Ridley Scott in a nutshell

[AC1 3,565]

I decided to posted it here too. So you can agree or disagree.

Ridley Scott in a nutshell.

1.Duellists (1977). Interesting debut but not really that good.

2.Alien (1979). Wow! Ridley's second movie was an instant classic!

3. Blade Runner (1982). Best Scott movie and perhaps one of the best movies by any director.

(from now we go downhill for a while)

4. Legend (1985). Almost everything about it feels massively forced. Tim Curry as Darkness was too good for the movie.

5. Someone to watch over me (1987). It looks like Ridley was a hired gun for this one. Empty and shallow movie.

6. Black Rain (1989). I now completely lost faith. Is this the same man who did Alien and Blade Runner?! Get outta here! This is crap!

7. Thelma and Louise (1991). After almost ten years of drifting in mediocrity Ridley Scott is back! And Ridley CAN do a "warm" story after all. He really needed this. WE really needed this!

8. 1492 The Conquest of Paradise (1992) It was Depardieu with an accent. If you wanna see a ship that sails to America with Vangelis music I advice The Bounty instead.

9. White Squall (1996). Doesn't Scott care anymore?

10. G.I. Jane (1997). I guess not.

11. Gladiator (2000). Good but still could've been better. A favorite with the masses. Anyway, what's up with that shaky flickering image during fighting scenes?

12. Hannibal (2001). Ridley lost it AGAIN.

13. Black Hawk Down (2001). Somehow I didn't care so much for the characters. In a sense, this could've been another Alien. A bunch of guys against an invisible and deadly enemy. I can't believe he didn't do something magnificent with it.

14. Matchstick Men (2003). Someday I'll rent the DVD.

Afterthoughts

Ridley Scott needs an incredibly tight script or otherwise he loses himself on the set. His real reputation comes from two sci-fi movies he did early in his career.

And Ridley Scott never worked with John Williams.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Morlock 9]

3. Blade Runner (1982). Best Scott movie and perhaps one of the best movies by any director.

IMO one of the most overrated movies ever.

7. Thelma and Louise (1991). After almost ten years of drifting in mediocrity Ridley Scott is back! And Ridley CAN do a "warm" story after all. He really needed this. WE really needed this!

Uninteresting, over done.

8. 1492 The Conquest of Paradise (1992) It was Depardieu with an accent. If you wanna see a ship that sails to America with Vangelis music I advice The Bounty instead.

Good visuals, destructive score.

10. G.I. Jane (1997). I guess not.

Harmless

11. Gladiator (2000). Good but still could've been better. A favorite with the masses. Anyway, what's up with that shaky flickering image during fighting scenes?

Overrated. Very good movie, but nowhere near the best of anything. Didn't deserve best picture.

12. Hannibal (2001). Ridley lost it AGAIN.

Making the best of a bad situtation. I don't think the movie is as bad as all that. Has a great score and a great look. 2.5 stars.

13. Black Hawk Down (2001). Somehow I didn't care so much for the characters. In a sense, this could've been another Alien. A bunch of guys against an invisible and deadly enemy. I can't believe he didn't do something magnificent with it.

One of the best movies ever. Action-wise it's amazing. But the actual story telling is amazing, how this event disintegrated from a clean quick military action into a full scale war zone.

14. Matchstick Men (2003). Someday I'll rent the DVD.

A movie for which I really respect Scott. I knew he could make a Gladiator or a Black Hawk Down- but who knew he could make a quirky movie like this! Great scripting, directing, acting, cinematography. One of the most underrated movies of the year.

I havn't seen any other movies of his (No, not even Alien), but The last two are the most promising movies for a good, long Ridley Scott career, filled with many gems to come.

[Luke Skywalker 1,286]

1. Gladiator (2000). Good but still could've been better. A favorite with the masses. Anyway, what's up with that shaky flickering image during fighting scenes?

2. And Ridley Scott never worked with John Williams.

----------------

Alex Cremers

1- Spielberg used it in Saving Private Ryan too...

2- Idiot

[Morlock 9]

Zimmer has provided perfectly suitable scores, irrelevent if you like the albums. I could not imagine Williams doing anything as aggresive as BHD or anything a 'hip' as Matchstick Men.

[Mr. Breathmask 480]

I've only seen Blade Runner (the original version, not the DC) and Gladiator.

- Marc, who needs to see Alien and Aliens.

[Morlock 9]

I for some reason have so much confidence I'll like the Alien movies, that I'm debating getting the 9 DVD set, making it by far the most expensive DVD set I've ever bought, and more than 4 times the most expensive DVD I bought without having seen (1941).

[AC1 3,565]

I for some reason have so much confidence I'll like the Alien movies, that I'm debating getting the 9 DVD set, making it by far the most expensive DVD set I've ever bought...

Risky business.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Morlock 9]

Well, I'm not gonna buy just one for $25 without special features. Anyway- god knows when the next time I'll have money, so this is all theoretical.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

IMO Ridley Scott has never made a bad film (with the exception of G.I. Jane). Hes made some films which are clearly under-par for him, but hes made up for him.

IMO he has a much better batting average as a filmaker and better overall quality as a filmaker than Spielberg.

YES ....... I SAID IT!

You won't find any 1941s, Hooks, A.I.s, etc. in this man's career.

OH yeah and Gladiator is a masterpiece and WAS the Best Picture of 2000.

[Morlock 9]

Gladiator was at best a flawed masterpiece. And It's true, none of his films have been as bad as Spielberg's worst, but only a couple of his films at most have been as good as Spielberg's top 7-8.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Gladiator was at best a flawed masterpiece. And It's true, none of his films have been as bad as Spielberg's worst, but only a couple of his films at most have been as good as Spielberg's top 7-8.

Well you've got a well said point there. I would actually partially agree to this. However, I believe Scott has had more greatg movies than you give him credit for. More like 4.

The only "Spielberg's best quality" films from Scott are:

-Black Hawk Down

-Gladiator

-Blade Runner

-Alien

As for Spielberg ...... well the man has more than his share of great movies:

-Jaws

-Close Encounters

-Raiders of the Lost Ark

-INDY and the Temple of Doom

-INDY and the Last Crusade

-Schindler's List

-Saving Private Ryan

Not to mention his many "Good but not truly great" films like Jurrasic Park, Catch Me if You Can, etc..

[CYPHER 1]

Before I saw Alien again just recently at the cinemas, I had very little regard for Ridley Scott. That film is utterly brilliant and whilst Bladerunner and Thelma and Louise have their merits, on the whole (to borrow from that wise wordsmith Shania Twain) he "don't impress me much." I can't really put my finger on it at the moment (it is the holidays y'know and quite warm too) but despite his obvious technical proficiency, I rarely find much enjoyment in most of Ridley Scott's films.

CYPHER

[AC1 3,565]

Gladiator was at best a flawed masterpiece. And It's true, none of his films have been as bad as Spielberg's worst, but only a couple of his films at most have been as good as Spielberg's top 7-8.

Well you've got a well said point there. I would actually partially agree to this. However, I believe Scott has had more greatg movies than you give him credit for. More like 4.

The only "Spielberg's best quality" films from Scott are:

-Black Hawk Down

-Gladiator

-Blade Runner

-Alien

As for Spielberg ...... well the man has more than his share of great movies:

-Jaws

-Close Encounters

-Raiders of the Lost Ark

-INDY and the Temple of Doom

-INDY and the Last Crusade

-Schindler's List

-Saving Private Ryan

Not to mention his many "Good but not truly great" films like Jurrasic Park, Catch Me if You Can, etc..

Guys, guys! That was your personal preference. That don't count! Don't start publishing lists based on one voice. Do your research instead! If one little bozo says, Citizen Kane stinks, than this little bozo is right, but only in his little world. If you show Attack of the Clones to a person that never has seen a movie in his life, he will have the ride of his life (or die from heart attack)! WE NEED REFERENCE so we can judge a movie with valid points.

Here's the universal consensus and interplanetary verdict. Only the true greats are included. I left my personal preference out (one of my favorite movies is Spielberg's Empire of the Sun but it's not in the UCIV-list!!!).

Correction list

Universal Consensus and Interplanetary Verdict

Scott

-Blade Runner

-Alien

-Thelma and Louise

Spielberg

-Jaws

-Close Encounters

-Raiders of the Lost Ark

-E.T.

-Schindler's List

Spielberg wins.

Spielberg also has more "very good" movies or movie with one star less (like Saving Private Ryan!). So here also, Spielberg is the overall winner. He has gotten the most stars from both critics and film business professionals, people with enough experience to make their opinion stick.

If you don't believe me, then go study on the subject, or as I said before, do a bit research. Or...you could listen to me. :spiny:

Alex Cremers

[Morlock 9]

That is one of most redicules posts I've ever read. There are no true consensuses about movies. I don't like Close encounters. I don't like Blade Runner. I don't like Thelma and Louise. I do like Citizen Kane. I even like Hook.

To each his own. I hate top 10 best lists. there is no best- and anytime I use the word know I mean favorite.

That's like a FSM poll a few years ago that 'cunclusively proved' that Jerry Goldsmith is the greatest film composer ever.

[AC1 3,565]

No no no no, if FSM says Jerry is the greatest then I believe them. I'll buy all his CDs. That the kinda person I am. If John Williams is considered to the worst composer ever according to the UCIV-list than I'll sell all my Williams CDs without blinking my eyes. I don't listen to little bozos with amateurish opinions. I listen to the list and live my life accordingly! Long live the UCIV list!!!!!

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Morlock 9]

ooooooooooooooooooooooookay. Good luck with that. :roll:

[Trumpeteer 243]

This is Ridley Scott in a nutshell:

"Help! Help! I'm in this giant nutshell! How the hell did I get into this giant nutshell? What kind of nut would be in a nutshell this big?"

LOL

[AC1 3,565]

I hate top 10 best lists

I understand. You hate top 10 lists because Hook is not in them. Except in "Worst of Spielberg Top 10". I understand. You hate what is not you.

BTW, did I forgot to mention that members of the UCIV are all and only professionals. Hobbyists are not welcome.

----------------

Alex Cremers-who starts wondering if Morlock is as serious as his avatar

[Rogue_Leader 2]

BTW that list above was just my own personal belief.

I don't speak for everyone.

This is of course only because the world is too incompetent to recognize my superior genius and accept me as its supreme ruler.

However, that will come in time.

[Morlock 9]

I hate top 10 best lists

I understand. You hate top 10 lists because Hook is not in them. Except in "Worst of Spielberg Top 10". I understand. You hate what is not you.

BTW, did I forgot to mention that members of the UCIV are all and only professionals. Hobbyists are not welcome.

I don't think Hook is on a Spielberg top 10 lists. And I do think it is in 'Worst of Spielberg top 10'.

And to quote Ferris Bueler's Day Off, one of my FAVORITE movies: "Professional at what?"

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Anyway getting back to Ridley Scott the guy is reportedly making some epic film coming up soon. Including a film about the Crusades which should be very interesting.

[Guest]

6. Black Rain (1989). I now completely lost faith. Is this the same man who did Alien and Blade Runner?! Get outta here! This is crap!

Gotta disagree. Black Rain is a masterpiece. Very sophisticated piece of filmmaking.

[King Mark 2,924]

 

 That's like a FSM poll a few years ago that 'cunclusively proved' that Jerry Goldsmith is the greatest film composer ever.

Really,and how did they "conclusively" proove that?

K.M.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

 

 That's like a FSM poll a few years ago that 'cunclusively proved' that Jerry Goldsmith is the greatest film composer ever.

Really,and how did they "conclusively" proove that?

K.M.

I dunno I guess they took a poll of their readers of who was the best and they voted for Jerry goldsmith overall. OF course that wouldn't prove anything.

[Morlock 9]

 

 That's like a FSM poll a few years ago that 'cunclusively proved' that Jerry Goldsmith is the greatest film composer ever.

Really,and how did they "conclusively" proove that?

K.M.

My point exactly.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

You cannot "prove" opinions. Despite what some people think.

[AC1 3,565]

No, but in the end it's just a question of who you gonna believe. I rather trust a member of the Universal Consensus and Interplanetary Verdict (like me) than a guy that says: "What?! There's a alien in it? I don't like this movie." What kinda critic does that make?

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Wow Alex! You must have alot of time on your hand to:

1) Build a starship to fly around the universe

2) Take time learning the various communication forms of the various sentient species of the universe

3) Poll all of them on which composers are their favorites based on the TV signals there planets have intercepted.

Thats one comprehensive poll study.

However, I am still unimpressed.

[AC1 3,565]

Critics (always professionals, never hobbyists) across the universe send their reviews to a main central computer where everything gets translated. The conclusion of the outcome is final. I think it is very impressive. Where would we be if the amateurs of the world and beyond were to take power and Jaws 3D is suddenly concidered to be far more superior than Jaws? You are so wrong, Rogue Leader! You should fall on your knees and praise the fact that there is such a device as the UCIV* that safeguards good taste. I, for one, am very happy to know that my bed is spread with sheets that wear the UCIV* logo!

* Universal Consensus and Interplanetary Verdict.

Alex Cremers-member

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Can we possibly trade critics with some of the other galactic peoples?

I mean at the very least could they give us some relief by taking Richard Roper from us.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

I decided to posted it here too. So you can agree or disagree.

Ridley Scott in a nutshell.

1.Duellists (1977). Interesting debut but not really that good.

saw it 26 years ago' date=' and don't remember it much at all

2.Alien (1979). Wow! Ridley's second movie was an instant classic!

I agree it is a classic, and a great film, but too darkly shot. It has the greatest monster since the Creature from the Black Lagoon, and they hardly show it.

3. Blade Runner (1982). Best Scott movie and perhaps one of the best movies by any director.

one of the most overrated films of all time. Dull, boring, and pointless. Not nearly as visually interesting as people try to make it out. Only for intellectuals who like to tell people that "didn't get it" that if they were smarter....

(from now we go downhill for a while)

4. Legend (1985). Almost everything about it feels massively forced. Tim Curry as Darkness was too good for the movie.

agree

5. Someone to watch over me (1987). It looks like Ridley was a hired gun for this one. Empty and shallow movie.

agree

6. Black Rain (1989). I now completely lost faith. Is this the same man who did Alien and Blade Runner?! Get outta here! This is crap!

I agree more with AI than with Alex, interesting story using the differences in culture.

7. Thelma and Louise (1991). After almost ten years of drifting in mediocrity Ridley Scott is back! And Ridley CAN do a "warm" story after all. He really needed this. WE really needed this!

Great film. BTW the football game is between Arkansas and Houston in the 1989 shootout, that went unseen on TV because the Houston Cougars were on probation. Sport, I know most don't get it.

8. 1492 The Conquest of Paradise (1992) It was Depardieu with an accent. If you wanna see a ship that sails to America with Vangelis music I advice The Bounty instead.

9. White Squall (1996). Doesn't Scott care anymore?

to more stinkers, a real trend here

10. G.I. Jane (1997). I guess not.

I really liked this film. Not great, not bad

11. Gladiator (2000). Good but still could've been better. A favorite with the masses. Anyway, what's up with that shaky flickering image during fighting scenes?

minor boxoffice hit that is vastly overrated. NOT a terrible film but its not the best, and the sound design of this film is so poor, not to mention the cinematography. Use some lights Ridley.

12. Hannibal (2001). Ridley lost it AGAIN.

terrible film based on the terrible book, with a decent ending.

Juliann Moore is no Jodie Foster, and the film suffers with her portrayal of Clarice. Filmed in Florence without any lights, smart idea

13. Black Hawk Down (2001). Somehow I didn't care so much for the characters. In a sense, this could've been another Alien. A bunch of guys against an invisible and deadly enemy. I can't believe he didn't do something magnificent with it.

SPR wannabe, with Englishman doing American accents badly. Again darkly lit, and in broad daylight. But a good film

14. Matchstick Men (2003). Someday I'll rent the DVD.

me too

Afterthoughts

Ridley Scott needs an incredibly tight script or otherwise he loses himself on the set. His real reputation comes from two sci-fi movies he did early in his career.

And Ridley Scott never worked with John Williams.

Scott is not my favorite director, and in a nutsell his career shows him to be average or less.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[AC1 3,565]

Alien. I agree it is a classic, and a great film, but too darkly shot. It has the greatest monster since the Creature from the Black Lagoon, and they hardly show it.

That's the whole point. That's why it worked, Joe. It's not a modern CGI movie where FX are the main character.

Too darkly shot? More realistic, you mean. That a first!

Blade Runner (1982). Dull, boring, and pointless. Not nearly as visually interesting as people try to make it out.

Blade Runner is always worth defending. "Pointless" you say? I'm sorry but that sounds like a person that watches a game but he doesn't know WHY it's played or what's going on. Hence the words: "Dull, boring, and pointless". I cannot begin to describe what you've missed. There's so much more to Blade Runner than what first meets the eye. It's all about emotional depth and layers, not about the scarce action that is on top. Some people see it, others don't. It even took Harrison Ford 20 years to figure that out. And the photography is unbelievable mostly because it did well on capturing the lighting and the amazingly build sets. I just found out that the late Jordan Cronenweth is named one of the 10 best cinematographers by the The International Cinematographers Guild (ICG). I can not help it but professionals always seem to agree with me. If a set is not completely lighted, which is an artistic viewpoint to determine a gritty, raw atmosphere (Blade Runner, Alien) as appose to clean and clear look (Star Wars), doesn't mean that the photography is bad. I like them both, but they need to benefit the the film's purpose, look and atmosphere. It's a shame that single disc has gotten a faulty transfer. It suffers from terrible enhanced contrast. The man who did it probably thought it was too dark! Wait till the 3-disc DVD comes out and then watch it again (I won't you buy it so rent it).

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Morlock 9]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Realistic? Yeah- everytime I'm in a space ship I barely see the vicious Alien who attacks and kills all my crew. I havn't seen it, but as I said, I expect it to be great, and I can't wait for the darkness. I don't think darkness is realism though. Like in Se7en- it's a mood, a state of mind.

Morlock- who doesn't like Blade Runner, but knows better than to try and argue with a fan.

Morlock2- who sees something inherently flawed in Alex's way of thinking.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

You don't like Blade Runner Morlock?

Wow! Your the first person I have EVER SEEN who doesn't like it.

First time for everything I guess.

[AC1 3,565]

I remember Seven to be darker (in terms of lighting but probably the story too ) than Alien. I don't hold it nearly as dear as the other "darkies" like Alien or Blade Runner but I'll buy it if the DVD becomes really cheap.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Rogue_Leader 2]

David Fincher has that kind of excessive, very experimental style like Ridley Scott has.

[Morlock 9]

You don't like Blade Runner Morlock?

Wow! Your the first person I have EVER SEEN who doesn't like it.  

First time for everything I guess.

Well, I know MANY people who don't like it. I guess poeple are different this side of the wrold- we Do like Hook and Don't like BR.

But as you may notice, I am not overly negative about it- since I saw it has something inexplicable that I liked, which may develop into something more one of these days. But for now- I don't like it.

Just like Adaptation- I've seen the movie 6 times, but still don't really connect with it. I loved Being John Malkovich, and sense the brilliance of the movie, but I just don't get there. One of these days though.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

You don't like Blade Runner Morlock?  

Wow! Your the first person I have EVER SEEN who doesn't like it.  

First time for everything I guess.

there are alot of people who don't like this overrated film. The film was properly shunned by the masses, embraced by a few, who feverishly defend the film as some Godsend to humanity. It was overrated in 1982, and overrated now. Great filmmaking, I think not.

[AC1 3,565]

I'm sorry Joe, it was underrated in 1982 and mostly by American critics who effectively drove the public away. Later when the videos were released (Theatrical Version, then The Director's Cut) the movie was discovered by many who indeed began to relish it and so it became the biggest cult film ever. This process of discovering is still taking place today. Even by critics who didn't like it the first time. Why is this happening, Joe? Was the American audience not ready for Blade Runner? After all, the movie was way ahead of it's time. I can't begin to sum up all the movies who, in one way or the other, borrowed something from Blade Runner. Not that it's a reference but even George Lucas (inventor of Star Wars) based the best part of Attack of the Clones on Blade Runner. Scott's artistic images were so powerful that they are still being copied today. Have a look at the street scenes in A.I. and you know what I'm talking about. You know what they say about Minority Report? It's Spielberg's Blade Runner! Despite what some might think, my opinion is not formed by opinions of others. In 1982 I didn't know what a critic was and I saw Blade Runner eight times in theaters that year. The fist time I thought the movie was just merely "okay". One week later I was drawn to the same theater to see it again. The second time Blade runner changed my life. Never again did a movie have the same effect on me.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,759]

OMG, Alex, using a reference to AI, to convince me that Blade Runner is a good film, just wont work.

Sorry don't buy the argument that the critics drove away the audience. Critics rarely have the power. If so then films like Grease would never be popular. As far as Minority Report they say its a cross between Raider and the Maltese Falcon. You should have spent your time in 82 seeing ET 8 times and Poltergeist 8 times. Hell even Sword and the Sorcerer was more entertaining.

Joe, who thinks 82 was a great year for films, ET, Star Trek the Wrath of Khan, Poltergeist, Conan, Tootsie, Victor/Victoria, An Officer and a Gentleman, Ghandi, the Thing, all better films than BR.

[Morlock 9]

I thought Poltergeist was pretty bad. I only saw it a couple of years ago for the first time, and was deeply bored. It steals from Exorcist, The Omen and CE3K to start with. It was very obvious.

[AC1 3,565]

OMG, Alex, using a reference to AI, to convince me that Blade Runner is a good film, just wont work.

I just trying to show you how films are influenced by Blade Runner but it seems you didn't get that. I didn't say A.I. is great so Blade Runner must be great too. Maybe you didn't know this already but I'm not an Attack of the Clones fan either.

Poltergeist. I believe I requested to remove Poltergeist from the Spielberg list over at Spielbergfilms.com. It's just bubble gum. I don't care who directed it, Tobe Hooper is credited.

Wrath of Kahn? Entertaining, perhaps, but no more than that, Joe. And only good for one viewing.

E.T. Shoot me but this is one of the best movies ever made.

Conan. Enjoyable and entertaining, but again, it ends there.

Tootsie. One of the best if not the best comedy ever made.

Victor Victoria. Don't remember.

An Officer and a Gentleman. Not bad but I won't use this as a reference, no matter what the discussion is about.

Ghandi. I liked it though I never felt the urge to see it again. Not even after all these years. Strange.

The Thing. Carpenter? Not bad but where are the moments of greatness? The effects were good for its time. That's what made it scary. Nothing else is special, even a child could see that. I want better than that, Joe!

The Exorcist. One of the best horror flicks in this world. I guess I'm not alone with this one.

The Omen. Saw it a couple of times but the impression never lasts long, eventhough I liked it every time.

CE3K. Great new age sci-fi movie and perhaps ONLY great new age sci-fi movie. I only have one comment: Why did Barry had to say the word goodbye again at the very end of the movie?

Finished.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Comparing a classic like Blade Runner to a disaster like A.I.?

Please! Let us never speak of this again!

[JoeinAR 1,759]

E.T. Shoot me but this is one of the best movies ever made.  

can't shoot you on that Alex, its my favorite movie of all time.

Wrath of Khan is a movie that still inspires today. Nemisis stole from it, X-2 was a homage to it. Still the most entertaining of the Star Trek films.

[AC1 3,565]

Well, to me it's just another Star Trek. The only thing "classic" about Star Trek is the original series.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Well, to me it's just another Star Trek. The only thing "classic" about Star Trek is the original series.

----------------

Alex Cremers

and of course IMO the words "classic" and "Star Trek" should never be used in the same sentence. However, I am a little biased because of that little rivalry with that OTHER sci-fi series.

[Morn 7]

Up yours!

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Up yours!

Oh come on!

You know I am just joking.