Originally posted by rwingettThat may be true. But i have quite clearly defined as to what i i am refering to when i mention 'old' and 'modern' films, whereas you have not. In fact you couldn't be any more vague. Could you be a bit more conise in the point you are trying to make. in fact. Are you trying to make a point at all?
But your conception of what constitutes an "old" film differs radically from mine.
Oooh. Didn't i sound like a bitch then.!?
I hate the sound of my own voice sometimes.
😛
Originally posted by Joe FistWhat about "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"?😉
No way!!!!!!
Better than Scorcese? Kubrik? Spielberg? Scott? Fah!!!!!!
Annie Hall is better than Godfather I or II? Citizen Kane? Casablanca? Just to name a few better movies. And this just ain't me saying it.....😛
In fact, I went to view the AFI top 100 movies and Annie Hall was number 31:
1. CITIZEN KANE (1941)
2. CASABLANCA (1942 ...[text shortened]... EASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE (1948)
31. ANNIE HALL (1977)
32. THE GODFATHER PART II (1974)
Originally posted by StarrmanShawshank Redemption: It is one of my top 10 favorite movies
Please tell me what was so great about it? The acting is no better than many other films of the time. The storyline is pretty down the line. It has a sickening ending and teh cinematography is plain normal. Why do people rate this film so highly? I just don't get it. Sure it's a good film, but I know people who think it is the best film they've seen. It is just and average-good film with no overawing features at all.
Originally posted by shavixmirHmmmm....let me just say at my desk I have a copy of the original Pulp Fiction script at my desk. Probably like you, I have seen the movie at least 30 times. I need to stress that Pulp is one of my favorite movies of all time so you need to know I love the movie.
OH NO!!!!
All credibility has just been flushed down the drain....
What on earth do you mean Shawshank was better than Pulp????
Originiality: Pulp
Dialogues: Pulp
Acting: well, could go both ways
Story line: Pulp
Humour: Pulp
Trend setting: Pulp
Coolness: pulp
The only reason pulp fiction did not receive that oscar, is because it was poli ...[text shortened]...
And being the Hanks hater I am, I am in no position to objectively oppose Hanks....BUT I DO!!!
Shawshank was still better over all, if you had to pick one.
Originiality: Moot - both were very original in my opinion
Dialogue: Pulp (Sure but Shawshank didn't need exceptional unique dialogue to be great)
Acting: I agree it could go both ways but I would even give the edge to Pulp. Tarentino literally saved John Travolta from more "Look whose talking 18"
Story line: Shawshank (Yes Pulp was brilliant but I think Shawshank was a much more cohesive story)
Humour: Pulp (I agree but Shawshank wasn't trying to be funny, was it? Not a fair comparison)
Trend setting: Pulp (but again, that's not an appropriate comparison)
Coolness: Pulp (see above)
I agree Pulp was a far better movie than Gump for sure but I think for overall storyline I like Shawshank 🙂
Originally posted by Joe Fist
Originiality: Moot - both were very original in my opinion
Hardly, Pulp Fiction was original, Shawshank was a pretty obvious story of a man in jail, there have been loads of these.
Dialogue: Pulp
Agreed
Acting: I agree it could go both ways but I would even give the edge to Pulp. Tarentino literally saved John Travolta from more "Look whose talking 18"
The acting in Shawshank relies on 2 character both of which do a good job, but neither of which are stunning. Pulp on the other hand has several charcters who act their socks off, some of whom are truly memorable performances.
Story line: Shawshank (Yes Pulp was brilliant but I think Shawshank was a much more cohesive story)
What!?!?! What has cohesive got to do with it? There's practically nothing to the Shawshank story, it's straight down the line, there's no twists and turns (unless you count the utterly obvious breakout-poster thing) and it ends in a sickeningly happy, good for all the family way, please... If Morgan Freeman had hung himself, that would have been a good ending.
Humour: Pulp (I agree but Shawshank wasn't trying to be funny, was it? Not a fair comparison)
Lol, you chose the category 🙂
Trend setting: Pulp (but again, that's not an appropriate comparison)
Since when is this an apt value of a films worth anyway?
Coolness: Pulp (see above)
I agree Pulp was a far better movie than Gump for sure but I think for overall storyline I like Shawshank 🙂
So you've voted for Pulp in more cases than Shawshank, opted for amute comparison in one and yet you still say Shawshank is the better film. Honestly, I just don't get it, can you please tell me what is actually better about Shawshank?
Originally posted by StarrmanOkay, let me just sum up why I think Shawshank is better than Pulp. I am a sucker for good stories about hope and this was one of the better ones. For me good stories about hope are better than good stories about being slick and cool, which was Pulp. I will grant you most of your criticisms are accurate but for me, a story about a guy who gets screwed for something he didn't do and gets it all back is better than a series of vignettes of interesting characters. Call me mushy and nuts, perhaps I am 😉
Originally posted by Joe Fist
[b]Originiality: Moot - both were very original in my opinion
Hardly, Pulp Fiction was original, Shawshank was a pretty obvious story of a man in jail, there have been loads of these.
Dia ...[text shortened]... t, can you please tell me what is actually better about Shawshank?
don't know why this is being put in bold. I didn't set it that way.
Originally posted by StarrmanWell, nobody's gonna cover a bad song and nobody's gonna "Copy" a bad movie.
[b
Trend setting: Pulp (but again, that's not an appropriate comparison)
Since when is this an apt value of a films worth anyway?
[/b]
So, if a film sets a trend (like Star Wars, Pulp Fiction or Search for the Holy Grail), then it...blah blah blah.
Sorry, just couldn't be arsed finishing what I started.