Reviewing Ridley

I am the Watcher in the Night

10-21-16

So, I haven't done a series on here for a while so I thought I'd go to one of the most inconsistently good/bad directors out there. Ridley friggin Scott!

I'll be reviewing his movies, in chronological order. Now I haven't seen his entire body of work and I have no intention of doing that right now, so I'm sticking to the movies I have seen. Enjoy.

Alien (1979)

Hot on the heels of Star Wars, where mainstream audiences were introduced to a gritty, dirty, very un-2001 future, those same audiences were once again introduced to yet another gritty, dirty, very un-2001 future. Oh and this time it featured a killer monster with acid spit. I also forgot to mention that this monster would impregnate you're chest. That's right, the poor crew of the Nostromo have to give birth via destroyed rib cage. Unpleasant.

That's essentially the plot of the entire movie. We never know anything more of the planet or the creatures and where they come from and the structure in which they were found (leave that to the 30 too late prequel/sequel which was originally supposed to be unrelated). To be honest, we don't need to. What follows after the initial half hour is a tense hunt through the carefully crafted set of the Nostromo. It's dark and there are many corners. The alien could be hiding anywhere.

I'm sure many film critics and high brow intellectuals have mused upon the sci-fi meaning of the movie and the underlying message yada yada yada, bla bla bla, et al. The reality is, who cares about all that when you're on the edge of your seat all the damn time?! There are a few cheap, pop up scares but that's ok. There's also a lot of expertly directed tension building and Sigourney Weaver delivers a career defining performance.

Seriously, if Weaver was unable to carry her scenes, this whole thing would fall flat on its face. However good the prosthetics and the creature design and the practical effects, none of it works if Weaver was not as good as she could be. Here, she was great. Speaking of the effects, they hold up surprisingly well and although the creature movement looks odd at times and is pretty limited by modern standards, it works because of the confined environment and the weakness/humanity of Weaver. She isn't a toughened soldier. It's not her job to kill.

All these years later, Alien is still Scott's finest hours when it comes to delivering a tight, well told story and well delivered spectacle. Probably.

8/10

__________________
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

"I need your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle"

SeeingisBelieving

Former member

10-21-16

Originally Posted by Watch_Tower

although the creature movement looks odd at times and is pretty limited by modern standards

Yeah, I think the chestburster's movement, particularly when it escapes, is the weakest bit. There's also something a bit poor about the Alien hanging from the shuttle at the end where it does look like a man in a suit and very stiff and action-figurey.

Watch_Tower

I am the Watcher in the Night

10-22-16

Originally Posted by SeeingisBelieving

I agree but we have to remember it was the seventies.

Watch_Tower

I am the Watcher in the Night

10-22-16

Blade Runner (1982)

Oh Ridley, you lovable rogue. I see what you're trying to do here: make a commercially viable sci-fi action piece/thriller, all the while delivering a deeper, more thought provoking film. It's admirable but poorly executed. First off, this is one of the most 80s movies you will ever see. Everything from the hair to the costumes and the music feels like it belongs in that crazy age.

That in itself, is not a bad thing. The 80s also gave us The Terminator and some children's classics but for Ridley, it brings nothing but neon filtered pain. What I mean is that sitting through Blade Runner, I'm constantly torn on whether or not it's particular smart or just a big, dumb, plot hole filled mess. I think I'm on the fence about that.

Blade Runner is not a bad movie. That's something I need to say after my first two paragraphs. I quite enjoyed it actually, with Ford slightly more animated than usual and some gorgeous effects which look good even in today's CGI dominated world. All things, from the flying cars to the impossibly high sky scrapers carry a certain realistic weight. It's a hard trick to pull off with limited practical effects.

Sadly, the movie falls apart in it's "clever" dialogue and some time moronic scene sequencing. I'm not sure if the latter is due to studio meddling (a famous Ridley excuse) or a purposeful abstract form of story telling (a famous Ridley fan excuse). Whatever the reason, it stalls the movie progression and turns an enjoyable sci-fi romp into a sometimes meandering affair. That's ok because the final hunt is tense and Hauer's villain is perfectly cast.

6/10

Tugg

Registered User

10-22-16

I don't see how "Blade Runner" is more dumb than average movie. I think it's as clever as it wants to be, which is slightly more clever than average movie and that is a big deal. Anyway, my contention is movies are not supposed to be clever, they are supposed to give experience of ideas that touch audiences on levels beyond rational thought. If they succeed in giving experiences then one might as well write hundred page books about how clever a movie was.

Regards, Tugg

SeeingisBelieving

Former member

10-23-16

Harrison Ford's hair wasn't especially 80s was it?

SeeingisBelieving

Former member

10-23-16

Originally Posted by Watch_Tower

I agree but we have to remember it was the seventies.

Well given that it was it makes the successful parts all the more inspiring, and it's tempting to call them perfect rather than successful. I mean when the Alien drops down behind Brett for example, with its head down � fantastic.

Watch_Tower

I am the Watcher in the Night

10-23-16

Originally Posted by Tugg

I don't see how "Blade Runner" is more dumb than average movie. I think it's as clever as it wants to be, which is slightly more clever than average movie and that is a big deal. Anyway, my contention is movies are not supposed to be clever, they are supposed to give experience of ideas that touch audiences on levels beyond rational thought. If they succeed in giving experiences then one might as well write hundred page books about how clever a movie was.

Regards, Tugg

I didn't say that but it certainly isn't all that clever or as clever as it thinks it is.

Tugg

Registered User

10-23-16

Originally Posted by Watch_Tower

I didn't say that but it certainly isn't all that clever or as clever as it thinks it is.

Fair enough. But as you said this character is one of the best characters in movies:

Originally Posted by Watch_Tower

I had him #8 few months ago as favourite character. But I see how some people might find "Blade Runner" a bit dragging.

Watch_Tower

I am the Watcher in the Night

10-27-16

Originally Posted by Tugg

Fair enough. But as you said this character is one of the best characters in movies:

I had him #8 few months ago as favourite character. But I see how some people might find "Blade Runner" a bit dragging.

I wouldn't say he is one of the best movie characters around, in fcat he suffers from what I call Blade Runner syndrome. A disease which causes people in Ridley's movies to spout a load of nonsense (see Kingdom of Heaven) but I think he was perfectly cast and in the hands of almost anyone other than RH, this villain might have come across as a joke.

Watch_Tower

I am the Watcher in the Night

10-29-16

I was going to review Black Rain next but I haven't seen it in forever and I didn't get any time to re-watch it for now so I'm going to go with the next one, in chronological order which I did watch recently enough:

Gladiator (2000)

Surely every artist must have their magnum opus? If not then they can't be considered great. Ridley, with his break through in the box office in the 80s and 90s reaches, what I believe, is the absolute peak of his work. It's an epic to rival all epics and it isn't filled with too much Ridley speak...for the most part.

Gladiator is everything you want from cinema, big, bombastic, brutal, entertaining, inquisitive, thought provoking and most of all, beautiful. If I'm going to be sitting in front of a 50 foot screen, I want to be looking at something worth seeing. Scott's first historical epic of the 21st century is also his greatest.

Why is it so good and so universally adored? That's a very simple question to answer. Unlike Blade Runner and some of the movies that would follow, Gladiator perfectly balances on the wire between entertainment and engrossing story telling. There is certainly a deeper story here, an insight into familial relationships and on a grander scale, the relationship of an empire with its own destiny. At the same time, there's blood and gore.

What's not to like?

Oh and it's helped by Ridley getting a damn fine performance out of Russel Crowe, who embodies the titular gladiator, both physically and emotionally. Behold as the bad boy Aussie single-handedly revives the great historical performances of the past....and sigh as nearly every actor since has tried to emulate it every time they have put on a pair of sandals.

9/10

Watch_Tower

I am the Watcher in the Night

10-29-16

Hannibal (2001)

The Silence of the Lambs is probably one of the most iconic movies of the late 20th century and Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lector is one of the centuries most enduring characters...so it has to take a director with balls the size of a tiger's head to accept directing a sequel. This is that sequel and Ridley Scott is the director. It's a brave move and certainly not a foolish one. Hannibal is a good movie in its own right and is directed with an intensity Ridley often lacks. It's just said that we don't get Jodie Foster back because, and no offense to her but Julianne Moore is a poor Starling.

Hopkins is still in top form and you can tell he is having fun with the character that has come to define him so much over the years. Ridley as usual gets his main cast to be proficient but Hopkins just steals the show, every scene and every piece of dialogue, belongs to him. Moore...who I've probably been a bit unfair to, is damn good here but she lacks both the intelligence and vulnerability of Foster's portrayal. Maybe it's because the character is still written the same now as she was 10 years earlier.

Ultimately, Hannibal never has the suspense or the nuance to match 'Lambs and not is it as grounded. I know that sounds odd for a movie about a guy who likes eating brains AND fava beans (choose one man!) but the original never felt like a piece of cheap horror theatrics yet here, from Oldman's baddie to the quite ridiculous conclusion, this is something I'd expect the writers of SAW to come up with.

Oh well, can't have two great movies in a row.

7/10

Optimus

"""" Hulk Smashhhh."""

10-29-16

Love Gladiator, haven't seen Hannibal. Nice reviews.

__________________

Optimus Reviews
LATEST REVIEW Zack Snyder�s Justice League // Godzilla vs Kong
My Top 50 Favourites

"Banshee is the greatest thing ever. "

Watch_Tower

I am the Watcher in the Night

10-30-16

Originally Posted by Optimus

Love Gladiator, haven't seen Hannibal. Nice reviews.

Thanks.

definitely give Hannibal a watch after you watch Lambs. They are both superior to the rubbish which has flowed from the series since.

Watch_Tower

I am the Watcher in the Night

11-05-16

Black Hawk Down (2001)

Disclaimer: I love war movies.

I assume most people do. They strike a cord with us. Maybe it's the humanity that is often shown among all the wreckage or maybe it's just the pure spectacle of it all. 'Hawk falls squarely in the latter category. This isn't as heart wrenching as Saving Private Ryan or as politically conscious as Platoon and Full Metal Jacket. In fact, this is more of an action movie and all the better for it.

The reality is, this movie feels a bit like a come down from the high of Gladiator. No where near as elegant as that masterpiece or as well constructed as Alien but take it for what it is. From the sequence of helicopters flying over a war ravaged city, to the rocket launchers and mad tribesmen coming after the Americans, it is a movie of violent, over the top imagery.

A lot of it is anchored down by good performances from a relatively young cast, everyone from the ever reliable McGregor to Hartnett are on form. In fact, it's a safe cast. A group of young, good looking men who can play the limited soldier role well enough to pass by. The entire movie plays it safe. Once again, the sheer thrill of the action on screen manages to save it but unlike the opening salvo of 'Ryan or claustrophobic build up of Platoon, there isn't much to remember here.

As far as Ridley goes, this is a good movie during his best run in cinema. Unlike his time in the 80s and 90s where there was some good but also some rubbish, Black Hawk Down is the second in his series of 21st century success.

7/10

Optimus

"""" Hulk Smashhhh."""

11-05-16

Originally Posted by Watch_Tower

Thanks.

definitely give Hannibal a watch after you watch Lambs. They are both superior to the rubbish which has flowed from the series since.

Have you ever seen Manhunter (1986).?

Watch_Tower

I am the Watcher in the Night

11-07-16

Originally Posted by Optimus

Have you ever seen Manhunter (1986).?

No I haven't but it looks really interesting and kinda similar to 'Silence

SeeingisBelieving

Former member

11-07-16

Brian Cox was brilliant in Manhunter and it was interesting to hear about his thought process behind creating Lecktor. I think he's the best because he isn't being overtly sinister or outwardly monstrous and signposting the character's insanity. I get the impression Mads Mikkelsen is the same, from the short clips I've seen.

It was funny seeing Brian Cox in X-Men 2 with Magneto's Lecter-like imprisonment. The Magneto/Lecter screen incarnations certainly share a lot of parallels.

Watch_Tower