Has superlative stylistic skills, but as a story teller, he sucks.

First, I'd like to speak to the two earlier reviews referred to in this piece. I happen to think that American Gangster and Gladiator were very good films and quite entertaining. I did not read the reviews of either of these movies before I saw them and came away from the theater quite satisfied and impressed. When I read the reviews later, I wondered what versions of these movies some of the critics viewed. I am a big fan of Ridley Scott, and while it's true his story telling skills need some work, I've found most of his films to be very engaging.

I happen to resent movies that rely solely on high-tech special effects (instead of interesting characters and good dialogue) to wow audiences. And, while Mr. Scott is occasionally guilty of overusing such techniques, I think he successfully speaks to his audiences on a deeper, more visceral level - leaving them (or at least me) with a creeping unease about the future of this world.

While I love independent, thoughtful, and insight full films, there's nothing like kicking back once in awhile and watching a Ridley Scott flick. Blade Runner, Alien, and Aliens were great movies as was Thelma and Louise.

Ultimately, I need to stop reading reviews before I go to movies I've been looking forward to seeing!

... is a very good director - who has made some awful films along the way.

I was very dissapointed by American Gangster - the movie was just emotionally blank.

But he has made some incredible masterpieces as well. Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down - great films.

Give the guys some credit for tackling the subject matter, and doing it in a somewhat mainstream package. Many people never saw films like Syriana because art house stuff just does not appeal to everybody - maybe this flick will get the more average moviegoer to think a bit. Even if it's not a fantastic film.

= James Cameron.

Too Late .....

The horse has long been gone from the barn and is irretrievable.

But we don't really expect Hollywood producers to be "rebels" before their time, do we ???

Saw "Body of Lies" tonight and it's far from intricate. Pretty standard, simple stuff here. Not hard to follow at all, so if you're inclined to see a movie like this, don't let that claim turn you off. A solid three-out-of-four-star movie.

...and I approve this review.

The movie is just static. There's lots of running around, lots of cutting, TONS of locations, byzantine details (so-and-so has created a fake identity and traveled to Dubai to hire so-and-so architect to unknowingly take credit for such-and-such fake terrorist bombing), and still.....pffft.

The saving grace is Golshifteh Farahani, but I am a woman-loving freak who could probably just enjoy staring at her for two hours. There's a good reason she's popular in Iran; she's gorgeous. Ridley Scott should have traveled in time to cast her instead of Sean Young in "Blade Runner." She's got a similar look but she's even prettier than Young was (and let's face it, Young was killer hot in that movie, even if she turned all crazy on us, no doubt the result of spending too much time in the rationality-mutating presence of James Woods).

I also agree with a commenter that Ridley Scott is a pedestrian storyteller. Both Ridley and his brother Tony cut their teeth directing slick commercials, and their lack of a storyteller foundation has always been a problem in their work. Scott mostly offers stylized renditions of whatever's in the screenplay, though obviously he had a high general competence level and has had a few breakthroughs here and there. And none of his turkeys have sucked as hard as Tony Scott's "Domino," which still leaves me shuddering from its horribleness.