I don't like the term overrated, if it is used that generally. Individual movies can be overrated, as in "not deserving of the critical praise", but a director's whole oeuvre?

Irrespective of this, Ridley Scott has made at least two movies ('Alien' and 'Blade Runner'), which are at least regarded as genre classics by most critics and film buffs. In 'Gladiator', he has made an award winning movie which facilitated a renaissance of the historical epic (triggered by Mel Gibson's 'Braveheart'). So I think Ridley Scott would not be overpraised if he was considered to be an important director.

By the way, NotHughGrant, you have left out his debut 'The Duellists', which is an excellent film and has won him the young filmmaker's prize at the Cannes film festival.

My feelings about Ridley are somewhere in the middle. Blade Runner is one of my favorite films of all time, and Alien was very good. Gladiator, G.I. Jane, and Hannibal, on the other hand, didn't appeal to me much at all.

I think that with Prometheus, Scott is going back to a genre that he's been very strong with, so I do have interest in checking it out this summer.

Let's start taking bets: Is "Prometheus" going to be R or PG-13.

Hoping for R, but preparing for PG-13. I think it might be the former though. R rated movies are coming back in vogue these days (thank you!)

Well a couple of days I saw Black Rain again, and I was really getting a little tired of the 80s style over substance look - in full evidence here: lots of blue neon light, smoke filled rooms, lots of air extracion fans (or whatchamacallit) slowly turning with rays of light from behind moving along. The look is very close to Blade Runner (which is in an entirely different class though) and when you look back to Alien, you will find very similar elements. Fortunately the 90s switched from blue to orange Yes: there is a style over substance element in Ridley Scott's movies.
The "arrogant vacoousness" is indeed in full evidence in this movie. It's just another cop thriller. There is definitely a much better movie in there struggling to come out - focussing more on the Japanese people than on Michael Douglas doina a bad Mel Gibson impression.

And yes: when you see Ridley Scott in interviews, he has something arrogant about him. But the man has his act together. He is definitely intelligent and knows how to keep the cool images from beanig cheap cliches. It's like he knows how to draw the line.

Pete -



It's a fair request as I only gave the slightest of outlines at the start of this thread.

I actually didn't watch Blade Runner from start to finish until about 2005 yet I read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" back in the 90s when I was going through a bit of a reading phase. Because of this my expectations were possibly too high and although I did and still do find Blade Runner visually arresting I found the whole thing to be a glossing over rather than an interpretation giving the same narrative depth. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep made me think about the themes long after I read it, whilst Blade Runner slipped out of my mind quite quickly. The diologue anyway.

As for Alien, I honestly didn't get what all the fuss was about.

This may be a generation thing. Back in 1979 when I saw this movie for the first time, I felt a kind of "reality" I hadn't experienced before. Almost all sci-fi movies and tv shows featured absolutely clean spaceships, with very few exceptions. The dialog felt real and casual, not just plot driven, especially early in the movie - the time when lame character introductions and exposition were (and still are, just not as bad as back in the day) the standard. The ensemble cast went all the way from commander through working class guys. The grittiness wasn't a social comment or an auteur trying to make art (something I still didn't look for in the movies at age 18) - the movie simply took place in a cargo spaceship, including the "engine room" full of rust, oil and water. I loved that. Still do (the few moments in the engine and boiler rooms in Titanic were by far the most interesting for me). Then the eerie atmosphere and the slow build up of fear and claustrophobia. The production design alone is brilliant - not even Mr. Cameron himself was able to recreate the convincing texture of the "face hugger" in the (IMHO equally fantastic) sequel. The small ensemble cast is excellent. At least Ian Holm and John Hurt are without any doubt two fantastic actors (IMHO). Plus: Ebert's (?) rule applies: any movie with Harry Dean Stanton in it can't be bad.

Blade Runner is fucking great. And that's the only movie of his I care enough about to have an argument over. I will say though, I have read the Philip K. Dick novel, and it's one of those things where it just isn't right to compare the two. The movie needs to be criticized without the context of the book; all it really borrows is the dystopian society, the beginning situation, and the main character. I think another reason why this is difficult for people is that when you see Harrison Ford in a movie, you expect it to be a character driven action thriller, which really isn't the case. It's possible he was miscast, but he did show great vulnerability in the final scenes.

Black Hawk Down was decent, but by no means great. It was tense, but it needed some better characters.

Fuck Gladiator. The first time I saw it I thought it was a joke. I would honestly rather watch the show Spartacus, and that's saying something.

Comments like that aren't very helpful for us understanding where you're coming from. I think it's a flatout masterpiece. I think the creature conception and design are exceptional and wildly original, the blue-collar nature of the "space truckers" inspired, the direction outstanding, the horror horrific, and the claustrophobia of the ship exceptional. Easily one of the three best horror films ever made, if not the best

What are the other 2 for you?

The scene when he is some of the best acting I've ever seen him do.

its PG13

I read the Wiki article on the film where it mentions that Scott apparently filmed both R and PG-13 versions, so I'm guessing that you're right about which one Fox is going to go with.

Fuck you, Hollywood and MPAA both.

Yeah, Scott is editing together two separate versions of the film for the studio: one PG-13 and one R. He says he'll let the studios decide which one to release, but that he strongly prefers the R-rated version.

http://www.slashfilm.com/prometheus-sou ... ley-scott/

The probability of the R-rated version getting released in theaters is small, but there is still a chance. I guess it will depend on how much influence Ridley Scott has with the studio. Worst-case scenario, we'll eventually get the unedited version for home release, but it would be a shame if the only film to make it to theaters was a watered-down version.

I still have very fond memories of the earlier films which means I agree that Robin Hood was hilariously awful. Yet there's one undeniable truth. He's bankable. No matter what the view of those blessed with sophisticated taste, his films usually make a profit. In those terms, I don't think he needs do anything further.

As to Prometheus, I'm hoping the the R version.

It was probably the claustrophobic nature that put me off a bit actually.

But bearing in mind some of the comments on this thread I've ordered both Blade Runner and Alien from LoveFilm for rewatches next week.

Not sure where the best place to post this is, but Prometheus has been officially rated 'R', which is great news.

http://www.slashfilm.com/ridley-scotts- ... lly-rated/

Soooooooo happy!

I'm more concerned whether or not the film is actually good than the MPAA rating it got.

At least you can watch it knowing that the film represents the director's true vision

Exactly. Of course everyone is more concerned about the movie actually being good. That goes without saying. Obviously, a movie getting an R rating is no guarantee of a quality film. Again, that goes without saying.

Since no one has actually seen the movie, however, they can't comment on it's quality. Scott's movies have a history of studio meddling (how many Director's Cuts has this guy released now?), so this one getting an R rating would seem to mean we're seeing the movie how he intends. Seeing as how he's an actual filmmaker and studio executives are not, that's a positive.