You will be redirected back to your article in seconds

The Films Of Ridley Scott: A Retrospective

The Films Of Ridley Scott: A Retrospective

Ridley Scott is, in some circles anyhow, a god. Practically treated as royalty with laudatory genuflection from certain film enthusiasts — generally genre fetishists — he has turned in two unimpeachable cinema touchstones, “Blade Runner” and “Alien,” plus a few other arguable modern semi-classics including “Black Hawk Down” (though as you’ll see, not all us here agree with that assessment) and “Gladiator.” But his track record overall? Scott’s batting average isn’t exactly amazing across the board, and while he has major peaks, his work can be frustratingly uneven for someone who is clearly and masterfully talented. While a craftsman of technically marvelous and grand spectacle cinema, his films can also be inordinately soulless and have become increasingly so with each film (Sigourney Weaver famously said that Scott paid more attention to the props and extraterrestrials than the actors on “Alien,” but somehow that picture still worked).

And while his latest, “Prometheus,” has plenty of fans, and is inspiring all kinds of arguments, many who’ve already seen it feel that it’s another gorgeous, impeccably made misfire from the director. Scott is a great world builder, a great technician, and has plenty of facility with actors when he wants, but a look back over his career reveals just as many misses as hits. To mark the release of “Prometheus,” we’ve given our retrospective from two years ago a fresh lick of paint: below, you’ll find our take on the complete films of Ridley Scott. It’s sure to spark plenty of debate — let us know what you think in the comments section below.

The Duellists” (1977)
Scott’s first feature, which won him the Camera d’Or at Cannes, feels quite different from anything else that followed. It’s a stripped-down, vaguely allegorical tale, adapted from Joseph Conrad‘s short story, “The Duel,” about the decades-long feud between two French soldiers, D’Hubert (Keith Carradine) and Feraud (Harvey Keitel), who find themselves clashing swords every time they meet after Feraud takes insult at a perceived slight to his honor. It’s as visually sumptuous and detailed as you might expect, even at this early stage (even if it’s clearly, and admittedly, indebted to “Barry Lyndon“), it’s relatively lean and compelling when it’s not pursuing redundant romantic sub-plots, at least. But Carradine and Keitel are both woefully miscast — particularly when put up against the supporting cast, which includes Albert Finney, Edward Fox, Robert Stephens and Diana Quick — and stand out like sore thumbs in the world that Scott’s created. Still, it’s kind of a fascinating oddity in the director’s canon. [B-]

Alien” (1979)
Still Scott’s greatest film and better than James Cameron’s sequel, the director’s sci-fi horror is an exercise in minimalistic terror, manifesting it in the most unknowable, terrifying extraterrestrial creature ever seen on screen. Now that it’s part of film history, it’s hard to realize how surprising the film must have been at the time, sitting down in the theater, and not knowing that Sigourney Weaver would turn out to be the lead, or exactly what happens in that dinner scene. But even if years of homages, rip-offs and shoddy sequels have lessened the impact, it still retains its power to terrify. If anything, “Prometheus” only goes to reinforce the original film’s power, rather than lessening it, fortunately…  [A+]

Blade Runner” (1982)
What’s left to say about “Blade Runner” at this point? A flop on its release, it’s proven a massive influence on virtually every sci-fi movie, videogame and comic book since, and remains one of the most complete, coherent visions of a future ever put on screen that feels completely in step with dystopian classics like “Brave New World,” and “1984.” Whichever version of the film you watch — the pulpy Philip Marlowe original or the existentially introspective director’s cut — you walk away at the credits feeling like you’ve spent months in Los Angeles 2019 and, despite the bleak rain-soaked atmosphere, you’d go back again in a heartbeat. But it’s not just an exercise in world-creation; the noirish plot is gripping and the performances are uniformly outstanding. [A+]

Legend” (1985)
As dated and corny as Ridley Scott’s fantasy film can feel these days, the picture does get a lot of things right. Among them, the atmospheric, gauzy, elf-like aesthetics straight from the fairy world from whence it came, a dreamy score by Tangerine Dream, a wonderfully romantic closing number by sharp dressed Roxy Music gentleman Bryan Ferry, and what feels like a rare appearance by ’80s hottie Mia Sara. It’s also pretty damn quotable (“Black as midnight, black as pitch, blacker than the foulest witch!” says the stinky little Goblin Blix) or at least… it was at the time. Sure the sets are a bit cheesy, but as a pre-“The Lord of the Rings” fairy goblins romance fantasy flick, it was certainly one of the better ones of its time. [B]

Someone to Watch Over Me” (1987)
After three fantasy/sci-fi pictures, Scott headed to the contemporary world for the kind of sexually charged thriller that his old advertising colleague Adrian Lyne was having such success with around the same time. “Someone to Watch Over Me” tells the tale of a cop (Tom Berenger) assigned to protect a murder witness (Mimi Rogers), and it’s a treat to see Scott take on Manhattan with the same kind of eye he shot “Blade Runner” with (right down to borrowing some of Vangelis‘ score). And some of the performances — Berenger’s steely working class cop, and particularly Lorraine Bracco as his wife — are just about worth the price of admission. But the two leads have little chemistry, and the script is rote and kind of ridiculous, down to Andreas Katsulas’ overblown villain. It’s a movie you’ve seen a dozen times before, and a dozen times since, and it’s very much a minor effort from Scott. [C]

Black Rain” (1989)
Okay, maybe we do get plenty pumped by Hans Zimmer’s percussion-heavy, guitar-wailing theme, particularly when Michael Douglas and his glorious ’80s poof of hair pursues the big baddie by motorcycle. That doesn’t change the fact that Scott’s atmospheric actioner is a product of the time, a decidedly B-affair from a guy most consider A-List. Douglas and his partner, Andy Garcia, are NY cops huffing and puffing their way through a Japanese crime investigation, cutting through red tape the way movie cops do until, shockingly, the case gets very, very personal. Action fans will find a lot to like about the film’s crackerjack pace, but Douglas is laughable as a grizzled tough guy, and the film’s East-West relationships were probably somewhat progressive at the time, but still fairly cartoonish. [B-]

Thelma & Louise” (1991)
On a BBC radio interview a couple of years ago, frequent collaborator Russell Crowe said that Scott made the “first post-feminist action picture” with 1991’s “Thelma & Louise.” We’re not sure about the whole “post-feminist” bit (feminism is still going on, after all), but Scott did do a whole lot with this lean, beautifully shot and briskly paced (even at 129 minutes) road movie. Beyond a couple of absolutely riveting star turns by Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon, and yes, some nicely feminist subtext, the film also marked the big time debut of Brad Pitt. Most of Scott’s most compelling work (“Blade Runner“) involves the creation of an invented universe. Here, he was merely content on capturing a feeling of isolation, entrapment, and freedom. And he did it amazingly. [A-]

1492: Conquest of Paradise” (1992)
After the genre exercise of “Black Rain” and the aforementioned “Thelma & Louise” (arguably his most grounded picture), Scott returned to his familiar world of spectacle with the “1492: Conquest of Paradise.” The international cast was led by Gerard Depardieu, which quickly became one of many stumbling blocks for the film and indicative of the production as a whole. The actor, wonderful in his native French films, seemed lost here trying to work with English dialogue. The film, all pomp and circumstance, and brimming with its of sense of self-importance, was well-meaning, but ultimately limp and forgettable. While Scott did manage some of his trademark razzle dazzle it wasn’t enough to save the film that didn’t even have substance enough to fill up the costumes worn by its well-attired cast. [C]

White Squall” (1996)
A sort of proto-“The Perfect Storm,” Scott headed out to seas for the second time for this based-in-fact tale of a group of 1960s high school boys (including Scott Wolf, Ryan Phillippe, Balthazar Getty and Jeremy Sisto) taken out to sea by a schoolmaster and skipper (Jeff Bridges). And as you might expect, Scott fills the film with enough detail that you’d feel reasonably confident about taking out a ship yourself, while Bridges delivers a typically excellent, understated performance that steers clear from Ahab-like cliches. The storm footage, too, is as impressive as you’d imagine. But Todd Robinson‘s script leans too heavily on coming-of-age cliches, and the young cast never quite rise to Bridges’ level, which makes the stormy climax feel somewhat unengaging, and what comes before it frankly a little dull. [C-]

G.I. Jane” (1997)
After demonstrating a great empathy and understanding for strong female characters (a rarity from male filmmakers), Scott’s 1997 misfire was trying to recapture the rah-rah girl power spirit of his groundbreaking “Thelma & Louise.” Results, as they say, may vary. The elation that made “Thelma & Louise” was gone, instead replaced with a wafer-thin action plot by David Twohy (something about a woman being added to an elite combat team and missing nuclear materials), an unconvincing “gritty” turn by Demi Moore in the title role (shaved head and all), and an unrelentingly grim atmosphere, both thematically and photographically. It is interesting, however, to see Viggo Mortensen, in an unshowy role, impart even the most frivolous character with earth-shattering importance. Beyond that however, this thing is a major grind. [C-]

Gladiator” (2000)
This is one that continues to baffle us a little. Certainly not bad by any stretch, it’s hard to believe that back in 2000, this was an outright phenomenon, becoming a box office sensation, making a star out of Russell Crowe and earning a number of Academy Award nominations and wins, including Best Picture. Looking back on it now, it’s an impressive and accomplished piece of entertainment but hardly the stuff of a Best Picture winner (though, they usually never are). That said, there is something to be said about the power of the film and Scott’s filmmaking prowess that can still draw us in, and make us watch it to the end even during the most casual of channel surfing sessions. [B]

Hannibal” (2001)
Ten years after “The Silence of the Lambs,” it was time to cannibalize (yes, we went there) the popularity of Hannibal Lecter, but after a bumpy development which saw the departure of ‘Lambs’ director Jonathan Demme and star Jodie Foster, the property fell into the lap of Scott, who proceeded to shove this lump of shit down our throats like it were a Death’s Head moth and we were a size 14. The mad glee and playfulness of Hannibal, made famous by Anthony Hopkins in ‘Lambs,’ was replaced by an over the top, highly stylized freakshow that included a (smartly) uncredited Gary Oldman cutting off his own face and talking about drinking orphan’s tears, and a bored Ray Liotta eating his own brain. It’s even worse than it sounds. [F]

Black Hawk Down” (2001)
A common complaint about Scott’s career is that he’s nothing more than a technician; that his films, while handsome, frequently lack soul. We don’t always buy that posit, but a viewing of “Black Hawk Down” certainly gave us pause. The photography by Krzysztof Kieslowski collaborator Slawomir Idziak is astounding, and Pietro Scalia‘s cutting is world-class, but Scott can’t decide if he wants to make an aesthetic marvel or an immersive docudrama, and the two cancel each other out. His storytelling instincts, normally so good, fail him completely, and it’s almost impossible to follow the film’s geography, or to distinguish between the starry cast — only Eric Bana, fresh from “Chopper,” makes an impression. Even putting aside the film’s deeply questionable shoot-em-up politics, it’s a curiously uninvolving film, overdosing on bluster and bravado, but without truly engaging with the audience. [D+]

Matchstick Men” (2003)
When people say that Nicolas Cage lost his way after his enjoyable Jerry Bruckheimer-produced ’90s action flicks (which he did), they fail to take into account his strong turn in this sharp, fast and engaging con man/father-daughter tale. The actor’s mannered and manic character, hounded by phobias, struggles throughout the picture, with Cage portraying a wonderfully nuanced inner conflict. His empathy for his newfound daughter is at odds with his inherent neuroticism, and his fierce, on-the-ball skills of deception. Sam Rockwell is aces as usual, and Alison Lohman still bears the burden of this stellar performance she hasn’t been able to top. The contrivance at the end does make the picture feel a little slight, but it’s an absorbing, taut and well-written ride, and one of the director’s most underrated pictures. [B]

Kingdom of Heaven” (2005)
You may think you’ve seen, and been disappointed by “Kingdom of Heaven,” but you haven’t had the full experience of just how tedious it can be until you get into the protracted director’s cut. Yes, the extra 45 minutes restores entire plotlines and gives the film room to breathe, but it also just makes the slog of an experience (who cares if inherently dull gaps are filled) even longer. Yes, Edward Norton courageously plays his non-existent character behind a mask the entire length of the picture. Congratulations? Hopefully one day we’ll see a Final Cut with Bore-lando Bloom‘s performance digitally removed and replaced by Paul Bettany, Scott’s first choice for the part; there’s a reason that Bloom hasn’t toplined a new blockbuster in five years. Deeply flawed, it’s like the more solemn, vastly less entertaining version of “Gladiator,” with a completely shallow theme of faith that feels empty. Original version [D], Director’s Cut [C-]

A Good Year” (2006)
This 2006 picture is perhaps Scott’s most fascinating work, if only because it seems to swim against the tides of his basic intuitions and the very fiber of his nature. Putatively a romantic comedy, the picture is actually more of a character study about a tried-and-true asshole (a British investment broker) who eventually discovers he has a soul when he inherits his uncle’s French chateau and vineyard — the very place where he spent his childhood and a locale that contains his most cherished memories. The movie is a complete 180 from everything the filmmaker has ever made because, for once, he shies away from genre and actually tries to dig for some true humanity. So on paper, we ideologically love this film and it’s actually quite entertaining and engaging for its first hour or even more. It’s great to see Scott attempting something different and succeeding, at least early on. But sadly, it cannot resist some pretty bad pedestrian cliches in its devolving third act and the romance between Russell Crowe and Marion Cotillard, which only really comes to the forefront in the last half of the second act, is remarkably unbelievable and superficial. It’s also extraordinarily notable for being one of the few films that make otherwise excellent actresses like Cotillard and Abbie Cornish seem completely talentless. [C]

American Gangster” (2007)
This is probably one of the few Scott movies we wouldn’t mind he sequelize, if only because like “Robin Hood,” it’s clear he focused on the least interesting part of the story. Like “Robin Hood,” which was originally a dual-identities sort of experiment before becoming an origin story, “American Gangster” ends with a post-script informing us of the unusual working relationship between the two characters we just watched clash, coke entrepreneur Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) and city cop Ritchie Roberts (Russell Crowe). We walk away from the movie forgetting Lucas’ too-glammy criminal capitalist enterprise and the obvious dichotomy between his family life and Roberts’ own broken home, but remain enthused by the idea of Roberts’ second career as a defense attorney taking Lucas as a client and shortening his sentence. That’s the movie we would have preferred to watch. [C]

Body of Lies” (2008)
While charged with being an empty and empty-headed political thriller — it’s a spy film about a CIA operative who uncovers a lead on a major terrorist leader suspected to be operating out of Jordan — it does two important things: proves Russell Crowe is a fine (arguably better) supporting actor especially when he is subverting his tough guy, alpha male characters (it might be his most interesting work since “The Insider“), and it might have been the first picture where we actually bought Leonardo DiCaprio as a full-blown adult (as opposed to say, “The Aviator,” where you say, hey there’s that kid DiCaprio trying to play Howard Hughes). It also boasted nice turns by Mark Strong and Oscar Isaac as well, leading Hollywood to recognize both of their strengths, and Scott to bring them both back for his next picture. It’s also pretty damn entertaining, even if it’s insignificant. [B-]

Robin Hood” (2010)
As one of the most frequently filmed tales in cinema history, how would Scott, reuniting with Russell Crowe once again, find a fresh spin on “Robin Hood?” By 1) making it a prequel and 2) making it incredibly boring. The trend of late seems to have been using prequels to tell the least interesting part of a story, and that’s kept up here — we discover how Robin Hood (Crowe) became the folk hero, but don’t get to see much of what’s made the tale so popular over the years, with Scott stripping out the robs-from-the-rich-and-steals-from-the-poor theme, and replacing it with a Tea Party-style message about how unfair it is that millionaire Ridley Scott has to pay his taxes. The “Gladiator“-style action suffers from a severe case of diminishing returns, and the performances, even from greats like Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong and William Hurt, are flat and tedious, saved only by the sneeringly entertaining Oscar Isaac as Prince John. If Scott’s aim was to make “Kingdom of Heaven” look better in retrospect, then he succeeded. [D-]

— Rodrigo Perez, Oliver Lyttelton, Gabe Toro, Drew Taylor, Alish Erman, Ben Webster, Kevin Jagernauth

This Article is related to: Features and tagged , , , , ,



What a repellent, spiteful little article. Clearly the author knows very little about film.


I agree that Hannibal is his worst movie, although I don't think I'd give it an 'F'. Probably more like a 'C'. And I also agree that Gladiator, which I like, didn't deserve to take home Best Picture that year. It is indeed a bit baffling in retrospect.

In my opinion, his best movies are Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise and Black Hawk Down. I even liked Prometheus a lot. I agree that Black Hawk Down has some questionable "shoot 'em up politics" and remains, for the most part, curiously uninterested in the Somali perspective, but it's so well made that I have to include it in his best. I also thought that one of the film's strengths was how easily I was able to follow what was going on, considering there was so much going on during that operation. I also think it has the greatest combat scenes ever filmed. Is it the best war movie ever made? Certainly not, but it works very well as a 'you are there' experience.

And as for his most underrated I'd have to go with Body of Lies. I was surprised how much I enjoyed that movie after hearing such average things about it and being unimpressed with any of the promotional material.


Fuck you Hannibal was a great movie


I'd definitely agree with you about his late 80's/mid 90's slogs, but I guess I'm one of the few defenders of him in the past 12 years. For the most part. Black Hawk Down definitely has more soul to it than you give it credit for, to me anyway. Matchstick Men is one of the more underrated flicks of the past 10 years, and Kingdom of Heaven is one of my favorite films of all time in terms of style, storytelling and ambition, there's far more to it than the surface suggests. American Gangster is a frustrating one, because there's a lot of good about it, but it definitely needed a tighter script. A Good Year is slight, but a change of pace anyway, not great by any stretch, but more of a rainy day rental than the out and out disaster it was painted as. Robin Hood's another case of a lot of good, and muddle, it was a cool concept but there's too many moving parts for there to be weight on many of the characters & audiences just didn't seem to take to them making a 'grounded' prequel to the fanciful tale we're all useful. That project's whole development was odd though.


Hm, I mostly disagree with your ratings but that´s ok. Everyone has it´s own likings.
To me „1492“ was a big boring mess even Scott´s visual flair could not rescue (F).
Gladiator is still a near perfect epic which never fails to have me fully captivated (A).
Hannibal is kind of a guilty pleasure to me. Yes it´s clearly over the top but still highly entertaining in all it´s clinical coolness and gross out moments. (B-)
Black Hawk Down is the prototype of a modern war movie. This felt nearly like a 3D movie without even having 3D. Watching this one on a big screen felt like being up there with the guys. There are very few films I felt as involved in as this one. At one point you´re right. Amidst all hell breaking loose in Somalia, the soldiers don´t know where they are and neither does the audience. (A)
Kingdom of heaven (Directors Cut) is another wonderful sprawling epic. In this version the political intrigues make this film also very interesting and even the much maligned Orlando Bloom comes off a lot better than in the theatrical cut. (DC: A-) (Theatrical cut: C+)
Robin Hood is a strange one but still pretty entertaining and well acted. The biggest problem may be it´s title because this film just isn´t Robin Hood. It should have called Sherwood or something like that and the general expectations may have been different. (B-)


Regarding “Legend” you wrote that “the picture does get a lot of things right” and then you mention the score by Tangerine Dream? Well, that score almost ruined the whole movie. Do yourself a favor and watch the US-Version with the TD-score and then compare it to the international version, which was released with the original (studio rejected) score composed by Jerry Goldsmith. That´s a whole different experience…and then tell me again that the TD-score was one of the things the film got right.

Stevo the Magnificent

Boy, someone got out of bed on the wrong side this morning, was that a retrospective or a crucifixion? 'Kingdom of Heaven' (Director's Cut) is a tremendous and accomplished piece of epic film-making, '1492…' is a flawed but totally worthy movie, and 'Hannibal' is basically an onscreen opera, although he probably should have passed on that and directed 'Red Dragon' instead, now THAT would have been interesting…

Carson Wells

I thought American Gangster was better than a C, I'm not sure why so many people dislike it so much. I'd easily give it a B. Also, the thought of those characters being in a courtroom drama instead in no way sounds more appealing. That sounds pedestrian and is no doubt the reason why that version of the film wasn't made.

Christopher Bell

Jesus christ, a lot of Ridley Scott bullies, huh? "idiots"? "watch them again in 10 years"? And you guys mean this earnestly?


A D+ for 'Black Hawk Down'? The hell?

Otherwise, most of these are spot on. Though I would say 'Robin Hood' is his worst film by far & 'Hannibal' is a good for hire film. Actually Scott greatly improved the movie off the rather horrid novel. I like 'Kingdom of Heaven' more than you guys did but the real shame with that project is if Scott had been allowed to cast who he wanted for the lead the film would have been greatly improved.

Only film of his I haven't seen is 1492. Need to get around to that sometime.


1492, Robin Hood and Kingdom of Heaven are all excellent films. The reviewers should watch them again in 10 years when they've grown up a bit.


I love his The Duellists, and am sure that with years it's getting better like wine. Prometheus is really stunning visually but absolutely clumsy from storytelling point of view. I'd call it far-fetched.


Scott's inconsistency is perplexing and frustrating but a D+ for Black Hawk Down? Pretty harsh if you ask me, especially considering you gave a better grade to A Good Year. Your review of Prometheus worried me somewhat but I'm not giving it much thought after this article.

Tony Scott

This retrospective just goes to prove what I've always felt. Ridley is a half-there filmmaker, able to bring only half of what makes a movie good to practically each and every project he's ever done (Blade Runner included).

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *