Just wondering which movie everyone thinks is better? I personally think Candy is alot better and more realistic. I just saw Requiem for the second time after watching Candy and I don't think it is that great of a movie but it is ALWAYS mentioned among favorites with people. But that's just my opinion. Anyone else?
shareBoth are pretty disturbing drug related movies I'd say. Candy had a better story though imo.
R.I.P. Nana, Dad, & Uncle Steve
saw Requiem yesterday after having to hear for years how "amazing" it is, and also it has been chosen in the top 20 as one of the greatest films of this decade on several lists. so my exceptations were high. but I didn't really like it THAt much. sure it was a good film, and yes it proabably belongs in movie history, but it was not so great as i thought it would be.
after I saw it I came to think of Candy and how I liked it sooo much more after watching it. so to me, Candy is a better film. you get closer to the main characters and you care for them much more than in Requiem. the love between Candy and Dan is far more touching and beautiful than in Requiem.
so - both are good movies, but I'll really liked Candy better. It's a shame it's not in any list of the best movies of the decade, cause it's great
________________________
No fate but what we make
That's like comparing apples and oranges. "Reqieum for a Dream" and "Candy" were both drug movies, just as apples and oranges are both fruit, but the films are telling different stories.
Requiem is a showcase of the dream worlds addicts escape to and how these dream worlds inevitably become shattered by reality. Candy was a love story about a dysfunctional love triangle: Dan, Candy and the drug heroin.
Requiem is more of an "art house" style flick while Candy is more of a "regular Hollywood" style flick. Requiem follows several characters whereas Candy mainly follows the character of Dan. Consequently Requiem goes through several sub-plots and Candy goes through one main plot. The sub-plots of Requiem are told from a 3rd person perspective in the present tense (or in parallel on the same timeline) and Candy tells its story through mainly as past-tense narration from beginning to end.
Given all these differences... I have a hard time recognizing the two films as being in competition with each other. Really, the only thing they have in common is that they both feature characters who use drugs.
It would be like trying to compare "Valkyrie" and "Schindler's List". Both movies are based on true stories that took place in Nazi Germany during World War II but they tell completely different stories: Valkyrie was more of an action packed hollywood blockbuster about a military operation and Shindler's List was more of a historical drama about the holocaust. It wouldn't make sense to say "Schindler's List was a good movie but Valkyrie is my favorite." Maybe it would within really broad terms, like "World War II" as a general movie category but it wouldn't make sense to compare the two in terms of story.
Actually I'd compare Candy to Schindler's list--very derivative though slickly made and well acted. Goes through the motions as if the motions come before meaning. Requiem was at least interesting.
shareApparently both movies deal with the same subject, but digging deeper you can clearly see that while 'Requiem for a Dream' is more about the abuse of drugs, 'Candy' in the other hand is more about the troubles of having a healthy relationship when drugs becomes an obstacle.
Technically speaking RFaD is more flashy and hollywood-like while 'Candy' is more subtle and serene with an appropriately slow pace.
IMO the intention of RFaD is to shock the audience while 'Candy' only tries to tell a unique love-story.
Which one I prefer? I enjoyed both of them for different reasons, but if I gotta pick one, I pick Candy.
Requiem was more like the experience of using drugs from the characters POV, where Candy was watching two innocent characters degraded. Both were great but I'd rather watch Candy again versus Requiem for a Dream.
shareI just watched Candy (read the book 2 weeks ago) and this is not even close -- Requiem For A Dream is way better.
shareCandy anyday. It's a better film than Requiem. Not saying 'cos I'm a big fan of Heath Ledger but the movie is quite moving. When you watch the movie, you kinda find yourself attached to Dan and Candy. In Requiem, you just feel bad for Leto and co. but you really don't get the essence of the movie. It just shows you the bad side of being a junkie but in Candy, you see the good, bad and ugly (Heaven, Earth & Hell). The ending is not as saddening as Requiem but still is enough to make your heart cry for what used to be a 'Dan & Candy once upon a time' story. Abbie Cornish is excellent in the movie. The movie is moving and once you see this movie, you feel the effect.
share[deleted]
Not only is Requiem for a Dream better, but so is Trainspotting. Actually this is much more similar to Trainspotting than Requiem anyway. They never do a good job connecting the audience to the characters in the beginning. But the acting was quite good and I liked the way they did Heaven, Earth, and Hell. I just don't think it adds up to either film.
hitrecord.org
i liked requiem better, especially the ending of candy was weak, though it was a good movie.
share