So why is this 190 and Shawsank is 1? - In the Name of the Father (1994) Discussion

[–] deathcreeper 9 years ago

The public are conditoned to have certian opinions.

The are prone to say, "the Sahwshank Redemption is a great film."

It is because of this conditioning it is always thought of as one of the best
films of all time. It is a good film, to be sure, better than ITNOTF but does it deserve this lofty accolade?

Also people are conditioned to like Tom Hanks. Tom Hanks is an uncharistmatic bore.

Also people are conditioned to prefer the Nolan Batman sequels to Batman Begins which is far superior.

No more dead Lannisters
No More dead Trolls

reply

[–] I_Created_U 7 years ago

It is a good film, to be sure, better than ITNOTF

Agreed.

Tom Hanks is an uncharistmatic bore

Not agreed. I think he's a pure delight to see at work. Especially the later stuff in my opinion. Private Ryan, Cast away and Forest Gump are classics in my book. Love Charlie Wilson too, he has rarely been as charismatic as in this role.

Batman Begins which is far superior.

Completely agreed and we are indeed in the minority on this one. Ledger was indeed great, but his untimely death skewed opinions about his performance and the whole movie itself. Same thing happens when a rockstar/superstar dies, the sales of whatever product he was selling skyrocket, he becomes the best thing the universe has ever created in the eyes of the public and suddenly everybody has always been his number one fan. MJ and Prince come to mind.

It's all a matter of opinions anyway, but i do believe that BB was indeed superior to TDK, especially in terms of story-telling, character development and pace. Not to mention, Neeson killed it as Ra's al Ghul.

Let's not even mention TDKR which was an unbearable mess. Anyway.

People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

reply

[–] mrmathexpert4 9 years ago

because the americans don't care about the english and irish.

reply

[–] he88 9 years ago

I'm not too sure that's really it. Maybe several have a tough time dealing with European dialects which was quite heavy at times, but I'm not too sure they care about one group over another when it comes to viewing. I'm more inclined to think it had more to do with a story developed from reality verses fiction developed to draw fans. The second will come across as more entertaining to a lot of people....Especially what seems to be an increasing number of people who really get annoyed if they're asked to think while being entertained. Shows hank is all layer out where In The Name Of The Father is layered. Frankly I saw it when it first came out and wasn't too impressed then. All these years later it was on one of the movie channels and liked it much more some twenty two years later

reply

[–] The_Dougster 8 years ago

because the americans don't care about the english and irish.

Many don't seem to realize that IMDb is actually a British web site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMDb

reply

[–] mccoymike 8 years ago

Agree, for instance the burning of the prison guard. It was chopped so badly it was difficult to figure out what happened and who was involved. Great movie though.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JordanMichaelKoch 8 years ago

I can't exactly feel sorry for DDL's character in this movie. He incited a riot after stealing and playing guitar with something that looked like a gun. I'm only ten minutes in, but at this point I feel no empathy for DDL's character while I felt loads of empathy for Andy all throughout Shawshank.

reply

[–] ilon 8 years ago

I can't exactly feel sorry for DDL's character in this movie. He incited a riot after stealing and playing guitar with something that looked like a gun.

Sorry, but I think the riot was generated by those men WITH GUNS overreacting over a man WITH A STICK.

reply

[–] JordanMichaelKoch 8 years ago

Regardless of whether or not the riot was his fault, he was a belligerent, petulant whiner throughout the entire movie. Shawshank Redemption was LITERALLY about not giving up hope. The character in this movie LITERALLY demanded that his father's legal counsel not give his father hope. He treated his father like crap, did drugs the whole time and displayed a flippant, uncaring and defeatist attitude throughout the movie.

This movie isn't as popular as Shawshank because the leads were wildly different. One was likable. The other was the opposite.

reply

[–] ilon 8 years ago

Regardless of whether or not the riot was his fault, he was a belligerent, petulant whiner throughout the entire movie.

Of course, you can change your mind all you want, but if you change your mind just to get your point across, how can I trust your opinion?

The character in this movie LITERALLY demanded that his father's legal counsel not give his father hope. He treated his father like crap, did drugs the whole time and displayed a flippant, uncaring and defeatist attitude throughout the movie.

So... the character does not change throughout the film? I think he does, as does his relationship with his father.

reply

[–] JordanMichaelKoch 8 years ago

Spare me the sanctimonious baloney about changing my mind. It was a movie; if you think your mind doesn't change naturally from the first ten minutes to the end, you're full of yourself. I didn't change my mind. I finished the movie.

But then again, your argument is thread bare, so I guess you have to resort to cheap tricks.

The protagonist of In the Name of the Father was not active. He was passive. He didn't take charge, he didn't force change, he didn't fight. Andy in Shawshank Redemption was active. He fought every single day. HE took charge, HE escaped, HE fought people that were against him. DDL's character did nothing; his father's lawyer did everything for him in spite of being told specifically to do nothing.

I guess I'll just have to remain in the majority with my opinion. In the Name of the Father is not beloved on a level remotely close to that of Shawshank. So go ahead and resort to cheap argument tactics to try to suggest you have a point. You don't.

reply

[–] ilon 8 years ago

I can't exactly feel sorry for DDL's character in this movie. He incited a riot after stealing and playing guitar with something that looked like a gun. I'm only ten minutes in, but at this point I feel no empathy for DDL's character

Ten minutes in you don't want to feel empathy for him. That's what I took from your comment, because I know that every character is supposed to go trough a transformation

Spare me the sanctimonious baloney about changing my mind. It was a movie; if you think your mind doesn't change naturally from the first ten minutes to the end, you're full of yourself. I didn't change my mind. I finished the movie.

and I know that my mind will change about the different aspects of the relations and attitudes shown in a film. But ten minutes in, you didn't.

Regardless of whether or not the riot was his fault

You prefer to overblow something in the movie that's not exactly what you say it is, to justify your dislike for the character.

I guess I'll just have to remain in the majority with my opinion. In the Name of the Father is not beloved on a level remotely close to that of Shawshank.

I don't like this movie more than Shawshank. In fact, I think it's just ok, but I'm fine with giving it a chance until the end before I open my mouth about a character as a whole, because I should be full of myself to do so.

And yes, I think by the end DDL's character has changed because of what he's been through. Is it a masterpiece? No. But there's nothing particualarly anoying about DDL's character that hasn't been present in numerous characters you like.

So go ahead and resort to cheap argument tactics to try to suggest you have a point. You don't.

That's what someone who knows doesn't have a point would say.

reply

[–] JellyFish19 8 years ago

Well this prison seemed like a day care center compared to Shawshank.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]