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 .
Blade Runner is my favorite sci-fi movie of all time. That is all.
I hope you're in the "Deckard is human" camp.
I thought he was when I was a kid but then I saw the director's cut as an adult and it's pretty evident... :shrug:

I'd prefer him to be human, but he's a replicant.
Only if you think Scott knows what he's talking about...which is dubious.
Did **** ever say?

By that, I mean the story author?
 
Blade Runner is my favorite sci-fi movie of all time. That is all.
I hope you're in the "Deckard is human" camp.
I thought he was when I was a kid but then I saw the director's cut as an adult and it's pretty evident... :shrug:

I'd prefer him to be human, but he's a replicant.
Only if you think Scott knows what he's talking about...which is dubious.
Did **** ever say?

By that, I mean the story author?
.

"The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?"

-Philip K. ****, author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
 
Blade Runner is my favorite sci-fi movie of all time. That is all.
I hope you're in the "Deckard is human" camp.
I thought he was when I was a kid but then I saw the director's cut as an adult and it's pretty evident... :shrug:

I'd prefer him to be human, but he's a replicant.
Only if you think Scott knows what he's talking about...which is dubious.
Did **** ever say?

By that, I mean the story author?
.

"The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?"

-Philip K. ****, author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
Yeah, I just spent some time on the googles as well, and it sounds like both **** and Ford intended for Deckard to be human and Scott was the only one who intended for Deckard to be a replicant.

I think it's way better from a philosophical perspective if Deckard is human. The Deckard is a replicant (made to take over for Gaff with Gaff's memories) is a fun twist I suppose, but I think it takes away from ultimate theme and motifs of the story.
 
Blade Runner is my favorite sci-fi movie of all time. That is all.
I hope you're in the "Deckard is human" camp.
I thought he was when I was a kid but then I saw the director's cut as an adult and it's pretty evident... :shrug:

I'd prefer him to be human, but he's a replicant.
Only if you think Scott knows what he's talking about...which is dubious.
Did **** ever say?

By that, I mean the story author?
.

"The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?"

-Philip K. ****, author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
Yeah, I just spent some time on the googles as well, and it sounds like both **** and Ford intended for Deckard to be human and Scott was the only one who intended for Deckard to be a replicant.

I think it's way better from a philosophical perspective if Deckard is human. The Deckard is a replicant (made to take over for Gaff with Gaff's memories) is a fun twist I suppose, but I think it takes away from ultimate theme and motifs of the story.
The bit with the unicorn has been long misunderstood IMO.

If you look around as to what the unicorn symbolically represents, it's clear that both Deckard and Goff see her as such. For example:
The unicorn spirit animal encourages us to maintain a pure and open heart, free from the cynicism and jadedness that can sometimes cloud our perception. It reminds us to approach life with a sense of awe and appreciation, seeing the beauty in even the smallest of details.

Furthermore, the unicorn is a symbol of healing and protection. Its presence is said to ward off negative energies and create a safe haven for those in need of emotional or physical restoration. Those who embrace the unicorn spirit animal may find themselves drawn to holistic practices or possessing natural healing abilities
Deckard isn't dreaming of Rachel as a unicorn - he's daydreaming. It's not a memory, it's a visual representation of a feeling.

Another interpretation is that the unicorn is an unobtainable purity, unless one is pure themselves.

After Roy sacrifices himself (somewhat Christ like) for Deckard, the latter is "restored" and thus is in position to be "worthy" of Rachel.

But Gaff reminds Deckard that she'll remain ultimately unobtainable because of her limited lifespan.

The unicorn is symbolic, not literal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zow
Damn internet is out, so my plan to watch American Gangster was out. I had to stick to the blurays I had at home of mine and the library. Blade Runner and Demolition Man double feature it is!
 
Damn internet is out, so my plan to watch American Gangster was out. I had to stick to the blurays I had at home of mine and the library. Blade Runner and Demolition Man double feature it is!
Please report back with how to use the seashells.
 
I was going to watch Gladiator next for DotM because I thought the sequel was coming out this summer. ditkaburgers is a huge Pedro Pascal stan and wants us all to go see it together in November.

So I guess Body of Lies is next :oldunsure:
 
My goals for the month (heavily influenced by what is streaming)

- Gladiator: new one coming out, absolutely LOVED the original but it's been 15 years at least
- Body of Lies: I know nothing about it but a CIA movie with Leo and Crowe seems like it's worth a watch
- American Gangster: I should have seen this already but I haven't
- Kingdom of Heaven (Dir Cut): Not sure where to find this but it's been on my need to watchlist for awhile, I will rent it if I need to
- Black Rain: I've only seen it once and I can not believe it. It's too good to be true. It's worth it's weight in blow.
 
There's a certain level of consistency in the majority of his films. You always go in feeling like you're going to get something very solid or better. The exceptions are infrequent.
 
Body of Lies

Nothing new here and it felt very 00s. Just very of its time and place but Leo is always great. Crowe isn’t at his best here but he’s got a presence of course. Scott’s direction ensures everything looks good and the action scenes rip. While it’s nothing special, I liked it more than its reputation would have led me to believe. It’s just dated.
 
Body of Lies

Nothing new here and it felt very 00s. Just very of its time and place but Leo is always great. Crowe isn’t at his best here but he’s got a presence of course. Scott’s direction ensures everything looks good and the action scenes rip. While it’s nothing special, I liked it more than its reputation would have led me to believe. It’s just dated.
Freaky. I also watched this last night, and had a similar reaction. I am rounding more and more to what seems the popular opinion about Scott, which is about what the bolded is too. He likes to stay in the past, everything looks great, but for me the acting and actor choices hold me back a bit.

Body of Lies won out because I saw the run times on a few others that were on my list. I think Napolean and American Gangster are coming in closer to 2hrs 40mins.
 
Body of Lies

Nothing new here and it felt very 00s. Just very of its time and place but Leo is always great. Crowe isn’t at his best here but he’s got a presence of course. Scott’s direction ensures everything looks good and the action scenes rip. While it’s nothing special, I liked it more than its reputation would have led me to believe. It’s just dated.
Freaky. I also watched this last night, and had a similar reaction. I am rounding more and more to what seems the popular opinion about Scott, which is about what the bolded is too. He likes to stay in the past, everything looks great, but for me the acting and actor choices hold me back a bit.

Body of Lies won out because I saw the run times on a few others that were on my list. I think Napolean and American Gangster are coming in closer to 2hrs 40mins.
Yeah I was between this and AG but it was already 10:30 so the shorter run time got me. I thought Leo was fantastic in this. Does he ever give anything less? He’s just so magnetic. It was cool seeing a young Oscar Isaac. Crowe was a little disappointing and I can’t put my finger on why.
 
Body of Lies

Nothing new here and it felt very 00s. Just very of its time and place but Leo is always great. Crowe isn’t at his best here but he’s got a presence of course. Scott’s direction ensures everything looks good and the action scenes rip. While it’s nothing special, I liked it more than its reputation would have led me to believe. It’s just dated.
Freaky. I also watched this last night, and had a similar reaction. I am rounding more and more to what seems the popular opinion about Scott, which is about what the bolded is too. He likes to stay in the past, everything looks great, but for me the acting and actor choices hold me back a bit.

Body of Lies won out because I saw the run times on a few others that were on my list. I think Napolean and American Gangster are coming in closer to 2hrs 40mins.

It's funny because I faced a similar decision last night after Mrs. Eephus went to bed

I knew nothing about Body of Lies so I watched the trailer. I totally wasn't in the mood to relive the war on terror so I started American Gangster instead in spite of its longer runtime.
 
Body of Lies

Nothing new here and it felt very 00s. Just very of its time and place but Leo is always great. Crowe isn’t at his best here but he’s got a presence of course. Scott’s direction ensures everything looks good and the action scenes rip. While it’s nothing special, I liked it more than its reputation would have led me to believe. It’s just dated.
Freaky. I also watched this last night, and had a similar reaction. I am rounding more and more to what seems the popular opinion about Scott, which is about what the bolded is too. He likes to stay in the past, everything looks great, but for me the acting and actor choices hold me back a bit.

Body of Lies won out because I saw the run times on a few others that were on my list. I think Napolean and American Gangster are coming in closer to 2hrs 40mins.

It's funny because I faced a similar decision last night after Mrs. Eephus went to bed

I knew nothing about Body of Lies so I watched the trailer. I totally wasn't in the mood to relive the war on terror so I started American Gangster instead in spite of its longer runtime.
Yeah that’s the biggest drawback. My appetite for movies about modern Middle East conflict is pretty low.
 
American Gangster (2007)

It's mid-month already and I've watched as many Robin Hood movies as ones directed by the DotM. This one was definitely better than Robin Hood. Gangster movies have been done in a lot of different ways but this ambitious movie combines a gangster story and a cop story in a single epic. I'd be curious whether Denzel's gangster or Crowe's cop gets more screentime and dialog but both seemed pretty equally divided while I was watching it. It's an interesting narrative device that can be used to cover gaps in time and mask some continuity issues for the off-screen character. I did feel a bit let down by the scene when Frank and Richie finally meet. I was waiting for this because the characters were on a collision course for over two hours but I thought the dialog between the two lacked the expected spark. I also though Richie's transition to a prosecutor was abrupt but I guess it was "based on a true story".

By Ridley's standards, it's a relatively restrained outing visually. Most NYC scenes are shot in an almost documentary style with desaturated colors and a lot of shadow and darkness. It's a good decision that suits the late 60s-early 70s time period. The scenes in Bangkok and Frank's country home are vivid in contrast. Scott generally goes for a gritty, realistic tone with little of the operatic operatic quality of the Godfathers, Miller's Crossing or Once Upon a Time in America. A notable exception is the "Amazing Grace" montage that was very familiar for the genre.

It's a solid movie aided by fine performances all around. I'm still not sold on Scott as a great action director but have to admit the raid of the heroin factory was very well done.
 
American Gangster (2007)

It's mid-month already and I've watched as many Robin Hood movies as ones directed by the DotM. This one was definitely better than Robin Hood. Gangster movies have been done in a lot of different ways but this ambitious movie combines a gangster story and a cop story in a single epic. I'd be curious whether Denzel's gangster or Crowe's cop gets more screentime and dialog but both seemed pretty equally divided while I was watching it. It's an interesting narrative device that can be used to cover gaps in time and mask some continuity issues for the off-screen character. I did feel a bit let down by the scene when Frank and Richie finally meet. I was waiting for this because the characters were on a collision course for over two hours but I thought the dialog between the two lacked the expected spark. I also though Richie's transition to a prosecutor was abrupt but I guess it was "based on a true story".

By Ridley's standards, it's a relatively restrained outing visually. Most NYC scenes are shot in an almost documentary style with desaturated colors and a lot of shadow and darkness. It's a good decision that suits the late 60s-early 70s time period. The scenes in Bangkok and Frank's country home are vivid in contrast. Scott generally goes for a gritty, realistic tone with little of the operatic operatic quality of the Godfathers, Miller's Crossing or Once Upon a Time in America. A notable exception is the "Amazing Grace" montage that was very familiar for the genre.

It's a solid movie aided by fine performances all around. I'm still not sold on Scott as a great action director but have to admit the raid of the heroin factory was very well done.
Can't say I have much more or anything different to say about it. I liked it. Solid entry into the gangster genre. Good performances by the leads and the bust scene was really well done.
 
I'm still plugging away, but I don't really have much else to add so far but to echo most of the sentiments above, as I've watched similar films.

I did finish the book about Thelma & Louise and found that much more enjoyable than the movie itself. I am about 1/3 of the way through On the Beach. This one more of a slow burn and not at all what I was expecting, but I have really liked it so far. I have the movie at home and plan to get that in before the month is over as well.

I also watch Body of Lies, American Gangster, and Napoleon. I liked them all, but while watching I had the feeling that I had already seen the best Ridley had to offer and I am not sure I will find any gems that I think are great after the core movies we have already talked about. I went a different route with my reading, so I didn't end up diving into Matchstick Men, but I did also get that from the library and plan on getting to that before the month is over. Besides that, maybe a rewatch of The Martian, or an edible + Legend. I couldn't convince myself to watch Prometheus or Covenant.

I am glad others found Napoleon funny too. Part of it is that I naturally find that setting and the stuffy aristocracy funny in general. But a few of those sex scenes and the interactions between him and his wife had me laughing a lot.
 
Still a week left, so anybody interested in voting please do so. 80s and I have a plan for Nov/Dec, but how we roll it out does depend on the outcome of the poll. :popcorn:
 
I'm still plugging away, but I don't really have much else to add so far but to echo most of the sentiments above, as I've watched similar films.

I did finish the book about Thelma & Louise and found that much more enjoyable than the movie itself. I am about 1/3 of the way through On the Beach. This one more of a slow burn and not at all what I was expecting, but I have really liked it so far. I have the movie at home and plan to get that in before the month is over as well.

I also watch Body of Lies, American Gangster, and Napoleon. I liked them all, but while watching I had the feeling that I had already seen the best Ridley had to offer and I am not sure I will find any gems that I think are great after the core movies we have already talked about. I went a different route with my reading, so I didn't end up diving into Matchstick Men, but I did also get that from the library and plan on getting to that before the month is over. Besides that, maybe a rewatch of The Martian, or an edible + Legend. I couldn't convince myself to watch Prometheus or Covenant.

I am glad others found Napoleon funny too. Part of it is that I naturally find that setting and the stuffy aristocracy funny in general. But a few of those sex scenes and the interactions between him and his wife had me laughing a lot.
I absolutely need to rent Kingdom of Heaven. That’s been on my watchlist for too long.
 
Still a week left, so anybody interested in voting please do so. 80s and I have a plan for Nov/Dec, but how we roll it out does depend on the outcome of the poll. :popcorn:
this your baby, just switch it up when you feel its appropriate. for example Oct = Horror Dec= Xmas
Actor of the month instead of Director of the month
films based on a location or theme

that's my 2 cents
 
Still a week left, so anybody interested in voting please do so. 80s and I have a plan for Nov/Dec, but how we roll it out does depend on the outcome of the poll. :popcorn:
this your baby, just switch it up when you feel its appropriate. for example Oct = Horror Dec= Xmas
Actor of the month instead of Director of the month
films based on a location or theme

that's my 2 cents
I appreciate the feedback.

I get what you are saying - it's our thing, just do what we want. We've been chatting a bit and both our "ins" with movies is the director, so that would be our votes. HOWEVER, even more of a driver than what we prefer to talk about is wanting the best conversations and debates about movies. It's movie and movie talk that keeps me on this board, and with usual posters involved it's something I very much look forward to. That's why we are trying to take the pulse of the people who have been following along to see where the interests might lie. We also have been trying to mix in discussions that might be happening elsewhere in the FFA. For example, the discussions and debates in the horror movie countdown thread led to us leaning towards Ridley Scott for the Alien connection being the #1 movie there. Alien was the top movie over there. As you posted above, October will of course be horror tie in. Scoresman did a fantastic job with stats, so I asked him who the top point scorer overall in the countdown was, and that director will be our DotM for October. We also have plans for Nov/Dec, just need the results of the above poll to decide how we roll it out, so I will probably add that to August DotM thread. I think there will also be a follow up poll to get input on how to focus that result. For example, if director wins have people been happy with the choices so far, or do we want something else like more foreign directors or a focus on a genre like a director mainly known for noir or comedy.

For a peek behind the curtain, as I think about our selections here has been our leans and biases in our choices:
  • So far we have tried to go with directors that have a variety of genres in their movies. I think that is 100% with who we have seen so far. We figured it might generate more interest if there is hopefully something for everybody. You can watch Alien or Blackhawk Down one month Schindler's List or Indiana Jones another. This also applies to the October selection and maybe my September. Next month is squarely small budget drama, so we see how the change of pace goes.
  • We have leaned towards picking directors who have had a movie out this year or very recently ( for all of Marty, Miller, Denis, Scott, and Linklater that was a big factor in the choice). So admittedly that would start to leave off directors that were mainly in the 80s/90s. As I think ahead, this also applies to our Aug selection and my frontrunner for my Sept choice as well, so this is a heavy lean as well.
  • Here I can't speak for 80s, but I have a heavy lean away from directors I love but I think would be way more contentious. I put the PTA, Malick, Bergman, Spike Lee, Aronofsky, Haneke type of directors in this bucket. I just don't think those types will generate an overall positive conversation.
  • We also seem to want to go against the grain most of the time and avoid the heavy hitters. Me being selfish as well, as I was using this to drive myself to get to stuff I haven't seen before. This steers us away from directors like Nolan, Fincher, Tarantino, or newer directors with just a few movies like Peele or Eggers.
 
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

I couldn't find another Ridley Scott movie I really wanted to see so I went with a third Robin Hood instead. This was a more straightforward version of the legend than Scott's muddled prequel or the nostalgic romance of Robin and Marian. Prince of Thieves was a star vehicle for Kevin Costner who was at the peak of his popularity at the time. His performance as Robin is understated, especially compared to the actors surrounding him. Kevin Hood is a believable hero although rather modern in his attitudes and appearance; he rocks a fantastic mullet throughout.

The biggest change to the story is a new buddy character played by Morgan Freeman. He's a Moor who's indebted to Robin for helping him escape captivity in the prologue. He's a fish out of water character who helps to highlight Robin's decency. In this version, King Richard is still alive and makes a cameo appearance at the end just like in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938). Prince John is totally absent so Alan Rickman as the sheriff is the main villain with a wonderfully slimy Michael Wincott as his henchman Guy Gisborne. The sheriff is advised by a witch which gives the movie an unnecessary taste of the supernatural. Rickman gets most of the best lines and steals every scene he's in; his cartoonish performance is as over-the-top as Costner's is reserved. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as Maid Marian gets to show some spunk in her early scenes but then reverts to a damsel in distress so Robin can save her in the end

I read a couple of contemporary reviews after watching Prince of Thieves. Both reviewers mentioned how dark and murky it was which is kind of funny because this one is a ray of sunshine compared to Ridley Scott's version. I thought it was shot like a typical late 80s-early 90s sword and sorcery movie. There was a lot of mist but Robin and Marian were always lit to flatter in their many closeups. The director Kevin Reynolds didn't care for the theatrical cut and wouldn't do any promotion for it but he must have impressed Costner enough to be brought back four years later to do Waterworld. Prince of Thieves is far from a great movie but it felt more fun and complete than Scott's version. The hero was more heroic, the villains more dastardly and the merry men a lot merrier (especially the great Mike McShane as Friar Tuck).
 
Last edited:
I blame Scott and these threads for landing on Hulk tonight.

I watched the Ang Lee Hulk last year and thought it was quite good.
I'm not sure I was prepared to go that far, but I certainly was fascinated by it. I've seen both, but had little memory of either - just a vague feeling that I liked the story and idea of Ang Lee's version, but liked Norton more than Bana, and the f/x were better in the newer one. I had forgotten how stylistic it was and how much Lee tried to make it feel like reading a comic with the odd framing and side by side types of shots that mimicked panels in a comic. Of course Connelly was great in it, as were a couple others. I just thought Bana was off as Banner - it's like he was playing a goofy High Schooler at times, I just found it odd.

Overall I'm glad I watched the movie. It does stand out a bit as it's own thing in the pool of superhero movies. I got there because On the Beach was way too much of a downer to follow up with that movie last night, I had thought about trying Labyrinth to follow up my Legend attempt, so Connely was already on my mind. I had gone to NF to watch the new Ghostbusters, but couldn't talk myself into that or the new Beverly Hills Cop either, and saw Hulk "leaving soon", so I clicked on that. Then I got a huge laugh when I saw Elfman's name pop up - I didn't realize he scored this too. It was meant to be. :lol:
 
Man on Fire (2004)

I briefly considered watching and commenting on movies by Ridley's younger brother Tony this month but decided against the schtick. I can honestly say I find Tony's work more interesting even though Ridley is regarded by some as a cinematic genius while Tony was considered more of a hack during his career. While Ridley has succeeded as a modern auteur able to choose projects that he's passionate about, Tony was more like an old school studio system hired gun who was able to insert his personal aestethic and themes into genre pictures.

Brother teams in film go back to the very beginning with the Lumieres. The Scotts began working together doing commercials in their native Britain but went their separate ways. They had a joint production company (Scott Free) but only shared credit for production of some television series. I haven't done a comprehensive viewing but my sense is that the brothers' directing styles started off relatively similar in the 80s but diverged over the course of their careers. By the time he directed Man on Fire in 2004, Tony's films had a hyperkinetic energy with lots of strange camera movements and rapid fire cutting. I don't think Tony was the first director to do this but few took it to the extremes like he did with multiple exposures, flashes of color and overlapping sounds. His style has been imitated a lot since so it doesn't look quite as fresh as it did in the early 2000s. It can be exhausting to watch but when it works, I find his movies exhilarating in a way that Ridley's rarely are.

Man on Fire is a hardboiled revenge plot with Denzel Washington as an ex-CIA assassin taking on a Mexican kidnapping ring. It starts out rather slowly introducing the characters and building up the relationship between Denzel and the victim. The kidnapping scene happens around 50 minutes in and the film ramps up the intensity and brutality to the max. The final hour where Creasy becomes an avenging force is so over the top that it's sometimes hard to watch. I've seen an equal number of Tony and Ridley Scott movies and would rank Man on Fire near the top of the joint rankings. I think Ridley is more consistent but even Tony's bad movies like Domino and The Fan are a lot of fun.
 
Man on Fire (2004)

I briefly considered watching and commenting on movies by Ridley's younger brother Tony this month but decided against the schtick. I can honestly say I find Tony's work more interesting even though Ridley is regarded by some as a cinematic genius while Tony was considered more of a hack during his career. While Ridley has succeeded as a modern auteur able to choose projects that he's passionate about, Tony was more like an old school studio system hired gun who was able to insert his personal aestethic and themes into genre pictures.

Brother teams in film go back to the very beginning with the Lumieres. The Scotts began working together doing commercials in their native Britain but went their separate ways. They had a joint production company (Scott Free) but only shared credit for production of some television series. I haven't done a comprehensive viewing but my sense is that the brothers' directing styles started off relatively similar in the 80s but diverged over the course of their careers. By the time he directed Man on Fire in 2004, Tony's films had a hyperkinetic energy with lots of strange camera movements and rapid fire cutting. I don't think Tony was the first director to do this but few took it to the extremes like he did with multiple exposures, flashes of color and overlapping sounds. His style has been imitated a lot since so it doesn't look quite as fresh as it did in the early 2000s. It can be exhausting to watch but when it works, I find his movies exhilarating in a way that Ridley's rarely are.

Man on Fire is a hardboiled revenge plot with Denzel Washington as an ex-CIA assassin taking on a Mexican kidnapping ring. It starts out rather slowly introducing the characters and building up the relationship between Denzel and the victim. The kidnapping scene happens around 50 minutes in and the film ramps up the intensity and brutality to the max. The final hour where Creasy becomes an avenging force is so over the top that it's sometimes hard to watch. I've seen an equal number of Tony and Ridley Scott movies and would rank Man on Fire near the top of the joint rankings. I think Ridley is more consistent but even Tony's bad movies like Domino and The Fan are a lot of fun.
i don't know which one is technically "better", but I definitely like Tony's movies more. Would rather watch man on fire, crimson tide, true romance, Cop 2, and even maybe unstoppable and last boy scout over anything by Ridley.
 
Man on Fire (2004)

I briefly considered watching and commenting on movies by Ridley's younger brother Tony this month but decided against the schtick. I can honestly say I find Tony's work more interesting even though Ridley is regarded by some as a cinematic genius while Tony was considered more of a hack during his career. While Ridley has succeeded as a modern auteur able to choose projects that he's passionate about, Tony was more like an old school studio system hired gun who was able to insert his personal aestethic and themes into genre pictures.

Brother teams in film go back to the very beginning with the Lumieres. The Scotts began working together doing commercials in their native Britain but went their separate ways. They had a joint production company (Scott Free) but only shared credit for production of some television series. I haven't done a comprehensive viewing but my sense is that the brothers' directing styles started off relatively similar in the 80s but diverged over the course of their careers. By the time he directed Man on Fire in 2004, Tony's films had a hyperkinetic energy with lots of strange camera movements and rapid fire cutting. I don't think Tony was the first director to do this but few took it to the extremes like he did with multiple exposures, flashes of color and overlapping sounds. His style has been imitated a lot since so it doesn't look quite as fresh as it did in the early 2000s. It can be exhausting to watch but when it works, I find his movies exhilarating in a way that Ridley's rarely are.

Man on Fire is a hardboiled revenge plot with Denzel Washington as an ex-CIA assassin taking on a Mexican kidnapping ring. It starts out rather slowly introducing the characters and building up the relationship between Denzel and the victim. The kidnapping scene happens around 50 minutes in and the film ramps up the intensity and brutality to the max. The final hour where Creasy becomes an avenging force is so over the top that it's sometimes hard to watch. I've seen an equal number of Tony and Ridley Scott movies and would rank Man on Fire near the top of the joint rankings. I think Ridley is more consistent but even Tony's bad movies like Domino and The Fan are a lot of fun.
This is a great movie, and scores high on re-watchability.
 
Man on Fire (2004)

I briefly considered watching and commenting on movies by Ridley's younger brother Tony this month but decided against the schtick. I can honestly say I find Tony's work more interesting even though Ridley is regarded by some as a cinematic genius while Tony was considered more of a hack during his career. While Ridley has succeeded as a modern auteur able to choose projects that he's passionate about, Tony was more like an old school studio system hired gun who was able to insert his personal aestethic and themes into genre pictures.

Brother teams in film go back to the very beginning with the Lumieres. The Scotts began working together doing commercials in their native Britain but went their separate ways. They had a joint production company (Scott Free) but only shared credit for production of some television series. I haven't done a comprehensive viewing but my sense is that the brothers' directing styles started off relatively similar in the 80s but diverged over the course of their careers. By the time he directed Man on Fire in 2004, Tony's films had a hyperkinetic energy with lots of strange camera movements and rapid fire cutting. I don't think Tony was the first director to do this but few took it to the extremes like he did with multiple exposures, flashes of color and overlapping sounds. His style has been imitated a lot since so it doesn't look quite as fresh as it did in the early 2000s. It can be exhausting to watch but when it works, I find his movies exhilarating in a way that Ridley's rarely are.

Man on Fire is a hardboiled revenge plot with Denzel Washington as an ex-CIA assassin taking on a Mexican kidnapping ring. It starts out rather slowly introducing the characters and building up the relationship between Denzel and the victim. The kidnapping scene happens around 50 minutes in and the film ramps up the intensity and brutality to the max. The final hour where Creasy becomes an avenging force is so over the top that it's sometimes hard to watch. I've seen an equal number of Tony and Ridley Scott movies and would rank Man on Fire near the top of the joint rankings. I think Ridley is more consistent but even Tony's bad movies like Domino and The Fan are a lot of fun.
I did find the ending a little ambiguous. When I first watched it I was under the impression he dies in the car. But 10 years later they came out with the sequel (The Equalizer).
 
I did find the ending a little ambiguous. When I first watched it I was under the impression he dies in the car. But 10 years later they came out with the sequel (The Equalizer).

They're ostensibly different characters in The Equalizer but the re-pairing of Denzel and Dakota Fanning in a similar story is kind of confusing. Director Antoine Fuqua also uses similar technique to Tony Scott.

Man on Fire is a remake of a 1987 film by French director Élie Chouraqui. I started watching it last night and am curious about how it handles the ending. Tony Scott's remake is over an hour longer than the original.
 
Most director siblings primarily worked together as duos, e.g. Coens, Wachowskis, Farrellys, Safdies, Maysles. There probably are others but Tony and Ridley Scott are the only exception I could think of where all their feature films were done as individuals.
 
Glad to see brother Tony getting some love. Back when I barely payed attention to who the directors were, I was later surprised how many of my favorites were directed by Tony Scott. Great action director.
 
I did find the ending a little ambiguous. When I first watched it I was under the impression he dies in the car. But 10 years later they came out with the sequel (The Equalizer).

They're ostensibly different characters in The Equalizer but the re-pairing of Denzel and Dakota Fanning in a similar story is kind of confusing. Director Antoine Fuqua also uses similar technique to Tony Scott.

Man on Fire is a remake of a 1987 film by French director Élie Chouraqui. I started watching it last night and am curious about how it handles the ending. Tony Scott's remake is over an hour longer than the original.
Yeah, we still dont really know what mccall’s background is supposed to be in the equalizer, but it seems like he had a life that wasn’t really the same as creasy’s, even though they certainly have similarities. I would still say that the ending of man on fire is ambiguous and it’s not 100% that he died
 
Last edited:
Friend of mine is a big Tony Scott guy and especially man on fire and he just told me that the way the script was written and the way that Tony Scott originally shot the ending, creasy died 100%, but the way it was cut in the end was slightly different, leaving open the possibility that he I did not die
 
Man on Fire is a remake of a 1987 film by French director Élie Chouraqui. I started watching it last night and am curious about how it handles the ending. Tony Scott's remake is over an hour longer than the original.

I finished up the original Man on Fire. Although the story is largely unchanged, the directorial style could not be more different. Compared to Scott's death by a million cuts approach, Chouraqui's film is dark and deliberate with a slowly gliding camera and long takes. The handful of action scenes have an abruptness to them which makes them feel more realistic but the talky bits between them seem dull and lifeless after watching a Tony Scott movie.

The location is Italy this time as it was in the original novel. The biggest change in the script is that the kidnapping is a more straightforward crime rather than a piece of a larger conspiracy so there's no need for the the journalist and Interpol agent characters from the remake. I think the revenge half of the movie feels sort of rushed as Creasy tracks down criminals in a very linear manner. Some of the depth may have ended on the cutting room floor because the fourth billed actor Jonathan Pryce only gets a few lines in the beginning. We do however get to see Joe Pesci perform a spirited rendition of Johnny B. Goode. Scott Glenn is very good as Creasy but the script didn't give his character as many good one liners as Denzel got in the remake.

As for whether Creasy dies at the end, in this version he's dead and zipped into a body bag in the opening scene and the character provides voiced over exposition throughout the movie a la Sunset Boulevard.
it's all a ruse and he's really alive and goes to visit the freed kid before the credits roll.
.
 
Last edited:
Days of Thunder (1990)

I couldn't stop with just one Tony Scott movie so I went back to one of his earlier films. Everything is restrained compared to the seizure inducing visuals of Man on Fire. Scott still packs the frame and keeps the story moving but the non-action scenes are filmed in a much more straightforward unobtrusive manner. Days of Thunder is filmed in bright, warm colors with lots of shots featuring light diffused through blinds, dust or smoke. There's none of that oversaturation and weird filter effects like in Tony's later work.

You know the story even if you've never seen the movie; the plot is pure formula but but the great screenwriter Robert Towne (RIP) gives the characters better dialog than the project deserves. He also managed to work some legendary racing tales into the script. The racing action is exciting but pure hokum. Scott does seem to have a slightly better grasp of the sport than he did with his ridiculous depiction of football in The Last Boy Scout or baseball in The Fan.

A movie like this stands on the shoulders of its star and this one benefits greatly from prime Cruise. He brings likeability and some depth to a character who's doesn't have a lot of either for much of the film. Days of Thunder is at its best whenever Robert Duvall's character is onscreen. His relationship with Cole is the most important one in the movie--Cole's love interest and rivals are more peripheral.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top