Ridley Scott

[Kiba.]

I notice the Robin Hood 2 star review is attracting a lot of comments and the claim that Scott hasn't made a good film in ten years has struck a nerve with posters.

So looking back at the last ten years and excluding Gladiator, we have: Hannibal, Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men, Kingdom of Heaven, A Good Year, American Gangster and Body of Lies.

Matchstick Men I haven't seen but the others I'd say I found these all watchable with a preference to the ones in italics.

Is there anyone else aside from Mr Lowe who thinks that Ridley Scott has completely lost it?

I've yet to see Robin Hood but I'd expect at least a three star film from Ridley Scott based on the quality of his past work.
He may still carry a lot of stature but his films are always beautifully and artfully shot, distinctive yet never fussy; and that is a highly desirable quality for a director imo.


One comment in the Robin Hood review that I do agree with is that no one (director) has stretched Russell Crowe as an actor since Master and Commander which is, admittedly, a shame. He remains watchable even so.

[jaykays hat]

I think Andy Lowe is talking out of his backside. In my opinion, Ridley is one of the finest directors in the industry today. Robin Hood may not be up to his usual best but its still miles better than some of the other rubbish being churned out. How he can say that Ridley has not made a good film in the last ten years is beyond me, excluding Gladiator of which is one of my favorite films, Black Hawk down was a brilliant film, full of great camera work, superb acting and incredible suspense. I really enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven and Body of Lies and I think as a director he gets the best out of his actors.

[morris]

What Jaykay said works for me. I even didn't mind A Good Year, I usually can't stand anything rom-com but Crowe and Cotillard were good together and the settings made me long for summer and summer whyne.

[MrSilly]

The only Ridley Scott film I've seen that I would consider a classic is Alien. Seen quite a few of his others, some are enjoyable, others forgettable, but I don't get the status. He's a good filmmaker, But Alien is still the only film of his that I want to watch again.

[Kiba.]

Silly, could you give an example of a director who has a similiar level of status to Scott who you think does deserve it? From your recent posts I get the feeling you're a hard fellow to impress these days.

[fortunesfool]

Andy Lowe has lost whatever credibility he might have had after that statement. It's to be expected from a magazine who named Star Trek, the sci-fi film of the decade. To laud that and then dismiss Robin Hood and the work of Ridley Scott is frankly, embarrassing.

Even when Scott misfires, his work remains watchable. Kingdom of Heaven (DC) I actually prefer to Gladiator, which is actually quite dull when Crowe isn't hitting people with stuff. I enjoyed A Good Year too, it was a really engaging, well made little film.

That was a stupid thing for Andy to write, but then again, the whole review was largely wrong too.

On the subject of Scott though, I must admit there's a certain tendency in much of his more recent stuff to always be cutting to something new. It gives a lot of his scenes a disjointed feel and sometimes leaves me wishing he'd just use a more 'classical' style. It's like he's trying to keep up with the new kids when he really needs to be showing them how to do it properly.

[MrSilly]

Originally Posted by Kiba.

Silly, could you give an example of a director who has a similiar level of status to Scott who you think does deserve it? From your recent posts I get the feeling you're a hard fellow to impress these days.

I have become incredibly pessimistic recently, but I've never been all that impressed by Scott. I enjoyed the films, but could quite easily go the rest of my life without ever seeing some of them again. Sorry, I should word that better. The films are good, but not exceptional. Gladiator was enjoyable enough, but I don't feel the need to view it again, nor would I really want to.

I find it hard to think of a comparison to Scott, as I can't really think of many names that have had the same amount of output as him over so many years. Damn, being put on the spot causes everything to vanish. I'll get back to this.

[fortunesfool]

A good friend of mine is keen on saying 'It's all relative'.

Ridley Scott's B or C game is still vastly more enjoyable and cinematically smart than the like of JJ Abrams, Peter Berg or any of the other shakey-cam TV hacks whose work is currently clogging the multiplex pipelines.

It's a sign of the times that many reviews (especially Stateside) consider Robin Hood to be dull and talky- read; has dialogue scenes that require your attention. Although, since most reviewers these days know as little about the art of film-making as most of todays film-makers, it's hardly surprising that we're in this predicament.

[Kiba.]

Originally Posted by fortunesfool

Even when Scott misfires, his work remains watchable. Kingdom of Heaven (DC) I actually prefer to Gladiator, which is actually quite dull when Crowe isn't hitting people with stuff.

I agree, you always know you are going to get a certain level of film-making even when the plot or pacing may go awry, there is always something to captivate the eye onscreen. I guess that's why I'm more inclined to be forgiving of his indulgences than some other directors..beause he knows his craft foremost. Like you I prefer the D/C of Kingdom to Gladiator and didn't mind A Good Year either.

Originally Posted by fortunesfool

On the subject of Scott though, I must admit there's a certain tendency in much of his more recent stuff to always be cutting to something new. It gives a lot of his scenes a disjointed feel and sometimes leaves me wishing he'd just use a more 'classical' style. It's like he's trying to keep up with the new kids when he really needs to be showing them how to do it properly.

Fair point, Fool.

Silly I sort of get where you're coming from, there was a time when I felt Scott had become too big for his boots but now that we're living in remake/reboot/sequel hell his films can only look good in comparison to the cinema climate if you see what I mean. It's not a perfect body of work by any means, (he's had his share of disasters) but it is at least interesting.

[fortunesfool]

I must admit though, I've never felt that Ridders was a particularly great narrative storyteller. His films to me have always been more about mood and visual storytelling, which is probably why I think 1492 is one of his best films as it really shows a visualist at the top of his game.

Alien and Blade Runner are actually quite dull films from a narrative perspective. You don't watch them again for the character moments you watch them for the ideas and the visual spectacle (Avatar is quite like Blade Runner now that I think about it. It too hides lots of ideas in a rather perfunctory , visually led narrative. But I digress)

Having said that, Scott has shown he's quite capable of doing more character led pieces with 'Thelma and Louise' and 'A Good Year' both springing to mind.

I think he's a bit like Spielberg in that he really knows his craft but is only ever as good as his script.

But, as I said before, it's all relative.