A Complete Review of Ridley Scott's work

Cast : Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, Denzel Washington, Connie Nielsen, Derek Jacobi

What was it about?
After his home is conquered by the tyrannical emperors who now lead Rome, Lucius is forced to enter the Colosseum and must look to his past to find strength to return the glory of Rome to its people.

My two cents:
After all these years, it might have seemed to be a no-brainer to come up with a sequel but, to be honest, especially after watching the damned thing, I wouldn’t be surprised if it would eventually turn out to be a flop after all. I mean, Ridley Scott is a really solid director so the damned thing was well made, no doubt about it, but, seriously, what was the point of this sequel? I mean, the plot was just so similar to its predecessor that it made the whole thing was rather pointless. I felt especially bad for Paul Mescal. It was in fact the first movie I saw starring the up-and-coming actor and I can confirm that the guy definitely has some solid acting chops. Still, with his first blockbuster, I’m afraid he was a lit bit unlucky here and I guess he will focus even more on indie productions in the future. To be honest, he was not helped by the fact that his character was just so similar to Maximus and, to be fair, even though Mescal is quite charismatic, he is not (yet) a Russell Crowe in his prime. In fact, from the whole cast involved, the only one who managed to be interesting was Denzel Washington who basically stole the show every time he was on the screen.

My rating: 6/10

Check the full review

Cast : Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby, Tahar Rahim, Rupert Everett

What was it about?
The film is an original and personal look at Napoleon Bonaparte's origins and his swift, ruthless climb to emperor, viewed through the prism of his addictive and often volatile relationship with his wife and one true love, Josephine.

My two cents:
Unfortunately, it turned out to be another typical Scott feature, I'm afraid. Indeed, while Stanley Kubrick had been working on this subject for maybe a decade but didn't manage to make his movie, it took Ridley Scott only 3 years between announcing that it would be his next project and actually delivering it (it took also only 60 days to shoot). I'm not saying that it was rushed, the whole think looked amazing and the directing and/or editing didn't feel clunky at all. However, it was certainly nothing dazzling either and even though you spend more than 2.5 hrs with Napoleon, it didn't really go deep into the notorious historical figure. Basically, it seemed that the guy was a military genius but, aside from that, he was actually fairly pathetic in pretty much everything else. Concerning Joaquin Phoenix, to be honest, I'm not sure if I really cared about his performance as it felt that Napoleon was constipated for most of the duration. Who knows, maybe it will work better with the 4 hrs version that will be released on Apple TV+ (it wouldn't be the first time that Scott would deliver later on a superior director's cut). At least, even though I was born in France and must have learned all that stuff in school years ago, I have to admit it that I forgot most about it and it was nice to get acquainted again with this page of French history.

My rating: 06/10

Check the full review

Cast : Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Jared Leto, Al Pacino Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons

What was it about?
When Patrizia Reggiani, an outsider from humble beginnings, marries into the Gucci family, her unbridled ambition begins to unravel their legacy and triggers a reckless spiral of betrayal, decadence, revenge, and ultimately...murder.

My two cents:
Well, even though the material definitely had some potential and even though there was a really cool cast involved, to be honest, I wasn’t really impressed by the damned thing after all. Eventually, I’m not sure what was the biggest issue between the directing and the writing. Concerning the directing, sure, the whole thing looked fine but it also felt terribly flat with no tension whatsoever. It seems that Scott didn’t really know how to tackle this material which was rather surprising coming from such a seasoned director. However, the writing was probably even less convincing though. Indeed, even though they had more than 150 mins at their disposal and had therefore plenty of time to properly develop Patrizia Reggiani and Maurizio Gucci, it was most of the time rather unclear what was actually going on with these characters. For example, at first, Reggiani was introduced as being only interested in Maurizio because of his last name and, yet, she seemed rather unfazed when he got kicked out of the Gucci family by his father. Furthermore, when she started to loose her grip on Maurizio, she was just way too passive and it is rather bewildering that her only move was to consult a psychic which didn’t seem really effective. With Maurizio Gucci, it was even more problematic though. Indeed, he was first introduced a young gullible law student who was easily manipulated by some attractive gold-digger. However, he became somehow super ambitious, super business savvy and dropped his wife in the process which was quite a U turn from who he was at the start but this evolution was never explained or even actually displayed on the screen. Anyway, to conclude, like many other Ridley Scott features, the damned thing felt like another missed opportunity but I still think it is worth, if only to see Lady Gaga showing once again that she has some really solid acting chops.

My rating: 06/10

Check the full review

Cast : Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Jodie Comer, Ben Affleck

What was it about?
King Charles VI declares that Knight Jean de Carrouges settle his dispute with his squire by challenging him to a duel.

My two cents:
Eventually, this movie turned out to be a flop but I think it’s a shame, not because it was really a masterpiece but because it was at least something else than another Fast & Furious, Star Wars, Marvel instalment or any other big blockbuster franchise. Anyway, at least, you can trust Good Old Ridley Scott to deliver a lavish and gritty Medieval epic as the whole thing was visually really neat and convincing. Furthermore, I really enjoyed the ‘Rashomon’ approach. Still, I thought there was a a huge plot hole in their story though. Indeed, even though they gave us basically 3 times the same story, in none of these versions, did they give us an explanation on how Jacques Le Gris managed to pay his ‘visit’ to Marguerite de Carrouges exactly at the right moment when everybody had left her castle. Seriously, I thought there was a huge gap here. I think it was also pretty obvious that Ben Affleck was originally supposed to play Le Gris so he could face his BFF which would have been pretty awesome but, unfortunately, because of some schedule conflict, he had to settle down for a smaller part. Still, he definitely had some fun playing Pierre d'Alençon and the whole cast was actually really good here. Coming back to the ‘Rashomon’ structure, it was pretty neat that basically pretty much all the male characters turned out to be some douchebags after all but I’m not sure if it was really so interesting to display the woman involved in this conflict as some kind of immaculate innocent victim. Basically, it did turn the whole thing into some kind of medieval feminist #metoo pamphlet. On the other hand, it was a good reminder that women were pretty much treated like garbage back in those days.

My rating: 07/10

Check the full review

Cast : Mark Wahlberg, Christopher Plummer, Michelle Williams, Timothy Hutton, Romain Duris

What was it about?
story of the kidnapping of 16-year-old John Paul Getty III and the desperate attempt by his devoted mother to convince his billionaire grandfather John Paul Getty to pay the ransom.

My two cents:
With this movie, Ridley Scott pulled off the marketing stunt of the year. Indeed, just about a month before this movie was released, he decided to reshoot all the scenes involving Kevin Spacey and replace him with Christopher Plummer. And, indeed, the whole thing looked great and it felt like Plummer had been involved from the very beginning. And, yet, if you put this stunt aside, was it really a great movie? Not really, I'm afraid. Basically, it was a typical effort from this director. I mean, it looked great, the material had a lot of potential but it still felt either rushed or lazy. For example, during the introduction, you get to meet John Paul Getty II and his happy family but, then, within a few minutes, he became a drug-addict living in Morocco. This character was just so poorly handled, without mentioning the fact that the guy was apparently actually much more involved in the negotiations with the kidnappers. Then, they made the mistake of focusing on one of the kidnappers. It was obviously made up but, above all, completely uninteresting. Another mystery was Mark Wahlberg's character. Seriously, what was the point of this character? At what point was he actually really helpful? I mean, to make us believe that he was the one who gave a heartfelt speech to John Paul Getty who would finally change his mind was just really ludicrous. Anyway, I think I'm being rather generous with my rating here but it was an interesting story and Ridley Scott knows how to direct a good looking picture but there is no doubt that it could have been so much better.

My rating: 07/10

Check the full review

Cast : Katherine Waterston, James Franco, Michael Fassbender, Guy Pearce, Billy Crudup, Carmen Ejogo, Danny McBride

What was it about?
The crew of the colony ship Covenant, bound for a remote planet on the far side of the galaxy, discovers what they think is an uncharted paradise. When they uncover a threat beyond their imagination, they must attempt a harrowing escape.

My two cents:
Even though I wasn't really expecting a masterpiece, at least, I hoped this movie would be an improvement on 'Prometheus'. Unfortunately, I turned out to be even more underwhelming and I would go as far as saying that it is the weakest installment in this franchise (of course, without counting the 'Alien vs Predator' crap). Indeed, if one of the biggest issues with 'Prometheus' was probably the fact that it was too ambitious, this time, it was the other way around as Ridley Scott didn't even really try. Seriously, the guy came up with the most generic plot you could think of and pretty much all the new ideas introduced in the previous movie were basically thrown out of the window and the only thing that remained was the fact that David was apparently a really psychotic and megalomaniac robot. The other thing that bothered me was the fact that the crew was actually so boring and uncharismatic. Seriously, was Katherine Waterston really supposed to replace Sigourney Weaver? Eventually, I have to admit that the whole thing was still rather well made and even quite watchable but, in my opinion, Ridley Scott was basically pissing on his legacy with this rather useless sequel.

My rating: 06/10

Check the full review

Cast : Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Michael Peña, Sean Bean, Kate Mara, Chiwetel Ejiofor

What was it about?
An astronaut stranded on Mars, struggles to survive.

My two cents:
I have to admit that it was indeed pretty good but, to be honest, it didn’t really manage to completely blow me away though. I mean, the whole thing looked really good, it was really entertaining and it was very nice that Scott tried to make a smart movie for once but it was still missing something in my opinion. I guess, at the end of the day, even though they tried really hard to convince us that it was really clever, I think it was still too shallow, like most of the movies directed by Scott. Here, even though Matt Damon did deliver a solid performance, I never felt that the main character's life was really at risk and the fact that he keeps cracking jokes all the time might have been fun to watch and easier to swallow but it also really diminished the psychological impact of what he was actually going through. Anyway, even though I think it is actually overrated, it is still a really good flick though and one of the best made by Ridley Scott during the last 10 years.

My rating: 07/10

Check the full review

Cast : Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, Aaron Paul, Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Ewen Bremner, Tara Fitzgerald

What was it about?
The defiant leader Moses rises up against the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses, setting 600,000 slaves on a monumental journey of escape from Egypt and its terrifying cycle of deadly plagues.

My two cents:
As usual, with Ridley Scott, I was really eager to check this movie but, to be honest, it was again really disappointing. The issue with Ridley Scott, in my opinion, is that, ever since 'Gladiator' was a huge success, he has been making just way too many movies since then (11 in the last 14 years and he has already something coming up next year...). This movie is a perfect example. Indeed, as usual with this director, it really looked good and I thought that Christian Bale gave a solid performance but it was such a by-the-number adaptation of the Exodus, it was just quite underwhelming. The only original thing was to portray God or his messenger as a child but it seemed rather chosen at random and it didn’t have much impact. This year, Darren Aronosfky released his own biblical epic 'Noah' and even though it didn't get much love, it was much more daring and therefore much more rewarding than this snooze party.

My rating: 06/10

Check the full review

Cast : Michael Fassbender, Brad Pitt, Cameron Diaz, Penélope Cruz, Javier Bardem, Bruno Ganz, Rosie Perez, Goran Visnjic, Edgar Ramirez, Toby Kebbell, Natalie Dormer, John Leguizamo

What was it about?
A lawyer finds himself in over his head when he gets involved in drug trafficking.

My two cents:
Before its release, it was one of the most anticipated features to be released in 2013. Indeed, it was the first screenplay written by Cormac McCarthy and, after many directors fought to get this story, Ridley Scott was the chosen one and many, including myself, were expecting something pretty awesome. Unfortunately, when it was released, it turned out to be a massive commercial and critical flop and many thought it might even be one of the worst movies of the year. Anyway, after all this, I finally watched the damned thing and, I have to agree, it is not good. I don't think it was really awful but it was certainly really weak. Above all, surprisingly, it was actually poorly written in my opinion or maybe also poorly edited. Eventually, after the horrible 'Hannibal', I'm afraid this movie is the worse one directed by Scott so far.

My rating: 05/10

Check the full review

Cast : Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Guy Pearce

What was it about?
A team of explorers discover a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth, leading them on a journey to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must fight a terrifying battle to save the future of the human race.

My two cents:
Was it a prequel? A sequel? An hommage? A tribute? A reboot? Personally, I would say that it was a reboot but who cares? It was visually impressive with some awesome directing by Ridley Scott and a very strong cast. Personally, I couldn't choose between Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron which one gave the best performance, they were all very good. Still, even though the story was definitely entertaining, it was still nothing ground-breaking like I was hoping for. I am always expecting a lot from the movies directed by Ridley Scott but, even though they are all well made and a feast for the eye, the plot is always kind of weak and this movie was, I'm afraid, not an exception. First of all, it was way too similar to 'Alien', it was indeed basically the same story. Secondly, Scott tried to go all metaphysical on us but didn't quite pull it off. I mean, he is a fine director but he never gets to the depth reached by some directors such as Stanley Kubrick or Terrence Malick. Finally, I thought that the first part was tight and gripping whereas the second part was honestly pretty messy with some major plot holes. Anyway, I did like it but it certainly didn't fulfill my expectations at all.

My rating: 07/10

Check the full review

Cast : Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Danny Huston, Matthew Macfadyen, Léa Seydoux

What was it about?
In 13th century England, Robin and his band of marauders confront corruption in a local village and lead an uprising against the crown that will forever alter the balance of world power.

My two cents:
Ridley Scott and Russel Crowe were talking about making this flick for years and some of rumors were rather intriguing (at some point, Russell Crowe was supposed to play BOTH Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham!). But honestly, was any of us really expecting yet another movie about this 'iconic' character? Not really... They chose a rather grim look and atmosphere but the whole thing was never spellbinding but it was still watchable though. Basically, there were some good things and some not so good things about this flick. Good things : Russel Crowe gave us a nice performance, he had a pretty good chemistry with Cate Blanchett and Ridley Scott provided a very good directing as usual. Also, it was interesting to try a more gritty realistic approach on this legend. Not so good : the story was never really entertaining and honestly, nothing really fascinating was going on in there. I re-watched it recently and I was surprised about how long the whole thing was and that was another issue. Indeed, there were just too many sub-plots and villains involved.

My rating: 06/10

Check the full review

Cast : Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe, Mark Strong

What was it about?
CIA agent Roger Ferris uncovers a lead on a major terrorist leader suspected to be operating out of Jordan, but while he tries to capitalize on the intelligence he has uncovered he must also be wary of the double-dealings of his boss in America.

My two cents:
Leonardo DiCaprio is, right now, one of the most interesting actors at work nowadays and I wasn't really surprised to see him making a movie with the great Ridley Scott. To complete this awesome combination, you had Russell Crowe so this flick definitely had some potential and I was really eager to check it out. Well, first of all, as usual with Ridley Scott, the directing was quite impressive with some great shots and some pretty bad-ass action scenes. Furthermore, DiCaprio and Crowe delivered some decent performances and I thought they were both pretty convincing. Still, even though it was pretty good and certainly entertaining, I can't say the whole thing really blew me away though. Indeed, like most of the movies directed by Scott, the visuals were great but the story was rather shallow. I mean, the plot kept me interested during the whole thing but after a while, it lost focus and, at the end of day, it was a rather generic spy story, nothing more, nothing less.

My rating: 07/10

Check the full review

Cast : Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Josh Brolin, John Hawkes, RZA, Carla Gugino, Cuba Gooding Jr., Idris Elba, Common

What was it about?
In 1970s America, a detective works to bring down the drug empire of Frank Lucas, a heroin kingpin from Manhattan, who is smuggling the drug into the country from the Far East.

My two cents:
I have been following Ridley Scott for years and his directing didn’t disappoint me. There was a terrific cast and they all delivered some solid performances. Furthermore, I thought the story was really interesting and completely entertaining. So, when I came out, I was kind of ecstatic but, when I think about it now, I think I enjoyed it so much above all because it was the first time I went to the movies on my own after so many years. Indeed, at the end of the day, it is a solid and very well made gangster feature but it doesn’t bring much to the genre and it wasn’t really original in its approach, I’m afraid. Still, it remains one of the most entertaining movies directed by the great Ridley Scott.

My rating: 07/10

Check the full review

Cast : Freddie Highmore, Albert Finney, Russell Crowe, Tom Hollander, Didier Bourdon, Marion Cotillard, Valeria Bruni Tedeschi, Abbie Cornish

What was it about?
A British investment broker inherits his uncle's chateau and vineyard in Provence, where he spent much of his childhood. He discovers a new laid-back lifestyle as he tries to renovate the estate to be sold.

My two cents:
Conversation between between Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe :

Scott : Russell, you know what I want to do?
Crowe : No... what then?
Scott : I would like to spend a month in the South of France, drinking some wine, eating some good food...
Crowe: Sounds good to me. Actually, I'm tired always playing some tough guy with all those exhausting action scenes...
Scott : I know! Let's shoot a fluffy romantic comedy in France!

I know, I might be mean here but, honestly, the whole thing seemed to be actually a good excuse for them to spend some time in France having a good time in the process. Furthermore, the movie was full of annoying clichés about France and the French people but I have to admit that the story was entertaining enough. Anyway, to conclude, it is a rather standard but well made romantic comedy and it might be worth a look if you really like the genre.

My rating: 06/10

Check the full review

Cast : Orlando Bloom, Eva Green, Liam Neeson, Michael Sheen, David Thewlis, Edward Norton

What was it about?
Balian of Ibelin travels to Jerusalem during the crusades of the 12th century, and there he finds himself as the defender of the city and its people.

My two cents:
I remember it quite well, before it was released, there was quite some buzz about it, the whole thing seemed to be a really ambitious project and some thought it might be as good as ‘Gladiator’. Eventually, it didn’t get much love when it was released. In fact, I'm maybe in the minority but I actually liked this flick and, as a matter of fact, I thought it was even better than 'Gladiator'. I know, Orlando Bloom is not really an amazing lead actor and he has been mostly blamed for this failure and I have to agree that he was the weakest point in an otherwise stellar cast but this movie had more to offer than the famous sandal epic, at least, in my opinion. Indeed, it was pretty spectacular and rather well grounded in history (at least, it felt so). On top of that, I'm always intrigued by movies dealing with religion and I thought this one was pretty good, even if it was a flop back then. A few years later, Ridley Scott released a director's cut with 40 mins of extra running time and this longer version has been much better received so I might check it out at some point.

My rating: 07/10

Check the full review

Cast : Nicolas Cage, Sam Rockwell, Alison Lohman

What was it about?
A phobic con artist and his protégé are on the verge of pulling off a lucrative swindle when the former's teenage daughter arrives unexpectedly.

My two cents:
Sure, almost 20 years later, it seems to be another minor effort Ridley Scott and it definitely doesn’t belong to his masterpieces but I thought it was actually pretty good and I always had a weak spot for this movie. Indeed, for once, Ridley Scott made this time an 'actor' movie which was quite refreshing. What I mean with this is that, instead of focusing on the directing and the visuals, the strength of this movie were the performances of the 3 main actors (Nicolas Cage, Sam Rockwell and Alison Lohman). By the way, it is rather sad that all these actors turned out to have a rather disappointing  career during the following years. Indeed, Nicolas Cage who was at the time a really interesting actor, spent most of his time showing up in some increasingly disappointing features and the guy has become pretty much a joke in the film community. Considering Alison Lohman , it is actually rather sad. Indeed, with this movie, she got her breakthrough and it seemed that she had a bright future ahead for her. However, she got married in 2009 and then pregnant and, apparently,  she pretty much retired  which is just too bad. For Sam Rockwell, the situation might be a little less dramatic but I think he is still incredibly underrated after all these years. 

My rating: 07/10

Check the full review

Cast : Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Tom Sizemore, Eric Bana, William Fichtner, Ewen Bremner, Sam Shepard, Hugh Dancy, Ron Eldard, Ioan Gruffudd, Jason Isaacs, Zeljko Ivanek, Jeremy Piven, Tom Hardy, Orlando Bloom

What was it about?
123 elite U.S. soldiers drop into Somalia to capture two top lieutenants of a renegade warlord and find themselves in a desperate battle with a large force of heavily-armed Somalis.

My two cents:
To be honest, I always had some mixed feelings about this flick. In fact, I actually saw the damned thing in the movie theater when it was released. Back then, I thought it was a decent watch but nothing really mind-blowing. However, since I kept hearing some great thing about the damned thing, I started to wonder if I missed maybe something the first time around so I rewatched it a few years later. Well, eventually, even after a re-watch, I still had the same feeling about this movie. I mean, sure, the cast was just impressive, it was visually pretty awesome, I have to admit it that it was one of Ridley Scott's best directing effort, but the story was nothing really great in my opinion. I mean, sure, it was interesting and entertaining enough but it was also pretty generic and, like most of the movies coming from this director, there was no depth whatsoever. Anyway, even though I’m not a huge fan, I have to admit that it is still a solid war movie.

My rating: 07/10

Check the full review

Cast : Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman, Ray Liotta, Giancarlo Giannini, Francesca Neri, Zeljko Ivanek

What was it about?
Hannibal returns to America and attempts to make contact with disgraced Agent Starling and survive a vengeful victim's plan.

My two cents:
Before this came out, there was a huge buzz about it for years. Jonathan Demme and Jodie Foster had dropped from this project but Ridley Scott was on board so I hoped it would be still impressive. I bought the tickets a week in advance and went to see it with 5 friends of mine. Eventually, it turned out to one of the biggest disappointments ever and the worst movie made by Ridley Scott. I'm not sure he or Anthony Hopkins should be blamed but the whole thing was just plain average and the ending was just downright ridiculous. Seriously, the whole thing was just a huge mess. First of all, besides of course of Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling, there were just way too many characters involved : an older victim of Lecter, an orderly that used to take care of Lecter, a crooked Deputy Assistant Attorney General, an Italian cop, the wife of the Italian cop,... Furthemore, what was the point of going all the way to Florence? I mean, they first brought the action in Italy which wasn't a bad idea but, then completely abruptly, this location was just dropped (Starling actually never set foot there) and they went back to the States. Anyway, even though it was quite successful at the box-office when it was released, I think it is actually one of the most disappointing sequels ever made and, without the great Anthony Hopkins, it wouldn't be worth a look at all.

My rating: 05/10

Check the full review

Cast : Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed, Richard Harris, Derek Jacobi, Djimon Hounsou, David Hemmings

What was it about?
When a Roman general is betrayed and his family murdered by an emperor's corrupt son, he comes to Rome as a gladiator to seek revenge

My two cents:
In fact, I did see the damned thing back then with my buddies in the movie theater when it was released. At the time, it was not yet hailed as a great classic and, to be honest, I thought it was a decent watch but nothing really amazing. Since then, I have re-watched it at least 3 times but I still don't get why everybody seems to think it is one of the best movies ever made. I mean, it did look awesome, the directing was off the chart, Russel Crowe delivered an impressive performance but what about the story? Yes, it was entertaining but it was really nothing ground-breaking in my opinion. I know, it is a huge classic and it is definitely a solid feature but it is not much more than that, I’m afraid. In my opinion, at the end of the day, the story was in fact a rather generic peplum and it didn't add much to the formula. In this style, I'd rather watch 'Spartacus' or 'Ben Hur' anytime. At least, thanks to this movie and after struggling for many years, Ridley Scott finally managed to make a massive come-back releasing afterwards no less than 14 movies during the following 20 years.

My rating: 06/10

Check the full review

Cast : Demi Moore, Viggo Mortensen, Anne Bancroft, Jim Caviezel

What was it about?
A female Senator succeeds in enrolling a woman into Navy SEALS training where everyone expects her to fail.

My two cents:
After struggling through most of the 80's and the 90's, Ridley Scott would finally make a major come-back with 'Gladiator' but, before that, he would release one last flop. Indeed, even though there was a pretty good buzz before its release, this movie turned out to be a commercial and critical failure. Well, since it had a rather lame reputation, I wasn't expecting much from it but, eventually, I thought it was not so bad after all. I mean, sure, the whole thing felt like another misguided ego project from Demi Moore but, at least, it was watchable which was definitely not the case with 'Striptease'. Anyway, the concept definitely had some potential and Ridley Scott had managed in the past to deliver some solid pictures with some strong female characters ('Alien', 'Thelma & Louise') so it could have worked. Unfortunately, at least, half of it was seriously weak. Indeed, for some reasons, they decided to add a rather murky political agenda which should have been either properly developed or completely dropped. The other thing I also didn't understand was why they didn't touch at all the topic of sexual abuse in the army which is a very well known and documented issue. Also, I wonder why they added those really misguided sexy training scenes involving Moore with barely any clothes on. Anyway, in spite of its flaws, I thought that Demi Moore was actually pretty convincing and it is worth a look.

My rating: 06/10

Check the full review

Cast : Jeff Bridges, John Savage, Scott Wolf, Jeremy Sisto, Ryan Phillippe, Zeljko Ivanek

What was it about?
Teenage boys discover discipline and camaraderie on an ill-fated sailing voyage.

My two cents:
Even though there was a huge hype surronding ‘1492: Conquest of Paradise’, it was eventuallly a flop and Ridely Scott when through his biggest career deep so far, a deep which lasted until ‘Gladiator’ but the guy has never looked back since then as he has made about 1 movie every year for the last 20 years. Anyway, during this deep, Scott made this flick and it is definitely one of his most obscure features (I can only think of ‘Someone to Watch Over Me’ which could be even more obscure). Since I have always been a fan of Ridley Scott’s work, I was really eager to check this flick and I actually took me several years to finally see the damned thing. Eventually, even though it was nothing amazing, I thought it was still not bad at all. First of all, there was a neat cast of young upcoming actors and Jeff Bridges, one of the best actors around, as usual, delivered a solid performance. Obviously, the story was rather generic (the main issue in most of the movies directed by Ridley Scott) but I thought it was entertaining enough.

My rating: 06/10

Check the full review

Cast : Gérard Depardieu, Sigourney Weaver, Loren Dean, Tchéky Karyo, Frank Langella

What was it about?
Christopher Columbus' discovery of the Americas and the effect this has on the indigenous people.

My two cents:
I remember it very well, before it was released, there was a huge buzz about this movie and the expectations were really high. Indeed, in 1992, it was the 500th anniversary of the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus so, obviously, the studios wanted to cash in on this massive event by releasing a big prestigious epic directed by Ridley Scott, one of the best directors around at the time and still today. Eventually, it didn’t get much love and many thought it was a disappointment. Ok, it wasn't a masterpiece but I did like it (and compared to the abysmal ‘Christopher Columbus: The Discovery’, well, it was definitely not bad at all after all). Indeed, as usual with Ridley Scott, the directing was really solid, the music by Vangelis was truly epic and I thought that Gérard Depardieu was an unexpected but great casting choice.

My rating: 07/10

Check the full review

Cast : Susan Sarandon, Geena Davis, Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, Brad Pitt

What was it about?
An Arkansas waitress and a housewife shoot a rapist and take off in a '66 Thunderbird.

My two cents:
Honestly, I always had some rather mixed feelings about this flick. In fact, it was a surprise success at the time when it was released and, eventually, the only real success booked by Ridley Scott in the 90’s but even though this flick received a lot of love, in my opinion, it was just a rather standard buddy movie with a pseudo feminist message and an over-sentimental ending. Basically, it is a typical Ridley Scott production, in the sense that it was really well directed, it looked quite awesome and the whole thing was actually quite entertaining but, once again, the story was nothing really amazing, it was actually rather pedestrian, at least, that’s my opinion. Still, there is no denying that Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon were both terribly charismatic and they had some great chemistry together. On top of that, we finally got to see Brad Pitt in his breakthrough performance which was definitely something quite memorable. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, I think it is after all another overrated feature directed by Ridley Scott.

My rating: 06/10

Check the full review

Cast : Michael Douglas, Andy Garcia, Kate Capshaw

What was it about?
Two New York cops get involved in a gang war between members of the Yakuza, the Japanese Mafia. They arrest one of their killers and are ordered to escort him back to Japan. In Japan, however, he manages to escape. As they try to track him down, they get deeper and deeper into the Japanese Mafia scene and they have to learn that they can only win by playing the game the Japanese way.

My two cents:
I remember quite well when I saw the damned thing. Indeed, since I always had a weak spot for Ridley Scott’s work, I was quite eager to check it out but I have to admit that I had some rather low expectations towards the damned thing. Eventually, maybe it was because it didn’t expect much but even though it is probably one of the more obscure movies delivered by Scott, I actually enjoyed the damned thing. I mean, like most of the other movies coming from this director, there was absolutely no substance about it whatsoever but I thought it was very well made and it was also simply quite entertaining. Above all, I really enjoyed the mood they created and even though this movie actually didn’t have much else to offer, it was apparently enough for me. Anyway, it is definitely another feature I should re-watch at some point to make up my mind for good about the damned thing.

My rating: 07/10

Check the full review

Cast : Tom Berenger, Mimi Rogers, Lorraine Bracco

What was it about?
A married New York cop falls for the socialite murder witness he's been assigned to protect.

My two cents:
Honestly, it is quite an obscure feature and I wouldn’t be otherwise really interested in a movie like this one but since I always had a weak spot for Ridley Scott’s work, I was quite eager to check it out. Indeed, it is probably the most unknown and forgotten movie directed by Scott and I'm afraid it actually does deserve its status. I mean, after many ambitious productions dealing with Fantasy, SF and even a periode piece (‘The Duellists’, ‘Alien’, ‘Blade Runner’ and ‘Legend’), Ridley Scott was making for the first time a contemporary feature and the result was rather underwhelming. I mean, the title was rather lame and the story was just too pedestrian. Still, as usual with Ridley Scott, in spite of a rather weak story, he managed thanks to his always stylish directing to make the whole thing watchable thanks to a nice mood and the flick was after all mostly entertaining, even if it was completely forgettable.

My rating: 06/10

Check the full review

Cast : Tom Cruise, Tim Curry

What was it about?
A young man must stop the Lord of Darkness from both destroying daylight and marrying the woman he loves.

My two cents:
I have seen every single movie directed by Ridley Scott and, through the years, I have developed some kind of love-hate relationship with this director. Indeed, on one hand, even if his movies are usually fairly entertaining and above all very well made and visually appealing, very often, I find their stories rather shallow and sometimes even rather underwhelming. This movie is actually a perfect example. Apparently, it didn’t get much love when it was released but I thought it was actually pretty good. Basically, it is a rather weak story with some awesome visuals. Still, in my opinion, Scott managed to create a fascinating world with a truly bad-ass villain and I also loved the introduction with a terrific speech delivered by Darkness himself. Apparently, there is a much longer director’s cut available and it would be pretty neat to check it out at some point. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, I actually have a weak spot for the damned thing.

My rating: 07/10

Check the full review

Cast : Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, M. Emmet Walsh, Daryl Hannah

What was it about?
Deckard, a blade runner, has to track down and terminate 4 replicants who hijacked a ship in space and have returned to earth seeking their maker.

My two cents:
It is definitely my favorite Science Fiction flick and one of my favorite movies of all time. I have seen all the movies directed by Ridley Scott and it is easily his best one. Indeed, the look and the mood were great, the story was just plain fascinating and the cast was awesome. Back then, Harrison Ford was in the zone, and everything he touched turned into gold. When it was released, it is hard to believe but it was actually a flop. You could blame the marketing but I'd rather believe that it was just way ahead of its time and nowadays it has reached a huge cult status which is totally deserved in my opinon. I guess it is/was maybe too slow for some viewers but it didn't bother me, in the contrary. Even if you don't like this movie, you have to at least recognize the fact that it has influenced all the SF movies that came afterwards.

My rating: 09/10

Check the full review

Cast : Sigourney Weaver, Tom Skerritt, Harry Dean Stanton, John Hurt, Ian Holm, Yaphet Kotto

What was it about?
A mining ship, investigating a suspected SOS, lands on a distant planet. The crew discovers some strange creatures and investigates.

My two cents:
To be honest, I have to admit that I always preffered 'Blade Runner' which is more challenging and interesting in my opinion but this movie is still really awesome. I mean, there are so many iconic landmarks here : Ripley, the Alien, the chest-burting scene, Ash,... Visually, it was really impressive and Ridley Scott managed to create a really oppressive mood which has been copied so many times afterwards. Obviously, back in those days, they didn't have any CGI at their disposal so it was pretty obvious that the alien was mostly a guy wearing a suit and some people might argue that it didn't look really convincing. On the other hand, as a result they used pretty much the same method used in 'Jaws' which was to show the monster as less as possible and, just like in 'Jaws', it made the whole thing even more tensed and spellbinding to behold. To conclude, even though it is already 40 years old, the whole thing still looks terrific, it remains one of the best science-fiction movies out there and it is better than 'Aliens', in my opinion.

My rating: 08/10

Check the full review

Cast : Keith Carradine, Harvey Keitel, Albert Finney, Edward Fox

What was it about?
Set during the grand, sweeping Napoleonic age, an officer in the French army insults another officer and sets off a life-long enmity. The two officers, D'Hubert and Feraud, cross swords time and time again in an attempt to achieve justice and preserve their honor.

My two cents:
It is basically a completely forgotten feature and I think it’s too bad because it is actually pretty good. To be honest, it seemed to be a rather big and ambitious project for a debuting director but, with someone like Ridley Scott, you shouldn’t expect anything less. Indeed, when you watch the damned thing, it is rather hard to believe that it was, in fact, his directing debut because it was so well done. Harvey Keitel and Keith Carradine were maybe not the most famous leading actors ever but they both delivered some solid performances. Eventually, the whole thing was not completely flawless as the story tends to drag along but the directing was really impressive.

My rating: 07/10

Check the full review