John Huston wrote and directed two movies about greed: can you guess what line of dialogue was common to both?
463829
"The stuff that dreams are made of" ?
643830
1st one: That is one of the most unintelligent quotes I have ever heard. Who ever would do that is purely ill.\n\n2nd one: I could live with that we will fight but do not expect me to go down easy.
440114
Origins:   Much  \ndebate centers around the contents of the briefcase in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. A theory that has been passed around via e-mail and is prominent on the Internet is the following: \n\n\nIf you all are anything like me then you had no idea what was in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction. So, through a friend of a friend of a friend who had a two hour conversation with Quentin Tarantino himself, I now know, and I thought I would pass along the information because it makes the movie even 100 times better than it already is. \nRemember the first time you were introduced to Marsellus Wallace. The first shot of him was of the back of his head, complete with band-aid. Then, remember the combination of the lock on the briefcase was 666. Then, remember that whenever anyone opened the briefcase, it glowed, and they were in amazement at how beautiful it was; they were speechless. Now, bring in some Bible knowledge, and remember that when the devil takes your soul, he takes it from the back of your head. \n\nYep, you guessed it. What is the most beautiful thing about a person: his soul. Marsellus Wallace had sold his soul to the devil, and was trying to buy it back. The three kids in the beginning of the movie were the devil's helpers. And remember that when the kid at the end came out of the bathroom with a "hand cannon," Jules and Vincent were not harmed by the bullets. "God came down and stopped the bullets" because they were saving a soul. It was divine intervention. \n\n[Note: Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that "when the devil takes your soul, he takes it from the back of your head."] \n\nHowever, that this interpretation came directly from Tarantino conflicts with other accounts. According to Tarantino A to Zed: The Films of Quentin Tarantino: \n\n\nTarantino has admitted that there is no official explanation behind the briefcase's contents, and that it was simply written into the screen play as an intriguing McGuffin. \nAnd from Rober Ebert's Questions for the Movie Answer Man comes the following statement by Pulp Fiction co-author Roger Avery: \n\n\nOriginally the briefcase contained diamonds. But that just seemed too boring and predictable. So it was decided that the contents of the briefcase were never to be seen. This way each audience member would fill in the blank with their own ultimate contents. All you were supposed to know was that it was "so beautiful." No prop master can come up with something better than each individual's imagination. At least that was the original idea. Then somebody had the bright idea (which I think was a mistake) of putting an orange lightbulb in there. Suddenly what could have been anything became anything supernatural. Didn't need to push the effect. People would have debated it for years anyway, and it would have been much more subtle. I can't believe I'm actually talking about being subtle. \nThere have been many other theories on what is contained in the mysterious briefcase. A contest run by the Toronto Star to decide the contents produced several popular answers: \n\n\nThe Oscar that Quentin Tarantino hopes to win  \n\nA human head \nThe ear from Reservoir Dogs \nO.J.'s other glove \nMichael Jackson's other glove \nThe diamonds from the robbery in Reservoir Dogs \nRudolph's nose \nThe winner of the contest claimed it was a homage to Robert Aldrich's Kiss Me Deadly, which centers around another briefcase, glowing because it contained a small nuclear bomb. Tarantino maintains that the similarity was purely accidental, although he apparently liked the idea. \n\nLast updated:   11 July 1997
819976
Greed. Read below about the Pardoner's Tale which is where you'll find the quote.\n\nThe Pardoner’s Tale:  Use of Verbal and Situational Irony       \n\n  \n\nIn “The Pardoner’s Tale,” Geoffrey Chaucer masterfully frames an informal homily.  Through the use of verbal and situational irony, Chaucer is able to accentuate the moral characteristics of the Pardoner.  The essence of the story is exemplified by the blatant discrepancy between the character of the storyteller and the message of his story.  By analyzing this contrast, the reader can place himself in the mind of the Pardoner in order to account for his psychology. \n\n In the Prologue of the tale, the Pardoner clearly admits that he preaches for nothing but for the greed of gain.  His sermons revolve around the biblical idea that “the love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Timothy 6:10).  Ironically, however, the Pardoner condemns the very same vice that he lives by, as he proclaims “avarice is the theme that I employ in all my sermons, to make the people free in giving pennies—especially to me”.  Thus, covetousness is both the substance of his sermons as well as the mechanism upon which he thrives. He clearly states that repentance is not the central aim of his preaching, by mentioning “my mind is fixed on what I stand to win and not upon correcting sin”. Rather, his foremost intention is to acquire as many shillings as he can in exchange for his meaningless pardons.  In this regard, one can argue that although the Pardoner is evil, he is not a dissembler.  His psychology is clearly not guided by hypocrisy because he does not conceal his intentions under false pretences. \n\n Chaucer clouds the genuine nature of the Pardoner’s psychology in ambiguity.  Upon reading the tale, the reader is left to wonder whether or not the pardoner is simply speaking out of drunkenness, or if he is truly of a malicious character.  With respect to the first condition, there is a possibility that the reason why he admits his intention in the Prologue is because he is drunk.  However, evidently, such behavior is a common practice for the Pardoner.  Thus, it is fair to say that he is prompted more by psychological tendencies than by drunkenness.  With respect to the Pardoner’s character, had he been truly vindictive, he would not have admitted his own greed at all.  Furthermore, he must possess some virtue because he understands the value of repentance.  Hence, the Pardoner’s psychology is neither tainted by drunkenness nor does it reflect an inherently evil character. \n\n The psychology of the Pardoner is actually directed by immoral habits.  Because he is so used to wheedling money out of people, it comes automatically for him.  Psychologically, the Pardoner is a clever man.  Essentially, the Pardoner envelops his sermon on avarice around a subliminal message, urging his audience to purchase his indulgences. \n\n The psychology of the Pardoner is defined by his unyielding love of money. He confesses that his morals are distorted when he states “I can denounce, indeed, the very vice I practice, which is greed”.  Yet, his impurity is not so much a result of his sins as it is a result of his reluctance to change his ways.  He, himself, needs to seek repentance and absolution from his pursuits.  The church was merely his instrument for obtaining money.  As Chaucer notes:  “Best of all he sang the offertory, for he understood that when that song was sung, then he must preach and sharpen his tongue to rake in cash, as well he knew the art, and so he sang out gaily, with full heart”. \n\n   Hence, one can note that the mind of the Pardoner is replete with subtle, contradictory nuances.  Analyzing the machinations of his thought processes, it is clear that the Pardoner does not practice what he preaches.  It is ambiguous, however, as to whether the Pardoner believes what he preaches, but just doesn’t follow his preaches or whether he doesn’t bel
1132173
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/n/nutty-professor-script-transcript-jerry.html
363522
I actually liked the line that John Hedder? (the guy that played Napoleon) said in Just Like Heaven...\n\n"I'm like 99.9% parched here.  I could really use a co-la."
1058482
Simple--Greed and selfishness (thinking of them first)
1118831
well...\n\nAfter directing the Scottish junkies' tale "Trainspotting" and the zombie horror story "28 Days Later," the latest from Danny Boyle is a real departure. "Millions" is the story of Damian Cunningham, a pious young dreamer who walks and talks with saints. When a huge satchel of money falls out of the sky, he assumes it came from Heaven. This is a charming movie with a tender story, and whimsical visuals. (Keep your eye on the saints' halos!) There are moments of comedy, of suspense, and thought-provoking elements. One scene has St. Peter giving a theory on how the miracle of the loaves and the fishes may have really happened. Above all, "Millions" may make you think about being more charitable. Whether that was Boyle's original intention is not clear, but it's a very nice sentiment.
1049904
Well, to me the comparison is clear, not saying it's valid or that I agree. When you watch the original movie, and listen to Marlen Brando's monologue about sending his "only son" so save the human race and that all we need is the "light" to show us the way. \n\nSpecifically, what they are referring to is that monologue. A supernatural being coming to earth to save us, really.  Supposedly, they are using old footage of Brando from the original in this new film, and the words are stunningly biblical. \n\nCheck it out!
803902
One of my personal favorites is from "Zoolander":\n"You can derelict my balls, capi-tan." LOL!!!\n\n*Edit*\nOh, I just thought of another funny one from "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective":\nLois: "How would you like it if I made your life a living hell?"\nAce: "Well, Lois, I'm not quite ready for a relationship right now, but maybe I'll give you a call sometime. Your number still 911?" LOL!!!\nPs. Thanks for the great question. You should get some funny answers.
639412
A parody of greed and excess.
599119
"Go And Catch a Falling Star" - John Donne.\n\nIt is dominated by irony, not dominant in irony.
75163
Movie: Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas.\n\nCharacter: Raoul Duke
1087955
I know it was in the movie.\n\nBut, "Field Of Dreams" was based on the book, "Shoeless Joe Jackson" by WP Kinsella.\n\nSo the quote may have come from there initially.
660675
They both own the rights. They will cost a lot.\n\nSplooch!
374522
sounds like a sequel to a movie..a prono movie
1018773
RUSH HOUR 2\n\nCarter : I want sum mu shu man --- \nLee : you Hungry? \nCarter : Noooo.. Mu shu!!! I wanna see sum women man!!\nlol -- it was hilarious - Action Comedy - Waiting for the 3rd One..