What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FBG Movie Club - DotM: Ridley Scott (1 Viewer)

If we continue with DotM next year, what would the FFA prefer

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
KarmaPolice

KarmaPolice

Footballguy
Month 1: Steven Speilberg
Month 2: Billy Wilder
Month 3: Martin Scorsese
Month 4: Denis Villeneuve
Month 5: George Miller
Month 6: Richard Linklater


I said it with Miller, but I'll post again. These aren't always our favorite directors. We are trying to balance out people with new movies or things that might generate interesting discussions over what might be our true favorites. We also like the idea of tying in the DotM to other threads and discussions in the FFA, which is partly how we landed on this month's selection. Honestly, I don't really want to do some of my absolute favorites in this format. Partly because I already know they are polarizing directors and partly because I selfishly like having a couple things for myself. I've also seen their movies. This is more about generating discussions, exploring some blind spots, and trying to push myself to watch other things and think about my reactions.

All that said - we have this month's director. I posted in the other thread that as I looked at his list of films, like Spielberg it contained a few of my absolute favorite movies. I wouldn't argue with somebody who would claim that also like Spielberg or even a Kubrick, he directed movies that are arguably the greatest in their genre. The FFA voted that he made the greatest horror movie. I don't think it's far off to say he also has made the best sci-fi movie and one of the best war movies. It's also true that like some of directors before him in our adventure, the batting average isn't great and he has made some turds. That's part of the adventure. What I am hoping for is an undiscovered gem or two on my part since I haven't seen much of his since 2000, and I have been circling around a couple for rewatches in general.

Month 7: RIDLEY SCOTT


We seem to have gotten away from suggestions for their movies and influences. I still like posting and seeing what their favorite movies are, so that is HERE. As far as what to watch, go nuts - there are plenty of options. Part of the reason he was chosen, along with the horror movie thread, is that there is another movie in the Alien franchise coming out this year and he has Gladiator II coming out as well as Napoleon that was last year.
 
Blade Runner/Gladiator/Black Hawk Down are three of my top 50 movies (maybe 30?).

I'm not really all that down with Alien. It's pretty slow, horror or no horror.

Of the lesser knowns, I remember liking Matchstick Men
 
Andy Dufresne said:
Blade Runner/Gladiator/Black Hawk Down are three of my top 50 movies (maybe 30?).

I'm not really all that down with Alien. It's pretty slow, horror or no horror.

Of the lesser knowns, I remember liking Matchstick Men
Click to expand...

Yup, and of course those were the 3 I was hinting at in the introduction. I also recently watched Gladiator and I liked that more than I remembered.

I liked what I did last month and add in a book tie in of some sort. Funny you mention Matchstick Men as that was what I landed on, and I am going to start reading that tonight then watch the movie after. I love Rockwell, but have avoided it because of Cage. I got another tie in idea after reading his top 10 movies. I've wanted to read On the Beach, and I didn't know there was a movie, so I hope to squeeze that in as well.

Other than that, I will focus on watching a couple newer ones of his since that is where the biggest blindspots for me are. Napoleon, The Last Duel, American Gangster, Body of Lies, and Matchstick Men are at the top of that list. Pre-2000, Legend and Black Rain are two I haven't seen, and I don't remember much at all about Thelma & Louise or G.I. Jane.
 
In the spirit of Thumper, I'm not going to come in hot but I'll work in my criticism as we go through the month. In the meantime, iff someone can suggest one of his films that might make me change my mind, I'll give it a watch if I can find it.
 
Eephus said:
In the spirit of Thumper, I'm not going to come in hot but I'll work in my criticism as we go through the month. In the meantime, iff someone can suggest one of his films that might make me change my mind, I'll give it a watch if I can find it.
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody has issues if you come in hot. Yes, I get a little discouraged when the start of the month is met with a grumble. I'd like this to be a good adventure for people playing along, not a chore. That said, I had similar hesitations and complaints with Miller, Scott, and Scorsese so I can't be upset about it. I am very interested what leads to your negative reaction to Scott and what movies you've seen.

As far as the bolded, I'd like to help, but I've only seen 8 of his movies and 2 I don't remember at all. I'd guess you've seen more. If you start with what you have seen and dislike, that might help others with the bolded.
 
KarmaPolice said:
As far as the bolded, I'd like to help, but I've only seen 8 of his movies and 2 I don't remember at all. I'd guess you've seen more. If you start with what you have seen and dislike, that might help others with the bolded.
Click to expand...

I've seen twelve of his pictures, split almost evenly between the beginning of his career and his most recent works, with a big gap in the middle when our kids were growing up. I liked his first two movies (The Duellists and Alien) very much but thought his latest stuff (Napoleon, Martian, Gucci, Duel) has been pretty bad.
 
Eephus said:
KarmaPolice said:
As far as the bolded, I'd like to help, but I've only seen 8 of his movies and 2 I don't remember at all. I'd guess you've seen more. If you start with what you have seen and dislike, that might help others with the bolded.
Click to expand...

I've seen twelve of his pictures, split almost evenly between the beginning of his career and his most recent works, with a big gap in the middle when our kids were growing up. I liked his first two movies (The Duellists and Alien) very much but thought his latest stuff (Napoleon, Martian, Gucci, Duel) has been pretty bad.
Click to expand...
Could you expand on that? I've only seen The Martian of that bunch. When I was thinking about it now I was curious how much was enjoyment of the movie itself vs. enjoyment that I was watching it with the kid and he seemed to really dig it. That was one that I thought I'd like to rewatch with a more critical eye.

So much with these directors are who their muses are and if I also connect with them. For Spielberg and Scott it's a roadblock for me, and for guys like Scorsese it's a bonus. I don't like Russel Crowe much so right there I am already skeptical of a handful of his movies I haven't seen. I am also souring on Adam Driver as well. However, I do love Denzel and Leo so I think I should try American Gangster or Body of Lies vs. something like Robin Hood that is a Crowe vehicle. Those are also on Max, so that makes it easier. I also love Jaoquin, so Napolean gets a bump up. Of the rest The Counselor was the other that stood out for me with that ensemble cast and Cormac McCarthy writing it.

That will be my starting focus for the post 00s after looking at the list and thinking about it. I figure if nothing in that list hits at all, I surely don't think Robin Hood, A Good Year, Gucci, or Last Duel will with their cast speedbumps for me. Maybe if there is one on that list you haven't seen try that and nothing else we have something to talk about after I watch Napolean and maybe rewatch The Martian.
 
If justwatch is correct, there is a handful on the main services

Prime has Gladiator and Thelma & Louise
Hulu has Blackhawk Down and all the Alien movies
Max has Body of Lies and American Gangster
Kanopy had The Duelists

Several others were available with MGM+, Showtime type add-ons or at least a rent.
 
Now it's my turn to come in hot. I wasn't in the mindframe for something completely new, and since I was going to be in the 90s for my action movie supplement I started the month with a rewatch of Thelma & Louise. I do not like this movie, which is maybe why I didn't remember much about it besides the basics - Brad Pitt, they are on the run, and the ending. I think there are nuggets of quality here, but my beef seems to lie mostly with the acting here. That was reinforced this morning as I thought about the movie more then listened to a couple podcast as I do. I seem to be nodding in agreement with most of what people bring up that they love - screenplay, how the characters develop, etc.. So it seems where I differ is I really disliked Geena Davis here as well as the people tied to her - McDonald as her husband and Pitt with his cowboy drawl. Sarandon, Madsen, Keitel and others were a little better for me, but going back to my point above with Crowe and casting, these are also people I generally don't like in movies. In the end my take away was that it could have been a great movie, but was held back by casting and acting.

All that said, I am glad I did that because it gave me a better book tie in idea. When i can I'd rather read a book about the director or the making of a movie. On the Unspooled episode, Amy mentioned the book Off the Cliff which sounded really interesting. There was talk about how the idea stemmed from the screenwriter and her friend, and the push/pull with the women on set and Scott as they were making it. That sounded interesting and like Dazed, it might make me warm up a little bit to the movie a bit or at least help solidify my opinion on it.
 
KarmaPolice said:
Kanopy had The Duelists
Click to expand...

The Duellists is Scott's first feature and I think one of his best. It's beautifully shot in a baroque style like Barry Lyndon with more sword fights.

Keitel and especially Keith Carradine aren't entirely convincing as officers in Napoleon's army which is the earliest example of Scott's largely visual interest in making period pieces.
 
No soccer today so I'm going in on Ridley Hood (2010) for no better reason than it'll give me an excuse to watch one of my all-time favorites The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938).
 
Gr00vus said:
Ilov80s said:
Gr00vus said:
I really enjoy Kingdom Of Heaven. I know it's not everyone's greatest movie of all time or anything.
Click to expand...
I want to see the directors cut. Is that the version you are referring to?
Click to expand...
I've seen both versions. The director's cut inclusion of more scenes results in a more cohesive story, things make more sense. I recommend seeing that one.
Click to expand...

I agree - I love the director's cut. It's long, but it's a far more complete movie. Sometimes directors cuts are not as good, but this one is superior in every way.

Note to the bolded: it's way up there. This is a great movie.
 
KarmaPolice said:
Eephus said:
KarmaPolice said:
As far as the bolded, I'd like to help, but I've only seen 8 of his movies and 2 I don't remember at all. I'd guess you've seen more. If you start with what you have seen and dislike, that might help others with the bolded.
Click to expand...

I've seen twelve of his pictures, split almost evenly between the beginning of his career and his most recent works, with a big gap in the middle when our kids were growing up. I liked his first two movies (The Duellists and Alien) very much but thought his latest stuff (Napoleon, Martian, Gucci, Duel) has been pretty bad.
Click to expand...
Could you expand on that? I've only seen The Martian of that bunch. When I was thinking about it now I was curious how much was enjoyment of the movie itself vs. enjoyment that I was watching it with the kid and he seemed to really dig it. That was one that I thought I'd like to rewatch with a more critical eye.

So much with these directors are who their muses are and if I also connect with them. For Spielberg and Scott it's a roadblock for me, and for guys like Scorsese it's a bonus. I don't like Russel Crowe much so right there I am already skeptical of a handful of his movies I haven't seen. I am also souring on Adam Driver as well. However, I do love Denzel and Leo so I think I should try American Gangster or Body of Lies vs. something like Robin Hood that is a Crowe vehicle. Those are also on Max, so that makes it easier. I also love Jaoquin, so Napolean gets a bump up. Of the rest The Counselor was the other that stood out for me with that ensemble cast and Cormac McCarthy writing it.

That will be my starting focus for the post 00s after looking at the list and thinking about it. I figure if nothing in that list hits at all, I surely don't think Robin Hood, A Good Year, Gucci, or Last Duel will with their cast speedbumps for me. Maybe if there is one on that list you haven't seen try that and nothing else we have something to talk about after I watch Napolean and maybe rewatch The Martian.
Click to expand...
I saw Gucci and Napoleon in the theater with friends, a big crowd and a few drinks in me. I had a great time and thought both were funny. Watching them again at home alone was a totally different experience. Just didn’t hold up at all. Gucci is awful but in a funny way- you need the right crowd (or weed) to enjoy it imo.
 
Robin Hood (2010)

Scott's revisionist telling of the legend of Robin Hood is grim and gritty 2000s hero origin story. It's obviously intended as the first part of a potential series so there are few of the traditional mythological set pieces which makes it feel less like a Robin Hood tale. Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland begin things with the death of Richard the Lion Heart and use some deception to get Robin to Nottingham and (eventually) into the arms of Maid Marian. For me, this was the best part of the movie because it worked on a smaller, more human scale. There were some nice scenes with Crowe, Blanchett and Von Sydow to develop the Robin Hood character. I thought the second half of the film got a bit overwhelmed with repressed memories, political intrigues and a big conventional battle climax. Everything was set up nicely for a sequel in Sherwood Forest but the first movie wasn't a big enough hit.

As usual for Scott's films, Robin Hood is beautifully shot with lots of filtered darkness, candlelight, fire and sunlight diffused through smoke and dust. He opted for a very muted color palette that literally grows a bit dull over the 2 1/2 hour running time. I'm not a big fan of Scott as an action director, the fighting scenes had a good intensity and brutality to them but I thought the editing was kind of haphazard, especially during the battle on the beach.

I guess I enjoyed Robin Hood well enough although there was nothing exceptional about the movie. You really can't go too wrong with the character. Scott is a solid craftsman and the cast was excellent. I would have liked to have seen more of Tom Wambsgans as the Sheriff of Nottingham but that would have probably happened in the sequel.
 
Last edited:
Ilov80s said:
I saw Gucci and Napoleon in the theater with friends, a big crowd and a few drinks in me. I had a great time and thought both were funny.
Click to expand...

I liked Gucci in the theater although it dragged a lot toward the end. Napoleon just seemed like a mess to me although maybe I should have watched it as a comedy.
 
The original screenplay for Robin Hood was a medieval police procedural with Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham as rivals on opposite sides of the law. Russell Crowe was even supposed to play both roles at one point. Ridley Scott dumped that script when he came onboard the project and brought in Helgeland to rewrite it as a more traditional hero's journey picture.
 
Last edited:
Cross-posted to the Ridley Scott Dotm thread

Tick said:
Alien: Covenant (Hulu). IMDB 6.4
This was the second time I've seen this. I watched all the prologue shorts prior to watching the movie. I also have watched Prometheus twice since I saw this last, and even watched the cut Prometheus scene of David's conversation with the Engineer. I now think this is a lot more coherent than I did at the first watch. The whole timeline clicks for me.
  • Engineer sacrifices himself to seed Earth for humans, or maybe all Earth animals, using an early form of black goo that breaks him up and rebuilds other stuff.
  • Engineers check in on humans with disappointment (leaving some legends and maybe language during visits), eventually decide to use black goo to wipe out humans and start over, but hijinks ensue and they don't make it off the Prometheus planet.
  • Humans follow the legends to the Prometheus planet to see what's up, hijinks ensue, Engineer is awakened, converses with David/Wayland about being creators but is still disappointed. Shaw and David use the Engineer's Last Searched in his GPS and go to his home planet.
  • David uses the black goo to wipe out the Engineers' home planet, Shaw doesn't help with his plans to play creator, he uses her body to hybridize the black goo, along with some goo-ized planet fauna, to tinker and comes up with some monsters and face huggers. David or Shaw send a repeating beacon.
  • Covenant ship is on the way to colonize a planet, they hear the beacon, find a habitable planet, and decide to check it out. Hijinks ensue, David reveals he's an evil creator planning to use the humans to continue creating. A face hugger impregnates a crew member. Android fight, survivors go back to Covenant, hijinks ensue, only 2 survive. Turns out the surviving android was David, not the Covenant android. David has brought some face hugger embryos with him. He's going to try to create a queen so his created species can take over everywhere.
  • At the end, with the embryos, colonists, and face huggers, David has what he needs to tinker and create a queen, getting us to Alien.
So... Engineers create humans create androids create aliens.

With that framework, I thought this movie worked. The various stages of monsters we encounter are properly horrifying, though at times they moved a bit too fast to be reasonable. David's workshop as presented is a bit much to take in, but the shorts linger enough that the horror there builds well. Fassbender as David/Walter was pretty incredible, I thought. There were some brutal moments, including a spiny back burster and some monster slasher bits. That final scene with Daniels' realization was really overpowering.

I think this is the third-best Alien movie. Of course there's a big drop from Alien/Aliens, but I think this is still quite good. I wonder what it would be like for someone who hasn't seen any of the other movies - does it rely on Prometheus too much? Was there too much cut and thrown into the prologues? Anyway, I rate this higher than most people do.
Click to expand...
 
Eephus said:
Ilov80s said:
I saw Gucci and Napoleon in the theater with friends, a big crowd and a few drinks in me. I had a great time and thought both were funny.
Click to expand...

I liked Gucci in the theater although it dragged a lot toward the end. Napoleon just seemed like a mess to me although maybe I should have watched it as a comedy.
Click to expand...
Yeah my takeaway from Napoleon was what a funny little dude.
 
Eephus said:
The original screenplay for Robin Hood was a medieval police procedural with Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham as rivals on opposite sides of the law. Russell Crowe was even supposed to play both roles at one point. Ridley Scott dumped that script when he came onboard the project and brought in Helgeland to rewrite it as a more traditional hero's journey picture.
Click to expand...
It would probably be horrible but the original idea has something interesting to it (not Crowe playing both roles)
 
Ilov80s said:
Eephus said:
Ilov80s said:
I saw Gucci and Napoleon in the theater with friends, a big crowd and a few drinks in me. I had a great time and thought both were funny.
Click to expand...

I liked Gucci in the theater although it dragged a lot toward the end. Napoleon just seemed like a mess to me although maybe I should have watched it as a comedy.
Click to expand...
Yeah my takeaway from Napoleon was what a funny little dude.
Click to expand...
Agree with Eephus’s take on Napoleon being a mess. It was a DNF for me. Disappointing for me because I’ve read a few biographies about him and enjoy reading about that period of history. So, thought it would be up my alley (but for the Ridley Scott connection, as indifferent to most of his films).

Maybe should have gone with the comedy approach, but feel like Bill and Ted covered Napoleon as a comedic figure better.
 
Don Quixote said:
Ilov80s said:
Eephus said:
Ilov80s said:
I saw Gucci and Napoleon in the theater with friends, a big crowd and a few drinks in me. I had a great time and thought both were funny.
Click to expand...

I liked Gucci in the theater although it dragged a lot toward the end. Napoleon just seemed like a mess to me although maybe I should have watched it as a comedy.
Click to expand...
Yeah my takeaway from Napoleon was what a funny little dude.
Click to expand...
Agree with Eephus’s take on Napoleon being a mess. It was a DNF for me. Disappointing for me because I’ve read a few biographies about him and enjoy reading about that period of history. So, thought it would be up my alley (but for the Ridley Scott connection, as indifferent to most of his films).

Maybe should have gone with the comedy approach, but feel like Bill and Ted covered Napoleon as a comedic figure better.
Click to expand...
I didn’t expect a comedy that’s for sure but just was so strange that I couldn’t help but laugh. Seeing it at the super EMax screen the night before Thanksgiving after a couple martinis and sushi sure helped my enjoyment of the movie.
 
Ilov80s said:
Don Quixote said:
Ilov80s said:
Eephus said:
Ilov80s said:
I saw Gucci and Napoleon in the theater with friends, a big crowd and a few drinks in me. I had a great time and thought both were funny.
Click to expand...

I liked Gucci in the theater although it dragged a lot toward the end. Napoleon just seemed like a mess to me although maybe I should have watched it as a comedy.
Click to expand...
Yeah my takeaway from Napoleon was what a funny little dude.
Click to expand...
Agree with Eephus’s take on Napoleon being a mess. It was a DNF for me. Disappointing for me because I’ve read a few biographies about him and enjoy reading about that period of history. So, thought it would be up my alley (but for the Ridley Scott connection, as indifferent to most of his films).

Maybe should have gone with the comedy approach, but feel like Bill and Ted covered Napoleon as a comedic figure better.
Click to expand...
I didn’t expect a comedy that’s for sure but just was so strange that I couldn’t help but laugh. Seeing it at the super EMax screen the night before Thanksgiving after a couple martinis and sushi sure helped my enjoyment of the movie.
Click to expand...

I think Russell Crowe would have made an excellent Napoleon but then again, who wouldn't be an improvement over River Phoenix.

Aside from the casting, I think Scott just bit off more than he could chew. Maybe there's a six hour director's cut somewhere in Ridley's brain that makes more sense than the confused mess he put on screen.
 
Last edited:
Hey everybody - please voice your opinion in the poll above!! 80s and I have been talking a bit this week and wanted a bit more input from you all. Do you like the focus being director? I started it that way because that's what I gravitate too, and I find there is more of a core DNA to the movies discussed. But above that, what I like more is discussion that the most people are interested in. Next year we could do actor/actress of the month, Genre/subgenre of the month, or even have each month be a discussion of a year in movies. Just curious on the interest level in what we have been doing and what you all prefer.
 
KarmaPolice said:
Hey everybody - please voice your opinion in the poll above!! 80s and I have been talking a bit this week and wanted a bit more input from you all. Do you like the focus being director? I started it that way because that's what I gravitate too, and I find there is more of a core DNA to the movies discussed. But above that, what I like more is discussion that the most people are interested in. Next year we could do actor/actress of the month, Genre/subgenre of the month, or even have each month be a discussion of a year in movies. Just curious on the interest level in what we have been doing and what you all prefer.
Click to expand...
While I don’t have any objection for director, I voted for the genre idea. I’m assuming maybe stuff like Noirvember for November, horror for October, 2025 Oscar nominees for February, etc? I think that could generate some good interest and give a bit of flexibility for those who have certain services, but not others, as gives more options to explore.
 
Don Quixote said:
KarmaPolice said:
Hey everybody - please voice your opinion in the poll above!! 80s and I have been talking a bit this week and wanted a bit more input from you all. Do you like the focus being director? I started it that way because that's what I gravitate too, and I find there is more of a core DNA to the movies discussed. But above that, what I like more is discussion that the most people are interested in. Next year we could do actor/actress of the month, Genre/subgenre of the month, or even have each month be a discussion of a year in movies. Just curious on the interest level in what we have been doing and what you all prefer.
Click to expand...
While I don’t have any objection for director, I voted for the genre idea. I’m assuming maybe stuff like Noirvember for November, horror for October, 2025 Oscar nominees for February, etc? I think that could generate some good interest and give a bit of flexibility for those who have certain services, but not others, as gives more options to explore.
Click to expand...
As you can see with our director selections, sometimes we tend to zag as well. Yes, that would be the general idea but we might get weird with ideas as well. I'd probably look at the Criterion Channel @Long Ball Larry ;) They have fun ideas that I might steal and just pawn off as ours. This month they have Pop Shakespeare and Times Square as themes. Similar to that, but probably a little more open if we get creative.
 
Never been a huge Ridley Scott guy, though I liked Alien and liked Matchstick Men a lot (which seems the least like one of his movies). Thought Gladiator was ok, though I’m not that big on really ancient period pieces. Watched Kingdom of Heaven last night which felt a lot like a long trailer and the kind of style that I associate with him. A lot of the shots were really nice, but it all felt so theatrical and I barely understood the point of that specific story (though of course I understood the overarching historical significance of what was going on). Going back to last month with Linklater, Kingdom of Heaven is a crazy juxtaposition. then I figured I could give last duel a try and that I liked a fair amount. He didn’t get all in his bag with so many dramatic and vast battle scenes, but was able to mix it in when necessary and the final duel was well done. The story and style of storytelling was compelling. Curious to know if the original screenplay was exactly like that broken into rashomon style chapters.

Going back a few months, I think that Villenueve is an interesting balance between Scott and linklater. He is very good and capturing the inner sense of his characters and the intimacy of situations but also can frame wide shots and cinematic landscapes really powerfully. But my favorites part of Dune was the last 20-30 minutes where things got much more intimate with chalamet and with his final battle.
 
Voted to stick with directors with my auteurist flag flying high but I'll figure out some way to amuse myself regardless.
 
Robin and Marian (1976)

I've always heard good things about Richard Lester's 1976 version of the Robin Hood story but had never seen it before, so thank you Ridley Scott and DotM for giving me an excuse to seek it out. Lester takes the same characters and story and makes a very different movie. His Robin is an aging rogue who's spent decades away crusading with the Lion Heart. He returns to Nottingham with some regrets, an aching back and hope of rekindling his relationship with Marian.

Robin and Marian is a rare middle-aged love story with few of the epic pretensions of Scott's version. Lester gives time for the romance to develop; I thought Scott's film seemed in a rush to cut away from the couples' scenes to give more screen time to the villains. Robin and Marian still makes time for adventure, derring-do and a couple of savage duels that play as tests of endurance but its biggest asset is the wonderful chemistry between Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn the title roles. Robert Shaw makes a more worthy adversary as the sheriff than in other filmed versions of the story and Robin's men are a bit more merry here probably because they aren't constantly shrouded in darkness.

It doesn't have a lot to do with Ridley Scott but Robin and Marian is a unique version of the legend that's well worth your time. This ad-free YouTube stream is of excellent quality with only the usual fading that mars a lot of films shot on 60s and 70s film stock.

youtu.be

Robin and Marian (1976) | Full Movie

Often hailed by critics as one of, if not THE, best adaptation of the Robin Hood story on the silver screen, 1976's "Robin and Marian" was the original gritt...
youtu.be youtu.be
 
Ridley Scott and his brother Tony got their start directing commercials in their native UK. Arguably, his 1984 commercial for Apple is his most famous work of his entire career but I think his string of ads for Chanel No. 5 are equally iconic. I haven't seen them since then but I instantly remembered the imagery.

The linked article compiles some of his commercial work dating back to 1973. At their best, Scott's ads are artfully composed, visually magical and very sexy. At their worst, they're TV commercials. He's done three long-form commercials from the 21st century. I watched them all but the only one worth a watch is the one he did for Prada. It makes ingenious use of an ancient Coptic text to deliver a message of empowerment and perfume. The Hennessey commercial is a bunch of sci fi CGI nonsense that seemed much longer than four minutes. The Turkish airlines commercial is basically a travelogue with some spy movie references. It reminded me a little of that embarrassing but lucrative Scorsese casino commercial I watched when he was DotM


www.collater.al

Commercials directed by Ridley Scott | Collater.al

We're talking about Ridley Scott, who has from time to time devoted himself to the small screen directing some commercials.
www.collater.al www.collater.al
 
Watched All the Money in the World as I try to wring out whatever I can from my promotional Starz subscription.

This was the movie that Kevin spacey originally starred in and then his allegations came out and he had to be replaced by Christopher Plummer and all the scenes re-shot. I remember that happening, but didn’t remember the movie (if it ever registered).

Anyway, Getty seemed like a great subject for Scott and the beginning definitely played into his baroque excess, as well as the universal truths about power, nature and humanity. The kidnapping plot was very interesting, but it seemed like there were multiple movies here squeezed into one. Not sure how much the spacey-Plummer change affected the whole thing, but I think that any one of the threads of Getty’s life, the kidnapping, wahlberg’s career exploits, the issues with gettys son and daughter in law would have made a good movie. Felt like maybe it got a little too ambitious and was tonally inconsistent across the movie. I do appreciate Scott’s visual flair, but a lot of the movie felt derivative, which I think is maybe the overall criticism that I would levy at him. He certainly is a strong visual artist.
 
Long Ball Larry said:
I do appreciate Scott’s visual flair, but a lot of the movie felt derivative, which I think is maybe the overall criticism that I would levy at him. He certainly is a strong visual artist.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much where I'm at with Scott as well. I think he's stronger as an image maker than storyteller.
 
Napoleon (1927)

Abel Gance's masterpiece of the late silent era has been one of my cinematic white whales for over 40 years. Francis Coppola did a revival of the film in the early 80s in a few cities but I couldn't find anybody interested to go see it with me when it played SF. I considered watching it in tandem with Scott's Napoleon last year but the new version was so disappointing that I scrapped the idea. The version I watched was the Coppola cut which clocks in at just under four hours. There have been other versions over the past century including a 9 hour 22 minute marathon.

It's obviously very different from Scott's Napoleon but two of the biggest are historical scope and the character of Napoleon. Gance's film is about the French Revolution. It begins with a prologue of teenage Napoleon the budding tactical genius in boarding school but spends the rest of its time on the years 1792-96. It ends with Napoleon in triumph at the battle of Montenotte which would fall during the first 30 minutes of the timeline of Scott's film. I thought the Joaquin Phoenix Napoleon was an anachronistically modern brooder but Gance takes the character in a completely different direction. His Napoleon is a messianic figure, pure in body, mind and spirit who also seemingly had the power to control animals and the weather.

Gance, like Scott is a master of the visual and technical aspects of the craft. The way he edited his action set pieces is unlike anything in modern cinema. He used multiple exposures and split screens to overwhelm the audience with images and produce an almost hallucinogenic effect at times. The sequence beginning at around the one hour mark where Napoleon escapes his captors on horseback and boat while the Assembly descends into chaos in Paris is still incredible almost a century later. The intense battle scenes right before intermission must have been triggering to audiences who had recently lived through WWI.

I'm glad I finally got around to watching Napoleon but parts of it were definitely a slog. The third hour was devoted to the revolution with lots of side characters who would be more familiar to French audiences of the 1920s than they were to me. I was eagerly anticipating the final 20 minutes which were famously shot with three cameras and shown in widescreen using synchronized projectors. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a letdown. Gance seemed hemmed in by the new technology which limited the ability to move the camera. Like many directors since, he went with scale instead. Watching a thousand extras march by the cameras was probably a bigger deal in 1927 than it is today. Other than that, Gance used the three camera setup to do things like closeups of Napoleon looking regal in the middle while the side screens showed shots of clouds parting. It would take another 25 years for widescreen formats to become more practical and natural to use.

Napoleon (1927) : Abel Gance : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

This ambitious silent film, renowned for its groundbreaking camerawork and editing, portrays the early life of French ruler Napoleon Bonaparte (Albert...
archive.org
 
Huge Scott fan and think a lot of his stuff is underappreciated but he's been pretty inconsistent too. Napoleon was a mess and Exodus sucked pretty bad.

Prometheus and Kingdom of Heaven come to mind awesome movies that for whatever reason I seem to like more than everybody else.
 
Last edited:
Top Scott movies in no Order

1. Alien
2. Gladiator
3. The Martian
4. American Gangster
5. Blade Runner
6. The Last Duel
7. Kingdome of Heaven
8. Prometheus

so many bangers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

KarmaPolice
FFA Movie Club - DotM: John Carpenter
2
Replies
93
Views
2K
Eephus
Eephus
KarmaPolice
FFA Movie Club - DotM: Tim Burton
Replies
19
Views
431
Charlie Steiner
Charlie Steiner
KarmaPolice
FBG Movie Club - DotM: Akira Kurosawa
2
Replies
57
Views
1K
KarmaPolice
KarmaPolice

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top