comment #1

jesse says ...

I would even go as far as to say that Matchstick Men is the best Ridley Scott movie ever. Yeah, yeah, I know, Alien and Blade Runner, hugely influential, blah blah blah. They're both a little boring. Beautifully crafted and far more memorable than most boring movies, but a touch boring nonetheless. Gladiator and Black Hawk Down are overrated, and some of Scott's other movies are just terrible (Legend! Which I actually thought I might like because it sounded like Labyrinth). But Matchstick Men has great visuals that serve the story and aren't too showy, plus at least three terrific performances, and interesting *characters*, not just settings or situations.

Nonetheless, I'm not particularly looking forward to A Good Year. It seems like a movie-star play for Crowe, and I don't particularly like him as a movie star, be it macho or charming or whatever. His best performance I've seen was in The Insider. I haven't really admired any of his performances since then (though I missed Master & Commander).

comment #2

Colin says ...

I thought that Matchstick Men was underrated, but I don't think it's on the level of Alien or Blade Runner, neither of which I thought were boring. I do think that I can see where you're coming from. Neither of those films is action packed, but I think that they were both visually interesting enough and had enough subtext to keep me from being bored.

The same holds even truer for The Duellists, which might just be my favorite Scott movie.

comment #3

JoeGreenia says ...

This sounds repellant – you can “grow” a soul if you have the cash to drop on a vineyard in the French countryside? Yeah, that’s a problem you can throw money at. Ugh. Looks like a fantasy for type-A assholes. Unfair to completely write this off yet I suppose, but man...

Ditto on The Duelists though.

comment #4

NYCBusybody says ...

Yeah, I'm glad people like Russell Crowe and his character have the time and expendable income to sit around France falling in love, but I don't need to watch a movie about it. Especially when by all accounts, the guy isn't "macho" or "masculine", two adjectives I generally like. He just seems like an asshole bully. Fine actor, but not much of a person.

comment #5

MagillaOrangutang says ...

In my opinion, Ridley Scotts movies too often are like herds of cattle moving through beautifully painted deserts. I have never hated one of his films but have never loved one either.

I think his worst movie is Black Rain. Great white American hope comes to town and shows those over thinking little Japanese how to REALLY solve crime.

He should have been sent to director's hell for that one.

comment #6

MagillaOrangutang says ...

But man does it look great! Noir rain soaked streets reflecting Japanese neon. Beautiful dreck!

comment #7

Ellen says ...

This movie was in the works long before any events of last summer. The book it's based on was published on 2004 at Ridley's request and Peter Mayle doesn't write scripts, so he wrote a novel instead for Ridley to turn into a film. Ridley had Russell in mind for the film as they both had been looking for another project to do together for many years without much luck due to timing and other problems.

People who think it was done to correct for image problems have no understanding of how Hollywood works, especially how slow it works and one cannot just say "hey, lets do a lite comedy!" in July '05 and have it filming by September '05.

Lightly spirited and whimsical doesn't seem to be Crowe's forte,
Then try watching some of his older films, like Proof or The Sum of Us. He's also done romantic comedies before.

comment #8

tholl-yung says ...

In the trailer, Crowe gets pissed off with a phone, all but throwing it. hehe.

comment #9

Patrick says ...

The film appears to be a TOTAL STINK BOMB based
on its HORRID trailer that I had to endure
before watching 'World Trade Center' for a second
time. Mr. Scott has made two films that I HATED
while others liked e.i. Blade Runner and Hannibal.
I greatly enjoyed 'Matchstick Men,' but most had
an indifferent reaction to it. I strongly disliked
'Gladiator' when I first saw it in the theater,
but later fell in love with it on DVD. 'Black
Hawk Down' is a tour de force in filmmaking! Sure
it's rather one sided and a lot of liberals hit
the roof because of the lack of context, but that
WASN'T the film they were making. It was based on
a book about the Rangers and their experiences on
that terrible day. Yes, I know, a lot people
didn't like the random killing of a bunch of
'black' people, but I don't think the filmmakers
had time to set up any particular story line in
that direction. That's another film! Just like
'WTC' WASN'T about the entire 9/11 event nor was
it supposed to be, yet people still attack it for
being too limited in scope. False charge in my
opinion! Now, back to Ridley...'Alien' is quite
strong and I also like the visuals on 'Someone
To Watch Over Me,' but the story is nothing. That's
the main problem with Scott over the years, his
films usually have poor scripts with Tony Scott
level dialogue and extremely shallow characters.
'Thelma & Louise' is pretty good too. 'G.I. Jane,'
'Legend,' 'Black Rain,' 'White Squal,' 'Hannibal,'
and 'Blade Runner' are his worst offenses. While
even '1492 : Conquest of Paradise' and 'The
Duellists' offer wonderful visuals to make up for
the less than stellar scripts. 'Kingdom of Heaven'
was a prime example of his great visuals being
undermined by a weak central character and rather
poor dialogue. I didn't think the 'Director's Cut'
helped it out at all in that area. Sure, it made
Orlando's character more solid, grounded in
reality, but the story just laid there for me
throughout the whole film. Ridley Scott is a mixed
bag for me. Some things I love, some things I
really can't stand. However, I'm sure many could
say the same for my mentor, Oliver Stone.

comment #10

actionman says ...

Ridley Scott is a filmmaking God. And legend. End of discussion.

comment #11

delphic_oracle says ...

Well, I read some reviews from the early screening of the film and they are quite positive about the film and Russell Crowe's performance. Though, it might not be an award contender, I don't think it's as bad as some journo would have you believe.

comment #12

bachelorcool says ...

Well I can tell you right now it'll be dead round these parts (that is if it even makes it to our local hardcore-mainstream multiplex). A star no-one likes, a story that might as well be set on the moon for all its relevance to daily working-class life, and a director no-one gives a shit about outside of the cities. Ridley + action = cinema. Ridley + character pieces? Dust on the rental shelves.

comment #13

hatchling says ...

Millions of people admire Russell Crowe's work. And most realize that the press has made him a whipping boy. He's had his moments of media infamy to be sure, but to paraphrase, "the rumors of his death have been greatly exaggerated". I'm looking forward to this film, though a certain self proclaimed Oscar expert [probably the one Jeffrey referenced], who I won't name other than his initials [To'N], has a personal, bitter vendetta underway. He's skated very close to both slander and libel on several occasions, and when he's not doing that, he's denigrating everything the man does professionally. One wonders if Crowe brushed off an advance sometime in the past, because not much else explains To'N's vitriol, which goes way beyond normal dislike. He's actually going out of his way to poison Crowe's career.

comment #14

IClavdivs says ...

Yes, Ellen. That awful romantic comedy he did with Salma Hayek was so good I can't even remember the name. If simpering, wimpish projections is his idea of being a romatic comedy leading man then he should retire. Can he do comedy, romantic comedy? perhaps but I haven't seen one yet. His overpraised romantic schtick in A Beautiful Mind was so simperishly offputting, I barfed!