Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Allright..not wanting to derail the RobinHood thread I wanted to discuss Ridley Scott films. I happen to think that he is one of the, if not the finest visual Directors ever.

His first Film "The Duelists" 1977. An absolutely awesome historical masterpiece based around the Napoleonic wars and a running fued between two French officers.

"Alien" 1979. Not much to say here, everyone knows that the Movie "Alien" is an iconic and truly one of the best SCi FI films ever.

"Blade Runner" 1982. Can this guy do no wrong? Another iconic film with stunning visuals and great acting.

"Legend" 1985. Mehh... I liked it, it is a stunning film visually, but Tom Cruise as an elf didn't really work for me. For the 80's it was fairly good but it doesn't hold up to modern fantasy films like Blade runner and Alien do in regards to Sci Fi.

"Someone to watch over me" 1987......never seen it

"Black Rain" 1989. Another one of my favorites. Michael Douglas unleashed on Tokyo...you can't go wrong.

"Thelma and Louise" 1991...Definatley enjoyed this movie. I was quite surprised actually. Another iconic film with the ending.

"1492: Conquest of Paradise" 1992. I enjoyed this film, mainly because I am a History buff. Again another stunningly beautiful film.

"White Squall"1996...I vaguely remember seeing this film

"GI Jane" 1997..I liked this movie. It was interesting to see an examination of Navy SEAL culture. (even though I know it's Hollywoods take)

"Gladiator" 2000. Another awesome movie ,again a stunningly beautiful film. One of my all time favs.

"Hannibal" 2001..Gary Oldman stole this movie with his portrayal of the rich baddie. Hopkins and the redhead chick were kind of mehhhh. Not one of my favs.

"Black Hawk Down" 2001..Another one of my favorites. One of the best modern war movies ever.

"Matchstick Men" 2003...It got good reviews but I have never seen it

"Kingdom of Heaven" 2005. This is one of those films that I truly was anticipating, but was sooooooooooo dissapointed in. This truly should have been a great film, and as usualll had the awesome filmography but the story was just too slow for me. I classify it as a good film but not one of my all time favs.

"A Good Year"...2006 Haven't seen it, the story didn't appeal to me and it has receieved bad reviews.

"American Gangster"...2007 A decent film, although not really my cup of tea.

"Body of Lies" 2008...another good film, not great...but good.

"Robin Hood"..2010 ....Haven't seen it yet...

"Alien Prequel" 2012...I am really lookin forward to this movie! Hopefully won't be disapointed


So dakkites chip in and tell us your thoughts on the Ridley.

GG

When you read it like that it's more hit than miss I reckon.

Bit unsure as to the worthiness of the movie version of Monopoly he's supposed to be involved in however.

..Gladiator was really 10 years ago ! .

reds8n wrote:..Gladiator was really 10 years ago ! .

Yeah and Alien was 31 years ago!!...I feel old.

GG

I think he is overrated personally, and i think that Kingdom of Heaven was absolutely gak.

Someone once told me the first few minutes with that overhead city scene of Blade Runner featured the Iron filled skyline of Middlesbrough, and he is from the North East of England. Is that right?

I hope he isnt a fething Monkey Hangar...

mattyrm wrote:I think he is overrated personally, and i think that Kingdom of Heaven was absolutely gak.

Someone once told me the first few minutes with that overhead city scene of Blade Runner featured the Iron filled skyline of Middlesbrough, and he is from the North East of England. Is that right?

Matty, as a vet, what did you think of "Black Hawk Down"?

GG

Aye i liked BHD, it was pretty good. I thought it was very well shot, looked realistic. And i noticed little things about it like the guys not taking their water bottles full and stuff and it made me think "no wonder that whole thing went to gak!"

He put alot of effort into that movie i think.

mattyrm wrote:Aye i liked BHD, it was pretty good. I thought it was very well shot, looked realistic. And i noticed little things about it like the guys not taking their water bottles full and stuff and it made me think "no wonder that whole thing went to gak!"

He put alot of effort into that movie i think.

Apart from Ewan McGregor's horrible American accent that is...

Yeah but thats Ewans fault!

filbert wrote:

Apart from Ewan McGregor's horrible American accent that is...

I think they were keen to downplay that characters involvement after the later events perhaps.

http://50thingstonotknow.blogspot.com/2006/12/one-of-heroes-of-black-hawk-down-is.html

As I said in the other thread, I think Scott is a great artist. He makes beautiful-looking movies, the camera work is always top notch. And I think that he puts a lot of little details into movies. But, I just don't always care for the movie; sometimes, I think the story is junk. Sometimes, I think he's probably the wrong director for it. Like any artist, everyone isn't going to always like everything that he does.

Yeah, GeneralGrog, I think Ridley Scott has a gift for the visuals of his movies, and his attention to detail in recreating the world of his stories is great. But he isn't a natural storyteller like the true greats.


The Duelists - A good film, interesting story realised with great costuming and production, but probably only really for fans of the age.

Alien - Well, yeah, a gem. Iconic film.

Blade Runner - Ultimately the design of this film, especially the set design and soundtrack, allow it to rise above the dreary plotting. Visionary movie better remembered than viewed.

Legend - Is a pretty movie, but strangely constructed. I know there were production problems, and suspect this might have impacted on the quality of the film - there was certainly a good film in there somewhere.

Someone to Watch Over Me - This is a by the numbers thriller, equal parts acceptable and dull. Not Scott's strength at all.

Black Rain - Is eighties cheese at its cheesiest and eightiesest. Japan is basically just a place full of katana wielding yakuza, and it's awesome.

Thelma and Louise - I didn't like this movie as much as a lot of people did, I never could figure out why they didn't just explain he was raping her. Probably had to be there at the time to get it, or something.

1492: Conquest of Paradise - Scott back in his forte. Glorious soundtrack, great costuming and an epic story.

White Squall - I didn't know this movie existed, I just read the imdb summary, and know I don't care this movie exists. What an odd choice for an a-list director.

GI Jane - Was excessive, and kind of meat headed. Interesting subjects, feminism and marine culture, unfortunately let down by an approach that favoured shock over genuine insight.

Gladiator - A good, old fashioned sword and sandals epic. I don't get how this film gets rated as a classic, let alone an Oscar winner, but it is certainly a fine action movie.

Hannibal - Stupid movie. Hannibal is an interesting character behind a cage, when he's free in the world it becomes very hard to see past the very strange fantasy that is the modern serial killer movie.

Black Hawk Down - An incredible technical production. Reveals nothing of the conflict outside of the specifics of the fighting, and I'm not sure if that diminishes the film, or if it should be admired for keeping it simple, keeping it to the POV of the troops. Either way it's A-grade war porn.

Matchstick Men - A character study of sorts, with Nicholas Cage released onto the screen in full-on 'acting is being quirky' mode. Slick but self-indulgent film.

Kingdom of Heaven - A fascinating period of history, an interesting approach, let down by a simply dreadful, moronic script. Managed to patronise everyone involved, including the audience. I don't think I've ever seen a film that beat the audience over the head with its message more than this film (faith is good but not ignorance...). Looked pretty but was very gak.

A Good Year - A genuinely poor movie. No romance, no humour, just dire.

American Gangster - Well made but pointless movie. Added nothing to the gangster movie genre.

Body of Lies - Haven't seen it, didn't appeal to me. Mediocre reviews haven't caused me to reconsider.

Robin Hood - A well made but unremarkable blockbuster. Some genuinely interesting ideas, unfortunately let down by an inability to trust the audience, while the message is not laid on as thick as Kingdom of Heaven, it's still thick enough to hurt the movie.




All in all, a director with great technical skills, and an impressive list of real classics amongst the rest. It is hard to deny his films of late have unfortunately been trending downwards. You can always be confident of getting a good looking film, but these days you can also expect a poor story.

IMO, eveything since Blade Runner has been downhill. The only exception to this would be Gladiator.

I also hate what he has done with the Blade runner movie. The original voice over version became a cult phenomenon with midnight showings in most cities that lasted until the directors cut was released. The critcs may proclaim it better, but it was at the same time as the directors cut release that the film lost its cult status and started to fade into obscurity.

I really don't get the hype re: Gladiator at all. Good film I guess, but I completely lost interest in it halfway through, and I'm someone who likes epics and action.

I prefer the Blade Runner director's cut. The original theatrical ending always felt as tacked on and ill-fitting as it was.

I think Black Hawk Down is underrated. Alien is a film classic and those who think Cameron's action-packed but shallow Aliens is better should be purged by the Inquisition. Legend IMO is a good example of a film that works in pieces but not all together.

I think the thing about Gladiator was that it was a genre film in a genre that hadn't been done (well) in a long time. Like meeting a friend you hadn't seen in a long time so it sparked peoples interest. It also has the virtue of being from a genre heavily tied into cinemas past.

That.... and it had one of the awesomest opening battle scenes in film.

Watching the Romans vs the Germanic tribes was a true spectacle. (Even though some of it probably wasn't historically accurate)

GG

gorgon wrote:I prefer the Blade Runner director's cut. The original theatrical ending always felt as tacked on and ill-fitting as it was.

I agree about the tacked on story book ending being garbage, but the voice over version was better. Don't care if Ford or the critics hate it, it gave the movie a Noir film in the future feel. A futuristic Casablanca if you take off the happy ending. That is what I liked about the original version, hearing the internal dialogue of Fords character, in many ways, made the movie different from any other Sci-Fi movie that had been previously made.

Body of Lies was awesome in my experience

I think he's a pretty good if not great director that takes on genre's that I love such as sci-fi, sword and board, and modern warfare. Haven't seen all of his work or his most recent film but I really enjoyed Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Body of Lies, and Black Hawk Down.

He basically set the stage for a couple of genre's since it seemed like every modern warfare movie or epic sword-and-board film has a lot of influence from Gladiator and Black Hawk Down. I swear a ton of movies copied that whole "walking in wheat field" scene of Gladiator and nearly all modern warfare movies seemed to take on the lighting style of Black Hawk Down. Then there's Alien and Blade Runner which really shaped the scifi genre as well.

I too was excited and disappointed by Kingdom of Heaven although I don't regret watching it (well maybe watching it in the theater I do) - it really went downhill after Liam Neeson's character died.

Can't wait to see how he takes on the Alien prequel.

Bladerunner is absolutely fantastic. I love BHD, and ALIEN is amazing.

I prefer his brother, though, Tony...


I mean cmon...

Pelham 123

Domino

Man On Fire

Enemy of the State (love it)

True Romance

I hated Kingdom of Heaven after seeing it in the theater. For whatever reason, I bought the director's cut bluray. I think it was because I was excited to have a bluray player or had been reading about the Crusades or whatever. In any case, the longer movie is much more coherent and I could easily forgive a lot of the desperate attempt at "relevance." Gladiator, by contrast, has always struck me as totally moronic--with the exception of the opening battle. I can understand why so many people like the film, however. I should also mention that I can understand why so many people like Britney Spears, too.

Body of Lies was pretty fething awesome.

Body of Lies is a weird film. I quite enjoyed it at the time, but can't remember anything about it now.


A bit like having sex with a stranger when you're drunk.


In other news: I've never seen Blade Runner.

IG_urban wrote:Bladerunner is absolutely fantastic. I love BHD, and ALIEN is amazing.

I prefer his brother, though, Tony...


I mean cmon...

Pelham 123

Domino

Man On Fire

Enemy of the State (love it)

True Romance

Dude, what?

The films above are horrendous.

The remake of the Taking of Pelham 123 removed all the wit and satire of the original, and put in some kind of redemption story (albeit forgetting to have Washington actually redeem himself). It failed as political commentary, failed as a character story, and as an action film it was dire - the ending was bizarrely anti-climactic.

Domino is laughably bad, and was recognised as one of the worst films of the year on release. It's an ugly, incoherent mess. What the hell was Tom Waits doing in there?

Man on Fire was another entry in the revenge porn genre. Notable only for the pointless Scottisms - flashes of 8mm film and the like, included for no conceivable reason.

Enemy of the State was probably his most accomplished film, a goofy but fun techno thriller.

True Romance benefitted from that seriously weird script, seriously good script. It's noting that people recognised that and Tarantino became a big deal very quickly, while Scott is still a journey man director.

I think Tony Scott is probably the least capable director getting regular work.

Michael Bay....

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Michael Bay....

He makes beautiful, flashy lumps of stupid. Which is what he’s asked to make. The guy has technical skills.

Tony Scott doesn’t even make pretty, technically skilled films. Half his problem is confusing flashy gimmicks and camera tricks with art.

Hmm... only Ridley film I've not seen this decade is American Gangster. Guess it shows that his reputation is still enough to drag me to see his films one way or the other.

Aside from Gladiator, Matchstick Men was pretty good (always, always put Sam Rockwell in your movie), although the twist looks kind of obvious now.

I was watching A Good Year on Film 4 recently and thought it was tripe, but then Abbie Cornish (wearing very little clothes) and Marion Cottiliard appeared on screen, so I followed it through to the end. It was still tripe.

sebster wrote:

IG_urban wrote:Bladerunner is absolutely fantastic. I love BHD, and ALIEN is amazing.

I prefer his brother, though, Tony...


I mean cmon...

Pelham 123

Domino

Man On Fire

Enemy of the State (love it)

True Romance

Dude, what?

The films above are horrendous.

The remake of the Taking of Pelham 123 removed all the wit and satire of the original, and put in some kind of redemption story (albeit forgetting to have Washington actually redeem himself). It failed as political commentary, failed as a character story, and as an action film it was dire - the ending was bizarrely anti-climactic.

Domino is laughably bad, and was recognised as one of the worst films of the year on release. It's an ugly, incoherent mess. What the hell was Tom Waits doing in there?

Man on Fire was another entry in the revenge porn genre. Notable only for the pointless Scottisms - flashes of 8mm film and the like, included for no conceivable reason.

Enemy of the State was probably his most accomplished film, a goofy but fun techno thriller.

True Romance benefitted from that seriously weird script, seriously good script. It's noting that people recognised that and Tarantino became a big deal very quickly, while Scott is still a journey man director.

I think Tony Scott is probably the least capable director getting regular work.

Neat opinion. And it's yours.

I'm sorry you didn't "get" Domino, but that was a great movie. Man on fire was also good, it wasn't "Taken" good, but compared to most of Hollywood's Movies in the past 10 years, it's good. Enemy of the State is awesome and talks about issues we NOW face and basically "invented" the Patriot Act before the general public had ever heard of it. ( the telecommunications and privacy act, in the film). Pelham stood up as a FANTASTIC remake, as far as Hollywood remakes go.

anyway...most different and off beat movies get bad reviews and horrible movies are popular...like Mission to Mars or any Michael Bay movie or Wolfman, etc....


my most beloved and favorite movie of all time got a bad rap as well, Lost in Translation.


so you didn't like them, I do, deal with it.

IG_urban wrote:Neat opinion. And it's yours.

I'm sorry you didn't "get" Domino, but that was a great movie. Man on fire was also good, it wasn't "Taken" good, but compared to most of Hollywood's Movies in the past 10 years, it's good. Enemy of the State is awesome and talks about issues we NOW face and basically "invented" the Patriot Act before the general public had ever heard of it. ( the telecommunications and privacy act, in the film). Pelham stood up as a FANTASTIC remake, as far as Hollywood remakes go.

anyway...most different and off beat movies get bad reviews and horrible movies are popular...like Mission to Mars or any Michael Bay movie or Wolfman, etc....


my most beloved and favorite movie of all time got a bad rap as well, Lost in Translation.


so you didn't like them, I do, deal with it.

Yeah, it's cool, you're welcome to like whatever you like. But whether or not you or I like a movie is quite different to whether or not it was made well. Note that there are plenty of well made movies I don't like, and plenty of badly made movies I've enjoyed.

So you liked some movies that aren't very good, deal with it.

There was nothing to 'get' with Domino. It was a complete mess that was almost universally panned.

It's very odd that you cite Mission to Mars and Wolfman as popular, horrible movies. Their box office returns were poor. Mission to Mars grossed $22m on a production budget of $90m, making it as disaster, Wolfman has grossed around $100 million on a production budget of $85 million, making it a minor failure category, unless it has remarkably good DVD sales.

Lost in Translation didn't get a bad rap, it's a critic's darling. I really liked it as well. There was some level of backlash against it, but that always happens to popular, acclaimed movies.

Flashman wrote:Hmm... only Ridley film I've not seen this decade is American Gangster. Guess it shows that his reputation is still enough to drag me to see his films one way or the other.

Aside from Gladiator, Matchstick Men was pretty good (always, always put Sam Rockwell in your movie), although the twist looks kind of obvious now.

I was watching A Good Year on Film 4 recently and thought it was tripe, but then Abbie Cornish (wearing very little clothes) and Marion Cottiliard appeared on screen, so I followed it through to the end. It was still tripe.

I liked Matchstick Men myself (if its the Cage movie). I have the same tick of checking a door three times to make sure its closed...

Scott (like Bay but much worse) is one of those directors that needs a very tight, clean script. Let him start with an awesome screenplay (aka Alien) and he can play it like a fiddle. Leave him to his own devices and he loses it.

OT but is it just me or does Scott sound like a major pothead who's kind of on his last legs when he talks? I have his director comments for Alien and Gladiator and he really sounds worse in Gladiator. The Alien commentaries were coherent. The Gladiator commentaries were coherent but deteriorated. They screamed to me 'Stoner' as his tonals, pauses etc. reminded of high school stoners I used to know.

sebster wrote:Mission to Mars grossed $22m on a production budget of $90m, making it as disaster

WTF was up with Gary Sinise's eyebrows and hair in that movie?!? Talk about freaky-looking.