The Movie House

Ganso wrote:Can anyone recommend me a movie similar to Shutter Island or No Country for Old Men?

What about:
-Insomnia
-Memento
-Fargo
-Burn after Reading
-Seven
-The girl with the dragon tattoo(Fincher version)
-Take shelter
-A history of violence
-Lucky number slevin
-Leon
(these movies are pretty popular, but if you haven't seen it, you should)

deadrave wrote:oh trust me is much more than special effects which you seem to concentrated on just to put down everything i said

true masterpieces of this generation are defined my moments and entire scenes that could have never been filmed befire 90s which have a big impact in the understanding and joy of the movie

screw the sci-fi and every other fantasy garbage

im a drama and psychological thriller genre fan
and every single movie of these genres i did and i want to watch need to be perfect in every aspect
from the story-line to the music choice, place filming,realism of important happenings and many other god damn important things

it was not my choice. but i was born in a generation of movies with high standarts in every point of view
and watching movies from 1960 or so will be like playing fifa 2000 right now.
its not that weird considering there are people who still play mario which is a classic game same way people watch casablanca

see i can play the same game. you compare movies to art and music well why not compare them to gaming really?
its vice versa you know

So you'd rate Safe House as a better film than Taxi Driver (1976) or Psycho (1960) just because it was made in 2012? You'd rate The Juror (1996) as a better film than Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) simply because it was made since 1990? Stop it. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Also, no film is perfect in every aspect. And even if perfection were possible, how would you know a film was perfect before you see it? It simply wouldn't be possible for every film you've watched or want to watch to be perfect in every aspect. Again, you're embarrassing yourself.

And by the way, the fact that I compared films to art and music while you compared films to video games is very telling. In fact, it completely gave you away. I see films as a form of art. You obviously see them as mindless entertainment to pass time.

goonbrain wrote:

Ganso wrote:Can anyone recommend me a movie similar to Shutter Island or No Country for Old Men?

What about:
-Insomnia
-Memento
-Fargo
-Burn after Reading
-Seven
-The girl with the dragon tattoo(Fincher version)
-Take shelter
-A history of violence
-Lucky number slevin
-Leon
(these movies are pretty popular, but if you haven't seen it, you should)

I was particularly fond of Memento, Fargo and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (both versions, actually). A good list to work from!

this argument is pointless

you cant just pick some new movies and compare them to old ones

relatively speaking i generally compared the limit of the old movies to the new ones
and the old ones cant offer me what i want
the old ones cant offer what most people of this gen want


im embarassing my self as you say, let it be. thats who i am and i like me. keep watching psycho,taxi driver casablanca or any other ancient film since you like them but let me call them crap cause they are IMO


btw safe house is an action movie , psycho and taxi driver are drama,thriller ones
i know there werent any decent action movies at that time but you could simply avoid the comparison

and since you see films as a form of art let me tell you that art was introduced in movies as general well more improved in the later years
you see, simplicity was a major role of that at that time
one of the latest movies even -take shelter- for example as goonbrain mentioned above is a form of art and a true masterpiece
a masterpiece that in any way it would never have been created in 1970 or so, for many reasons your brain doesnt seem to accept

Die Hard is from the '80's and highly regarded as one of the best actions movies of all time... Please stop spouting all this BS just because you like special effects.
If you want action movies, there is tons of great action movies from before '90,

dont take everything litelary, just cause i say 1990 doesnt mean every movie after january 1 time 00:00 is a quality one and each one before it isnt.. think!...

die hard is 1988 movie so it is one i could possibly rate as worthy

all this "BS" i said arent only relative to special effects, you make it look that way.


so mind me psycho and taxi driver are movies around 1960-76
would you mind pointing out an action movie of that age?

you wouldnt cause you first would need to google them to search (cause you dont know any) and find one and secondly you wouldnt find, cause simply an action movie to be worthy it needs action and that age the only action you could film would be a horse ride or a poor car chase or a gunfire without blood

Star Wars, indiana Jones, Everything with Bruce Lee, Terminator 1.
There is a lot of alternative action movies from 30 years or more ago, just not a lot of "terrorist movies"

deadrave wrote:

so mind me psycho and taxi driver are movies around 1960-76
would you mind pointing out an action movie of that age?

Just about every Bond film with Sean Connery and Roger Moore.

In the interest of discussion here.

Which movie do you feel is better? The masterpiece of innovation that is Scott Pilgrim or Citiizen Kane?

Personally give me Scott Pilgrim all day long.

There are 2 sides to every argument.

Le Samourai wrote:In the interest of discussion here.

Which movie do you feel is better? The masterpiece of innovation that is Scott Pilgrim or Citiizen Kane?

Personally give me Scott Pilgrim all day long.

There are 2 sides to every argument.

It is pretty close for me about those 2 movies, i would say it is even.
Scott Pilgrim would be a great movie imo with another actor that fits the role, but i simply cannot stand Michael Cera, I have a huge desire to punch him.
Citizen kane is a good film but way overrated, and I would have wanted a better ending in the whole "rosebut" thing

Why are we entertaining trolls in this section?

Your loss if you're willing to write off a movie based on a time period.


Continue doing that while the rest of us enjoy Godfather I and II, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Alien, etc etc.

An action movie from the 60-76? Dirty Harry, French Connection, Enter the Dragon.

Just watched Warrior, the movie almost had me in utter tears, Tom Hardy is a GOAT already IMO, one of my favourite actors today.
Looking forward to see how well he pulls off the role of Bane, sure hope he doesn't have to be put up against Heath Ledgers performance in The Dark Knight

dmize wrote:Why are we entertaining trolls in this section?

Your loss if you're willing to write off a movie based on a time period.


Continue doing that while the rest of us enjoy Godfather I and II, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Alien, etc etc.

An action movie from the 60-76? Dirty Harry, French Connection, Enter the Dragon.

just cause i got a different opinion doesnt mean im a troll



keep enjoying whatever movie you like i dont give a crap

Freeza wrote:Just watched Warrior, the movie almost had me in utter tears, Tom Hardy is a GOAT already IMO, one of my favourite actors today.
Looking forward to see how well he pulls off the role of Bane, sure hope he doesn't have to be put up against Heath Ledgers performance in The Dark Knight

yeah tom hardy was amazing in this movie, the part with the fighting scene at the gym where he says "you owe me 200 bucks" was just GOAT

Eyes Wide Shut...Very interesting

Just watched Spiderman and i don't know what JespSwe was watching but i think it was pretty good, some of parts were cheesy but i think it was better then the original one.

Garfield was pretty good and was more like the Comic Book Spidy then tobey, feels young and witty, Tobey was just too boring and dull

There seems to be a lot of hate on Tobey.

I like Tobey (other than Spiderman 3....lol)

I didn't read any of the comics though so that probably plays a part in why I don't...dislike his playing of Spiderman. I haven't seen Garfield version though.

Legend wrote:Just watched Spiderman and i don't know what JespSwe was watching but i think it was pretty good, some of parts were cheesy but i think it was better then the original one.

Garfield was pretty good and was more like the Comic Book Spidy then tobey, feels young and witty, Tobey was just too boring and dull

im sorry if i disappointed u mate with my review.... i thought it sucked though.

in Japan it was shown first, but even if was available for free to watch it i wont watch it lol.


sure like i said tobey maguire one was lame but when u reboot a franchise i expected better things like i said previously in post, i went to watch this movie having lot of expectations because i didnt like raimi ones.

having watched trailers i was convinced it might be a better than the others but it was lot worse. just wait till we get proper views from people.

sorry to disappoint u lol though if u thought it was great. cheers ^O^V

Patrick Bateman wrote:

JespSwe wrote:looking forward to the dark knight rises ... just month to go woohoo. looking forward to bourne movie, and 007, wondering how sam mendes does, looking at trailer i am bit nervous that it night fail, MGM cant afford to let this movie flop because the company went bankrupt and have finally come back and greenlight the movie.

guys do u think should direct the next 007 and after daniel criag contract expires and if he doesnt renew who should be cast??? any suggestions?

me i think henry cavill should get the gig since i read in imdb that he just narrowly lost to daniel craig for the role (barbara brocchi was said to have stamped daniel craig should get the role after watching layer cake... actually that movie is awesome)
other than that i cant help but think tom hardy should definitely play 007. he is the next huge superstar he is already amazing actor

on director, i desperately want Christopher Nolan to write and direct 007 one day.

Tom Hardy 007, Nolan Director = superGOAT!!!!

Would make the perfect Bond imo.

he would. nolan him and sir michael caine has worked together long enough to be in some awesome project again... like 007.

Legend wrote:

JespSwe wrote:looking forward to the dark knight rises ... just month to go woohoo. looking forward to bourne movie, and 007, wondering how sam mendes does, looking at trailer i am bit nervous that it night fail, MGM cant afford to let this movie flop because the company went bankrupt and have finally come back and greenlight the movie.

guys do u think should direct the next 007 and after daniel criag contract expires and if he doesnt renew who should be cast??? any suggestions? me i think henry cavill should get the gig since i read in imdb that he just narrowly lost to daniel craig for the role (barbara brocchi was said to have stamped daniel craig should get the role after watching layer cake... actually that movie is awesome)
other than that i cant help but think tom hardy should definitely play 007. he is the next huge superstar he is already amazing actor

on director, i desperately want Christopher Nolan to write and direct 007 one day.

Tom Hardy 007, Nolan Director = superGOAT!!!!

clive owen or Gerard Butler are good picks, but they will probably choose someone like Fassbender or Worthington

for me he has to be British

but i would love it to be Benedict Cumberbatch (probably won't fit the role)

but Craig is gonna be there for a while i think, but he has done a pretty good job and has that old British look

think barbara broccoli will renew his contract but i think craig will probably not renew himself. but yeah i have to say he has done awesome job. its just that it was unfortuanate after casino royale success, marc foster didnt do well.

fasssbender is awesome. worthington is top guy as well but he is australian so maybe doesnt suit. my main preference is still tom hardy.

ahh.. nothing to do this friday night so will probably watch, da vinci code and Angels & Demons. do u guys like the movie?

JespSwe wrote:ahh.. nothing to do this friday night so will probably watch, da vinci code and Angels & Demons. do u guys like the movie?

I have watched 'Angels n Demons' and i liked it. Definitely worth a watch. Tom hanks GOATing as always

Sofia Coppola.

Every time I watch one of her movies it I swear to god I will not watch another one, not because they aren't good movies or cathartic or whatever but because it's just plain depressing to look at what people put themselves through in Society.

The Virgin Suicides was no different.

I think I hate the mother more than any other character in any other movie I've ever watched, when she started burning the record I just wanted to reach into the screen and choke her.

Sigh.....

Saw the new Spiderman movie.

I liked it as much as the other ones. Some cheesy moments...like someone else pointed out, but good overall. I haven't read any of the comic books so I can't say if it was a good adaptation...I can only judge based off the other movies and I thought it did well.

Was wondering where I saw Emma stone from other than zombieland, and realized it was Paper Man (she was great in that movie). An indie film which got...absolutely awful reviews, but I enjoyed nonetheless. I'm perplexed by critics sometimes. Sometimes they hail something as great when I thought it was average (avengers) and hail something as average when I thought it was good/great- as the case in Paper Man. Though it did have some WTF moments but you can find that in every film (if they have a large enough budget though usually they will be forgotten about).

Idk, I guess I just like indie stuff too much. But I've learned to not pay attention to reviews too much.

I saw Snow White and the Huntsman yesterday (school excursion). Since my analysis is not good, I'll just say that, although it wasn't as terrible as I initially thought it would be, it wasn't good. It was too rushed and the ending was quite 'empty'.

Maje10 wrote:I saw Snow White and the Huntsman yesterday (school excursion). Since my analysis is not good, I'll just say that, although it wasn't as terrible as I initially thought it would be, it wasn't good. It was too rushed and the ending was quite 'empty'.

Stewart was atrocious, Theron was amazing but had to over do her acting a bit

Wedding Crashers