Ridley Scott discussion thread

Bah. Hannibal stank.

Scott's films that I've seen, best to worst:

The Great:
Blade Runner (1982) -- Superb, superb film. Just about the best SF film out there.

The Duellists (1977) -- Outstanding film, made for less than a million dollars.

Alien (1979) -- What more can be said.

The Good
Black Hawk Down (2001) -- Great action movie, so-so war movie.

Thelma & Louise (1991) -- Classic flick. Not the type of movie I usually watch, but I found it very watchable.

Gladiator (2000) -- There's a great movie in there, it's just overwhelmed by all the mediocre bits. This movie could've used about a half-hour less footage, and the battles were done in that annoying fashion. I enjoy watching this one every once in a while, but overall it's a silly movie.

The Bad:
G.I. Jane (1997) -- Demi Moore in a role just as pornographic as in Striptease, this movie is weak feminist shlock that contradicts its own message frequently. However, there are some grueling scenes and Viggo Mortensen's performance makes it worth watching.

Legend (1985) -- It looks pretty; Scott is a visual genius. It's got no substance and very mixed acting and SFX. If I check my brain at the door I can enjoy this one on a purely sensual level, but the dialogue and plot make me sick.

The Ugly:
Hannibal (2001) -- Even Anthony Hopkins' fine performance can't save this ridiculously silly "operatic" horror mess.

 

Mastadge, you left out 1492: Conquest of Paradise...

 

Hannibal would have been more bearable had it not been the sequel to a film as great as Silence of the Lambs. On it's own it may have been a passable horror flick, but next to SOTL, it was rubbish. As a thriller it was terrible, there was very little build-up in suspense and it relied solely on a couple of gory scenes to titilate the audience. When I saw it in the cinema, people actually laughed at the final scenes. Laughed.

No-one laughed at Silence of the Lambs, let me tell you.

 

I have not seen all the films of this director but I realy think he has been critizised to much for doing publicity and it has not been fair to judge him as bad just because his way of living or some bad movies.

I personally think that he's been more than excellent in some aspects.

BTW, I like Legend, though the comparisons you may do.I think it was a good beggining and I liked it as it was: a fairy tale.
Willow is wonderful, but different.Totally different.

 

Overall I quite liked hannibal, the Florence bits were stunning. I agree that the last third was a bit redundant, but that was down to the weak story, and as far as I know ridley scott didn't write the damn thing so you can't blame him for that.
Meanwhile I'm really surprised people don't regard Gladiator as a briliant film. personally I think it's a great film and was a return to form for Ridley.

 

If you think of HANNIBAL as more of a really black comedy, then it works pretty well. It's almost "James Whalish".

 

Hannibal was hilarious. I do consider it a comedy. The way Ray Liota acts when his brain is being cooked The final scene is also very funny. SOTL is a great film and hannibal can't compare, but by it's self hannibal is a good movie.

 

MatRags, I thought that scene was hilarious, too!

 

I haven't seen Hannibal, but,Lord_Tice
I love Gladiator and I think it is MAGNIFICENT.

 

Thing is guys, I don't believe Hannibal was meant to be a black comedy. It's just so farcical at the end that it turns out that way.

Actually it isn't a farce, it's pathetic at the end. I felt bad for myself for having had such high expectations for a sequel before I went and saw it, then having a great thriller/horror character be reduced to the same level of the Freddy Kruegers and Jason Vorhees of the cinema world.

I was very disapointed - can't you tell?