Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, the Director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven, and more. He was one of the pioneering directors of new hollywood along with Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, Scorsese, Kubrick, and Cameron.


But this, Just looking at the trailer of this movie is just says it all:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/columns/moviebob/12741-Ridley-Scott-s-Films-Are-on-a-Downhill-Slide

And I liked 2010 Robin Hood movie. If only because I loved the performance of the actor who played as King John of England:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clr6zsehoTg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTvdOjsJXRY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTvu8CBwOdI

He is just so vain and overdramatic its awesome ;)

But this Exodus: Gods and Kings moviewas just a comeplete misfire since its conception :P

i cant help but notice that they dont just gloss over hannibal but compeltley neglect to mention it at all

You're being too clement. I gave up on him after G.I. Jane.

Ridley Scott is an amazing talent, odd decisions and all. I'm even willing to cut him some slack on Prometheus, which I suspect was not entirely the disappointment it appeared to be.

I saw Hannibal when it came out, and hated it along with the rest of the world. I watched it again recently, and I'll own up that I was wrong - at very least it's a striking film, and it may turn out to be a great one. We were all pretty much unfairly comparing it with Silence of the Lambs, which, of course, it isn't. On its own, it's a movie with a lot of punch.

Let's remember that the initial reviews of Blade Runner were scathingly and almost universally bad.

Funny. I liked (not loved it) it since the first time, except for the ending.

Last month I re-read the book with Hopkins and Foster in my head. I loved it.

i wasnt really dissapointed by prometheus but i didnt see it as a prequel to alien
i saw it as a paralell story that could possibly be set in the alien story

because if you pay attention you will see that it doesnt lien up with alien at all it awnsers a few questions but opens up a whole lot of new ones

the way ..whats her name died was utterly stupid though
swerve to the left or to the right !

It was not a prequel to alien and he said that himself. A fun little thing that fans pretend to ignore.

I have liked a lot of his more recent movies and I like the look of his new one. I have also seen a good number of positive reviews about it.

Oh I also think Blade Runner is over hyped shite! :P

The man has stopped giving a shit about having a good script that's what happend.Saw exodus today and it was exactly the same as his output in the past years-competent direction but lacking in every other deparment.

"Hands raised" I thought so aswell. I saw both the theatrical cut and the first director's cut and I still got nothing out of it.

Everyone says the final cut is the best even though it is essentially the theatrical cut with the added eyeball gauging.

I think this is probably where the issue lies. He's still a brilliant director, but he really doesn't seem to care one whit about a coherent script.

There was so much to compare, in that film, and it suffered badly for it. Julianne Moore did a completely reasonable job as Starling - but she wasn't Jodie Foster, who is so totally identified with the role, then as now. And Jonathan Demme's direction in Silence was so skewed and powerful that Hannibal feels tired by comparison. But they really can't be compared; they are different films in every way, sharing only Hopkins as Dr. Lecter.

Hannibal is matter of fact and yet wildly over the top, with the fate of Ray Liotta's character and everything to do with Gary Oldman's amazing run as Mason Verger. If Silence had never been made, or had not been such a world-wide hit, I think Hannibal would have been regarded as a triumph.

What follows is a supposition, but ever since his brother died he has had to do all the work on his movies, alone. Normally, they would have done it together, and this means that now, he alone has to deal with all the exterior input, from studio execs and producers, and he alone has to fight to get his vision across. I think this constant struggle affects his projects.

I have not seen "Exodus: Gods and Kings" and I won't see it until he releases the director's cut.

And speaking of Prometheus, he has repeatedly refused to create a director's cut of the movie, even though there are an additional 35 minutes of footage on the blu-ray, that apparently explains everything, EVERYTHING, that was awkward and ham-fisted in the original theatrical cut. Luckly there is hope. Ridley Scott has ALWAYS released extended cuts of his movies, sometimes decades later. There are connections between Prometheus and Blade Runner. His future projects include "Prometheus 2" and "Blade Runner 2". It seems almost impossible for him not to release a director's cut of Prometheus.

Scott has always been an overrated git - much the same as Lucas and Spielberg - all of the rode to fame off the backs of their art departments, editors etc etc etc.
It's only because the studios / producers etc managed to hold them back for so long we got good films. This is what happens when they're set free.

Completely agree with that.

To me, Exodus was at least ok and worth seeing.

I wonder if this is true. Tony Scott had such a prodigious output of films on his own, and frankly I never really thought of them as collaborating, apart from their work on The Good Wife (which I think is a spectacular show). I never really thought of Ridley as working on Tony Scott's films, or vice versa; the production company, of course, was co-owned. I don't know one way or the other, though.