817 replies to this topic

[theremin]

I think Ridley Scott is the most overrated director ever.

[Magnus Malcolm]

I think Ridley Scott is the most overrated director ever.

Hmm...I'd really have to think about ever. I'd agree that's he's overrated, but I have a lot of love for Alien, Bladerunner, and Kingdom of Heaven (again, the DC). I also enjoy quite a few others, like Black Hawk Down and A Good Year.

That being said, he has a good amount of crap out there as well.

[Ogawa]

I think Ridley Scott has been pretty solid overall. I watched Alien again in theaters a few weeks ago at a midnight show and it's truly a magnificent picture. As well, his Blade Runner is a masterpiece. I agree that the whole "creator of worlds" business or whatever they call him is a bit overblown, but he's only disappointing in that he's not living up to his potential.

I loved the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven and I thought Black Hawk Down was pretty incredible. But why he wastes his time with films like A Good Year and American Gangster is beyond me. Matchstick Men, Gladiator, and Hannibal are enjoyable pictures, but the question is why? Why make these films? Alien and Blade Runner proved he had the chops to be one of the greats. Perhaps not coincidentally they were both science fiction pictures. I think Ridley needs to make a return to sci-fi. Maybe he'll deliver another masterpiece.

[Campaigner]

The one thing Scott has going for him is that he's not taking 10 years between films and serving up shit. He's churning out films at a pretty incredible rate for a guy his age, and if some of them don't fire - well, he'll go back and try another. That deserves some credit.

I'll also express my thumbs way up for the DC of Kingdom of Heaven. That was so good (Liam Neeson aside), it made it look as though Orlando Bloom could act.

[Magnus Malcolm]

Again with the Neeson hate, Campaigner? I understand it, but I actually liked him in Kingdom of Heaven. Anyway-



In my opinion, this is actually one of the best films ever made. Such a beautiful film, I really become transported to the times when I watch this one. Burt Lancaster is fabulous in it, to boot. Does anyone else here like this one?

[Ogawa]

That's been in my stack of DVDs for a few years now. I really need to get around to watching it.

[Tony]

I've always found Ridley Scott an empty stylist. In Blade Runner his style happened to enhance the material. James Cameron's sequel to Alien was much better than the original.

[Rajexico]

I've always found Ridley Scott an empty stylist. In Blade Runner his style happened to enhance the material. James Cameron's sequel to Alien was much better than the original.

Cameron? I don't see how Aliens can be considered anything other than bigger, emptier style. I enjoy both movies quite a bit but I think I would favor the first one because it's more of an inventive movie rather than a by-the-numbers (albeit very good numbers) action film.

[Undercooked Sausage]

Alien feels like Super Metroid both are wonderful!

[Ogawa]

The first Alien is the best Alien.

[Magnus Malcolm]

I'd agree that the 1st is the better as it's, as has been said, so inventive, and just because it came first. But as for sheer entertainment value, if I'm extremely bored and want something exciting to watch, I'll typically pick Cameron's over Scott's. Still, for film value, I agree Scott's is a better film.

And yeah Ogawa, watch The Leopard, it's worth your time, all 3 hours of it.

[Ogawa]

I'll move it to the top of the stack. And I have nothing against long films. Bela Tarr's Satantango is re-released on DVD July 22nd. 7.5 hours of Hungarian brilliance, no doubt.

[no magnets]

Bela Tarr's Satantango is re-released on DVD July 22nd. 7.5 hours of Hungarian brilliance, no doubt.

you don't watch this all at once, do you? i've had lawrence of arabia on my DVR since october and haven't yet found a 4-hour window with no distractions to see it in one sitting.

[cerebralcaustic]

Alien feels like Super Metroid

both are wonderful!

First two Metroid games are actually partially based on the first two Alien movies.

[Ogawa]

I'm going to try and sit down on a Saturday and watch it. I'll certainly take an intermission. I believe it was shown in two parts when it was in theaters. The film is divided into 12 parts, so that'll allow for some easy stopping points if I need a break. I want to try and watch it all in one day, though. If it's as hypnotic as his other work, I'm sure this won't be a problem.

[Tony]

Scott's Alien isn't much more then a monster movie in space. I agree with Dave Kehr's take on both films...

Alien

An empty-headed horror movie with nothing to recommend it beyond the disco-inspired art direction and some handsome, if gimmicky, cinematography. The science fiction trappings add little to the primitive conception, which features a rubber monster running amok in a spaceship. Director Ridley Scott relies on suspense techniques that looked tired in The Perils of Pauline: for the most part, things simply jump out and go "boo!" Under the circumstances, the allusions to Joseph Conrad (Nostromo) and Howard Hawks (The Thing) seem unforgivably presumptuous. Instead of characters, the film has bodies; some of them are lent by Sigourney Weaver, Tom Skerritt, Veronica Cartwright, and Yaphet Kotto.


Aliens

One sequel that surpasses the original. Director James Cameron dumps the decorative effects of Ridley Scott's 1979 Alien in favor of some daring narrative strategies and a tight thematic focus. Sigourney Weaver, the sole survivor of the first encounter, returns to the scene as an adviser to a military mission sent to exterminate the alien scourge. The first half of the film is virtually actionless, as Cameron audaciously draws out our anticipation by alluding to past horrors and building the threat of even more extreme developments; the second half is nonstop, driving action, constructed in a maniacal cliff-hanger style in which each apparently hopeless situation feeds immediately into something even wilder. At 137 minutes the film is a bit long, and Cameron does overplay his hand here and there, pushing things just a shade further than he should to maintain audience credibility. But unlike the original, the action is used to develop character, and the central image--the alien spores as a monstrous parody of human birth--finds an effective resonance in the plotline.

[Rajexico]

Those are terrible descriptions of both films. What significant character development takes place in Aliens? The movie doesn't try (or really need) to develop the characters beyond butch marine, scared marine, bad-leader-who-redeems-himself, simpering corporate stooge, etc.

[Ogawa]

I don't disagree with his take on Aliens but I'd like to see him elaborate on his criticisms of Alien because his single-sentence dismissal of two of the film's strongest elements (Disco-inspired art direction? Gimmicky cinematography?) is just mind-boggling. "Instead of characters, the film has bodies." I think that could be part of the point of the film.

[Tony]

Those are terrible descriptions of both films. What significant character development takes place in Aliens? The movie doesn't try (or really need) to develop the characters beyond butch marine, scared marine, bad-leader-who-redeems-himself, simpering corporate stooge, etc.

That's better than the complete lack of character development in Alien.

[Ogawa]

Those are terrible descriptions of both films. What significant character development takes place in Aliens? The movie doesn't try (or really need) to develop the characters beyond butch marine, scared marine, bad-leader-who-redeems-himself, simpering corporate stooge, etc.

That's better than the complete lack of character development in Alien.

The characters in Aliens were stereotypes. The characters in Alien felt like real people.