Ridley Scott, Underachiever Extraordinaire! (2 Viewers)

[todd stone]

legend, nuff said

 

[Terrell]

I think you all are nuts!:p) Then again it's obvious I share none of the same likes and dilikes that people here do.

 

[WoodyH]

I generally enjoy Ridley Scott's films, but lately haven't been nearly as drawn to his movies. Visually, I almost always think his movies are stunning - beautiful eye candy, even if I don't like the rest. This thread got me curious, so I pulled up his directorial filmography on the IMDB:
1977 - The Duellists - haven't seen it.
1979 - Alien - one of my favorite sci-fi/horror films (and I'm one of the wierdoes that actually enjoy the entire series).

You didn't think that Hopkins was hamming it up beyond belief (and beyond being entertaining) in Hannibal? You didn't find Julianne Moore's performance in the same film to be the worst of her career and a glaring reminder of how good Foster was in The Silence of the Lambs?

Hopkins, definitely, but Moore I actually liked in Hannibal - I could see her as Clarice ten years later. I'd say I'd watch it again to see if my opinion changed on a second watching, but I have so little desire to watch this dreck a second time, that I don't think I'll bother.
2001 - Black Hawk Down - haven't seen it yet. Gotta admit, I need to search out review threads here on the HTF to see what you all think, but my cynical side is kicking in when it comes to this. My question - and replies to this should probaby either be in a seperate post or e-mailed to me, as I may be skirting the political boundaries of the HTF - is BHD getting its rave reviews because it's actually that good of a film, or is it (intentionally or not) riding on the wave of patriotism that is sweeping the nation these days (please note, I'm passing no judgement on that wave of patriotism one way or another...I'm just curious as to whether BHD would be doing as well had the events of Sep. 11th not taken place)? I've been holding off on seeing BHD because of that question and my perceived degression in quality of Scott's last few films.
So...there - in my usually long-winded form (sorry 'bout that) - are my thoughts on Scott. Feel free to comment, refute, or ignore as you see fit.

 

[WoodyH]

Yikes - four posts between when I started typing that diatribe and when I finally posted it. Remind me to shut up sometime.

He basically confessed to stealing the look of his "Gladiator" action sequences from "Saving Private Ryan" in the audio commentary for Gladiator.

To the films detriment, unfortunately, IMHO. I for one hate this 'stutter-shutter' effect that's become so popular in action sequences ever since SPR came out. The only time I've ever felt it was used well was in SPR, because it is so disorienting and confusing that it greatly added to the insanity of those opening 20-some minutes. Every other time I've seen it used, (Gladiator, Mummy Returns, even briefly in Count of Monte Cristo, and a host of others) it makes things so confusing and hard to follow that it pulls me out of the film - the exact opposite of its effect in SPR - because i'm trying to follow what's actually happening.
(rant)
I feel like it's being over-used these days for two reasons - 1> it's 'cool', and 2> it helps cover up the fact that nobody actually bothers to learn how to make decent combat scenes (either the actors or the directors), so it becomes up to the editors to find a way to put together a ton of bad footage into something that's such a hacked-together mess that we all think we've just seen something unbelieveably cool. Please, please, please - train the actors, shoot the scene well, and then let me watch what's going on and appreciate the expertise and work that went into creating what I'm seeing.
(/rant)

 

[Steve_Ch]

I have not seen a lot of his films, but there's enough successful ones in the last 20 some years that he is no doubt one of the "important" directors of the time. Offhand, I can't think of any work that he did can be mentioned in the same breath of most of the David Lean, Kurosawa, Kubrik, Billy Wilder films, and for that matter, the best of Spielberg.

My personal favorite is Alien, I like Blade Runner, but think it's overrated.

 

[Rain]

1996 - White Squall - haven't seen it.

I forgot all about White Squall. Naturally, since it features footage of Ryan Phillipe's ass in wet jockeys, I've seen it.
Same overall deal, though. Nice technical work with suitably convincing special effects, but the characters are one dimensional and dull. Jeff Bridges deserves better material.
Honestly, I'd have to say it's one of the oddest films I've ever seen. Not so much in terms of storyline, but because I'm confused about what the target audience was supposed to be. On the one hand, it's a special effects/action picture, on the other it's eye candy shots of cute, young, sweaty boys in wet clothing. Damn strange.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Rain, maybe you're just allergic to Ridley Scott.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

If the "Phillipe in jockeys" effect can't cause Rain to completely reasses Scott's oeuvre, nothing we could say will convince him anyway.
Regards,

 

[Sam R. Aucoin]

Woody:
I hate to be picky but your statement in which you said that "the shot of the city reflected in Deckard's eye is one of my all-time favorites", is incorrect.
That shot (I assume you mean the one as Los Angeles unfolds during the car ride in the very beginning of the movie) shows a reflection of the city in HOLDEN's eye. Remember - Holden is on his way to Tyrell Corporation to perform a Voight-Kampff test on Leon, one of the new employees. We first meet Deckerd as he is sitting on a store-front ledge, waiting for a seat at a noodle bar (which is AFTER Holden has been shot; that is why Gaff "arrests" Deckerd at the noodle bar - to bring him in so that Bryant can "officially" replace Holder with Deckerd, now that Holden is on a life-support machine in the hospital).

 

[WoodyH]

Sam -
Nitpick away, that was a definite goof on my part. :b In my humble defense, it's been a while since I watched BR. That image just got burned into my brain (in a good way) when I first saw the Director's Cut in the theater...going from pan-and-scan videotapes to the full image in a theater, that shot just blew me away, and is always the first thing in my mind when I think of BR. I guess the body that the eyeball in question belongs to is less important to me than the beauty of the shot itself.

 

[AaronP]

That is usually true, but I hated the visual effects and cinematography of Gladiator.

as did I. I thought the CGI vista shots of Rome and the external shots of the coleseum were downright horrible.

And the hand heldy, wierd frame rate SPR style of the opening battle sequence did nothing but make it confusing and hard to follow.

I've listened to several of his commentaries from ALien to hannibal and Gladiator, and he seems like he knows his stuff and has a sensible mind for filmmaking. but I guess actions speak louder than words, allthough I like his movies, I just think they could have been better.

One thing that really bugs me is that its like he never even bothered to watch SOTL when he made Hannibal. In SOTL, it was CLEARLY established that Jame Gumb killed Hester Moffit and Hannibal just "tucked him away just as he had found him." However, in Hannibal, Julianne Moore clearly says that Hannibal killed Hester Moffit! ARRGH.

 

[Tom Ryan]

I am witholding my opinions in this thread until Aaron changes his tasteless signature
-Tom

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Aaron's signature is merely wrong, not tasteless. he accidentally typed "Memento" when he meant to type "Moulin Rouge". Okay, sorry. Ridley Scott didn't direct either of those. I will remain on topic for the remainder of this thread. :b
Regards,

 

[Paul_D]

I'd go as far as to say that Scott is so exacting in how he constructs a particular world that the style transcends and becomes the substance of the film. I mean, Black Hawk Down isn't very complex but it feels so fargin' real that it's like a battering ram smashing into your guts, which is more than I can say for a lot of good war films.

Also well put.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Rain --

You didn't find Julianne Moore's performance in the same film to be the worst of her career and a glaring reminder of how good Foster was in The Silence of the Lambs?

I thought Julianne Moore did excellent work in Hannibal, and I think when people compare her work unfavorably to Foster's, they've utterly failed to grasp the profound differences between the character of Starling at different stages of her career: the young, green idealist vs. the cynical veteran who's seen herself screwed over repeatedly despite upholding the ideals she thought everyone was serving -- and still she tries to do the right thing. (Maybe one has to be a little older to appreciate what Moore was playing.)

To repeat: I can't find fault with the acting in Scott's recent films -- and that doesn't mean that every performance deserves an award, just that they strike me as appropriate to the story and the character. I have problems with the acting in some of the "middle films" (Black Rain, G.I. Jane, 1492), but nothing recent.

M.

 

[Josh_Hill]

I thought G.I. Jane was a fantastic film and Viggo and Demi were great in it!

 

[Guy Martin]

Actually Sam and Woody, you're both wrong. According to the interview with Ridley Scott in the most recent edition of Paul Sammon's Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner (a must-read for BR fans):

Paul Sammon: Let's discuss an interesting visual motif that runs throughout Blade Runner. It begins with that giant eye at the start of the film, the close-up of the blue iris which is intercut with the wide shots of the industrial landscape. Was that meant to be a symbolic or literal eye?

Ridley Scott: I think it was intuitively going along with the root of an Orwellian idea. That the world is more of a controlled place now. It's really the eye of Big Brother.

PS: Or Eldon Tyrell?

RS: Or Tyrell. Tyrell, in fact, had he lived, would certainly have been Big Brother.

PS: I ask this because Blade Runner's special effects storyboards suggested that the eye belonged to Holden, the Blade Runner shot by Leon in the interrogation room.

RS: That was the early intent, yes. But I later realized that linking that eye with any specific character was far too literal a maneuver and removed the particular emotion I was trying to induce.

So there you have it. The eye belongs to no one in particular.

- Guy

 

[Rain]

Michael,
I can appreciate your thoughts regarding the performances, but I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
In particular, in regards to Moore in Hannibal, I can see how you are interpreting things. I just didn't feel that the character was written true to the character in The Silence of the Lambs. Yes, people do change over their lives, but this was apples and oranges. How the character was scripted, though, is clearly not Moore's fault.
What is her fault, though, is how painfully obvious she makes it that she didn't really seem to want to be there. Moore is an actress who is capable of great subtlety in her performances, such that her whole character can be drawn out without her having to verbalize every nuance (see Safe and Vanya on 42nd Street). In Hannibal, she just comes off as a zombie, completely uninterested in and unabsorbed by her character. I've never ever "caught" Moore acting, if you know what I mean, except for in Hannibal.
As for Hopkins, he would have stood on his head and sung the entire score to Guys and Dolls for the paycheck he received. He wasn't so much acting as hiring himself out.
Oh, and I'll throw out some kudos to acting in Scott films. Oliver Reed and Richard Harris were terrific to watch in Gladiator and probably the only thing that kept me awake during the film. However, given their histories and reputations, I suspect those were in spite of and not because of Scott's direction.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I just didn't feel that the character was written true to the character in The Silence of the Lambs.

That's supposedly the reason why Jodie Foster passed on the sequel (though she apparently blamed Thomas Harris).

M.

 

[Brian_J]

In Hannibal, she just comes off as a zombie, completely uninterested in and unabsorbed by her character.

As opposed to her "performance" in Jurassic Park 2? Where she comes off as if she is on speed and entirely fake. I'll take her performance in Hannibal over that anyday.

I think everyone realized that her task in replacing Foster was not enviable. She did fairly well given that fact...as well as a story that from many accounts was Thomas Harris' way of thumbing his nose at Hollywood.

Brian