Citizen Kane was overrated.

 

Inception > Godfather > Casino Royale > The Dark Knight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Batman Returns > Citizen Kane.

 

I've never seen Inception (and people making ridiculous statements like this is the reason I'm waiting until it's out on DVD), but that just isn't true.

I've never seen Inception (and people making ridiculous statements like this is the reason I'm waiting until it's out on DVD), but that just isn't true.

 

Inception is a movie you should've seen at the theater. It was friggin great.

Citizen Kane was overrated.

 

Inception > Godfather > Casino Royale > The Dark Knight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Batman Returns > Citizen Kane.

 

 

I gotta say I think Inception is a little overrated. I'm a little uncomfortable seeing Casino Royal and Inception ahead of the Dark Knight too.

Citizen Kane was overrated.

 

Inception > Godfather > Casino Royale > The Dark Knight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Batman Returns > Citizen Kane.

 

Obviously you have been sniffing glue.

The whole "International Texas Hold Em" thing made me not take that film seriously.

 

James Bond does not play Texas Hold Em and neither do foreign evil doers with giant scars.

The whole "International Texas Hold Em" thing made me not take that film seriously.

 

James Bond does not play Texas Hold Em and neither do foreign evil doers with giant scars.

 

Plus, even though it's all Ian Flemming's fault. . . NOBODY who knows what they are doing shakes a gin martini.

 

However. . . the Vesper Cocktail — formulated ala' Casino Royale — is a great drink. You have to use a better gin than the Gordon's originally called for because the current version of that product is totally different and much crappier than it was in 1953. You also have to substitute Lillet Blanc for Lina Lilet which is no longer produced. Do youself a favor though and unless you want the total Bond authenticity stir it instead of shaking.

Edited September 22, 201015 yr by FlaSoxxJim

Inception is a movie you should've seen at the theater. It was friggin great.

 

That may well be the case, but there is absolutely no way it was better than The Godfather.

That may well be the case, but there is absolutely no way it was better than The Godfather.

 

Why even compare them? Totally different kinds of movies.

Godfather 2 > Godfather

Godfather 2 > Godfather

 

That is truth. Which is saying something, because the original Godfather is near-perfect.

I enjoyed Casino Royale a lot, QOS was garbage. The writing difference between the two was night and day.

 

And knightni, how could you take ANY of them seriously? If that's your criteria, there is no point in watching any of them.

 

i have never read the Bond novels, but from reviews of the two Daniel Craig movies I have read a lot of people saying that he is the closest to the novel version of bond that there has been in film.

 

I've had a couple people who read the novels tell me that the closest Bond to the books was actually Timothy Dalton. Dalton who, BTW, I think was decent in his first Bond film, but was given utter garbage to work with in the second.

 

I've been rolling my eyes during previews of 'The Social Network', but early reviews suggest it's legit. A top critic on RT.com even compared it to Citizen Kane, lol

 

Its Fincher directing, and I have yet to see him make a bad film.

 

I disagree, I really enjoyed both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, I like the pace and tone of both movies. And I especially like that they took out the tongue in cheek hokiness that crept into the series at the end of the brosnan era

You didn't like a guy racing across a glacier in Iceland followed by a giant space laser? Why not?

 

Anyway, my biggest problem with QOS is that it was "bourne" type filmmaking taken to an extreme. Rather than actually having legitmate action in a lot of scenes, they rely on rapid-camera angle switches to give the illusion of rapid action. (compare the chase scene at the start of QOS with the chase scene in Tangiers in the 3rd Bourne movie in terms of how they're shot). It wound up being just distracting to me.

Its Fincher directing, and I have yet to see him make a bad film.

Panic Room was rather lame.

Panic Room was rather lame.

Probably his worst movie, but I thought it was decent.

 

Godfather 2 > Godfather

 

Agreed.

 

Why even compare them? Totally different kinds of movies.

 

I didn't make the original comparison. But even though they are entirely different movies, one can obviously be better than the other. In this case, the better movie is The Godfather.

Godfather 2 > Godfather

Anybody ever see The Godfather Trilogy?

 

I thought it was pretty good. Also there was The Godfather Saga...which put parts 1 & 2 in chronological order. I thought the Trilogy was better, but both were kinda cool and a must see for fans.

Edited September 22, 201015 yr by Controlled Chaos

Anybody ever see The Godfather Trilogy?

 

I thought it was pretty good. Also there was The Godfather Saga...which put parts 1 & 2 in chronological order. I thought the Trilogy was better, but both were kinda cool and a must see for fans.

 

I actually enjoyed watching them in chronological order very much. I especially liked watching the old Vito Corleone scenes from when he was younger uninterrupted.

Anybody ever see The Godfather Trilogy?

 

I thought it was pretty good. Also there was The Godfather Saga...which put parts 1 & 2 in chronological order. I thought the Trilogy was better, but both were kinda cool and a must see for fans.

 

If I understand correctly, they use the exact same footage from the original movies and just put them in chronological order? No new scenes or anything?

If I understand correctly, they use the exact same footage from the original movies and just put them in chronological order? No new scenes or anything?

Pretty much. There is extra footage that wasn't in the original movies, but it basically just cuts and splices 1 & 2 so it's in chronological order.

 

The saga used to be on TNT once in a while.

Obviously you have been sniffing glue.

 

Or everyone else in the world has. At the very least, I have sparked debate in the film thread. My plan has worked.

 

 

The whole "International Texas Hold Em" thing made me not take that film seriously.

 

James Bond does not play Texas Hold Em and neither do foreign evil doers with giant scars.

 

The whole texas hold'em thing made me feel closer to Bond. I can't explain it, but it drew me in a bit because I was wondering where they were going with it.

 

Why even compare them? Totally different kinds of movies.

 

Because a different genre can be compared too. Overall, I think that's the order of entertainment. Think about it. People compare Jordan to Wilt and Bill all the time. At the same time, I can still sit here and say Jordan was better than Bill and Wilt even though they were different players.

 

I enjoyed Casino Royale a lot, QOS was garbage. The writing difference between the two was night and day.

 

And knightni, how could you take ANY of them seriously? If that's your criteria, there is no point in watching any of them.

 

I've had a couple people who read the novels tell me that the closest Bond to the books was actually Timothy Dalton. Dalton who, BTW, I think was decent in his first Bond film, but was given utter garbage to work with in the second.

 

Its Fincher directing, and I have yet to see him make a bad film.

 

Casino Royale was the best. I can't really say much about the other ones, but I will say Craig was the best Bond ever.

 

You didn't like a guy racing across a glacier in Iceland followed by a giant space laser? Why not?

 

Anyway, my biggest problem with QOS is that it was "bourne" type filmmaking taken to an extreme. Rather than actually having legitmate action in a lot of scenes, they rely on rapid-camera angle switches to give the illusion of rapid action. (compare the chase scene at the start of QOS with the chase scene in Tangiers in the 3rd Bourne movie in terms of how they're shot). It wound up being just distracting to me.

 

Eh, I thought it was good. Especially when showing the car chase in the beginning. It was no Casino Royale though. That chase was better and the picture was flawwwwwwwless.

 

 

Probably his worst movie, but I thought it was decent.

 

Never seen it, but people tell me it's not so great. Might catch it on BlockbusterOnline.

 

James Bond drinks martinis, plays Baccarat, drives Jaguars, and wears tuxedos.

 

If you de-Bond him like they've been doing, you might as well make it a Bourne movie.

James Bond drinks martinis, plays Baccarat, drives Jaguars, and wears tuxedos.

 

If you de-Bond him like they've been doing, you might as well make it a Bourne movie.

 

Aston > Jaguar

Martinis = teh suck

Hold'Em > Baccarat

 

He wore tuxedos with Dan Craig.

 

And last, but not least,

 

Vesper > Any Bond girl ever.

I guess Im the only one who liked Pierce Brosnan as Bond, imo he was able to be a badass but also capture the Bond charm like none other.

I guess Im the only one who liked Pierce Brosnan as Bond, imo he was able to be a badass but also capture the Bond charm like none other.

 

I posted above that I liked Brosnan as well. The World Is Not Enough was my fav of his.

Aston > Jaguar

Yeah, he does drive Aston-Martins.