Does Ridley Scott only make great films?

[David Mullen ASC]

Tim, you have to understand that most of us are not familiar with early music video work of Mulchahy, but are very familiar with the early feature films of Ridley Scott, hence why Scott can be considered ultimately more influential -- because more people saw & copied his work. So while you may be technically correct, I think you are giving short shrift to Ridley Scott who did more to spread this 70's/80's Brit commercial style than Mulchahy did.

 

But no one works in a vacuum and there are precedents for the Brit commercial style of the 70's.

[Freya Black]

I thought HANNIBAL was better than SILENCE OF THE LAMBS myself -- echoes of the Karloff/Lugosi BLACK CAT turned my head.

 

er, it's more than possible that Hannibal is better than silence of the lambs, in fact you would hope so, but the question was more to do with the fact that Riddley would involve himself with such rubbish at all, well other than cash but sometimes there are things that are more important than the cheques at the end of it.

 

It's just that sometimes in life, you believe in someone and they really, really let you down.

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

Thief is in my top ten list for best movies ever made - I looooove that film. I don't agree that Don Thorin's work on that belongs to the brit style. It's much grittier and dirty and has a harder light feel. And the night exteriors on the wet Chicago streets in that film are still unbeatable.

 

Theif comes nowhere near my list of ten best movies ever made, which is presently topped by Todd Brownings "Freaks", however I ended up watching it recently as I was stuck for anything I could watch and there were 2 copies of the thing. I saw it was Michael Mann and I thought it might at least be entertaining in terms of cliche, or have some nice lighting or something. I was quite shocked to discover that I thought it was okay. I'm not sure if that's because of the script or direction and there were bits that just seemed unfeasable but then I really liked the story of someone who was just trying to be normal and to be a part of society, and just wanted a few of the things that a lot of people take for granted. He tries really hard to make that happen but in the end he isn't allowed to.

 

I loved the bit where they go to try and adopt a child.

 

In a lot of ways it is full of cliches and you can see the end coming from long away, but for me at least that wasn't what the film was about.

 

love

 

Freya

[Josh Bass]

So no one mentions "The Last Boyscout" among these great works?

 

 

 

I kid, of course.

[John Allardice]

So no one mentions "The Last Boyscout" among these great works?

I kid, of course.

 

Ah, the apotheosis of 80's buddy movies...a film where everything is cranked to '11', including Ward Russels' photography, which seems to be trying to emulate Jeff Kimball on speed.

 

One of the guiltiest cinema pleasures of the last 20 years.

 

J

[Stuart Brereton]

Ah, the apotheosis of 80's buddy movies...a film where everything is cranked to '11', including Ward Russels' photography, which seems to be trying to emulate Jeff Kimball on speed.

 

One of the guiltiest cinema pleasures of the last 20 years.

 

J

 

Well, Ward Russell was Kimballs' Gaffer for a while, so you can understand the influence.

 

I know I shouldn't, but I love this film....

[Kim Vickers]

By current Hollywood standards, I think Ridley Scott is a great director

 

I think you've just nailed the problem.

 

It's not that Ridley makes "bad" films, per se, more that Hollywood today resembles Detroit in the 1970s. Detroit got away with making crappy cars until the Japanese came along and made markedly better ones at the same price point. Unfortunately, Hollywood still has no "industrial" competition on the level of Japanese carmakers, and so the misery at the multiplex continues.

 

As the Hollywood film industry continues to plumb new depths of mediocrity in its big releases, Ridley seems to have eschewed his perfectionist approach in favor of a more workmanlike one. I'm guessing this is a smart man's method of survival in a business that too often regards smart people as a threat instead of an asset.

 

I hope he at least gets the Irving Thalberg award one day. He deserves at least that.

[Andy_Alderslade]

CLICK ME TO SEE THE COMMERCIAL

 

Am I seeing things or is the woman wearing an Ipod? In 1984?

[Josh Bass]

Except it's not an 80's buddy movie. . .came out in 1991.

[John Allardice]

Am I seeing things or is the woman wearing an Ipod? In 1984?

 

Digital Domain's commercial division added the Ipod a couple of years ago for some big keynote speech Steve Jobs was giving on the 20th anniversary of the mac, all had to be done very hush hush...as no-one had told Ridley.

 

J

[Andy_Alderslade]

Digital Domain's commercial division added the Ipod a couple of years ago for some big keynote speech Steve Jobs was giving on the 20th anniversary of the mac, all had to be done very hush hush...as no-one had told Ridley.

 

J

 

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, I hate digital alterations, it messes with your memory, there I was thinking I'd witnessed a creepy conincidence. I still haven't got over E.T's new 'mickey mouse' eyes in E.T. the special edition, nor any the other digital medlings.

[Filip Plesha]

Except it's not an 80's buddy movie. . .came out in 1991.

 

 

1991 was still screaming 80's

You can't get rid of a decade that easily.

[Matt Pacini]

It's a bit hard to take some of these comments seriously, to say Ridley Scott is a bad filmmaker.

EVERYONE makes stinkers, and anyone who makes as many films as Scott, is bound to miss a few times.

I liked Gladiator.

I didn't think it was the greatest film of all time or anything, but calling it a bad film is kinda silly, don't you think?

Probably has something to do with whether or not you're interested in the subject matter.

I love ancient Roman history, so I found it quite entertaining, especially the gritty dirty look they portrayed Rome as having.

[James Steven Beverly]

I have looked at this thread w/ amazement, amusment and to a certain extent a bit of horror. A list of Ridley Scott films reads like a list of of some of the most groundbreaking and ifluential films of the modern ers. Alien produced 4 sequels for Christ's sake and along w/ Blade Runner revolutonized the Science fiction genra from a place set somehow above us, to a place were real people worked and lived, yes the aliens and their habitat was inspired but the real revolution was the ship was "lived it and dirty", the people onboard were human beings w/ problems and attitudes identical to our own. They weren't superheros, they were just people trying to survive. In Bladerunner, the same thing these people were flawed and they were very human. THAT is the brillance of Ridley Scott films. They are about ordinary human beings thrust int extrodinary circumstances and how the as ordinary people, they survive those circumstances.

 

Look at ANY Ridley Scoot film and they're always about the humanity first, the curcumstanses second. Ripley didn't become a super hero until James Cameron got ahold of her. In Alien, all Ripley wanted to do was live, that's all just survive. In Aliens, Ripley must rise to the occation and defeat the aliens. Many people say Aliens was the better film, well Aliens was more entertaining but not nearly as thought provoking, deep or revolutionary beacuse in Alien, the film is about the humanity, In Aliens, it's about the situation. This isn't to say that I don't like James Cameron's work or that I enjoyed Aliens any less than Alien. I love both of these films but for completely different reasons. In Black Hawk Down, the story is about the very real human beings trying to survive, Thelma and Louise, same thing. Ridley Scott is a genius because Ridley Scott makes action/ adventure movie about people, not about action and adventure. So many movies revolve around special FX, in Scott's films the FX are hung on a story about people. That's why I thing Scott only makes GREAT movies.

Edited May 19, 2006 by Capt.Video

[Max Jacoby]

That's why I thing Scott only makes GREAT movies.

Great films like 'GI Jane'?

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but NO filmmaker ONLY makes great films.

[Andy_Alderslade]

This thread has been a bit hard on Scott, which is unfair because as a filmmaker he is incredibly unlucky, every film he made between Alien and Gladiator was a flop, often expensive flops. Didn't one of his films burn down the 007 stage at Pinewood.

 

I think when a director dares to be a director of fantasys or epics, you place your self in vulnerable position - the budgets suddenly become gigantic, and artistic insterests are held to ransome by bank clerks, but perhaps rightfully so.

 

 

Also remember great technicians or directors of 'b' movies have often contributed to cinema more than the artisticly celebrated. A good example would be Jacques Tourneur, he was just a 'b' movie filmaker who made supernatural thrillers - but his films like Cat People and I Walked With a Zombie helped bring a greater ambiguety to American films.

 

Infact risking to sound absurd, some directors who are visually accomplished do bring something particularly fresh, even if there work lacks a level of intelectual adulthood. A good example would be Steve Barron now he did direct Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but some of his television work, especially Jim Henson' The Storyteller is often (in terms of visual storytelling) inspired.

Edited May 19, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade

[Guest Kai.w]

Didn't one of his films burn down the 007 stage at Pinewood.

I'm rather sure that was the wood in "Legend". T

 

Yes, some of those comments about Scott being a mediocre director sound rather silly. He has produced at least three milestones of recent cinema history and you call him mediocre?

Give me a break!

I thought movies were a visual medium so there is never "substance without style".

 

-k

[Josh Bass]

"1991 was still screaming 80's

You can't get rid of a decade that easily."

 

If you want to get all deep and philosophical, whatever. I'm still right.

[Guest fstop]

This thread has been a bit hard on Scott, which is unfair because as a filmmaker he is incredibly unlucky, every film he made between Alien and Gladiator was a flop, often expensive flops. Didn't one of his films burn down the 007 stage at Pinewood.

 

I think when a director dares to be a director of fantasys or epics, you place your self in vulnerable position - the budgets suddenly become gigantic, and artistic insterests are held to ransome by bank clerks, but perhaps rightfully so.

Also remember great technicians or directors of 'b' movies have often contributed to cinema more than the artisticly celebrated. A good example would be Jacques Tourneur, he was just a 'b' movie filmaker who made supernatural thrillers - but his films like Cat People and I Walked With a Zombie helped bring a greater ambiguety to American films.

 

Infact risking to sound absurd, some directors who are visually accomplished do bring something particularly fresh, even if there work lacks a level of intelectual adulthood. A good example would be Steve Barron now he did direct Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but some of his television work, especially Jim Henson' The Storyteller is often (in terms of visual storytelling) inspired.

 

Val Lewton deserves a good amount of credit for CAT PEOPLE's artistic success, particularly the noir elements. I'd have liked to have seen the movie had he not been involved.

 

Barron's RAT is excellent, certainly a better performance piece than anything performance driven under Scott's belt. It probably contains more intellectually stimulating material than anything Scott too, with hilarious Irish socio-political observational humour. The work Barron did on Henson's TV series THE STORYTELLER, which depended on just that: Storytelling, also proved his grasp of narrative, even if the visuals were always top drawer. As I mentioned earlier in this thread however, Barron was a music video pioneer who did some really bold stuff that influences to this day. The Jam's STRANGE TOWN, Thomas Dolby's SHE BLINDED ME WITH SCIENCE, Michael Jackson's BILLIE JEAN, Heaven 17's LET ME GO, A-ha's TAKE ON ME- these videos have been remade over and over and over throughout the past twenty years- Barron was only really second to Mulcahy as vocabulary originator of MTV. They did their job as pop music adverts to inspired heights.

[Matt Pacini]

I hope someday to achieve the level of mediocrity some here are attributing to Ridley Scott!

 

 

MP

[James Steven Beverly]

Great films like 'GI Jane'?

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but NO filmmaker ONLY makes great films.

 

You couldn't burst my bubble w/ an icepick. GI Jane, still about the humanity of this woman first the situation second. A great film.

and as for mediocraty, I'll take one of those mediocre Oscars any day of the week!

[timHealy]

I'm rather sure that was the wood in "Legend". T

 

 

I seem to recall there was a fire during the production of "Alien".

 

Best

 

Tim

[John Holland]

I seem to recall there was a fire during the production of "Alien".

 

Best

 

Tim

Hi , No the fire was on "Legend" it burned down the huge 007 stage at Pinewood , no fires on "Alien " john holland.

[Marco Leavitt]

If anyone is keeping a tally, I'm with those who think that "Gladiator" was utter crap. It had its moments, but wow, that has to be the worst ending of any movie I have ever seen. Easily the worst movie to ever win a best picture oscar, a record I thought was going to be held indefinitely by "Braveheart." Sorry, not trying to contribute to any flame fests. I think the vary nature of the topic of this post makes comments like this appropriate. Oh, I still love Ridley Scott though. He's made some great movies. I just don't think "Gladiator" was one of them.

[John Holland]

If anyone is keeping a tally, I'm with those who think that "Gladiator" was utter crap. It had its moments, but wow, that has to be the worst ending of any movie I have ever seen. Easily the worst movie to ever win a best picture oscar, a record I thought was going to be held indefinitely by "Braveheart." Sorry, not trying to contribute to any flame fests. I think the vary nature of the topic of this post makes comments like this appropriate. Oh, I still love Ridley Scott though. He's made some great movies. I just don't think "Gladiator" was one of them.

Think " Gladiator" is pretty ok film , just a shame it was shot S-35 , the film is a loose remake of " The Fall of the Rome Empire , that was shot in Ultra Panavision 70 . Must agree "Braveheart" is a real stinker . john holland .