Thirith on 16/4/2009 at 07:47
I'd agree that Ridley Scott is primarily a stylist, but so what? The style of some of his films is absolutely amazing. Arguably a lot of art is about style first and foremost - I wouldn't want all film-makers to be like RS, but I'm definitely glad that there is a Ridley Scott.
Which means I can do a plug for Kingdom of Heavens (Director's Cut). Even people who disliked the theatrical version a lot tend to like this one. I saw it after I'd got tired of the battlefield spectacles that were all the rage after Lord of the Rings came out, yet I enjoyed this film on DVD. And it's got Eva Green! :D
Angel Dust on 16/4/2009 at 13:40
Geez, I'm not knocking anyone for liking his films, I like some of them too, I was just explaining why he isn't thought of in the same way as Kurosawa, Bergman, Kubrick etc in film writing and hence why he didn't appear on that list.
Quote Posted by Rogue Keeper
But of course, you can have in your fav list whoever you want. What matters to me more, is what will be written in film encyclopedias not biased by personal sentiments.
My list was not actually compiled based on personal sentiments, I'm not a big Altman or Ford fan and I left off plenty of my personal favourites, it was just a quick run through of some of the agreed upon great directors. If anything it's your selection of Ridley Scott that is based on personal sentiments since he falls into the good-not-great category in most film writing, remember these are the people that Scott is talking about in your quote. Now I don't think that means the man is crap or isn't great to a lot of people but that's the way you seem to want to look at it.
Thirith on 16/4/2009 at 13:57
One thing about Ridley Scott: he does the most technically-minded commentary tracks of any of the big-name directors, and they suggest that he's pretty much not interested in talking about actors, characterisation, any of that stuff. I have a high tolerance level for less-than-exciting commentary tracks, but the one he did for Thelma & Louise? God... I'll never watch scenes of rainy streets at night again without having near-fatal narcoleptic fits.
Rogue Keeper on 16/4/2009 at 14:30
Angel Dust : In reality, you didn't explain anything. You just said that I'm (or maybe anyone else) never going to convince you that he's more than a stylist. I'm asking myself what is the point of discussing the art and craft of moviemaking with somebody so prejudiced and stubborn. And I'm not willing to fall into trap of being dragged into AntiSpielberg flame, either.
Because as I know that Scott actually is a very appreciated film maker, complimented by many of his peers, to put it in his words "I don't give a shit"
snauty on 16/4/2009 at 15:27
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll, buddy.
Absolutely agree,
that doesn't.
Quote Posted by dethtoll
The next evolution of mankind does not take place in an allegorical palatial mansion.
oh fuck yeah? so where the fucking fuck then?
Quote Posted by Matthew
Oh bad
luck old boy, you were doing
so well up until that point.
:D
Aliens is the only movie ever to make me angry in a theatre. Yes it has its moments. Like... erm... the opening sequence and music. And the slower paced beginning sequences in the long version. But the remaining 90 percent of
"this time it's war" directed to the average US-teenie audience degrades the most frightening beast ever created and put to film to cannon fodder.
Matthew on 16/4/2009 at 16:10
I must beg to disagree, of course.
Ulukai on 16/4/2009 at 16:26
Hmm, I beg to differ too.
Alien was great. Aliens was great too, but not in the same way - although it was still shit scary in places.
Alien 3 is where it started to go downhill. Resurrection started the serious cheesefest that even Ron Perlman couldn't save and let's not even talk about Aliens vs Fat Predator, eh?
Also still maintaining my love for Clooney's Solaris :)
Rogue Keeper on 16/4/2009 at 16:49
Cameron basically followed a mold and multiplied action. Aliens a good one for what it is, but it's scariness has short lifespan.
I hated Alien 3 when it came out, but back then I was just a 13 years old brat. The more I learned about the film later and the more I was thinking about it, the more I appreciated Fincher for NOT following the mold and doing something different, delivering message of his own. Not talking about helluva difficult production of that thing and what Fancher must have endured as a newbie to put it together. Artistically taken, A3 is in the middle level below Alien, but definitely above Aliens.
suliman on 16/4/2009 at 16:53
I watched Aliens the first time recently, and I don't love it all that much either. One thing that was very disappointing was the way people died. That Mad About You faggot was a dick throughout the entire movie, and even he gets the look-to-side-see-alien-scream-cut treatment. I mean, if you're not trying to be scary at least be somewhat creative:)
