Ridley Scott, Underachiever Extraordinaire! (1 Viewer)

[Dan Brecher]

I think a good case could be made that Ridley Scott is more of a style over substance director, but he's more subtle, than the more bombastic directors (Michael Bay), and since he's got the art background, the visual sense within his films are very well done.

Yes, this is very much how I feel about Scott as a filmmaker (as I stated in the recent Gladiator thread). I'll frankly come out and say that Alien is the one movie of his that I love through and through, it's damn near perfection. Blade Runner I've admired on many levels but I've always felt something lacking within that film. Alien though? Genius.

Despite how I feel about Scott as a director overall, I can't bring myself to ever deem the man an "underachiever," as he is a man of incredible talent and no underachiever could deliver an Alien or a Blade Runner in my mind, two movies of such visual excellence they set a new definition for science fiction. I'm still waiting for Scott to get a knighthood for services to cinema, I'm ever happy to want this to happen regardless of how I feel about the majority of his movies because he has done great things for which he does deserve his success.

Dan

 

[Rain]

As opposed to her "performance" in Jurassic Park 2?

Oh, I'm sorry, I wouldn't know anything about that. There was absolutely nothing about Jurassic Park that would make me want to go back to it a second time, via sequel or otherwise.

 

[Tom Ryan]

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.

LOL! I got a good laugh out of that one!

-Tom

 

[Sam R. Aucoin]

Guy
This is a bit off of the main subject of the thread, but (and I have Sammon's book) . . .
How in the world can a director, SUBSEQUENT TO FILMING THE MOVIE, change the "intent" of the storyboard?
Ridley may have later decided that he no longer WANTED the eye to "belong to anyone in particular", or that it represented "Big Brother".
But the fact remains (and it is contained in the storyboards - I have seen them) that the "eye shot", in the beginning of the film, was DEFINITELY Holden's eye.
If you are a fan of the film, know the background to the filming and subsequent changes, and are familiar with Ridley's recent interview on the film, then you must also be aware of his penchant for "changing" things about this particular movie.
I mean, whose eye would this be other than Holden's? It reflects EXACTLY what Holden would see as he is driving his spinner to Tyrell Corporation to perform the Voight-Kampff test on Leon.
So please do not intepret this response as a jibe at you - it is mainly a complaint about Ridley Scott and not letting his film alone. From all reports, Scott's recent interview pissed off Harrison Ford quite a bit (it involves a spoiler, so I won't mention it). After all, you are just the "messenger" on this one (that is, quoting the interview in the Sammon book) - you didn't GIVE the interview

 

[WoodyH]

From all reports, Scott's recent interview pissed off Harrison Ford quite a bit (it involves a spoiler, so I won't mention it).

? Yeah, that cheezed me off too.

 

[Guy Martin]

Sam-

Good point. Ridley does seem to revise his position on this film quite a bit. Although in the same interview he also makes reference to that spoiler you mention. Unfortunately Sammon says that the interview is a composite of questions he asked Scott at various times in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1994 and 1995 so determining exactly when Scott said the things he does in the interview is impossible. He could have said that shortly before the film came out, or nearly a decade later.

- Guy

 

[Sam R. Aucoin]

Woody - good one
Guy - I agree

 

[Steve Clark]

Put me in the camp of Ridley Scott being one of the best comtemporary directors. "Underachiever" I think not. He is on an unbelieveable roll with Gladiator last year winning Best Picture (well deserved) and BHD this year. If anything, I think BHD deserved a BP nod this year. Mr. Scott simply directs genre classics in the likes of Spielberg:

1. Alien - a classic horror movie

2. Gladiator - a classic epic/action movie

3. BHD - a classic war movie

4. Thelma & Louise - a classic "Buddy Movie"

5. Blade Runner - a classic sci fi movie

The direction, visuals/special effects, the acting, the pacing, the music, the build-up are simply outstanding with his movies. I would rate his movies as follows:

1. Gladiator

2. Alien

3. BHD

4. Blade Runner

5. Thelma & Louise (Let's face it, this is a formulatic "Buddy Movie" that is well done)

The key to these movies is the excellent acting. Can you imagine anyone else pulling off the role of Maximus as well as Crowe did or the role of Ripley as Weaver did? Or how about Geena Davis in Thelma & Louise. The way her career has gone, she should throw a lifeline out to Scott. Or how about Sean Young in Blade Runner. Also one of her best efforts. Ridley is deserving of an Oscar and soon.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I was down on Scott lately due to his aping of SS SPR style in Gladiator (along with some yucky looking CGI shots - paint a freaking matte like you used to, sheesh). How could Scott make Rome look so fake yet make the city in Blade Runner come to life.
I do think Scott has/had a very unique style which we saw with Alien, BR, Black Rain. That had something to do with his involvement for sure and he should be commended for it. I think it even carried into GI Jane.
But Gladiator I thought was SAVED by Crowe. I agree on Phoenix being dreadful, I always mention Quills as the contrasting quality effort. Hannibal was horrible, but that might have just been script which was wretched. If that was also due to Scott then it was a big snafu by him.
Black Hawk Down, on the other hand, was remarkable considering where he had just been with filmmaking and his partnership with Bruckheimer. I almost wonder where it came from. Wherever that was, it restored some of my faith in him.
I would described him as formally great, recently stumbling. But Carpenter could only dream of such a comeback as Black Hawk Down.
But just my opinion too.
Rain, you need a "NickSo sig" with Ryan hugging you.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

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

Blame Thomas Harris for that one. The movie was infinately superior to the book. Mr. Scott did everything he could to save it from its own inherent suckatude.

And Rain HAS a new sig pic. Search After Hours for "As requested: Rain meets Ryan Phillipe"

 

[John C]

Ridley Scott a hack?! Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarentino, now those are hacks! I get to be treated to seeing Kevin Smith as the guest of honor at every single comic convention for the next ten years now! Great!!

 

[Terrell]

Jeff is right. Scott made the best film he could have made of Hannibal. The book and source material was complete dogsh**. Why he even decided to make that film is beyond me. But I've only been disappointed by one Scott film. Although all I've seen are Alien, BHD, Gladiator, Thelma & Louise, Blade Runner, Legend, and Hannibal. Hannibal was the only one that wasn't good. But that wasn't Ridley's fault.
God, suddenly it's turned into let's bash Ridley and Gladiator week around here. It boggles the mind.

 

[Mitty]

God, suddenly it's turned into let's bash Ridley and Gladiator week around here.

A lot of people around here have been bashing Gladiator since it was released.

 

[Dave Barth]

If Ridley Scott is an underachiever, I'd love to see how great his films would be if he lived up to his potential!

I find that I enjoy much of Scott's work in spite of certain faults. I think he's a very talented director who has directed a number of good films from different genres. Blade Runner and Alien are my two favorites of his pictures, but his recent work and Thelma & Louise are good as well.

 

[Edwin-S]

I think the only time anyone has the right to call someone else a "hack" is when they prove that they can do the job better than the person they are insulting. When I see a film worth watching with Rains name as the director then I think he will have earned the right to call Scott a "hack". I didn't like "Magnolia" but I wouldn't call the director a hack unless I could prove I was capable of making films better than he does and if I did make a better film, I still wouldn't call him a "hack", out of common courtesy.

 

[Josh_Hill]

As far as Im concerned Julianne Moore was amazing in Hannibal. That whole film was just mindblowing. Just as good as SOTL if ya ask me!

 

[Paul_D]

That whole film was just mindblowing.

This coming from the man who thinks the meaning of life is nachos and star wars!

 

[Josh_Hill]

Im here to entertain!

 

[Scott_MacD]

Quote:

Grr. I knew that this would be a catalyst for a lot of replies. And IMHO, rightly so. Alien is widely loved as a shining example of how to do "haunted house" movies. Ridley takes the admittedly derivative formula, binds it to a terrifying monster, builds up genuine suspense effortlessly, using lighting, performance, and quiet music. Best of all, the creature is rarely seen, allowing the audience's imagination to run riot. Yes, in my eyes at least, Alien is a beautiful fright movie par excellence.
Blade Runner, on the other hand I loved because of the story (the questions it raises), and the characterisations. (The tired, pained wash-out Deckard, the simultaneously doomed and enlightened brute Batty) But moreover, I loved it because it gave me a vision of the future beyond anything I had ever dreamed, it's verisimilitude, sheer belief in creating a world which is ultimately the reason why it has been so imitated.
You can have a great set of technical people to create a movie, but without the focus and conviction added by a director(although I freely admit that I think Ridley Scott reached the peak of his ability 20 years ago), then it's ultimately pointless. It's almost insulting to compare with Hitchcock, but he was the binding reason why so many of his entertaining movies are endearing film classics. In his greats, he took a personal interest in the script, the photography(extensive storyboarding) and every element of his film. I'm in the mood to watch Rear Window again.
I was thoroughly entertained by the Hannibal performances. As for the ending, Hannibal does what he does best, messing with people's heads. I like to look at the climax of Hannibal as a macabre comedy, it belongs to the wrong story, but entertaining nontheless.
Anyway, let the discussion continue..

 

[andreasingo]

As some people have said I think what Ridley Scott is all about is creating worlds.

Basically I think he wants to recreate the settings he has in his head. He's a visual artist and that's where you can find his strenghts. He's able to tell a story just by the visuals. Have you thought about that? Almost every Ridley Scott movie contains very little dialogue.

Personally I love nearly all of his films. The thing I love about them is this magical blend of visuals and music that you'll find in every film he ever has made. If the story is good in a Ridley Scott movie, well, then it's just a bonus.

My R.S faves are

Alien

Blade Runner

Thelma & Louise

Gladiator

I haven't seen The Duellists, Black Rain, G.I Jane, Legend and Black Hawk Down yet. I'm sure Ridley will blow me away again.