously I can't compare the two, but I'd certainly recommend Mildred Pierce to anyone and, as what I saw of "Marriage" didn't hold my attention enough to finish it or even remember anything, I'd guess that I'd prefer Mildred Pierce.
Which movie is better, and why?!
I think Maria Braun is definitely one of those films that require repeat viewings if only just to enjoy the title character's sex appeal and how Fassbinder to explores feminism at such a complex time in the world. Mildred Pierce is great and uses the hallmarks of noir wonderfully, I definitely agree, but Maria Braun gets the nod for me just because I find it more stylish and find Hanna Schygulla's performance to be mesmerising as well very sexy. Both are top films though.
The main comparisons I find between the films are that they are both set in the 1940s, they both show unusual marriages, they both have the title female character scramble to make lots of money (although for different reasons), they both involve a murder, and they both are prime examples of Hollywood melodramas (yeah, even if Maria Braun was made in 1979 Germany). There are other similarities, but one I personally find is that I give them both .
Anyone who has seen the beginning or ending of Maria Braun would certainly remember those parts, so if you saw it, honey, you must have missed both the beginning and ending. They are both quite spectacular and cause the film to come full circle. No, they are not subtle bookends, but they are both a wow! Mildred Pierce (1945) is an incredibly-competent Hollywood film noir melodrama and contains Joan Crawford's Oscar-winning performance and a striking turn by Ann Blyth as her Queen Bitch daughter. It's more melodrama but the noir flourishes are also in your face and wow. The cinematography of both films is spectacular. DP Ernest Haller paints James M. Cain's story in high-contrast shadows, especially in the suspense/murder scenes so that it's difficult to solve the mystery but the entire film has a punched-up B&W pallet. In Fassbinder's Maria Braun, Michael Ballhaus's camera intensely prowls around the characters and there are a few tracking shots which reveal more about the devastation of post-WWII Germany than pages of dialogue ever could. Ballhaus shoots in color but often the effect is very gritty and realistic. You have to remember that The Marriage of Maria Braun was the first of a trilogy which Fassbinder made critiquing life in Postwar Germany, but each film looks completely different. The second film, Lola, is shot in pastels and looks like the cousin of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and the third film, Veronika Voss, is shot in a low-contrast B&W which utilizes almost no blacks at all.
I'm not sure how you came up with these two flicks, but they are good for comparison and contrast . I'd obviously recommend both of them, and if anybody is feeling up to putting their tootsies into Fassbinder's enormous filmographic swimming pool, I'd say that Maria Braun is probably as good a place as any to start. I cannot honestly say which one is better until I watch them back-to-back though.
Anyone who has seen the beginning or ending of Maria Braun would certainly remember those parts, so if you saw it, honey, you must have missed both the beginning and ending. They are both quite spectacular and cause the film to come full circle. No, they are not subtle bookends, but they are both a wow! Mildred Pierce (1945) is an incredibly-competent Hollywood film noir melodrama and contains Joan Crawford's Oscar-winning performance and a striking turn by Ann Blyth as her Queen Bitch daughter. It's more melodrama but the noir flourishes are also in your face and wow. The cinematography of both films is spectacular. DP Ernest Haller paints James M. Cain's story in high-contrast shadows, especially in the suspense/murder scenes so that it's difficult to solve the mystery but the entire film has a punched-up B&W pallet. In Fassbinder's Maria Braun, Michael Ballhaus's camera intensely prowls around the characters and there are a few tracking shots which reveal more about the devastation of post-WWII Germany than pages of dialogue ever could. Ballhaus shoots in color but often the effect is very gritty and realistic. You have to remember that The Marriage of Maria Braun was the first of a trilogy which Fassbinder made critiquing life in Postwar Germany, but each film looks completely different. The second film, Lola, is shot in pastels and looks like the cousin of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and the third film, Veronika Voss, is shot in a low-contrast B&W which utilizes almost no blacks at all.
I'm not sure how you came up with these two flicks, but they are good for comparison and contrast . I'd obviously recommend both of them, and if anybody is feeling up to putting their tootsies into Fassbinder's enormous filmographic swimming pool, I'd say that Maria Braun is probably as good a place as any to start. I cannot honestly say which one is better until I watch them back-to-back though.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
how bout a couple of corrupt cop /young resistant protoge flick?
or
or
__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I've not seen Dark Blue, but Kurt Russell rarely impresses me and, as with this film, he's rarely in films I want to see. As for Training Day, I really didn't see what all the fuss was about, especially (as I've mentioned before) Denzel's impression of Samuel L. Jackson playing the role. So I guess I don't really have a winner here.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Watch Dark Blue HK, if i recall correctly you were a fan of LA Confidential.
What i mean is, Kurt Russells character's father could have been Bud White.
What i mean is, Kurt Russells character's father could have been Bud White.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Training Day outclasses Dark Blue in every way imaginable. Its not an even comparison. Even the movie Internal Affairs, where Richard Gere is a bad cop, was better than Dark Blue.
The main comparisons I find between the films are that they are both set in the 1940s, they both show unusual marriages, they both have the title female character scramble to make lots of money (although for different reasons), they both involve a murder, and they both are prime examples of Hollywood melodramas (yeah, even if Maria Braun was made in 1979 Germany). There are other similarities, but one I personally find is that I give them both .
Anyone who has seen the beginning or ending of Maria Braun would certainly remember those parts, so if you saw it, honey, you must have missed both the beginning and ending. They are both quite spectacular and cause the film to come full circle. No, they are not subtle bookends, but they are both a wow! Mildred Pierce (1945) is an incredibly-competent Hollywood film noir melodrama and contains Joan Crawford's Oscar-winning performance and a striking turn by Ann Blyth as her Queen Bitch daughter. It's more melodrama but the noir flourishes are also in your face and wow. The cinematography of both films is spectacular. DP Ernest Haller paints James M. Cain's story in high-contrast shadows, especially in the suspense/murder scenes so that it's difficult to solve the mystery but the entire film has a punched-up B&W pallet. In Fassbinder's Maria Braun, Michael Ballhaus's camera intensely prowls around the characters and there are a few tracking shots which reveal more about the devastation of post-WWII Germany than pages of dialogue ever could. Ballhaus shoots in color but often the effect is very gritty and realistic. You have to remember that The Marriage of Maria Braun was the first of a trilogy which Fassbinder made critiquing life in Postwar Germany, but each film looks completely different. The second film, Lola, is shot in pastels and looks like the cousin of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and the third film, Veronika Voss, is shot in a low-contrast B&W which utilizes almost no blacks at all.
I'm not sure how you came up with these two flicks, but they are good for comparison and contrast . I'd obviously recommend both of them, and if anybody is feeling up to putting their tootsies into Fassbinder's enormous filmographic swimming pool, I'd say that Maria Braun is probably as good a place as any to start. I cannot honestly say which one is better until I watch them back-to-back though.
Anyone who has seen the beginning or ending of Maria Braun would certainly remember those parts, so if you saw it, honey, you must have missed both the beginning and ending. They are both quite spectacular and cause the film to come full circle. No, they are not subtle bookends, but they are both a wow! Mildred Pierce (1945) is an incredibly-competent Hollywood film noir melodrama and contains Joan Crawford's Oscar-winning performance and a striking turn by Ann Blyth as her Queen Bitch daughter. It's more melodrama but the noir flourishes are also in your face and wow. The cinematography of both films is spectacular. DP Ernest Haller paints James M. Cain's story in high-contrast shadows, especially in the suspense/murder scenes so that it's difficult to solve the mystery but the entire film has a punched-up B&W pallet. In Fassbinder's Maria Braun, Michael Ballhaus's camera intensely prowls around the characters and there are a few tracking shots which reveal more about the devastation of post-WWII Germany than pages of dialogue ever could. Ballhaus shoots in color but often the effect is very gritty and realistic. You have to remember that The Marriage of Maria Braun was the first of a trilogy which Fassbinder made critiquing life in Postwar Germany, but each film looks completely different. The second film, Lola, is shot in pastels and looks like the cousin of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and the third film, Veronika Voss, is shot in a low-contrast B&W which utilizes almost no blacks at all.
I'm not sure how you came up with these two flicks, but they are good for comparison and contrast . I'd obviously recommend both of them, and if anybody is feeling up to putting their tootsies into Fassbinder's enormous filmographic swimming pool, I'd say that Maria Braun is probably as good a place as any to start. I cannot honestly say which one is better until I watch them back-to-back though.
.I did forget about the murder in Maria Braun, though so that's another interesting observation.
I think I prefer Training Day to Dark Blue, although Dark Blue wasn't bad itself. I think Training Day is better mostly due to Denzel Washington's strong cast against type performance and the film itself has some nice moments of tension throughout. I also felt like I went on a journey with Ethan Hawkes character and felt almost as exhausted as he does at the end. Dark Blue has a strong performance from Kurt Russell and is an alright film but it's also a 'so what' type of film too. There is very little to nothing memorable about it or the characters.
Jurrasic Park...
..or..
..The Matrix?!
Deciding between these two is like deciding which one dropped your jaw the most. Immediately I think The Matrix is better, but was it? Am I just thinking that because Matrix came out more recently in comparison? Lets break it down -
Acting - The acting was very bad in both, and very good. Keanu is just a bad actor, though once the story started clicking I was hooked. The young girl/older sister in Jurrasic Park that did the screaming UGH! what an awful sound she could emit!
Laurence Fishburn was so necessary to sell the entire concept. The actors in Jurrasic Park did a great job acting against nothing whatsoever due to the CGI.
Special Effects - Jurrasic Park was CGIs introduction into the mainstream, and changed movies ever since. The awe factor of Jurrasic Park I believe had a larger impact than Matrix. Matrix was tough, quick, cool, and all that is badass. The theatre audience viewing Jurrasic Park was stunned at seeing dinosaurs for the first time. They werent of course, but the CGI impact made me feel like a hillbilly from Oh Brother Where Art Thou.
Story - Both stories were great, were fresh, and made sense. The opening scene of Matrix was dynamic as the Trinity character fights, and eludes authorities. I wasnt sold on the movie though until the story was explained. Im saying the story of the Matrix was better than the special effects, and thats saying alot.
Jurrasic Park had an ingenious way to bring dinosaurs to life, cloning from a blood cell from a prehistoric mosquito, and a true understanding of what we as man would do with such a genetic trick. Make a theme park. Hey hey!
So which one is better? Matrix. The story, and potential for future stories that could come from it is what made the difference for me.
..or..
..The Matrix?!
Deciding between these two is like deciding which one dropped your jaw the most. Immediately I think The Matrix is better, but was it? Am I just thinking that because Matrix came out more recently in comparison? Lets break it down -
Acting - The acting was very bad in both, and very good. Keanu is just a bad actor, though once the story started clicking I was hooked. The young girl/older sister in Jurrasic Park that did the screaming UGH! what an awful sound she could emit!
Laurence Fishburn was so necessary to sell the entire concept. The actors in Jurrasic Park did a great job acting against nothing whatsoever due to the CGI.
Special Effects - Jurrasic Park was CGIs introduction into the mainstream, and changed movies ever since. The awe factor of Jurrasic Park I believe had a larger impact than Matrix. Matrix was tough, quick, cool, and all that is badass. The theatre audience viewing Jurrasic Park was stunned at seeing dinosaurs for the first time. They werent of course, but the CGI impact made me feel like a hillbilly from Oh Brother Where Art Thou.
Story - Both stories were great, were fresh, and made sense. The opening scene of Matrix was dynamic as the Trinity character fights, and eludes authorities. I wasnt sold on the movie though until the story was explained. Im saying the story of the Matrix was better than the special effects, and thats saying alot.
Jurrasic Park had an ingenious way to bring dinosaurs to life, cloning from a blood cell from a prehistoric mosquito, and a true understanding of what we as man would do with such a genetic trick. Make a theme park. Hey hey!
So which one is better? Matrix. The story, and potential for future stories that could come from it is what made the difference for me.
The Matrix, outside the fight scenes. Jurassic Park was just entertainment, but yes the CGI was fantastic
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Matrix. I really didn't like Jurassic Park. I couldn't give a monkeys about the effects, so the whole thing was pretty much lost on me.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I give a slight edge to Matrix as well. I dig the atmosphere in both of em. Matrix plays more into convention, but it moves much more briskly and packs some awesome set pieces.
The Matrix > Jurassic Park
The Matrix > Jurassic Park
__________________
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Tombstone, Val Kilmer did perfect
__________________
Michael Madsen speaking to me "Quentin is like a kid in a toy store, he has so much enthusiasm and when your working with him you know your working on something great"
Michael Madsen speaking to me "Quentin is like a kid in a toy store, he has so much enthusiasm and when your working with him you know your working on something great"
The Matrix wins hands down. A long time ago I read Neuromancer by William Gibson and wished that someone would attempt to capture the "cyberspace" alternate reality on film. Not only did they do that, but executed it almost perfectly. I found Jurassic Park to be good, but it's not in the same ballpark for me. Agent Smith scares me a whole lot more than a velociraptor. 
X