“Hannibal” (2001)
One of the many good things about the TV show “Hannibal” is that it has reclaimed the name of one of fiction’s most indelibly fascinating villains from this desperately subpar entry in the cinematic franchise kicked off by Jonathan Demme‘s brilliant “The Silence of the Lambs.” Of course, it’s hard to tell how much of the resultant mess was really Scott’s fault: the “Lambs” sequel was supposed to be a reunion of Demme, Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster in the roles they’d all won Oscars for last time at bat. Instead, that fell apart and Scott stepped into the breach with Julianne Moore as Clarice at a later stage, so that only Hopkins remained of the original team. However, it was under Scott’s tutelage that Hopkins, so chillingly restrained in ‘Lambs,’ hammed it up outrageously, making the titular cannibal just one of the film’s roster of outsized freakshow inhabitants, including a (smartly) uncredited Gary Oldman cutting off his own face and talking about drinking orphan’s tears and a bored Ray Liotta eating his own brain. That’s right: this is a film in which Ray Liotta can eat his own brain and bore everyone, even himself, while doing so. [D-]
“Black Hawk Down” (2001)
This is not the film of Scott’s to show to anyone who’s in the habit of accusing him of being nothing more than a technician —he’s made soulful, textured, layered movies, but this is not one of them. But “Black Hawk Down” is a stunningly well-shot, pared-back exercise in war-movie-as-pure-cinema: an almost avant garde experiment in how to use scintillating photography (by Krzysztof Kieslowski collaborator Slawomir Idziak and lethally precise editing (by Pietro Scalia) to create a sense of incredible tension and immediacy. So it’s more as an aesthetic marvel that the film works at all —the deceptive docudrama elements are underserved by a script that scarcely allows us to tell one actor from another, despite the stacked cast full of recognisable faces (Eric Bana probably fares best in terms of actually making an individual impression). The film’s geography is disorienting, the goals are not always clear and we’re not sure if it’s the gung-ho politics of the film that are offputting or the fact it doesn’t really seem to have any politics at all but merely uses the Mogadishu setting as the excuse for a extended tension set-piece. But as a grunt’s-eye view of the confusion and panic of on-the-ground combat that has little truck with human characters or emotional connection, it’s a taut and bruising experience. [B-]
“Matchstick Men” (2003)
Nicolas Cage undoubtedly went off the boil in the late 90s and experienced a dry spell (or rather one that involved lots of mad-eyed ranting and a memorable encounter with some bees) that lasted most of the aughts too. But there was a noticeable uptick in the middle of the wilderness period: after his brilliant turn in Charlie Kaufman-scripted, Spike Jonze-directed “Adaptation,” Cage showed up in Scott’s highly entertaining “Matchstick Men.” Probably the most underrated film in the director’s canon, it’s also overlooked for the actor’s great performance. It’s a sharp, fast and engaging con man/father-daughter tale, with the Cage’s mannered and manic character, hounded by phobias, struggling throughout in the throes of a wonderfully nuanced inner conflict—his empathy for his newfound daughter is fundamentally at odds with his inherent neuroticism and his fierce cunning. Sam Rockwell is aces as usual in support, and Alison Lohman has never been able to top her stellar role here. The contrivance at the end does sell the great work to that point short and makes the picture feel a little slight, but for most of its 116 minutes, it’s a blast. [B]
READ MORE: Nicolas Cage Chooses His Favorite Movie Roles, Weighs In On State Of Film Criticism
“Kingdom of Heaven” (2005)
You may think you’ve seen, and been disappointed by “Kingdom of Heaven,” but you haven’t had the full experience of just how tedious it can be until you get into the protracted director’s cut—the one that many, including Scott himself touted as the redemption of this yawn of a Crusades “epic”. Yes, the extra 45 minutes restores entire plotlines and gives the film room to breathe, but it also just makes the slog of an experience (who cares if gaps are filled if the filler is so inherently dull?) even longer. Yes, Edward Norton courageously plays his non-existent character behind a mask the entire length of the picture… erm, congratulations? Hopefully one day we’ll see a Final Cut with Orlando Bloom‘s performance digitally removed and replaced by Paul Bettany, Scott’s first choice for the part; there’s a reason that Bloom hasn’t toplined too many blockbusters since. Deeply flawed, it’s like the more solemn, vastly less entertaining version of “Gladiator,” only this time it goes full-bore with the faith subplot that is so shallowly rendered it shows up just how empty the entire endeavor is. Original version [D], Director’s Cut [C-]
