I prefer the theatrical version of BLADE RUNNER also. I believe I first saw it at a midnight screening in lower Manhattan some time after it first opened. I saw the cut with the unicorn during its re-release and I may have seen that at a much bigger theater, but I didn't like it as much. I haven't seen it since, but since I've seen so much anime that took off from BLADE RUNNER in the last 20-odd years, I really need to see it again.

As for Ridley Scott, I think I like BLACK RAIN the best, but I haven't seen it since it came out.

Oh, and EXPENDABLES 2 totally rocks!

I must like Scott more than other others here because I see very few missteps in his filmography.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but somehow this doesn't surprise me.

As to the notion of having to see a film multiple times in order to get something from it and whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing or if we should feel compelled to do so, I'd say it depends on what you're trying to get out of viewing a film.

Hokeyboy mentioned Citizen Kane earlier and that of course has sort of been the default "best film ever" for as long as I can remember. I've met plenty of people who see it and don't get why it's such a big deal and they move on. And that's fine. However, for someone interested in film studies/history, it may behoove them to give the film another shot if only to try and understand why it's such a big deal. For me, trying to understand why something is beloved by audiences or critically praised or historically significant or whatever, even if I don't particularly enjoy it, is just as interesting as being entertained for two hours. Sometimes my opinion on the film will even change because of it.

That said, I don't think anyone should feel like they HAVE to do that. The Big Lebowski is a film that many people love that I've never really enjoyed. I saw it on its theatrical release and it did nothing for me. 15 years of people talking about how good it was got me to watch it again. I think I get why people like about it so much, and the parallels with the Big Sleep are kind of fun, but it's still not my thing. And at this point I don't feel particularly bad about it either. I may give it another spin some day, but I certainly don't feel compelled to do so.

I don't know that watching it a bunch of times in a short time span is going to change your opinion of it. For me, I revisited it every few years.

Also, certain films get better when you get older and can appreciate more what the characters go through. I saw a lot of films when I was a film student that I just didn't get until I was older. I didn't appreciate Ozu back then, but now I think he's one of the greatest filmmakers ever. I liked RIO BRAVO back then, but didn't think it was such a great western as it had been touted, but seeing it as an adult, I understood that its strength is in the way the characters relate to each other. The plot is not as important as the way the characters talk, the way they move and the way they regard each other. Same thing with THE BIG SLEEP, which got better and better with each viewing.

One of the problems is that for a lot of people the plot is the only thing that matters and if they already know "what's going to happen," then they feel they've already seen the film enough times. It would drive me nuts in film school when a film would be announced and someone would skip the screening because "I already saw it."

I'm a fan but his output post Kingdom of Heaven is a pretty major drop in quality.

I wasn't crazy about Blade Runner the first time I watched it beyond the amazing visuals and the Vangelis score. Couple viewings later and I loved it. Most people I've talked to about the film feel the same way. And there are barely any films where I change my initial impression. Blade Runner has a very bare story that unfolds slowly but it plays better in retrospect and subsequent viewings.

by the time i got to the end of my 3rd viewing, I started to get it a bit more...so I said what the hell, while i am in the mood lets spin this badboy one more time.

I didn't get very far before i fell asleep. Not because of boredom...just because i was tired.

Fixed

I think you could make an argument one way or the other about how big the drop off is post Blade Runner, but it would be really tough to argue that Scott didn't peak with his first couple of films.

Thelma and Louise, despite being a radically different kind of film, could be considered one of his best. And Gladiator certainly doesn't suck.

Hmm. Don't care for either one of those. I'd say since Blade Runner, the only two of his that I think are really excellent are Matchstick Men and The Counselor.


Tony Scott>>Ridley Scott

What the heck is up with people calling the film slow? Have we really reached a point where everything is so fast that Bladerunner is considered slow?

I remember around 1988 when I was 10 it aired on television. I didn't watch it but I remember the commercials and I knew it was going to be on. My friend came to school the next day and proclaimed that he had a new favorite movie and it was Bladerunner. A year later I was staying in a hotel in Mexico that had free HBO and I watched it. And I liked it a lot.

If a film can be enjoyed by an 11 year old watching it on a 27" TV in a hotel room then I think it's pretty accessible and I don't know what's wrong with all you adults who can't get your heads around it.

Gladiator most certainly sucks.

His best post-Bladerunner films are:
1492
Black Hawk Down
The Director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven

...and Hannibal is not bad for what it is and how much Silence of the Lambs overshadows it.

I don't know about that one. IMO, there are only two films from Tony that can compare to The Duellists, Alien & Bladerunner and those would be True Romance & The Hunger.

I enjoy Alien and Blade Runner but I think Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut is his best film. I know I'm in the minority.

IMO, Prometheus is his only REAL stinker (and a head scratching piece of shit it was!) All his others hold some level of entertainment for me. Although, I still have yet to see Matchstick Men.

Tony Scott made a lot of junk, but overall, his films were consistently more entertaining than his brother's, despite how bad some of them were.

You've got something there. I would argue that Ridley was, aesthetically, a better director than Tony, and I tend to admire Ridley's films more than Tony's, but there are two films of Tony's that I really like and I like them better than anything Ridley made: TRUE ROMANCE and UNSTOPPABLE.

Let's not forget "The Last Boy Scout," obviously written by Shane Black but still pretty hilarious, and I have to agree with inri on "The Hunger," which is just a badass '80s vampire flick and wholly original.

Unfortunately the rest of us do keep going to see them ...

There are films that are great, but need historical contextualization to truly appreciate them. Citizen Kane, Jaws, and Blade Runner are all among those. Today Blade Runner is seen as plodding and dated because we've seen decades of its influence (and imitations) in countless other mediums.

I think it also does not help to have as many versions of it as we have. For a fan and a film buff it is neat, but for someone who is trying to come to the film for the first time it is off-putting. "What version do I watch? If the director couldn't figure it out, why should I?"

It is possible to appreciate a film (or filmmaker) and not like it. I am this way with most of Tarrantino's work. I love his passion and enthusiasm. I think he is a great story teller. I admire most of his visual style. However, his pre-pubescent need for hyper-realistic violence (and gore) destroy his movies.

PS -- The guy who doesn't get Raiders of the Lost Ark should be banned.

I would argue that Gladiator certainly does suck, but it is fun to look at. Same with Legend.

That said, I've always liked Black Rain, Thelma & Louise, Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men, Kingdom of Heaven (DC), and American Gangster. Yes, none of them touch Duellists, Blade Runner, or Alien, but still quality movies.

Interesting. Throwing out Prometheus, most things I have read name Matchstick Men and The Counselor among his worst. I enjoyed Matchstick Men. I think many that knock that one don't like Cage, which I can understand.

But when I see comments that Gladiator sucks it's clear these best or worst discussions are nothing but personal preference.

I've enjoyed almost everything Tony Scott has done. But I do think he tends to fall into the same movie, different title, trap. Stories and characters so interchangeable it would be easy to get elements from each movie confused with each other.

I never said that none of his post Blade Runner films were good. I just think he peaked with Alien and Blade Runner and I bet most others would agree. My point was that you could make a reasonable argument on just how much of a drop off he's had since then. Some might say a steep drop off, some might say a tiny drop off, but most would say that there has been a drop off however you want to quantify it.

Simply put, I don't think there has been a drop off. Just miss-steps in between the numerous movies put out since. To each their own I guess.

No one anywhere considers Matchstick Men among Scott's worst. It's probably the last film he's made that's worth a damn.