Screw indie/artsy director threads, let's talk Scott

[MmzHrrdb]

I would play Nintendo with Harrison Ford, but no Sega, thats his punishment for making that Indian Jones Crystal Dull movie.

[ShogunRua]

Obviously Ridley Scott is very talented, but his films are extremely hit and miss.

Of the six that I remember well enough to give a rating to;

Bladerunner- 81. Absolute classic. Great film, wonderful vision. Tremendous.

Alien 74, Gladiator 72- Both good, quality movies. Each one contains just enough flaws and weaknesses to keep it from being a masterpiece, but not by much.

Matchstick Men 53- Okay overall, but way too predictable, and was short on both entertainment and a strong message.

Legend 51- Not bad, but there were many better fantasy films made during that time. Both "Willow" and "Dragonslayer" come to mind.

Black Hawk Down 28- Straight trash. Wow, this film sucked hard. Dreary, boring, and filled with cliches.

I remember GI Jane being pretty awful also, but don't have a firm enough recollection of it to assign a rating. From what little I remember of it (watched it when I was very young), "Black Rain" was okay, but nothing spectacular.

So basically, he's made one classic, a few good films, some average ones, and a couple of absolute gutterballs. I guess that makes him...a good director?

[doctor7]

Obviously Ridley Scott is very talented, but his films are extremely hit and miss.

Of the six that I remember well enough to give a rating to;

Bladerunner- 81. Absolute classic. Great film, wonderful vision. Tremendous.

Alien 74, Gladiator 72- Both good, quality movies. Each one contains just enough flaws and weaknesses to keep it from being a masterpiece, but not by much.

Matchstick Men 53- Okay overall, but way too predictable, and was short on both entertainment and a strong message.

Legend 51- Not bad, but there were many better fantasy films made during that time. Both "Willow" and "Dragonslayer" come to mind.

Black Hawk Down 28- Straight trash. Wow, this film sucked hard. Dreary, boring, and filled with cliches.

I remember GI Jane being pretty awful also, but don't have a firm enough recollection of it to assign a rating. From what little I remember of it (watched it when I was very young), "Black Rain" was okay, but nothing spectacular.

So basically, he's made one classic, a few good films, some average ones, and a couple of absolute gutterballs. I guess that makes him...a good director?

Blade Runner is fantastic for sure.

Gladiator literally re-sparked the desire for sword and the sandal pictures.

Kingdom of Heaven is brilliant in it's directorial cut form.

Alien is the best horror movie I've seen.

Black Hawk Down is an incredible film that has been completely slammed for being purely from the point of view of American soldiers and is instantly dismissed as a propegandic puff-piece. It's a terrible shame because it's some of the best film-making I've seen and the fight scenes are superbly done. I consider it on par with Band of Brothers. So I'd say give it another watch.

I won't deny he's made some duds, though, but every director has.

[ShogunRua]

Gladiator literally re-sparked the desire for sword and the sandal pictures.

Too bad the only result was absolute garbage like "Troy" or "Alexander".

Kingdom of Heaven is brilliant in it's directorial cut form.

Truth be told, I avoided this one for the simple reason that the worst actor of all time, Orlando Bloom, was in the lead role. (He makes Keanue Reeves look like a master thespian) I'll check it out, though, since so many people rave about it.

Alien is the best horror movie I've seen.

Then you should watch more horror films than can be counted on two hands. "Alien" a was fine action horror movie, great for its time...and that's about it.

Black Hawk Down is an incredible film that has been completely slammed for being purely from the point of view of American soldiers and is instantly dismissed as a propegandic puff-piece. It's a terrible shame because it's some of the best film-making I've seen and the fight scenes are superbly done. I consider it on par with Band of Brothers. So I'd say give it another watch.

That's not my issue with the film at all, though. It was one of the slowest, most horribly placed "action" films I've ever seen, and on top of that, had both a highly predictable and very shallow story and characterization.

[doctor7]

Too bad the only result was absolute garbage like "Troy" or "Alexander".

And Apocalypto and 300. Not to mention exposing that type of film to people who hadn't seen it thus bringing classics like Lawrence of Arabia to new audiences.

Truth be told, I avoided this one for the simple reason that the worst actor of all time, Orlando Bloom, was in the lead role. (He makes Keanue Reeves look like a master thespian) I'll check it out, though, since so many people rave about it.

To be blunt if you're unwilling or unable to give Orlando Bloom a chance no matter what he does then don't even bother.

Then you should watch more horror films than can be counted on two hands. "Alien" a was fine action horror movie, great for its time...and that's about it.

You're confusing Alien with Aliens. And I have seen plenty of horror films. According to Criticker almost 80.

That's not my issue with the film at all, though. It was one of the slowest, most horribly placed "action" films I've ever seen, and on top of that, had both a highly predictable and very shallow story and characterization.

I'm confused, as the entire script was based on real life accounts of what actually happened. The movie does take a while to introduce the characters given you a quick glance at the variety of the American soldiers and why they enlist. Some say they're there to just "kick ass," or action junkies while others want to "make a difference." I can tell you right now that, while you may consider those stereotypes, they are real, and popular, reasons for people to enlist.

As well calling the story predictable doesn't quite make sense to me. It's based on what actually happened, no, it's not 100% accurate but it is quite close to the original novel. The sacrifice of the two Delta members people tout as "rah-rah" America bullshit? That happened. Not to mention the basis for the entire movie centres around the American Army essentially causing a giant cluster-fuck.

Originally I'll admit I didn't like it very much. In fact I gave it a rank of 65 out of 100 on Criticker. I thought it's character development was pretty shallow, and in terms of movies I suppose it is. However, people don't necessarily change from combat to combat, especially when they're still deployed. Band of Brothers you do have character development but you never have multiple episodes that take place close to one another. The 9 or so episodes span over two years.

Really it wasn't until after one of my buddies, who is very much into wars, said I should give it another shot because of it's realistic depiction of combat. Upon watching it quite a few times I realized that the movie itself is very formalist and uses highly stylized techniques to give the viewer a sense of the intensiveness of combat.

Give it another chance, I did and it has since become one of my favourite movies.

[ShogunRua]

And Apocalypto and 300. Not to mention exposing that type of film to people who hadn't seen it thus bringing classics like Lawrence of Arabia to new audiences.

There's absolutely no way you can say "Gladiator" in any way spawned or helped bring those two films in existence. They had way more things going for them than that, and were created for entirely different purposes and target demographics.

Unfortunately, in Hollywood, when something does well, it usually spawns BAD copy-cats, not original properties like 300 and Apocalypto. And in this case, that means dreck like Alexander and Troy. Crappy rip-offs are the sincerest form of flattery, eh?

To be blunt if you're unwilling or unable to give Orlando Bloom a chance no matter what he does then don't even bother.

You sound like someone with an Orlando Bloom poster in his room, heh. The actor sucks, but that doesn't mean the film might not be good IN SPITE OF him.

You're confusing Alien with Aliens. And I have seen plenty of horror films. According to Criticker almost 80.

No, I'm not confusing the two, although I was curious if you were, considering the sequel is superior.

And alright then, I'll humor you; "Alien" is a better horror film than Suspiria, The Exorcist, and Audition? (Just to name three that everyone has heard of, and generally likes)

I'm confused, as the entire script was based on real life accounts of what actually happened. The movie does take a while to introduce the characters given you a quick glance at the variety of the American soldiers and why they enlist. Some say they're there to just "kick ass," or action junkies while others want to "make a difference." I can tell you right now that, while you may consider those stereotypes, they are real, and popular, reasons for people to enlist.

For someone who watches a lot of films, and obviously knows something about directors and their inspirations, I'm astonished you're so easily taken in by the phrase "based on real life accounts".

It means nothing. It's phony. I could make a film about the Iraq War lionizing President Bush, and portraying him as the greatest leader in the history of mankind, for example, and say it's "based on real life accounts". Which is, in fact, what many producers and directors end up doing.

And please; if you're going to bring up "real military", I have two ex-Marine friends who both consider "Black Hawk Down" hysterically unrealistic in every regard.

Give it another chance, I did and it has since become one of my favourite movies.

Alright; I may end up doing that at some point. However, the one thing that definitely won't change is my appreciation of the action scenes. My standards only become higher and higher when it comes to choreography, not lower, and the film was already well short of them some 5 years ago.

[doctor7]

There's absolutely no way you can say "Gladiator" in any way spawned or helped bring those two films in existence. They had way more things going for them than that, and were created for entirely different purposes and target demographics.

Apparently Empire magazine disagrees with you according to Wikipedia:
The film also began a revival of the historical epic genre with films such as Troy, Alexander, Kingdom of Heaven, and 300.

Hell I'll admit I wouldn't have seen Lawrence of Arabia, Zulu, Patton or Spatacus if Gladiator hadn't peaked my interest at the meager and movie-ignorant age of 17.

You sound like someone with an Orlando Bloom poster in his room, heh. The actor sucks, but that doesn't mean the film might not be good IN SPITE OF him.

heh, heh

And alright then, I'll humor you; "Alien" is a better horror film than Suspiria, The Exorcist, and Audition? (Just to name three that everyone has heard of, and generally likes)

Suspiria I have not seen. The Exorcist I have and I found Alien to be more visually impressive a film, not to mention scarier. Audition, like Suspiria, I haven't seen yet.

For someone who watches a lot of films, and obviously knows something about directors and their inspirations, I'm astonished you're so easily taken in by the phrase "based on real life accounts".

It means nothing. It's phony. I could make a film about the Iraq War lionizing President Bush, and portraying him as the greatest leader in the history of mankind, for example, and say it's "based on real life accounts". Which is, in fact, what many producers and directors end up doing.

And please; if you're going to bring up "real military", I have two ex-Marine friends who both consider "Black Hawk Down" hysterically unrealistic in every regard.

Alright; I may end up doing that at some point. However, the one thing that definitely won't change is my appreciation of the action scenes. My standards only become higher and higher when it comes to choreography, not lower, and the film was already well short of them some 5 years ago.

Yes, elements of the film were changed. When you're adapting to film you have to modify somewhat, no matter what the source. Ewan McGreggor's character was a pedophile who molested his own daughter. In order to receive military support for the film they changed his name. As well the U.N. Rescue was effectively glazed over which ignores the contribution of the Malaysian and Palestinian troops that rescued the US Soldiers.

It wasn't until I grasped an appreciate of formalist film techniques that I truly appreciated the action sequences and the entire movie in general. My standards were higher and, because of that, I appreciated the movie far more due to the amount of things I missed.

I asked my film professor about writing about BHD for a final essay about Hollywood cinema. Initially she was not only hesitant but actually suggested that I didn't because she remembered the film in such poor regard. It wasn't until I highlighted a few key points that she gave me a go-ahead for my paper. I received an A and she said that she gave me an entirely new appreciation for the film. It was pretty awesome, considering she was responsible for my understand for film as an art form.

[Melvin Smif]

Pfft people seem to try and make 300 more than it was ever suppose to be. It is just a hard core action flick that isn't really meant inspire anything but the audience saying "wow that last kill was cool". Viewed through that lense I had fun watching it.

[doctor7]

Pfft people seem to try and make 300 more than it was ever suppose to be. It is just a hard core action flick that isn't really meant inspire anything but the audience saying "wow that last kill was cool". Viewed through that lense I had fun watching it.

Well of course that's all it was.

[ShogunRua]

300 was a cool film. Great cinemaphotography, good action scenes, and several simultaneously awesome and funny scenes forever immortalized in popular culture. A solid 73.