In a review of Tony Scott's work it is remarkable that although not consistently finding popularity in reviews, box office success, or 'cult' following... in many respects, especially in some specific work (Crimson Tide, Spy Game, Enemy of the State, Man on Fire, Deja Vu) I find the 'details' present in the development of the characters particularly 'rich, fully shaped, and pleasing'... But is notjust that characters that are intellectually stimulating it is the whole product... Characters, setting, cinematographic shaping, stylization and details within a scene, music, all combining into a particular kind of movie that invites more of the viewer than entertainment...layers exist that tend to leave a residual mind tease... which can and has returned me to re-experience the movie again and at intervals again. Like a very good book, that one can return to again and again because to immerse oneself into the story and characters is familiar but freshly new... and never disappointing... instead revealing another nuance that had been overlook, or perhaps flashed past, and only in reviewing, again and perhaps again overtime, do layers with in the film allow exposure. I do not know with this partiucalar director if this is by intent or accident that he provokes or in an more evocative fashion seduces the mind or psyche by architype to return... and emotionally plunge me into the story... returning with new yet again deeply satisfying pleasure. Not ever bored.... often renewed..... perhaps it is the way he reshapes and presents 'redemption'.

I can't say I agree too much.

Of those movies that I've seen Man on Fire starts off well, but it degenerates into an action revenge flick with a "surprising end".

Enemy of the state is entertaining sure... but I can't say it kept me thinking..

If I was thinking of a director for intellectuals I'd be thinking Paul Thomas Anderson or Wes Anderson.. to start with the A's...

But yea Tony Scott?

This post was a joke, right?

This thread begun by Cabin back in April of last year has me thinking about Tony Scott and his more popular or lauded brother Ridley Scott famous for his back-to-back breakout movies Alien (1979) and Blade Runner (1982) both known for their layered design and rich cinematography.

I've often returned to a number of Tony Scott's movies to watch again (and upon reflection I never attached Tony's name to the movies when I watched them again). The Hunger (1983) one of Tony's first directorial efforts I consider to be a richly provocative and also independent-feel like movie. It was haunting and very much out of the mainstream (which Tony then burst onto the general public radar with his blockbuster hit Top Gun (1986)).

Many of Tony's movies are mainstream action-adventure-thrillers popular with the general audience and likely profitable too. Yet there must be some redeeming features in some of Tony's movies for somebody like me to return to a number of his movies again and again. Enemy at the Gate (1998) is a good example of something more than just a run of the mill action movie. The movie had quality photography presented in a more of a historical epic format. The relationships were rich and dense and substantive. And by coincidence I've just recently begun to replay Tony's Domino (2005) based on the real-life story of Domino Harvey. Here Tony combines action with a richly populated character study. Spy Game (2001) is another intense and rather qualitatively superior character movie with Brad Pitt getting a rough and raw role that meshes action and human character in rich mixture of substantive cinematography.

At this point, Tony hasn't finished his career and more movies are likely from this director. It appears he has the ability to bring to movies a fusion of popular action-thrillers together with an underlying appreciation of characters, relationships, and the human component to film-making. Which direction Tony's future films will generally take only perhaps Tony knows.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tabuno,