Kolya on 16/4/2009 at 17:12
Every single Alien movie was better than Aliens.
(AvP doesn't even count.)
Rogue Keeper on 16/4/2009 at 17:12
suliman :
I think it was in one of the outtakes (or just scripted and not filmed? can't remember now) where Ripley found Burke in the Queen's nest cocooned and impregnated and he begged her to kill him. She handed him a grenade and he blew himself offscreen. In either case, Alan Dean Foster described it in the novelization.
242 on 16/4/2009 at 19:32
Aliens was my absolutely favourite film many years ago, I re-watched it like 15-20 times, alone, and with all my friends. But tastes changed, or age claimed its due, such flicks don't move me anymore at all.
Thirith on 16/4/2009 at 20:03
Quote Posted by Ulukai
Also still maintaining my love for Clooney's Solaris :)
As far as I'm concerned, you're right to love it. And it makes fantastic use of Thomas' "And Death Shall Have No Dominion". Plus the music is fantastic.
Angel Dust on 16/4/2009 at 22:27
Quote Posted by Rogue Keeper
Angel Dust : In reality, you didn't explain anything.
My first post after you brought up Ridley Scott explained why I didn't put him in that list but I chould have been clearer: he's an extremely skilled craftsman but his films can be quite soul-less to me at times which is due to focus on style over other aspects of film like characterisation. I would be very interested to see him tackle something less conventional, more abstract where his visual style would be an even greater asset and his weaknesses not a factor. I also know that he is appreciated but I don't think it is on the same level as those other directors for the above reason. I actually like Scott more than some of those directors but my list was reponse to 242 claim to their only 5-8 directors of Kubrick's calibre. Personally I would have put Michael Mann, a similar director to Scott I think, in there but I know that he isn't regarded in the same way as Kubrick etc even though he still has plenty of admirers.
My whole 'you're never going to convince me' line was not supposed to be taken so seriously, hence the :p but I can understand if it came off otherwise!. On a somewhat related note, I really do have to get around to seeing the director's cut of
Kingdom of Heaven.
Rogue Keeper on 17/4/2009 at 09:41
Soul-less eh... what do you have, heart of stone? You realize this is in large measure dependent on sensibility of the viewer? All his films I mentioned had good emotional impact on me. But where Spielberg's characters almost scream "ADORE ME! I'm your hero! You will have nostalgic memories on me for a long time!", this is not so clear in case of majority of characters in Scott's films. Thanks god.
Kubrick and Scott are actually of the same class regarding their approach to their work - they both were more concerned about style and composition of the picture. And it's their big advantage really : where other directors like to joke around and sip Martini with their leads, Kubrick and Scott focused on experimentation with the lighting, lens choices, refining the props and so on, they brainstorm about what would be the best thing to put on the film, to deliver a believable world. I'm not saying that communication with leads and development of characters coming out of interplay between actor and director isn't important, but my belief is that actor's abilities are put to a real test when he's supposed to be self reliant and not being held by director's hand all the time. This happened with Harisson Ford on Blade Runner, he was frustrated and unhappy because Scott was sitting on the camera crane or led infinite convos with the art director and DoP and production designer and didn't pay enough attention to Ford, because he frankly felt that Ford is experienced enough not be dependent on idea feeding from director's side. And behold : Rick Deckard is quite possibly one of Ford's best, deepest characters, Ford's frustration and unhappines has obviously imprinted into the character. Another thing which producer Michael Deeley said came to my mind : "One of my early lessons in the business was that very happy crews usually produce very bland films." It can sound a bit misleading, but you have an idea what he meant.
Also I don't believe that film art can be measured by amount of smashing hits one can produce per decade, rather by the scale of their cultural impact in years to come. You can say that f.e. more Spielberg's films had big cultural impact, but then they're mostly those mainstream blockbusters.
Morte on 17/4/2009 at 10:37
I honestly think Scott's a much better storyteller than people give him credit for, but he could do with being a bit more choosy when it comes to projects. He's also too much of a good soldier at times. Just because they pay the bills doesn't mean you have to oblige when they want to cripple a movie (see: Kingdom of Heaven).
Also, the people rating Alien: Resurrection over Aliens are crazier than shithouse rats. Resurrection is atrocious.
Rogue Keeper on 17/4/2009 at 10:45
What's the story behind crippling Kingdom of Heaven anyway? Because I'm so buried in re-discovering old flicks that I don't pay enough attention to production of last 10 years. All I know is that when producers want the film to look in a certain way, in most cases they get it, regardless of how big balls the director has, because they have such rights in the contracts.
Angel Dust on 17/4/2009 at 11:07
Man, whats with all the rage and if you'll read my post again you'll see I said Scotts films are soul-less to me so I'm quite aware that others milage may vary. Also what the fuck is with all these comparisons to Spielberg and talk of smashing hits neither of which I have been talking about? Great characterisation for me is the work of Leigh, Scorsese, Weir, the Coens, Allen, Kieślowski and I certainly don't measure the 'art' value of film by how much of a hit it was. I also think Spielberg does much better work with actors and characters than he is usually given credit for and your criticism is more than a little hyperbolic.
I do agree that Scott has a similar approach to Kubrick but I think he often chooses projects ill-suited to that. That is why I said I would be interested if he did something a little less standard in it's story telling and more abstract like Kubrick did. Let his meticulous craftmanship shine without getting held back by a conventional narrative with flat characters. Ridley Scotts films are also mainly mainstream blockbuster type films. While not of the 'tent-pole' variety they are certainly big ticket films. Not that that matters in the slightest but you seemed to making some implication on Spielbergs work based on them being blockbusters.
Morte on 17/4/2009 at 11:16
Quote Posted by Rogue Keeper
What's the story behind crippling Kingdom of Heaven anyway? Because I'm so buried in re-discovering old flicks that I don't pay enough attention to production of last 10 years. All I know is that when producers want the film to look in a certain way, in most cases they get it, regardless of how big balls the director has, because they have such rights in the contracts.
Fox decided that a three hour epic would be commercially unfeasible (noone ever went to see Schindler's List, Braveheart, Titanic or any of the Lord of the Rings movies after all), so they demanded Scott prune forty minutes from the running time. Which resulted in excised subplots, character development and an unsatisfactory movie that ironically feels longer than the director's cut because of the erratic pacing.
He was just being professional, which is hard to fault someone for, but it's a bit annoying when he plainly knows better than the people in charge and the public ends up getting a lesser movie.
