I didn't even finish it. I watched the first 1/2 hour, was bored to tears, and started skipping around, looking for interesting scenes. I did watch the scene where Tim Curry appears. That was a cool and creepy scene. Everything else was so lame, though. I kept thinking, Ridley Scott made this? What are you doing, Ridley?
To me, it didn't feel enough like a cohesive fantasy world. It felt incomplete. Also, nothing interesting happened.
I'll give you Alien, and I admit I did like the bright, hot San Fernando Valley of Matchstick Men.
But I have a malfunction in me by which I don't get Bladrunner. I think it's my aversion to the obsession with fog in 80s movies. I know it makes light beams visible and stuff but I just hate fog on film.
And don't forget, Ridley is also responsible for Kingdom of Heaven and by all accounts Hannibal isn't as good as Red Dragon, which means he was shown up by Brett Ratner.
The man is overrated. He got lucky early in his career but never lived up to it again.
He only used that style in two of his movies, Man on Fire and Domino! Admittedly MOF is the better film but even Domino is better than Natural Born Killers.
SpyGame is editorially tamer than many movies and TV shows. I can't fault him for trying new things with the medium, pushing his style to the extreme for a couple rounds to see what would happen, then moving on, keeping what was good and leaving the excesses behind.
The formal conventions of classical filmmaking are followed so slavishly by 99% of Hollywood movies that it's nice to see experiments for a change, even if they're not perfect. But most people want to see what they're used to every time, so Hollywood keeps recapitulating the same thing.
To exemplify both the general point about Hollywood and the particular point about Ridley, how conventional was American Gangster? Technically accomplished, no doubt about it, but there was absolutely nothing new to the genre in it. I'll take Denzel in Man on Fire and Deja Vu every day of the week.
Legend sucked.
8 comments:
Hey it wasn't the best, but it wasn't horrible.
I really enjoyed the scene with the dress. It was a cool interpretation of seduction.
I didn't even finish it. I watched the first 1/2 hour, was bored to tears, and started skipping around, looking for interesting scenes. I did watch the scene where Tim Curry appears. That was a cool and creepy scene. Everything else was so lame, though. I kept thinking, Ridley Scott made this? What are you doing, Ridley?
To me, it didn't feel enough like a cohesive fantasy world. It felt incomplete. Also, nothing interesting happened.
Legend is yet another piece of evidence that Ridley is the lesser of the Scott brothers.
Everyone thinks I'm insane, but what if I'm the last sane man in an insane world?! What if, indeed.
But come on! Blade Runner? Alien? Ummm... Black Hawk Down?
Man, has only made 3 good movies? Gladiator was ok.
I'll give you Alien, and I admit I did like the bright, hot San Fernando Valley of Matchstick Men.
But I have a malfunction in me by which I don't get Bladrunner. I think it's my aversion to the obsession with fog in 80s movies. I know it makes light beams visible and stuff but I just hate fog on film.
And don't forget, Ridley is also responsible for Kingdom of Heaven and by all accounts Hannibal isn't as good as Red Dragon, which means he was shown up by Brett Ratner.
The man is overrated. He got lucky early in his career but never lived up to it again.
Ryan, I think you're being too generous to Gladiator. ;)
I think he seems like someone with a lot of good ideas who isn't always able to translate those well onto the screen.
I know, Kingdom of Heaven was just as unfinishable as Legend. But he's Ridley Scott! He's got renown!
I...I don't know if I can admit that Tony is better. He made Domino and does that hyper-editing thing.
He only used that style in two of his movies, Man on Fire and Domino! Admittedly MOF is the better film but even Domino is better than Natural Born Killers.
SpyGame is editorially tamer than many movies and TV shows. I can't fault him for trying new things with the medium, pushing his style to the extreme for a couple rounds to see what would happen, then moving on, keeping what was good and leaving the excesses behind.
The formal conventions of classical filmmaking are followed so slavishly by 99% of Hollywood movies that it's nice to see experiments for a change, even if they're not perfect. But most people want to see what they're used to every time, so Hollywood keeps recapitulating the same thing.
To exemplify both the general point about Hollywood and the particular point about Ridley, how conventional was American Gangster? Technically accomplished, no doubt about it, but there was absolutely nothing new to the genre in it. I'll take Denzel in Man on Fire and Deja Vu every day of the week.
Post a Comment