Napoleon Dynamite

I was talking mad shit about Ridley Scott yesterday. I don’t know why, but I was put into a bad mood after watching the trailer for Napoleon. It wasn’t because the trailer was bad, it just pissed me off.

How many movies has Ridley Scott made? 400,000? And how many times has he made something interesting and EVERY goddamn time we watch it and we come away unfulfilled? The answer is 400,000 times which is the exact amount of movies he has made.

This includes Alien. Sure, the second half of the movie is pretty good, but that opening half is a slog. It doesn’t help that he was out-directed by James Cameron in Aliens.

Blade Runner somehow made it into AFIs top 100 movies ever made. But that’s thanks to Vangelis, Douglas Trumbull, Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, the production designer, and the cinematographer. They saved a mediocre script and lackluster direction.

Gladiator is in the running for being one of the most overrated movies of all time.

And Black Hawk Down is actually pretty good.

Special shout out to Hannibal however. This film came at a time when Scott was directing everything that was being released, so he probably rolled out of bed to make it. It’s doubtful that he put much thought into his efforts, but it worked. It’s not a great film but at least it’s a memorable one, which is more than I can say for 98% of his filmography.

Ridley Scott knows how to bring in the talent. That can’t be debated. His films always look incredible, yet somehow empty. At best, Scott can be described as a slightly more competent version of George Lucas.

So who’s Apple TV trying to fool? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 400,000 times, I’m a fucking moron.

So with that said, I will probably spend my hard earned money to watch Napoleon.

Things n such

I’m gonna keep saying this until the internet listens: stop trying to adapt Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian into a movie.

But if Hollywood is hellbent on doing so, my instructions above is how you do it.

I actually agree with McCarthy, the novel is not unadaptable. The problem is that Hollywood thinks too big. Last I heard, David Fincher was interested in the project. But I can’t stress this enough: no typical Hollywood director can tackle this material.

Not Ridley Scott. Not Spielberg. Not Tarantino. Not Fincher.

The novel is a nightmarish interpretation of the old west and it needs to be treated as such. You need a director that visually speaks that language. Therefore you need maestro of horror to do the job.

Blade runner

Soooo, did I ever talk about Blade Runner on this blog?

I’ve always had a lot of opinions about the film, but it seems like every film buff has wrote a dissertation on it. So what’s the point of clogging up the internet with one more, ya know?

But after ripping off it’s ending in my latest short story, I can’t stop thinking about it.

For the record, and I’ve been very open about this, Blade Runner 2049 is the superior film. By a fucking mile too. Ridley Scott is an interesting visual filmmaker, but all of his movies lack heart. This is true for not only Blade Runner, but Alien, Gladiator, The Martian, etc, as well.

Additionally, I find the script to be underwhelming. Even the film’s most memorable moment (the Tears in Rain monologue) was largely the result of actor Rutger Hauer’s ingenuity and not so much the writer’s. I don’t blame Hampton Fancher and David Peoples for this (the latter would later write Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven). The final script was probably the result of compromise during a troubled production.

Nevertheless, Blade Runner works because everyone else behind the scenes CRUSHED their role, from F/X artist Douglas Trumbull, DP Jordan Cronenweth, composer Vangelis, concept artist Syd Mead, production designer Lawrence G. Paull, and everyone in between.

In Scott’s defense, I believe he sees himself as more of a “CEO”-type filmmaker, or one that brings together highly talented people to do their thing, as opposed to being an auteur himself. So in that respect, he did his job really well. Nevertheless, likely because of this approach, there is an “it” factor that’s lacking in Blade Runner which prevents it from becoming one of the great classics in cinema.

Strangely, I think MOST cinephiles agree with this: Blade Runner is visually and conceptually one of the most influential films of all time. But is it a great movie?

Personally, I think that question is more interesting than the film itself.

But where I disagree with most other fans of the Blade Runner universe are on the Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) scenes. Hauer feels like he’s acting on an island in this film. While that’s a deliberate choice, his scenes drag the movie down. And to be completely honest, the movie is not nearly as interesting without Harrison Ford on the screen.

Now Ford’s performance is somewhat controversial. It’s noted for being his first “mature” role, and a lot of people don’t like it. He often comes across as detached, grouchy, and needlessly aggressive in some parts. Ford’s performance is a bit dialed back, as opposed to Hauer, who isn’t afraid to be hammy and childish. Unfortunately, Ford acting choices were better suited to the Blade Runner universe and, despite being the leading man, he doesn’t feel like he’s in the film enough.

That’s it. That’s all I’ve got to say 🤷‍♂️

david fincher

For whatever reasons, I’ve recently went through a David Fincher binge. And it occurred to me: I’m not a fan of his work.

That being said, The Game and Panic Room are his two best movies. Alien 3 is probably better than you remember. Se7en is alright.

Everything else is overrated. This includes Fight Club.

But The Game surprised me. It reminded me of one of my other favorite films: Roman Polanski’s Frantic. It’s hard to pull off these kinds of movies…watching a character descend into madness while information about what’s actually going on slowly leaks out.

Honestly, The Game doesn’t completely pull it off. Fincher’s visual style and Michael Douglas’s performance carry the film. But to completely enjoy it, one must ignore large plot holes and read more into subtext than what was probably intended (I assume).

I thought that Douglas’ character was suffering from the same madness that his father had and the ending indicated that “the game” was still being played. But I have the suspicion that this open ended interpretation bails out the script. In other words, Fincher’s direction saves the day.

As for everything else on Fincher’s resume, he seems to suffer from the same problem that Ridley Scott has: all style and the substance is overstated.