Crusty Old Dean vs. Wisecracking Frat Brothers is funny for a minute. Unfortunately Animal House goes on for over 100 minutes.

Insane, Incidental, often-Improvised Golf Club humor goes the extra mile. Funny the whole way through.

Plus, coked up Bill Murray is infinitely funnier and more bizarre than coked up John Belushi.

Caddyshack: 2
Animal House: 1

^i recently upgraded my dvd to bluray and it comes with a feature length documentary about the making of Caddyshack.....Murray originally had three lines in that movie...but after an hour of shooting they changed the character and just let him make shit up....that scene where he's telling the kid about being a caddy for the Dali Lama while holding a pitch fork to his neck....the fear in the kids eyes is real :)

"Hey Lama! how about something...you know for the effort....oh there will be no money...but when you die...on your death bed....you will receive total consciousness.....so i got that going for me....which is good."


i'm watching it now :D

"Don't underestimate yourself judge you're a tremendous slouch."

Caddyshack FTW but not by much, Animal House is incredibly funny also.

Caddyshack - 3
Animal House - 1

"you're crazy.
That's what they said about the Son of Sam"

Donkey's years since I saw these two films and I remeber that Caddyshack was an hilarious film when I saw it but Animal House always had that something special, I guess it was John Belushi so:

Caddyshack- 3
Animal House- 2

I just bought Animal House and am going to watch it tonight so I can cast my vote.

Animal House is a decent movie, but whenever I watch Caddyshack, I always laugh my ass off. Animal House is funny as well, but to a far lesser extent.

Caddyshack - 4
Animal House - 2

I haven't watched both movies in their entirety yet, but I have watched a lot of the classic scenes on Youtube. I think because I don't really care about college movies (except Revenge of the Nerds), I went for Caddyshack first, and found myself laughing a lot more.

Caddyshack - 5
Animal House - 2

I'm going with Caddyshack as well. I like its offbeat humour more.

Caddyshack - 6
Animal House - 2

This one's done, let's do another.

This one comes courtesy of eric generic. Gritty dramas from the turn of the century.

Requiem for a Dream was a great depiction of drug addiction and the mother's side story was fantastically horrific and the overall tone and such are terrific. However, Fight Club is one of those movies that I can always just throw on when I want to watch a movie but aren't sure what to pick (Trainspotting, The Big Lebowski, and The Hour of the Wolf are a few others in this category). The acting, the grittiness, the fantastic twist, it gets me every time. It's one of those rare cases where the film is better than the book, imo, and gets my vote.

Requiem For a Dream - 0
Fight Club - 1

haven't seen Requiem for a Dream and don't intend to

Argh, that's almost impossible to choose for me.

Requiem really shook me up tragically and in such a screwed up way. The supposed intention is to provoke the terror of consequences with a touch of a psychotic feel, which would turn anybody off heroin. The special effects are shattering, and really supported the idea and direction of the movie. One of my old friends used to be a heroin addict, and said "this movie turned me off heroin forever." It's not a movie you would have the urge to watch again, but I don't think that's a bad thing, only it was so disturbing it kind of sticks to you like a bug.

Fight club was also screwed up, in a more fun and an imaginative way. It had a great twist mentally, which went for and against, a battle in a sole mind of Tyler. The filming is definitely better quality. It's a very engaging movie, kind of suitably confusing, and action packed.

I'm going to go with Requiem just because of the impact. Sorry Fight Club, still love you. :(

Requim For a Dream - 1
Fight Club - 1

Why not? It's a great film. :0

Hmm, a tough choice.

I'm a big fan of Darren Aronofsky fan and have pretty much enjoyed his entire filmography, including his 2006 film The Fountain which probably sits as his least favourite movie.

David Fincher is pretty much cemented in the American culture as the type of guy who could make Fight Club work so well. His filmography is also pretty memorable and critically acclaimed, which is saying a lot considering his first film is Alien 3.

So both movies are directed by probably two of the most potent big name Hollywood talents right now, and both come from novels also written by guys who have written a lot of stuff you and I really like, and I think that's a good place to start to judge these two movies.

So we'll start with Requiem for a Dream by Hubert Selby, Jr. which is a book I read at the exact same time as Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh, which both deal with the subjects of heroin addiction. I could understand where Selby Jr. was coming from by making a really dark book about the horrors of addiction, I mean that's a serious subject and should be taken seriously. Conversely, Trainspotting's take on addiction is just as tragic, but Welsh thankfully adds in some levity, albeit in incredibly dark ways, and I think there's a lot of really good social commentary. I was reading these two books at the same time and it was Trainspotting that came away the winner, I even ended up selling my copy of Requiem for a Dream because it depressed me that much.

Chuck Palahniuk is another talented writer of a lot of things and he too approaches social issues in a unique manner. With Fight Club being his debut novel, it really lit a lot of people up to have it made into a movie so fast that stays true to the nature of the novel. I happen to agree with many others when I say I prefer the movie's ending, but I can see why people also prefer the book's ending. It's been awhile since I've read the novel, and while I liked it, it didn't ever stay with me the way the movie did, so I also think this is one of those rare circumstances where the movie is better than the novel.

With some of that context, when putting Requiem for a Dream next to Fight Club and asking me which one I want to watch, I'll pick Fight Club every time. Like with the book, I can at least respect what Requiem for a Dream wants to do, but it's not something I think I need to see more than once. It's on close to the same level as The Deer Hunter for me on my list of movies I don't think I need to see more than once.

Fight Club - 2
Requiem for a Dream - 1

You should check it out, its very well written. I guess i'm alone in not finding Fight Club all that memorable. RFAD however was very engaging with its character development. I found the story of Ellen Burstyn's character pretty tragic, the basic downfall of a woman struggling with her sanity to be pretty amazing. I also like the way they depicted the struggle with addiction. And who doesn't want to see Jennifer Connely go butt to butt with another chick. :shycouch:

Requiem For A Dream -2



Fight Club -2

Although I definitely enjoy a light-hearted, unrealistic fun film as much as anybody, I guess I'm going to stand up for artistry this time and go with Requiem For A Dream. I've certainly been emotionally touched by movies but Requiem is probably the one and only film that ruined my entire day even after walking out of the theater into the bright light.

That said, I'd rather watch Fight Club any day. But, really, no doctor in America wouldn't have given Ed Norton some sleep meds. And if he did: the Fight Club plot is ruined. The movie is just harmless fun.

Side note: Both have excellent soundtracks (The Dust Brothers for the fun one and Kronos Quartet for the serious one).

Also both are adapted from novels, and Hubert Selby Jr. destroys Chuck Palahniuk in this case.

Requiem for a Dream: 3
Fight Club: 2

I see this one has run its course. Requiem For A Dream wins. The next one comes from Frownland: noir debuts.

As much as I love Christopher Nolan's work, I always thought Following was a pretty average debut feature. It has a cool twist and the style of it shows a lot of potential (kind of like Fincher's Alien 3), but it never really stayed with me, and it kind of seems to be more known now that Nolan is such a powerhouse in the Hollywood circuit.

It could be argued though that Pi is also riding on the coattails of Aronofsky's later material, and that could be true, but I also think it's a very enjoyable little film filmed in a very unique manner. The story did kind of take a bit of a weird twist with the Wall Street firm mafia fighting the Hasidic Jew secret society, but with Max being an unreliable narrator it's plausible that it was all in his mind, or severely exaggerated as a part of his paranoia. I really loved all the references to the ancient Chinese game Go too, mostly because it's such a simple game that is so insanely complicated.

I'm going to have to give this one to Pi because it has a lot more going for it on its own besides the fact that it's the debut feature of a visionary director who gained fame later on in their future. It's got a killer soundtrack too.

Pi - 1
Following - 0

Haha, what? I guess I get your meaning, but the above statement seems kind of weird. For the youngsters: Pi was incredibly popular among film enthusiasts well before Aronofsky made anything later. I've still got my VHS original, purchased in '99.

I haven't watched Following yet, but will do summarily.

The reason I chose that phrase was because whenever I went to Circuit City, Best Buy, or Future Shop to look for DVD's I always saw it bundled with Requiem for a Dream so I assumed it wasn't very popular and needed to be sold with the one people were more likely to buy in order to move units.

I viewed PI when it originally came out and found it to be an excellent, very cerebral movie. I've always been a fan of how he could pull me in with his visual art alone. Nolan is in the same boat, i've loved everything hes done less The Following. I found it to be boring and lacking in direction. It also had a confused sense about it with regard to the entire screenplay.

I gotta roll my vote Pi's way, and this is the first time i've actually disliked one of the movies involved in the war.

PI - 2
The Following - 0

Yeah, I apologize for the snobby content of my previous post.
It's just that, given my age, Aronofsky has seemed to me to be riding on his Pi cred throughout his career. Following will have to be uberexcellent to get my vote.

I didn't take your post in a snobbish tone so no fear there. If anything my post clearly shows my age and my recent introduction to the movie as I only saw it this year when it showed up on Netflix (I have since bought it on DVD). I guess Aronofsky didn't really show up on my radar until 2008's The Wrestler as a name that I would go see in theaters. I mean I saw Requiem For a Dream sometime in 2004 or 2005 and that was before I really started looking at the movie from the eyes of the director and thus didn't really bother to learn names or styles.

Glad to hear it. Also, I see that Following (no anterior "The" btw, Fred) is on Netflix and I vaguely recall watching it once when I was very drunk. It didn't leave much of an impression but I don't know if that's because it's dull or because my brain was soaked with alcohol. I'll give it another chance while only mildly drunk.

I do that all the time with THE. I found it honestly to be a boring stalker movie lacking in any real content. I generally enjoy most black and white movies visually also and it seemed almost bleached out and lacking in focus also. I went into the movie really expecting something great after watching Memento. If every director could just have one **** the bed like Nolan the movie world would be pretty damn great. As it stand these are two of the top ten in my eyes at least, directors on the planet.

Following is a pretty great film. I'm surprised if anybody who likes Memento is bored by Following. Classic noir but told all backwards and time-shifty. Also, didja notice the Batman logo stuck on main character's apartment door?

Two great directors. Both moved on to big Hollywood. Personally, I feel that Aronofsky has stayed truer to his craft than Nolan. Of course, its hard to judge superhero films critically because, by nature, they're awful. Those Batmans are pretty good. Black Swan, The Wrestler, and The Fighter kick them all into the gutter though.

I only mention this stuff because its a way to describe why I like Pi more than Following. The latter is good but the former drills itself into my brain, hitting pleasure and pain sensors that Nolan's films are and have been incapable of doing to this day.

Pi: 3
Following: 0

Aronofsky didn't make The Fighter...

Technically he helped make it, he has a production credit.

Oh whoops. I thought he did. I still like it more than Batman.

I'm going to give my vote to Pi. I love the way that it grabs you by the collar and throttles you for an hour and a half like an extremely agitated math professor. The shots stand out brilliantly and the overall graininess of the film reminds me quite a bit of Begotten, which is one of my all time favourites. Also, the soundtrack and the sounds involved are fantastic, abrasive, and unique in terms of what you'll see in Hollywood. I also like the ambiguous ending, because it borders on a double ending that follows through with an almost conclusive ending.

Following is fantastic as well. It was the first Christopher Nolan film that I saw, and it left a great impression on me. As has been said before, it's essentially a reverse noir film in structure, which is really the best thing about it. The twist at the ending is a tad bit of a stretch, but still is very well done. The cinematography is not as good as Pi's, but it still serves its purpose to some extent. I prefer Aronofsky's work to Nolan's as a whole, and these two debuts are of no exception.

Following - 0
Pi - 4

din't see neither

nor do i intend to

And Pi destroys Following.

The idea for this one comes from Frownland, though I have semi-adjusted it. Misadvertised films is the theme.

Hmm... while I really liked both movies I felt Drive had a little something more to it that made me really appreciate it more. Cabin in the Woods was a really fun movie and it did so much to satirize one of my favourite genres, but I don't think the cast was up to much. The two operator guys were great, but other than that it really did feel different from a movie I'd see on SyFy at 11 pm on a Saturday. Conversely I felt the entire cast of Drive was fantastic, from Ryan Gosling's quiet rage-fueled time bomb to Albert Brooks' frighting turn as a bad guy.

Drive - 1
Cabin in the Woods - 0

I will agree that Drive is the better film. I think it will be looked back upon as one of the great movies of this decade.

Drive - 2
Cabin In The Woods - 0

The Cabin In The Woods had better blow me away due to the amount of hype it has received.

It won't. You definitely need to lower your expectations before watching it. It's a decent movie but very flawed and nowhere near as good as people make it out to be.

Definitely Drive. I love the pacing, especially the opening scene with the car chase that isn't over the top but still sets your nerves on edge. The ambiguous ending and the cinematography are great as well. Cabin in the Woods was better than I thought it was going to be but in the end it's just a well made cheesy horror flick. Definitely loved the humour in it, but Drive is far better.

I didn't think the ending was ambiguous at all.

I usually stand alone on this but I found Drive to be pretty slow and boring. Cabin in the Woods was a good cheesy horror flick and I found it far better then Drive.

Drive -3
Cabin In The Woods -1

So is the ranking like this then?

Drive - 3
Cabin in the Woods - 1