Why I Much Prefer Ridley Scott As A Director Of Historical Films Rather Than As A Director Of Sci-fi Movies

A lot of people will tell you that Ridley Scott has directed two of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time, those being Blade Runner, and Alien. But honestly, I really don’t like Blade Runner, and I’ve always been a much bigger fan of James Cameron’s Aliens than Ridley Scott’s Alien. Also, to add insult to injury, I much prefer Denis Villeneuve’s Blade Runner 2049 (which we gave a great review), to Scott’s Blade Runner, which again, I don’t like.

However, I love Ridley Scott’s historical pictures. And, with his recent movie, Napoleon, now out, I thought it would be nice to gush over the director. At least when it comes to one particular genre.

I Don’t Find Ridley Scott’s Historical Movies To Be As Slow-Paced As His Sci-Fi Films

Here’s what’s funny. Even though I’m not a huge fan of movies like Robin Hood, or Exodus: Gods and Kings, I don’t find them to be slow or boring. But, do you know what movie bores me to tears? Blade Runner. It's honestly one of the most boring movies I’ve ever seen in my entire life. And get this. A lot of people will tell me that I need to watch “The Final Cut” since it adds so many more layers to the film.

Um, didn’t I just tell you that I don’t like Blade Runner? This isn’t like the difference between Joss Whedon’s version of the Justice League, and the Snyder Cut version of the Justice League, which might as well be completely different movies. The Blade Runner “Final Cut” has the exact same director as the theatrical cut, but with some tweaks here or there. I don’t think that will make it any less boring, though.

The same goes for Alien, Prometheus, and even The Martian as a more recent example. Ridley Scott is excellent when it comes to creating atmosphere in his sci-fi flicks, but I find everything else to be too dull to even stay awake for.

However, do you know what movie I actually do love the Director’s Cut to? Kingdom of Heaven. Kingdom of Heaven was already an excellent movie to begin with, but the Director’s Cut is actually even more gruesome.

What about Gladiator, which is the only Ridley Scott movie to ever win Best Picture? Gladiator is exciting as all hell. Or what about his first feature-length film, The Duelists? Have you ever watched The Duelists? It’s freaking riveting, man!  Hell, I even really like 1492: Conquest of Paradise, even though I know most people don’t like that one.

The fact is, I find all of Scott’s historical films to be worthy and fascinating. And I can’t wait to watch Napoleon!

(I’m still a bit iffy on whether we really need a sequel to Gladiator).

I Find The Characters To Be More Fleshed Out And Interesting In His Historical Movies

Is Rick Deckard a Replicant? Here’s a better question: Do I care? In my article on fantastic sci-fi books that live up to the hype, I talked about how the Philip K. Dick novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is excellent, and it’s much better than the movie that it spawned. Mainly because the Deckard in the novel is much more fascinating than the Deckard that Harrison Ford plays.

And, while I do love how Ellen Ripley (a character Sigourney Weaver has said she will no longer be reprising) is such an important character in the world of cinema, I also think that all of the characters around her are super bland.

That said, let’s talk about The Duelists again. Harvey Keitel’s portrayal of Gabriel Feraud is one of the most three dimensional characters that I’ve ever witnessed. Like, why does he have such a death wish? Is it for honor, or is it something else entirely?

Honestly, I know movies like American Gangster, Black Hawk Down, and House of Gucci are not technically historical films (they’re more like biographical period pieces), but I still find the characters in all of those movies to be fleshed out and enticing, which I can’t say for any of Scott’s sci-fi films.

I Find That I Actually Learn Something When I Watch Scott’s Historical Films

Okay, so I know a lot of 1492: Conquest of Paradise is probably poppycock. I get that Kingdom of Heaven is loosely based on the Crusades, and I understand that Gladiator is more historical fiction than historical fact. But guess what. I don’t care.

The fact is, I probably wouldn’t think much about Christopher Columbus, the Crusades, or the Roman Empire if not for those three aforementioned movies. Ridley Scott’s historical films, as fictitious as they are, always make me learn something new about a time period. And I’m pretty sure the reason I think about them (and sometimes even read more up on them) is because he makes these periods seem so interesting and alive.

And yes, I can say that Ridley Scott makes his sci-fi films feel alive as well, but I don’t think he makes them feel interesting. They are, of course, very distinctive, but I don’t feel myself getting immersed in any of these worlds or stories, whereas I always find myself getting invested in the time periods that he decides to film in.

I Think He Gets The Best Performances Out Of His Actors And Actresses In His Historical Films

I love Michael Fassbender. Like, I haven’t seen the David Fincher thriller, The Killer yet, but I will. Honestly, I feel like Fassbender can do no wrong.

Except, that is, when it comes to Ridley Scott sci-fi movies, as I didn’t like his android characters in Prometheus, or in Alien: Covenant. I know that his characters were meant to be stiff, but I thought he was a bit too stiff.

And while I know others would consider Harrison Ford’s performance in Blade Runner to be one of his best, I certainly wouldn’t. Yes, Sigourney Weaver’s most iconic character might be Ellen Ripley, but Weaver is such a phenomenal actress, that I think she’s done much better work in other films, like Ghostbusters, or hell, even in Aliens and in Alien 3, neither of which were directed by Scott.

So, no. I am not impressed with the performances in any of Scott’s sci-fi movies. Not even when it comes to Matt Damon in The Martian, who was actually nominated for Best Actor. Matt Damon just seemed like he was playing… Matt Damon in The Martian.

That said, Matt Damon gave a knockout performance in The Last Duel, where he actually had to play the same character from three different perspectives. Ben Affleck also did a phenomenal job in The Last Duel, and it might even be my favorite performance of his.

So, yeah. Scott really gets the best out of his actors in his historical movies.

I Feel Like Scott’s Sci-Fi Films Have Been Replicated By Other Filmmakers, But Not His Historical Films

Do you like Bob Dylan? I'm actually not a fan of his voice. But, do you know what? I love when other people sing his songs! Like “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue” by Bad Religion, or “Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat” by Beck, or of course, “All Along the Watchtower” by Jimi Hendrix.

The only reason I bring this up is because I feel like other directors have replicated Ridley Scott’s style when it comes to sci-fi movies, but have also done it in a way I enjoy more. Like Species kind of feels like a Ridley Scott movie, but sexier. The Thing kind of feels like a Ridley Scott movie, but more intriguing.

The same goes for Blade Runner. Like the video game, Snatcher. Have you ever played Snatcher? Its whole style mimics Blade Runner, but it’s a hell of a lot more enjoyable.

That said, when it comes to Ridley Scott’s historical films, I feel like no other director has fully matched his grand-scale ambition. Like, there are other gladiatorial films, but none of them feel like Gladiator. There are other films where people duel, but no other film feels like The Duelists. And while there are other films about Napoleon, I’m sure that none of them are like Ridley Scott’s version. He’s in a class of his own when it comes to historical films.

But how about you? Do you agree that Ridley Scott makes better historical films than sci-fi movies? For more news on all things Ridley Scott, be sure to swing by here often.