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
@Mathis1 Mate, that is controversial!
You mean Taxi Driver and Goodfellas don't float your boat..?!!!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Insomnia..For me probably Robin Williams best performance. Damn he is creepy in that! And holds his own against Al Pacino.
I do really love those films and the books, enough to have gone to screenings of the extended editions in theaters, but if I wanted the added lore I'd just re-read Tolkien. Frodo and Sam finding the decapitated statue in Ithilien was a great scene in the book, but I don't think it needed to be in the movie.
The EE of Fellowship is fine, I like the extra bits with Boromir, but the theatrical version is absolutely perfect, so that's my go-to version. Same with the EE of King; a few good bits but overall not worth the 4-hour runtime, and Saruman's death isn't handled particularly well. The EE of Towers is a disaster, IMO. Most of the movie is a buildup to the Battle of Helm's Deep, and in the TE the pacing is perfect. The EE moves in fits and starts, and I don't think the added humor worked.
I always thought Robin Williams was more capable as a dramatic actor than a funny one. Yes, yes, the Genie in Aladin, but he truly shines in dramatic roles. Overall I rarely find him funny.
😅 Sorry mate,But I stand by what I said! He is held in very high esteem, but I just don't enjoy anything g he does. That includes 'Taxi Driver and 'Goodfellas' I have watched quite a few of his films, but it was a case of "seen it, no desire to watch it again!'
Fair enough! Those two are in my top ten films and i find them hugely re-watchable!
The only Scorsese film i actively dislike is, Cape Fear
A horrible glorified slasher film. The original with Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck is far superior.
At least we agree on that mate! Love the original, and Mitchum was far more scary villain, and he didn't have to be biting lumps out of people to do so!
Not crazy about 'Performance', but I do really like 'Dont Look Now' wonderfully atmospheric thriller, with that knockout ending. Also very fond of 'Walkabout', as it does have Jenny Agutter ❤️ in it, and of course a fabulous score by John Barry!
I quite like that one, even though I prefer the 1997 Norwegian original with Stellan Skarsgård.
Damn right mate. Mitchum was chilling in the role. As he was in Night of the Hunter
I actually really like CF to be fair! Definitely not always a comfortable watch in places, but gripping.
I’m less sold on Shutter Island and even The Aviator (for some reason I don’t find Leonardo DiCaprio to be an engaging lead actor in most things I’ve seen him in. Short of him playing a character so OTT like in Wolf of Wall Street or Django anyway. But that’s just me).
Another cracker. Beautifully directed by the great Charles Laughton!
I stand very corrected. One of my friends told me the EEs of LOTR were 'the bomb' (he's a super fan of everything Tolkien). I only own the TEs myself.
For the extended ABC/Salkind Superman cut, @chrisisall Richard Donner hated it. He thought the pacing was slowed down too much. Also, that it was too campy, even by his standards. Apparently, he also wasn't paid royalties for it airing. I'd blame the Salkinds for that. They wanted as much money as possible, so they put a lot of things back into the movie. EXTREMELY GREEDY PEOPLE. All about the money. Not the creativity. Just look at their other movies from the behind the scenes stories with other people. At least Cubby and Harry cared about other things other than money for Bond, despite their flaws. Also, my second favorite Superman movie is honestly MOS. It knows that it wants to be dark. I just think that WB made a big mistake putting Zack Snyder as the head of the DCEU. They should have realized he was too polarizing in his ideas.
Robin Williams in Insomnia was one of the early examples of Christopher Nolan being able to cast actors against their usual acting type. It is one of his better dramatic performances, without the movie's dramatic messages being shoved in your face (Dead Poet Society and Good Will Hunting being the prime examples of this).
I think most people are realizing that Harvey Weinstein pretty much brought the Oscar for himself that year. Same with Gwyneth Paltrow. Apparently, she stole the script from her "friend" Winona Ryder. When Gwyneth won her Oscar, supposedly, Winona called her and left a message saying "Congratulations on winning your Oscar. Too bad you've lost a friend because of your actions." Maybe that's why Winona shoplifted a few years later. Also, Tom Stoppard did better screenplay work on Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Star Wars: Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith than SIL. Apparently, the movie sucked until the editing and the reshoots. So, while enjoyable (being a theater nerd myself) SIL proved more than any other time that the Oscars are about who gives the most money or "best campaigning." Also, when Judi Dench won her Oscar, the Bond Producers pushed her version of M WAY TOO MUCH at the forefront of some stories. If she can come back in a reboot, so can other actors who played other parts in James Bond movies.
Too call Terrnece Malick a genius is like calling Stanley Kubrick one. There's no reason or excuse to shoot that many takes for people. Malick flat out gets rid of an entire actor's performance. They know cinematography, but starting without a script can really show. Directors should have a better plan than those two do. Malick movies aren't very memorable for me, in general.
I liked all 11 SW movies. They all offer a unique viewpoint and visuals. I think ROTS is the OHMSS of all SW movies. Hopefully, Disney/Lucasfilm can truly get some of their movies made. Particularly, Patty Jenkins and Rogue Squadron, and James Mangold Dawn of the Jedi. And I'm happy Rey is getting a few more movies. As long as the writing on her is improved. And keep J.J Abrams away! Those are my controversial opinions on Star Wars. I just hope that The Mandalorian & Grogu doesn't suffer the same fate as Monoa 2: a season of TV jammed into a movie.
My controversial takes on Martin Scorsese.
Taxi Driver for me is possibly the most overrated movie ever made. People on social media and the film industry WAY overpraise it. Nothing happens, really. I feel like anyone could have written a script like that and done better. De Niro has done much better work in other movies NOT by Scorsese. Raging Bull is the one difference to this, as I think De Niro directed that movie as much as Scorsese did. It was a depressing experience at times with that movie.
Goodfellas is still a top 30 movie for me. It's a rare time that a Scorsese movie has been truly entertaining for me. The only flaws that I have with it is cable TV cutting it up like a dead body from the Mafia and airing nonstop in my country. Namely on TNT and AMC. There are other great classics that don't have to cut up to air you two! The other flaw is Ray Liotta is kind of flat in some of his scenes. Considering who he's acting with, he can't be solely blamed. However, his laughter always feels forced from him. And he didn't put a lot of effort into his narration.
Cape Fear I liked for what it was. Yes, the original is better. However, the best thing about the remake is The Simpsons episode Cape Feare that spoofs it. One of the best Simpsons episodes ever, and truly rewatchable 30 years later. Also, I'm glad that Scorsese directed it over Spielberg. It's more of a Scorsese movie, and Spielberg directed Schindler's List in return. So, I look at it as a win for everyone, honestly.
Casino is Scorsese on autopilot. However, it's still a greatly enjoyable movie that doesn't feel like 3 hours. It's kind of an expanded version of Goodfellas in Las Vegas.
Gangs of New York and Killers of the Flower Moon are too long with a lot of nothing happening. They feel like Scorsese showing off his ego. In the case of KOTFM he has openly admitted it to get people back into theaters. He failed, arguably. You could take a whole hour out of KOTFM and still have the same movie.
Shutter Island has too much happening. It got a bit hard to follow at certain points. Still, it proved that Scorsese can make movies with both a plot (and a plot twist).
The King of Comedy, The Color of Money, The Age of Innocence and Hugo are underrated. They prove that Scorsese isn't afraid to try different genres.
The Departed is also a favorite of mine. Mark Wahlberg actually plays angry all the time very well here. He still can't really act though, in my opinion, apart from being angry and confused. Jack Nicholson has his last truly great role. It's one movie that I wanted to find out what my man-of-few words brother's opinions were. He said he generally liked everything. Another rare actually enjoyable movie (with an actual plot, according to Scorsese) from him.
The Aviator is great, but not very memorable. My dad thinks Leo should have won the Oscar for Howard Hughes, and I agree with him.
The Wolf of Wall Street was great, but once again, cable TV overplaying it and people on social media over praising has kind of hurt the movie for me. Still pretty entertaining, for a Scorsese movie.
I still haven't seen Silence or The Irishman yet. I'd like to, but my schedule is fairly full of many things now, and they are long movies!
Forgive me for the long rants, but I hope you can enjoy and debate with me!
The story does keep you at a distance, but it's because the story is told and seen through the eyes of an adolescent. And of course nature doesn't care. Life goes on.
Taxi Driver may get overpraised, but I find it hard to believe there's nothing happening. For me, it's about a man trapped in a hell on earth in his mind and physically. There are a lot of layers and his finding redemption, becoming what he didn't want to be like to get there and ends up at peace. Or did he? I like that we can interpret the ending in different ways.
My controversial opinion is Raging Bull is way overpraised. I've just never been able to get into that one despite several viewings and recall being shocked when it was named by a number of critics groups to be the best film of the entire decade of the '80s. It's a really hard watch and there really is no redemption for anyone in the end and nobody really to take sides with. Jake is just a jerk, his brother takes it and keeps coming back for more as does Vickie. I find the legendary critic Pauline Kael to be overrated, but actually agree with her take on Raging Bull.
The writing is a mixed bag on Raging Bull. Although, it sounds like a too many cooks in the kitchen deal. Constant onset writes as well. A depressing movie, but worth watching at least once. Taxi Driver just gets so much praise, and the two times I watched it, that overpraise has hurt the movie overall for me.
I agree with you on Raging Bull. I cannot see the point of this film. As you say, there's no redemption. All the great acting and photography add up to nothing.
I’m not sure I’d call Taxi Driver overrated either. Again, not for everyone and not an easy watch, but I think there’s a reason why it’s praised so much. I think it’s a very relevant film today (films like Joker obviously got a lot of influence from it in terms of story/filmmaking, and I’d personally say that’s not a film anywhere near as gripping as Taxi Driver).
I think Taxi Driver is an incredibly powerful portrait of loneliness. Especially in a big city where the character starts to develop dangerous obsessions.
I love the way the film ends with the media proclaiming Travis a hero, when we know he is actually a severely damaged and potentially dangerous individual.
One of my favourite films.
The great thing about the ending is whether we believe it to be 'real' or not (I personally always got the sense it was in his head and he was dying on the floor in the previous scene) there's something to take away. Is there an irony in the media celebrating a severely damaged and dangerous individual, or does it end with Travis in what is effectively Hell? It's a movie I always get so much out of.
That's an interesting take regarding the ending being in his head. I love that final quick shot as Travis appears to glance at something in his rear view mirror.
I also always wonder why Iris ran away from her parents in the first place? As she's apparently now 'back at school and studying hard..'
A film i never get sick of watching.
For me the last scene comes off as so idealised there’s something off about it. Betsy is uncharacteristically interested in Travis, Iris is back at home, and Travis is celebrated as a hero for what is essentially an unhinged massacre. For me it always felt like the very ending with Travis becoming agitated and looking in his mirror etc was a moment of realisation. Could be him realising he’s imagining all this and about to die (the reason why I say it felt like he was in Hell was because of all the red lights washing over his face in the mirror and the fact that his work as a taxi driver is such a big part of his isolation, to the point it’s unusual he would return to that work after). Or maybe it’s a brief moment of realisation that what he’s done isn’t virtuous, and the fact that he’s celebrated for an awful crime makes him little better than the people he’s killed (or tried to in the case of Palantine). As if he’s become part of the horrible city he’s gone against throughout the film.
It’s a tremendous film in my opinion. I remember reading they tried for a while to get a sequel made. Not sure that would have worked.
A sequel..? God no, it's perfect as it is. Although it's one of those rare films that are so good, they leave you wanting more..