Comparisons for similar films and TV shows

Now i would say that these 2 are equally good non linear films but in my opinion usual suspects just edges it because the story has suspense and surprise when you watch throughout. On the other hand 21 grams is more about the characters showing in depth emotions of the 3 characters naomi watt sean penn and del toro whereas usual suspects is more about the story. Either way both films are a puzzle but usual suspects took me more by suprise.

ok these 2 amnesia based films are 'equally' as good but to be honest memento is more a puzzle than a story and eternal is more of a story and less of a puzzle but each of them have there own merits to be better. But these 2 are equally as good as each other theres no standout to whats better. Moreover going more in depth on the characters i believe that jim carrey gave a better performance than guy pearce but you also have to consider jim carrey had more to do with, whereas guy pearce was just nolans puppet in the film. All in all its hard to say which ones better maybe its because i dont give in, like most people who watched memento and easily got impressed because the story is out of sequence. However eternal is more romantic and a story that will stay with somebody but in my opinion i prefer memento purely becuase it has the element of suprise

These 2 films are good in every way but you can admit that goodfellas has the better story however godfather is more iconic and has some of the best acting and dialogue in film, I would personally say goodfellas is better but you have to consider it is films like the godfather that inspired films like goodfellas to be made. Godfather is what shaped future mafia films. So I dont think theres a standout winner both should as much respect and acclaim to each other.

These 2 films i dont have to compare i just wanted to say how much a joke in hell was i dont know why the hell i watched it, i think was high on gaaard.
First of all i would like to say i know shawshank has no comparison no competition compared to in hell but in hell has a lot of similarities. Firstly the person who wrote this mustve thought wait van damme fans are clueless in film because they are actually fans of woeful van damme flicks, so surely they must not have seen shawshank. well I have and damn they copied things like the escape at the end and the black guy narrating, a out of work actor who probably auditioned for the wire as a extra and failed.
This is a film that embodies woeful dialougue, sub par acting and pointless fighting,if you were high on crack and mentally retarded or just wanted to have a laugh of how such a bad film can be poorly made and that badly copied then yh i say watch it but be warned you may want to get lobotomy done afterwards because that is the only way you can erase the thought of this horrific film from your mind.

Now these 2 films i know based on the topics are not similar but similar that there both set basically in one room and with a very low budget, also they are 2 films that solely rely on the dialogue.

Firstly I would like to say that reservoir dogs is a great film and deserves to get all the acclaim it has gotten but the man from earth is a film that is nowhere near as popular that contains actors that literally unkown so its understandable if it hasnt got that much praise.
But compared to reservoir dogs the idea of the film is purely unique and has never been covered in foreign and american cinema, also every bit of dialogue makes sense in relation to the conception whereas reservoir has its flaws for example the waitress tipping scene, i admit engaged me but if you look at it, it is useless banter and stalled the progression of the film and didnt contribute to the characters development in any way. However the style and look of the film is what makes it good it is different to the normal hollywood movie. All in all no where near tarantinos best but you can see that style and flamboyance he includes in his latter films.

To conclude I think both films are good but as a film I think Man from the earth is better it doesnt have any flaws every thing that john oldman says is quickly justified and everything he does say is questioned and everything you think in relation to what hes saying is definitely said in the film, it covers every possibility, it also has a nice twist to end.

Now with these 2 shows I dont want to go into much detail i have already explained it in my other list 'top 10 tv shows'.
But being only 3 seasons in I know and boardwalk IS better than sopranos the reason being purely because it is more impressive and offers that unpredictability of events and has the style to shock and suprise the audience. Sopranos is more of a family orientated show and much more predictable as tony and his main associates will never die they will just overcome obstacle after obstacle so thats my conclusion boardwalk is better because of the ensemble of individual stories it has for each character and how it suprisingly unravels.

The Wire strived for almost naturalistic realism because it is intended to reflect modern society in a very specific place, Breaking Bad goes for high drama because it is modeled on classical tragedy and doesn't really attempt to reflect anything real about society choosing instead to focus on character and plot.

BB's huge fame comes the likable pop culture, thats only really about a guys rise and fall because thats what happens in the later seasons a decline.

The Wire is obviously written straight from life, with a bare minimum of invention or artifice, especially in the first season. BB is good TV and a great story, but it just doesn't have the same level of reality infused throughout.

BB does not compare to the the wire for the relevance and importance for the broad range of issues The Wire tackles, from political corruption to the broken school system to police corruption, each season is a new outlook on a different topic. Breaking Bad's story simply focuses on few characters and there development.

The Wire not only accurately depicted the drug trade, street life, and gang violence...but also accurately depicted the inner workings of the police department, the inner city political structure, homelessness and addiction, international smuggling, and the newspaper business.
Also, it always kept you on your toes simply by the knowledge that, at any point, someone could die.
Breaking Bad is good but you know Jesse and Walt aren't dying until the last season. The show is too reliant on them as characters.

I put these 2 films together because they both are about the emotion of people and the connections and intertwining relations to one another.

I''ll start with magnolia, firstly this is not a attack on magnolia its just me pointing out its not the masterpiece fans think it to be.

Firstly the beginning of the film engaged me, it suggests that rare phenomena happens through these people. Also I liked the performances of john c Reilly and tom cruise.

Magnolia isnt that complicated its a 3 hour mess thats really about individuals who hate themselves complaining about how life has been so cruel to them. Fans quickly thought its quirky and intelligent because of the several stories and the use of the bible exodus that meant nothing and the overpowering, unfitting soundtrack. All in all its not that bad it has potential and interesting concepts I just was hoping for something significant to finish after this 2 and a half hour build up to....

And for american beauty dont get me wrong it has its flaws to but i wouldnt say as many as magnolia these are 2 films that try to make a 'artful' movie but you have to consider that magnolia tried to do a lot in this picture so there was more room for error whereas american beauty is more simplistic. I know american beauty is original but it does contain a lot of american clichés' like with the troubled teenager, gay dad, cheating wife etc etc.

But to conclude what both these films say is that it doesn't know what it wants to say. It takes a bunch of characters, constructs various relationships between them, and sets them loose to run around for 2-3 hours, which at the end means what?...

While a few online reviews have compared The Trotsky with Wes Anderson's Rushmore, this is not the case at all. Yes, both films feature awkward actors playing awkward students who fall for women that are older than them, but that's where the similarities end. Rushmore degenerates into a witty catch-as-catch can between Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray for the affections of Olivia William's character, while The Trotsky is, in a quirky way, a biopic of the historical Leon Trotsky told through the life of a misguided boy.

We've seen this kind of movie many times before: A charismatic kid rallies the varying masses of his school to band together and fight the system. But this formula is adhered to because it is a part of the story - Baruchel's Leon actually believes that he is the Bolshevik reincarnated and does his best to follow his life perfectly. The film takes what is tried and true in films like this and finds an innovative way to tell its story.

The actors do all that they can with the material and make the formulaic Trotsky enjoyable, especially Rubinek, as Leon's father David, and Baruchel, who has yet another outlet for his quirks that endear him to so many moviegoers. Tierney's writing and direction are fairly tight and he should be commended on his sophomore effort. He tries to present an abridged version of Trotsky's life and succeeds so well, that by end of the film, you almost hope for a sequel so this inventive way to tell a biography (or even a pseudo-biopic) and Leon Bronstein (the real and the film's) life can be carried out to its grim conclusion.