Ridley Scott, Underachiever Extraordinaire! (1 Viewer)

[Brian Lawrence]

...it took Spielberg's D-Day and extended it by 100 minutes, without reducing intensity or inducing boredom.

I must disagree with you here. I found the film to be lacking in any sort of intensity at all, and more than once came close to dozing off. I could of cared less if every single paper-thin character in the film got killed off. The whole movie felt like I was watching a rather sloppy uninspired piece of poorly written film-making in which the director thought he could cover up the many flaws and weaknesses by editing the film under a strobe light.

 

[Glenn_Jn]

I've been a huge fan of Ridley Scott since 1979 when I first saw Alien. It instantly became my favorite film. When I began to see the trailers for Blade Runner I knew that I would soon have a new fave...I wasn't disappointed! Since then I have never missed any of his films and always await his next with eager anticipation. Sure, some I like more than others, but I will eventually own them all on DVD. I guess it comes down to what you like. For me stories, character development, pacing and all that other crap that critics spout when talking about movies, don't mean much to me. As Ridley once said movies are a VISUAL medium. If you want story and character READ THE BOOK. I don't think any director can create a visual ambiance the way RS does (this is open for debate, but you're wrong). In one of the later scenes in Thelma & Louise, where they are driving through the hills at night, only Ridley would go through the trouble of lighting up the hills in the background to create the mood that it does. Blade Runner is the best example of his "style". Every shot looks like a painting. His attention to detail never ceases to amaze me. A good example of this is the "bathroom scene" in Leon's apartment. When Deckard goes in he turns on the light but it doesn't come on. So he taps the fluorescent light with his finger and it stutters then comes on. It means nothing, but it helps create a mood in the scene. Any other director would of just had the light come on straight away and it would of been a normal overhead light not a fluorescent light on the wall. That's Ridley Scott for you!. The same amount of attention to detail went into the soundtrack, beautiful.

Like I said it comes down to personal taste. When I watch Alien, I'm not watching a horror/monster movie. I'm just admiring the look and feel of the scenes. The first 10 minutes of the film are the best, where the helmets are talking to each other and the ship is waking up. It's classic stuff.

This is how I rate his films:

1. Blade Runner (it might be over-rated but it''s still the greatest movie ... ever, with or without the voice-over) 10/10

2. Alien (best of the four and just about perfect in every way. When will he return to this genre?) 10/10

3. Gladiator (heard the criticisms..I must have seen a different movie! Beautiful in every way) 9/10

4. Thelma & Louise (a bit over the top on the "feminist" angle but still a good movie) 8/10

5. Black Rain (great visuals especially on the streets of Osaka, reminiscent of some of the BR "Chinatown" scenes) 7/10

6. White Squall (beautifully shot as usual. Good story and Jeff Bridges) 7/10

7. Hannibal (again nice visuals and thankfully not a SOTL clone) 6.5/10

8. Someone To Watch Over Me (Mimi Rogers, as with many actors/actresses after the Ridley experience, has never been better) 6/10

9. 1492:Conquest Of Paradise (great looking movie. Bit too long but still good. Michael Wincott is great in this film) 6/10

10. Black Hawk Down (powerful and relentless war scenes. Style is a lot different than his other movies) 5/10*

11. Legend (pretty basic plot-wise but gorgeous to look at. Tim Curry's Lord of Darkness is the standout) 5/10*

12. Duellists (slow and a bit repetitive but again gorgeous. Ridley's first film with Harvey Keitel) 5/10*

13. G.I Jane (like T & L a bit too "feministy" but still a good if somewhat predictable drama) 5/10

* these 3 would be higher but for me the genre dictates otherwise.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Not everyone can hit a home run when they step up to the plate.

 

[Nick_Scott]

(in reference to BHD)

I could of cared less if every single paper-thin character in the film got killed off. The whole movie felt like I was watching a rather sloppy uninspired piece of poorly written film-making in which the director thought he could cover up the many flaws and weaknesses by editing the film under a strobe light.

Well, the story and characters were taken nearly exactly from the book (which also lacked character development, and a plot), which brings up an interesting discussion-

If your making a movie, how important is it to stay accurate to the book?

Harry Potter stayed close to the book, and many film critics complained.... but fans of the book loved it.

OTOH, few people read the book BHD, so the same argument may not apply. The movie is accurate to the book, and accurate to the real events.

To be honest, I loved the movie for its accuracy to the real events. For sure, Scott could of developed ONE character, and still been historically accurate, but I think the viewers would of missed out on alot of interesting details. (Plus, I think the most interesting story came from Sizemore's character, but that might of made for a worse movie).

 

[Brian Kidd]

I think that Scott is an extremely talented filmmaker with an extremely uneven body of work. When the planets are in alignment, his work is among the best the art form has had to offer. At other times, he seems to be going through the motions. One thing that should be said about even the least of his work is that none of it is visually dull. You want a hack? Go watch the new STAR WARS films.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

My biggest problem with the characters was that they never seemed convincing in their roles, I always felt like I was watching actors. When I refer to paper thin characters, I don't mean that I wanted a bunch of back-story or melodrama. The people in this film never seemed to bring across any of the intensity I would expect under the circumstances. We see people laying around shot and severely wounded yet almost seeming to have a care-free attitude, No sense at all that these guys are terrified, nervous, or in any kind of pain or agony.

In contrast, the opening scenes in Saving Private Ryan also has characters that we know nothing about but yet I actually felt for them. They looked and acted like they where really in the situation, not like they where sitting, standing, or laying around waiting for the camera to pan over them.

This to me is the biggest weakness of the film, Ridley Scott seems obsessed over the technical details, yet does not seem to have any interest in the people within his film. He doesn't seem to have any interest in the human element of the situation.

I guess the best way to describe my feeling towards this film, Is that Ridley Scott comes across to me as someone who can play all the notes but can't play the music.

 

[Ron-P]

Ridley Scott, Underachiever Extraordinaire!

Cannot agree. You wanna talk about underachiever's? Let's start with John Woo or John Carpenter. Two who keeping making films worse than their previous films.
Peace Out~

 

[Michael Reuben]

Let's start with John Woo or John Carpenter.

Let's keep the thread on-topic instead.

M.

 

[Lew Crippen]

In contrast, the opening scenes in Saving Private Ryan also has characters that we know nothing about but yet I actually felt for them. They looked and acted like they where really in the situation, not like they where sitting, standing, or laying around waiting for the camera to pan over them.

Very true Brian. Say what you will about Spielberg (and I’ve said a lot), he is a master storyteller and gets the audience involved in his characters from the very beginning. I never cared very much one way or the other what happened to the characters in ‘Black Hawk Down’. Were it not for the historical perspective, I would have cared less.

I felt the same way about Alien, where I only cared about Weaver’s character and then because she carried most of the film. Contrast with Aliens, where I at least, became an active participant with the characters.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

BHD depicted professional soldiers behaving professionally under fire. In SPR, Spielberg couldn't resist throwing in bits of melodrama to create aritificial feeling in the viewer. (The part where a bullet goes through a GI's helmet, then he takes it off and looks at it WITHOUT DUCKING, nearly ruined the entire 30-minute D-Day sequence for me! I can't stop thinking about it.)
That's why I stated before that BHD isn't for everyone. It's a documentary-like recreation of actual (and recent) events. If you're not interested in the subject matter, then the movie has little else to offer. But for what the film sets out to do, it is a modern classic.
I also agree with O-T Ron-P that Woo and Carpenter seem to have lost it. :frowning:

 

[Robert Crawford]

I guess you and I watched two different films because I didn't come away with that feeling about these guys not being terrified, nervous, or in pain and agony.

Crawdaddy

 

[Bill J]

BHD depicted professional soldiers behaving professionally under fire. In SPR, Spielberg couldn't resist throwing in bits of melodrama to create aritificial feeling in the viewer. (The part where a bullet goes through a GI's helmet, then he takes it off and looks at it WITHOUT DUCKING, nearly ruined the entire 30-minute D-Day sequence for me! I can't stop thinking about it.)

That's an excellent point. Although they may seem similar, Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan are two very different films. Mainly because the soldiers are fighting for different reasons under different circumstances.

 

[Randy Korstick]

While I wouldn't call Ridley Scott a hack I do agree he is an Underachiever. I have seen most but not all of his movies and the only 2 I really like are Gladiator and Alien.

I enjoy but am not huge fan of Legend and Blade Runner but thats it for his work. I'm a huge war movie fan but could barely tolerate Black Hawk Down. 0 characterizations and 0 plot developement. Just violence for the sake of violence which I don't mind if its fun but it was not fun in this movie imho. I also personally had a problem with this subject being made into a movie. It was such a small event that a 2 and hour plot would be difficult to do on this subject by anyone. I mean there are dozens of major battles in history that have not been filmed yet or that could be done better. Why not do one of them.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

...Can you provide a specific example?

Pretty much every single scene in which they appeared. I felt like I was watching a battle re-enacted with life sized G.I. Joe dolls. The movie just plain had no effect on me at all. Much like Gladiator I found it to be bland , sterile & uninvolving.

 

[Nick_Scott]

Pretty much every single scene in which they appeared. I felt like I was watching a battle re-enacted with life sized G.I. Joe dolls. The movie just plain had no effect on me at all. Much like Gladiator I found it to be bland , sterile & uninvolving

That was pretty much exactly how the characters were in the book. The book was divided up into segments, each one based on interviews with American soldiers and Somalies, so the soldiers interviewed might of "left out" the wimpy parts... The events also followed nearly exactly as the nice Discovery channel documentary.
The few character developments from the book made its way into the movie. Like Sizemores, the Ranger commander, McGregors, and Harnetts seem exactly like I imagined them in the book. (Harnett was a composite, but he was just like group 5 leader). The Ranger commander was EXACTLY like he was in the book. Exactly. And he argued with Delta constantly- Even during battle.
I'll admit- If it wasnt so historically accurate, I may not even like the movie...
What if Scott took the same aproach as "We were soldiers?". Better characters, better plot? Less accurate to the book? Would BHD had better reviews?

 

[Robert Crawford]

I thought BHD had very good reviews and was well-thought of in the industry as a fine film. Don't be swayed in thinking the opposite because some HTF members didn't like the film.

Crawdaddy

 

[Bill J]

What if Scott took the same aproach as "We were soldiers?". Better characters, better plot? Less accurate to the book? Would BHD had better reviews?

I agree with Robert, Black Hawk Down received mostly positive reviews. Also, BHD got a 76% percent at Rotten Tomatoes, while We Were Soldiers only got a 61%. Both percents are lower than they should have been, in my opinion.

 

[Edwin-S]

I wonder if some people missed the point about Black Hawk Down. The film wasn't about individual soldiers, so why bother with character development? The film was about arrogance, bad planning and severe underestimation of an opponent. The result was a costly lesson in men and material. The "skinnies", as the US soldiers fondly called them, were not the pushovers that the soldiers thought they were. The movie, for its intended purpose, was well done,IMO.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Edwin-S,

I disagree with what you think the film was about, and with Randy on why it was chosen over more "austere" actual battles.

1) It was not an illustration of poor planning. That element was included in the story because it was factual, and illustrates the fallibility of planning a military operation where little experience is to be had. I do not believe it was about underestimating the Somalis or arrogance, either.

2) It was a GREAT choice IMO, Randy. It was MODERN...the only actual version we have. It involved PRIMARILY professional soldiers, as opposed to volunteers (there is a difference in training and mentality), doing a job. It is unlike any other battle in our history, really.

BHD was an incredible experience for me specifically because of it's uncritical viewpoint (it made no judgements, it did not preach, it had no pre-packaged message) and lack of Hollywood pretensions. It wasn't a "story" per se, so why waste time on artificial "character development". It provided a clinical view of the events, with much information and as many details as possible. It's not perfect, but it's neutrality is commendable. It leaves any judgement or lessons to the viewer, where that should reside.

One of the best films of the last decade, though certainly not everyone's cup of tea.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[TheLongshot]

It is interesting to compare Ridley to his brother, Tony. Ridley is often viewed as a great director, while a lot of people think Tony is a hack. The thing is, there isn't much difference in them. Both are visual stylists and are very good at it. The difference is, in the quality of the material they are working with. I wonder if Tony would have been considered great if he directed Blade Runner or Alien?

That being said, it is funny, but I think I've enjoyed more movies mady by Tony than by Ridley. Just my view on things.

Jason