It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I've always had the impression that, in terms of REQUIEM in relation to his other features, it would be most similar to PI. Is this correct?
I'm glad you don't necessarily call it a bad movie.
Wasn't as impressed with this as the film is with itself. Certainly enjoyable with some good set pieces, especially the vertigo inducing sequence on the Washington Monument.
Young Tom Holland is certainly good in this although an on form Michael Keaton really nicks the film. The bit between them in the car is one of the best scenes.
The trouble with all these Spider-Man films is the makers never seem to keep it simple. Spider-Man doesn't need a suit like Iron Man, and the whole sequence where he discovers this talking AI in his costume became really annoying after a while. And why do so many people have to know his identity? His plump school friend is all very good for comic relief but he's in the film way too much.
And I never thought I would want RDJ to butt out of a movie, but his repetitive appearances became rather tiresome. Leave Spider-Man to do his thing! He was always best as the lone hero with down to earth problems.
Certainly one of the better Spider-Man films (I still think Spider-Man 2 is the best) but yet again I'm left wondering what could have been.
on my face all through it. It was fun. Spidey did seem an eager, likeable teenager.
What did you think of 47 Ronin ?
The suit was a mistake imho. Quite unnecessary, I agree.
I wasn't too keen on the fat kid either but liked Zendaya's character. Keaton rules in pretty much anything.
I love a good gangster film, but, more than that, the director, Scott Cooper, really knows how to make the viewer feel sick with feelings of ever-present violence (which he did very well in OUT OF THE FURNACE as well) I know the Whitey Bulger story, and perhaps that's why I stayed away from this film-- I thought what could a film show me about this character that I didn't already know.
But man, I was impressed with the cast, the truthfulness of the story (Jez Butterworth was one of the credited writers), the constant build-up of tension, and the take-no-prisoners depiction of a psychopath and his hypnotic ability to have people do very bad things for him....!!!
Loved it, just loved it-- and I am surprised this was released to very lukewarm reviews.
I felt I needed to watch it again before seeing 2049. Blade Runner is the best sci-fi movie ever made and probably in my top five movies ever. This was my second time watching The Final Cut. I always preferred the theatrical version more. There's something about the narration that I like, even when most hate it. I think it just gives it more of a noir vibe. After watching The Final Cut again I think I actually prefer it now. I will say that I like it's ending more (Deckard walks into the elevator with Rachel) over the theatrical ending (Deckard and Rachel driving off through the country). Once it was done I wanted to watch it again. That's how you know a movie is good!
Blade Runner 2049
The original Blade Runner is my favorite sci-fi movie. So 2049 had a lot to live up to. Did it succeed or equal the original? No, but it's still an outstanding movie. In fact I love 2049. There are two things about it I didn't like. I don't care how good a movie is, pushing 3 hours is way too long.
This movie does lose that noir vibe that the first has. That's probably one of the biggest reasons why it doesn't quite live up to it. 2049 feels like it's setting up a third movie or possibly a franchise. Meaning it has an overall more epic feel, like it's a changing event in the world of Blade Runner. Outside of that it's really good.
The visuals are some of the best I've seen in a long time. I really want to know how they did some of them.
This will be one to own on blu-ray and I may even see it in theaters again in about a month or so.
Unfortunately I haven't seen Pi (I've seen all the others), so I can't comment on that.
Of all his other movies (other than Pi I mean) Requiem is probably my fave - to me it was completely hypnotic as well as terrifying and heartbreaking and by far the hardest to watch, whereas a friend had a completely different experience with it. (I had a personal connection to it unlike with his other movies, so there's also that.) Curious about your opinion if you watch it...
High-five! I see Scott Cooper and his movies bashed all the time, so I always enjoy seeing praise instead. I guess people are either really into what he does, or really aren't, and more people aren't than are. (There are a reasons why I don't check reviews or BO or anything like that to decide what to watch, just watch whatever the hell I want to watch...)
I've seen that movie called a mess by some, and have no idea why. People like different things, that I get, but I didn't find it messy in any way at all, it was clear and easy to follow, good work in general, and the whole cast did fabulous work (well, as always in his movies).
The same, believe it or not, applies to 2001: A Space Odyssey. I saw portions of it when I was maybe 7 and have resisted watching it since. I just purchased the blu ray and will give it a shot shortly.
Is a sociopathic teenager responsible for a series of gruesome murders in his quiet American town in the Midwest?
A rather odd film that I knew little about before watching it. Seemed at first like a very dark comedy, but then turned into supernatural horror. Decent performances, but doesn't seem to actually amount to a lot and gives away it's main hook fairly early on,
Im not sure if I mentioned it here but I recently watched 2001 and it was terribly boring I dont even know if I can recommend you to ever watch it.
I recommend keeping expectations in check in order to fully appreciate it.
Pretty interesting film, I enjoyed it. I'm also glad I ate McDonalds before watching it. :D
Yeah, well, Cooper isn't into sensationalism. True events can be shown in a sensational way, and changed or exaggerated for movies and often are, so it's not that it couldn't be done if the film makers wanted to.
It's been ages since I saw Casino, and I don't remember it at all, but I remember disliking it. No idea how I'd feel about it now. (But I recently re-watched Goodfellas and still hated it.) Since you brought up Scorsese, I'll say this: one of the things I like about Cooper is that he doesn't glamorize violence (needlessly concentrate on it or exaggerate it or stylize it to make it beautiful or exciting in order to make it more cinematic), or glamorize criminals whereas Scorsese sometimes does - not that Scorsese is alone in that, it's very common, but I find Cooper's approach refreshing.
@peter, He certainly was. It was one of his finest performances. It took me by surprise for sure.