Ridley Scott is overrated as a director

[Carpet_pissr]

Personally, I don’t care how many turds you drop if you’re responsible for Blade Runner, Alien, and especially (IMO), Gladiator.

Insta-Great (TM) status with even one of those.

[hepcat]

Gladiator I like, but I never considered it a “great film”. If anything, to me it seems to set up the formula that Scott then uses for most of his future historic action films.

[Carpet_pissr]

It’s one of my favorite films for mostly visceral reasons, I really can’t speak to the technical greatness or not of it, from a film critic’s perspective, since I lack those skills. Very much IMHO.

I just love it for many different reasons and it evokes strong emotions every time I watch it.

The movie “A.I.” generated a similar response, and I know it’s not technically a ‘great’ movie, but man do I love the journey it takes me on.

[hepcat]

You're talking to the guy who can't switch the channel if Con Air or Soldier are on...

[McNutt]

I'm beginning to question my own criteria. I consider Scott great because he made many great films. However, I can think of directors that have made multiple good films whom I don't consider to be a good director.

M Night Smahamalsnad for example. He's made some good movies, yet I consider him a one-trick hack.

Even Paul Anderson made Event Horizon. And he outright sucks.

[YellowKing]

M Night I think is a more fitting example of someone who is an OK director stumbling into success. The Sixth Sense was unexpectedly great, but that's before we knew "twist ending" was the only trick up his sleeve. I'd argue he has redeemed himself a bit in later years, but I still think even his "comeback" films like The Visitors and Old were just OK.

[hepcat]

Even Paul Anderson made Event Horizon. And he outright sucks.

This is my dilemma too. I love Event Horizon, but Anderson is just not a good filmmaker. His movies pander to teens and people who want style over substance to the nth degree. Also, is that indicative of a director who is no good? Or is that an example of a good filmmaker who sold out early and often to make money?

However, that's off topic and part of what should be a much larger discussion, I imagine.

side note: I've heard rumors throughout the years that Event Horizon was a film that the studio took control of, butchered and then released. Supposedly Anderson's version is quite different. I'd love to see a "director's cut" of that one someday, but I fear it doesn't actually exist.

M Night I think is a more fitting example of someone who is an OK director stumbling into success. The Sixth Sense was unexpectedly great, but that's before we knew "twist ending" was the only trick up his sleeve. I'd argue he has redeemed himself a bit in later years, but I still think even his "comeback" films like The Visitors and Old were just OK.

I think M. Night let's his own ego get in the way too often. I like The Sixth Sense and I love Unbreakable. But my god, I hated it after he started making himself a part of his films. In the case of Lady in the Pool or whatever it's called (I refuse to even google it, I hated that movie so much), he even made himself the most important part of the movie.

And, as you noted, he let himself become the "plot twist" guy instead of trying to overcome the one trick pony director shtick.

[Rumpy]

I think the thing about Napoleon is that it's been decades in the making, and that's never really good if a movie has been troubled to begin with. Everything I've read about it seems to indicate it's that kind of movie, and that in the end, it never really comes together. It's a shame, because I think the subject can be epic and fascinating if done right.

It should have never been a movie. Too much material to condense.

Well, there have been other movies about Napoleon (one in the 70's is acclaimed, but can't remember the name), and they were apparently much better than this one. It's all in how the director chooses to portray him. So, it can be done, with a skilled director but apparently Ridley Scott lost the plot.

I believe you're referring to Waterloo and it has a very narrow scope comparatively. That's a movie about his post-abdication through Waterloo. It covers a narrow range of events in other words.

Scott's movie is an attempt to capture a much grander sweep of Napoleon's life which I believe would need to be a limited series or something along those lines to be done properly. The sort of sacrifices he had to make for run time/etc. lead to a lack of coherence in the "bio" part of the movie. The battle scenes in comparison are well-executed.

As an aside, I also agree with Hepcat that Phoenix is miscast. Or maybe they were going for some meta-commentary on Napoleon that isn't entirely obvious. It's hard to tell if it was a bad fit, bad execution, or just something that is completely flying over your head in this case.

Oh, perhaps that's the one, and I think you're absolutely right that it should have been a series. It's not like Scott's company hasn't been involved in TV shows before either. It's been a pet project of his for decades, and having it be a series would have made sense.

[Isgrimnur]

You're talking to the guy who can't switch the channel if Con Air or Soldier are on...

New OctoCon strategy...

[hepcat]

I will sit there like a goddamn moron until the movie is over. It's pretty embarrassing, actually.

It's not like Scott's company hasn't been involved in TV shows before either.

And now I remember he was behind (or part of the group responsible) for the insanely entertaining Raised by Wolves on HBO. I may need to rethink everything now.

[Kurth]

Are there any directors who are consistent enough for their entire careers that you'd grant them 'great'? Guillermo del Toro has his fair share of stinkers (although the proportions seem more in his favor.) Tarantino, maybe?

I'm a big fan of David Fincher...Seven, Fight Club, Zodiac, Gone Girl, Panic Room, Social Network, Benjamin Button, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. He has a way of making unique, interesting movies that have pulled me in for a long time, but I do think he flies a little more under the radar when it comes to name recognition.

Same. Another I’d add to the list of directors that more or less consistently put out great films would be Christopher Nolan.

[Jaymann]

What about Stanley Kubrick ans William Friedkin?

[Rumpy]

I will sit there like a goddamn moron until the movie is over. It's pretty embarrassing, actually.

It's not like Scott's company hasn't been involved in TV shows before either.

And now I remember he was behind (or part of the group responsible) for the insanely entertaining Raised by Wolves on HBO. I may need to rethink everything now.

Yeah, that's right, his company was involved in that, and that's not the only thing either. I think his company was involved in the Pillars of the Earth miniseries. But quality has been all over the place in everything the company has produced of late.

[Holman]

What about Stanley Kubrick ans William Friedkin?

Yeah. I haven't seen everything by Friedkin, but I know his reputation.

Kubrick never made anything but great movies. Even the worst of his films (maybe Eyes Wide Shut?) stand alongside the best of their chosen genre.

And that's the thing: Kubrick never settled into a comfortable formula. Instead, he continually tackled new genres and literally invented new styles of filmmaking. He never adhered to conventions. Probably no other director has been as purely dedicated to the artistic purpose of breaking new ground with every project.

[hepcat]

Kubrick never made anything but great movies.

He even made a better version of The Shining than the original. Even if King believes otherwise.

[Holman]

Kubrick never made anything but great movies.

He even made a better version of The Shining than the original. Even if King believes otherwise.

Kubrick's adaptations are amazing. Almost all of his movies are based on novels, and every one of them has met criticism about infidelity to the original text. (None of those complaints have stood the test of time.)

[hepcat]

I have the 4K version and it really is a masterpiece of atmosphere and mood.

[Smoove_B]

I feel like maybe there is some conflation between the quality of the story/acting - which Ridley Scott doesn't control - and the quality of the direction- which he does. Sure, he's "directing" actors and bringing the story to life, but he's working with what has been provided. So in terms of "overrated" I'm not sure I entirely agree.

To go back to everyone's favorite punching bag M. Night - you might not like his stories, but in terms of a filmed product? He's far from overrated. Unbreakable was filmed in style that made it look like a comic book in 1999 - years before the modern MCU was born. Split and Glass are fantastic in terms of cinematography. I get that people might not like the stories, but that doesn't diminish his skill as a director. Maybe he's best on certain types of films, but I don't think that means he's overrated. Just like how Scott might be really good with action or sci-fi (Blade Runner, Gladiator, Alien universe).

EDIT: Thought I guess it's fair to say a director isn't always a cinematographer. Opinions are complicated, apparently.

[Apollo]

He's not as consistent as Scorcese, but when he's good, he's as good as anyone.

A director that has on his resume:
The Duelists
Alien
Blade Runner
Thelma and Louise
Gladiator
Black Hawk Down
The Last Duel

Is a great director.

Spielberg has quite a few turds in his filmography, yet he is still a great director. Same with DePalma and Coppola.

Hell, even Eastwood made Cry Macho.

Exactly. He may not be the greatest director ever but I'd definitely put him in the top 25% or so. But he has overstayed his welcome and should have retired 20 years ago.

Stanley Kubrick is the greatest director of all time but I'm sure that's so obvious to all of you that I needn't even post it here.

[hepcat]

I think you’re forgetting the insanely great Uwe Boll

[Blackhawk]

I think you’re forgetting the insanely great Uwe Boll

At least he's consistent.

[Kraken]

What do y'all think of Opie? I mean, Ron Howard. He brought us Apollo 13, The Paper, Willow, and A Beautiful Mind. Probably a bunch of so-so films too. If he has any stinkers, I haven't seen them.

[McNutt]

I find him much too sentimental. I have a hard time with the constant sappy tone.

I did like Rush though.

[hepcat]

Howard is technically a good filmmaker, but I feel like he plays it safe and follows the same formula film after film. The only time I thought of “edgy” and “Ron Howard” in the same thought was when he narrated Community.

[Carpet_pissr]

Arrested Development?

I love(d) most of his films, and hadn’t considered the sappy/maudlin, obvious and overt heartstring pulling repetition throughout his work until now. Thanks, OO!

Loved Apollo 13, one of the few films I bought on DVD before I stopped buying films, but now realize it’s kind of like the Rocky movies. Cheap, easy emotional shots (that’s probably too harsh).

I still love his work and will auto-watch any new Opie movie given his track record.

I’ve watched and re-watched Frost/Nixon so many times I’ve lost count. Absolutely love that one. And just realized he also did Solo:A Star Wars Story, which I thought was OK, but not great.

His Beatles doc Eight Days a Week was also mesmerizing to me, and I re-watched. Highly recommend that one even if you’re not a Beatles fan, it’s just so well done.

[JCC]

At the risk of being branded a heretic (not something I am unfamiliar with), I didn't see Bladerunner until my 30s or 40s and I thought it was just OK. In fact, I was bored through the vast majority of it and it left such a non-impression on me that I don't even recall the plot that well. (Different strokes and all that...)

Alien on the other hand, I adore. And I liked Prometheus.

[Blackhawk]

At the risk of being branded a heretic (not something I am unfamiliar with), I didn't see Bladerunner until my 30s or 40s and I thought it was just OK. In fact, I was bored through the vast majority of it and it left such a non-impression on me that I don't even recall the plot that well. (Different strokes and all that...)

This sums up my feelings on 2001. The movie, not the year.

[Jaymann]

Alien on the other hand, I adore. And I liked Prometheus.

I enjoyed Prometheus. Now if they had only learned to run sideways.

[TheMix]

Alien on the other hand, I adore. And I liked Prometheus.

I enjoyed Prometheus. Now if they had only learned to run sideways.

I do feel, however, that I probably should let that one slide. Since I've now seen the same thing in a lot of other places. Apparently people in movies only know how to run directly away from things. It's sad. We should probably start a support group or something for them.

[YellowKing]

I'm almost finished with the Alfred Hitchcock biography "Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light" by Patrick McGilligan and it's interesting to parallel it to the discussions in this thread about contemporary directors. I don't think anyone would dispute that Hitchcock was one of the best directors of all time, yet he himself went through the same ups and downs of falling in and out of public favor. He was also often accused of overusing the same plot devices, and some of his films we now recognize as absolute classics were received with lukewarm receptions at the time.

So I'm not sure we can really tell, without the benefit of time, which directors are truly overrated and which will endure through the decades.

[Holman]

At the risk of being branded a heretic (not something I am unfamiliar with), I didn't see Bladerunner until my 30s or 40s and I thought it was just OK. In fact, I was bored through the vast majority of it and it left such a non-impression on me that I don't even recall the plot that well. (Different strokes and all that...)

If you come to it late, Blade Runner's impact is probably diluted by the fact that Science Fiction has been imitating it for 40 years now.

[Carpet_pissr]

At the risk of being branded a heretic (not something I am unfamiliar with), I didn't see Bladerunner until my 30s or 40s and I thought it was just OK. In fact, I was bored through the vast majority of it and it left such a non-impression on me that I don't even recall the plot that well. (Different strokes and all that...)

I really like the first one, but I loved the second one.

[Rumpy]

At the risk of being branded a heretic (not something I am unfamiliar with), I didn't see Bladerunner until my 30s or 40s and I thought it was just OK. In fact, I was bored through the vast majority of it and it left such a non-impression on me that I don't even recall the plot that well. (Different strokes and all that...)

I'll take the pressure off you by saying I still haven't seen it. Tried watching it several times and just cannot get into it for whatever reason.

[hepcat]

At the risk of being branded a heretic (not something I am unfamiliar with), I didn't see Bladerunner until my 30s or 40s and I thought it was just OK. In fact, I was bored through the vast majority of it and it left such a non-impression on me that I don't even recall the plot that well. (Different strokes and all that...)

If you come to it late, Blade Runner's impact is probably diluted by the fact that Science Fiction has been imitating it for 40 years now.

This. It cannot be stressed enough how influential Bladerunner has been on science fiction films over the years.

[Anonymous Bosch]

At the risk of being branded a heretic (not something I am unfamiliar with), I didn't see Bladerunner until my 30s or 40s and I thought it was just OK. In fact, I was bored through the vast majority of it and it left such a non-impression on me that I don't even recall the plot that well. (Different strokes and all that...)

If you come to it late, Blade Runner's impact is probably diluted by the fact that Science Fiction has been imitating it for 40 years now.

Amen.

Perhaps one of the greatest aspects of Blade Runner is the world it sucks you into with its captivating imagery. Everything, including the colours, the special effects, the cinematography, and the sets are a work of art. This was especially true if you saw it in the eighties or nineties, when its dystopian cyberpunk aesthetics and visually stunning cinematography were utterly unique.

[JCC]

Yes, I certainly could appreciate the way it looked and how it was influential.

[hepcat]

This is an interesting side topic. I can think of two movies offhand that have HEAVILY influenced the look of modern science fiction since they appeared on the scene.

One is Bladerunner, which has set the standard for the look of a bleak, industrial future. Before Bladerunner, the majority of films set in the future were more ...optimistic...in their look...often unreasonably so. Especially if the future they were depicting WAS supposed to be awful/dreary. Scott created a look that has dominated visions of a dystopian future in a meaningful way for decades.

The other is, in my opinion (and don't laugh here), David Lynch's Dune. Two years after Bladerunner, he created an entirely new look for the future by looking at the past. His vision based on the Italian Renaissance set a standard for films that included future monarchies, fascist governments, etc.. The story may have been awful, but the visuals were damn near perfect.

[Rumpy]

I think one can still appreciate it and what it's done even if one doesn't particularly care for it. So, for instance, I've never been able to get into it, but I still appreciate the contributions it has made as a whole.

[hepcat]

Just to be clear: my post was not in reference to either you or JCC's original post.

[Blackhawk]

This is an interesting side topic. I can think of two movies offhand that have HEAVILY influenced the look of modern science fiction since they appeared on the scene.

I'd say that Star Wars had a bigger influence on the look of modern sci-fi that anything else. I'd also put Alien out there for popularizing the realistic NASA/Industrial look.