I did a Ridley Scott filmography in a thread about BLADERUNNER. I think i still have it somewhere. oh wait... ----------------------------------------------------------- RIDLEY SCOTT FILMOGRAPHY BLADERUNNER: The Final Cutis being released in theaters for a limited run before being made available in a deluxe DVD set for Xmas. I've been looking forward to if for some time, since its one of my favorite movies. But let's be clear... Ridley Scott has to be the most over-rated director of his generation. Over the last 30 years, he has turned out maybe 3 or 4 good to great films, and then went back and sabotaged one of them. Scott started out as a set designer, and graduated to directing commercials in the 1960s-70s, so his style is exquisite in its sense of design and photography. But with regard to real storytelling, not so much. His first feature, THE DUELLISTS (1977), was a dirge-like contemplation of honor during the Napoleonic era. Its sonorous tone overlies exquisite visuals. But his next film ALIEN (1979), is perhaps the only truly great movie on his resume [on edit: with apologies to RealityChuck]. The quintessential "monster in the haunted house" movie dressed up as SF, it was both a huge critical and commercial success. This one gave him the clout to make, and then survive, his next project. BLADE RUNNER (1982) was a bomb upon its initial release but has, over time, become a cult classic and is now considered one of the greatest and most influential films of the last 25 years. And it certainly is my personal favorite of all his movies. The Vangelis score is hauntingly beautiful. The design is as influential as any movie ever made... until MATRIX, anyway. But most importantly, the themes of the story resonate in harmony with its images. What does it mean to be human? If you lack compassion, empathy, and emotional connection to others, are you really human? And if you have those things, does it matter what the origin of your biology is? Phillip K. dick wrote DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP partly as a critique of the "I was only following orders" defense of WWII-era Germans. Dick told us that we are each responsible for our own humanity, and the day we let the least of us die out of our own disinterest or lack of courage, we have surrendered that humanity. Of course, Scott completely sabotages this theme in the "Director's Cut" (and now again in the "Final Cut") by giving more evidence that Deckard is, himself, a replicant, thereby rendering the entire point moot. Instead of a story of redemption, where a person reclaims his humanity by recognizing the humanity in others, Scott turns it into a story of a replicant who learns to feel. Well, who cares if a non-existent fantasy construct called a "replicant" learns to freakin' feel, Ridley? Why don't you say something about people, instead, you schmuck?! The DIRECTOR'S CUT is actually worse than the theatrical release in other ways, too. In addition to adding the "Deckard is a replicant" theme, he has stripped out the voice-over narration, which furthered the movie's film-noir style, and its absence resonates throughout this cut. And while the movie didn't need the "happy ending" the studio originally insisted on, the dark ending you are now left with instead is not at all satisfying, and it removes the final images of blue sky that rewarded and mirrored Deckard's emotional transformation. These changes just indicate how little Scott understood what was great about his movie in the first place. After BLADERUNNER flopped, Scott churned out 3 stylish misfires: LEGEND (1985), SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME (1987) and BLACK RAIN (1989). LEGEND was a total flop, but SOMEONE and, to a lesser degree, BLACK RAIN were moderate commercial successes. These lead up to his getting hired on to direct THELMA & LOUISE (1991). T&L was both a commercial and critical success, and is an excellent film, but Scott was brought into this project fairly late in its development and doesn't feel entirely like a "Ridley Scott" picture. Still, it does offer the kind of strong, violent female protagonists (as in ALIEN) that would continue to be a thematic motif of his work. He followed up T&L with 3 pieces of Scottian crap: 1492 (1992) ,WHITE SQUALL (1996) and G.I. JANE (1997). While JANE was a huge hit (echoing his themes of militaristic women from ALIEN and T&L), I found it relentlessly ridiculous and nearly unwatchable. He hit the next one out of the park, however, with GLADIATOR (2000) ... a blockbuster/Oscar winner. But, despite its unmistakable grandeur and Russell Crowe's star-making performance, the film can be read as profoundly stupid and cynical (a view i share). Still, it remains one of his best works (which says all you need to know about Scott's career output). HANNIBAL (2001) was a hit, too, based largely on its status as a long awaited sequel to the terrific SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. The critics lambasted it for the most part, and, while opulent, it is also repugnant and unengaging. BLACK HAWK DOWN (2001) was next and joined SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME, G.I. JANE and HANNIBAL into the group of glossy but inept hits from the witless Brit. Despite its box office performance and even a generally positive critical reaction, BHD seems to me more akin to Scott's cinematic misfires like 1492 and WHITE SQUALL. BHD is basically a Bruckheimer film, where handsome young men perform heroic deeds at great speed and high volume. I didn’t hate it, but it left me totally uninvolved, unmoved, and not particularly entertained. I was, however (like the goofy-looking soldier in the film), left deafened by the din. Perhaps it could play on a triple bill with GI JANE and THE DUELLISTS as a meditation on the nature of martial honor... as told through a series of lovely photographs, narrated by a moron. Still, BHD has been Scott's last hit to date. MATCHSTICK MEN (2003) is a poorly constructed "Sting" con-man movie with an extremely annoying performance by Nick Cage. It failed to find an audience. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (2005), however, is pure Ridley, returning to the epic scale of GLADIATOR. Unfortunately, Orlando Bloom is no Russell Crowe, so it ends up an entertaining doughnut... yummy around the edges with a hole in the middle. Again, coherence is not Scott's strongsuit, but this is probably his best film since GLADIATOR. Yet it, too, couldn't make back its huge budget domestically (though it ultimately paid off internationally). With A GOOD YEAR (2006), Ridley tried his hand at a romantic "dramedy". Watching Ridley Scott try to pull off this type of light entertainment is like watching a hippo trying to hula, which was not a sight anyone cared to see. A big flop . Lastly, this year's AMERICAN GANGSTER (2007) has a mixed critical buzz going before its November opening. We'll see what level of audience interest is shown, especially since its starring Denzel Washington. It could be pure hack work or a return to respectability. We shall see. But at this point in his career, Ridley Scott seems to me an idiot savant... a total genius with a camera, but nearly incapable of creating anything approaching human drama, except only occasionally and only be accident. --------------------------------- As it turned out neither GANGSTER, nor the subsequent BODY OF LIES (2008) and ROBIN HOOD (2010) did much to change the trajectory of his career, though i do admit some affection for Crowe's performance as Robin Hood, despite the leaden, lumbering movie he's trapped in. But then, some years later, i added a review of PROMETHEUS: PROMETHEUS (2012) - I would appreciate it if Sir Ridley just stopped making movies. This was as big, stupid, and stupifyingly pointless as any movie i've ever seen from him, and that's saying quite a bit. The film's horrific elements are ones he's used before; nothing new or innovative there. The theological/philosophical musings are banal, half-baked inanities. The characters are largely ignored, which is ok, cuz most of the performances suck anyway. Noomi Rapace (so good as the original girl with the dragon tattoo) does the best she can as the "true believer" (believer of what? who knows), but when she starts running all over the place immediately after having emergency stomach surgery, things get just too ridiculous (didn't anybody working on this film realize that surgically severed stomach muscles tend to be a hindrance to locomotion?). Guy Pearce is wasted under a ton of LITTLE BIG MAN age makeup (they could have cast his orthopedist in the role, for all it would've mattered). Charlize Theron is doing entirely too many "evil blonde ice queen" roles. And Charlize, take a tip from Noomi... when something huge, long and relatively narrow is falling straight down on top of you in a line, don't run straight ahead; just make a left. or a right. either way. And what is the guy from the WIRE doing here, talking about Stephen Stills' accordian? And if you were a scientist who was too scared to stay in the presence of a dead alien, so much so that you and another chicken scientist decided to walk back to the ship without waiting for the others in the party, and then you and your chicken buddy get stuck in the alien underground to wait out a storm, would you really go up to an alien worm/snake/serpent thingy rising up out of alien black goo and go "cootchy coo" while trying to pet it? REALLY? Ridley, your narrative sense was always borderline non-existent, but you've gone completely round the bend, without even visual innovation to distract us. You ain't great, Scott. Go back to commercials for the BBC and leave us the hell alone. ------------------------------- I passed on the opportunity to sit through his subsequent films, The Counselor and Exodus: Gods and Kings, but they were fairly well lambasted and unsuccessful. Now he gives us THE MARTIAN and, while i like what i see in the trailer and I'm tempted to see it, I remain dubious about its prospects. I hope for it to be great, or even good, but, alas, Scott's track record makes it unlikely.
