He is famed for his organisational skills and rapid shooting pace on films which never run over time or over budget (usually while in the depths of post-production for one he is well on his way preparing for his next), not to mention racking over 100 varied producing credits with Scott Free Productions, the company he founded with his late fellow filmmaker brother Tony.

Throughout his directorial career Sir Ridley has displayed a fascination with exploring human nature and telling stories with complex and formidable women at their centre, and over a 45-plus year career he has tried his hand at most genres, always bringing distinct and atmospheric visual sensibilities with him.

How do you even begin to put such an impressive body of work in any kind of justifiable order? Well, we at The Film Magazine are certainly going to try. So put on your favourite Hans Zimmer soundtrack, draw the blinds to cast some interesting shadows, and turn on the smoke machine. Based on each film’s critical and audience reception, and their wider impacts on popular culture, here is Every Ridley Scott Directed Film Ranked from worst to best.

Follow @thefilmagazine on X (Twitter).

28. The Counsellor (2013)

In an effort to buy himself out of trouble, a lawyer (Michael Fassbender) agrees to facilitate the theft of a Cartel drug shipment on behalf of local kingpin Reiner (Javier Bardem).

Acclaimed novelist Cormac McCarthy writing a script for Ridley Scott sounds like a dream come true, yet The Counsellor was anything but. The characters are all broad strokes, amoral archetypes, or, in Bardem’s case, cartoon characters. No one changes or learns anything, and the smattering of kinky sex and splatter violence is transparently aiming for shock value.

By squandering an intriguing premise and an impressive cast, The Counsellor ends up as an amateurish, sleazy and boring crime film with, particularly disappointing for McCarthy (a writer famed for pristine penmanship), only a single memorable exchange of dialogue.

27. Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

A re-telling of the Old Testament story of Moses (Christian Bale), an adopted prince of the Pharaoh leading the Israelite rebellion and escape from their slave-masters in Egypt.

The animated The Prince of Egypt did this story so much better, or at least executed it in a more emotionally compelling way. Ridley Scott might be Mr Historical Epic, but in adapting a Biblical story he bit off more than he could chew.

Even putting aside the uncomfortable look of casting white Europeans and their descendants to populate a story of Egypt and the Middle East (this was only half a decade ago and everybody should’ve known better) Exodus never seems to work out exactly what it wants to be; grounded or fantastical, spiritual or cynical, faithful to the Old Testament or out to deconstruct it; it’s all of these and none of them at the same time.

26. Robin Hood (2010)

Returning from the Crusades, Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe in his fourth collaboration with Ridley Scott) leads a series of uprisings in the villages surrounding Nottingham in protest of the cruelty of the Crown’s treatment of the peasant classes.

Who decided Monsieur Hood should be gritty? Give me a fox or Errol Flynn any day.

This take on the classic English folk tale had all the action chops but never managed to present Robin as an engaging character with compelling or relatable struggles.

Crowe’s accent going on a walking tour of the British Isles was distracting to say the least, and while Mark Strong and Oscar Isaac are fun baddies to boo at, Cate Blanchett is largely wasted as a more active than usual Marian, the copious convoluted flashbacks only serving to muddy the characters and their struggles. 

Recommended for you: Once More with Feeling – 10 More of the Best Remakes

25. Someone to Watch Over Me (1987)

Newly-promoted NYPD detective Mike Keegan (Tom Berenger) is assigned to protect socialite Claire Gregory (Mimi Rogers) who has witnessed a brutal mob assassination, but finds himself helplessly falling for her.

This is a pretty dull, by-the-numbers noir-thriller enlivened only slightly by Scott’s usual visual flair and Lorraine Bracco’s sturdy supporting performance which manages to make the usually thankless role of cop’s wife fairly interesting.

You can predict every twist and plot turn coming at you a mile off, and all the late 80s fashion and hair is far more terrifying than any violent threats to the protagonists might be.

24. A Good Year (2006)

High-flying British stock trader Max Skinner (Russell Crowe) returns to his family vineyard in France to tie up his late uncle’s estate but falls in love with a simpler way of life and the people he connects with, chiefly waitress and childhood friend Fanny (Marion Cotillard).

Russell Crowe’s first reunion with Scott since Gladiator is a pretty strange beast, all things considered. It’s basically the story of a man with money being humbled, going on a trip down memory lane in summery rural France and trying to recall a more innocent point in his life when things other than wealth mattered to him.

For once Crowe isn’t playing a gruff macho man, he’s got good comic chemistry with Tom Hollander, and the flashbacks featuring Freddie Highmore and Albert Finney are admittedly rather poignant. Sadly Marion Cotillard doesn’t get much of interest to do despite being key to the plot, and Scott seems far less comfortable directing what is essentially a rom-com.

23. Hannibal (2001)

Hannibal Review

A decade after his escape from the asylum, Dr Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) is being pursued not just by the FBI’s Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore) but one of his few surviving and highly vengeful victims (Gary Oldman).

It was an almost impossible task, to follow Jonathan Demme’s 1991 masterpiece adapting an inferior book sequel, but Scott did his best with what he was given. Anthony Hopkins has fun with a lot more screen time as Hannibal Lecter, and the whole thing is presented with handsome cinematography and a beautifully orchestrated score from Hans Zimmer, including a meticulous original aria for the sake of a single scene at the opera.

Unfortunately these iconic characters lose a lot of their power and allure, and the whole thing feels over-stuffed, unfocused and unnecessarily gory.

Recommended for you: Hannibal Movies Ranked

Napoleon (2023)
Director: Ridley Scott
Screenwriter: David Scarpa
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby, Tahar Rahim, Rupert Everett, Paul Rhys

Almost a quarter of a century after his swords and sandals epic Gladiator became a critically acclaimed cultural phenomenon and Oscars Best Picture winner, Ridley Scott re-teams with one of its stars – one of this generation’s leading actors and a multi-time Academy Award nominee, Joaquin Phoenix – to revisit another of history’s most written about leaders, Napoleon Bonaparte of France. With more historically accurate locations and just as many period-appropriate costumes as in his turn of the century fable, this life and times of France’s great-then-disgraced general should be a lot more affecting than it actually is. This bullet point journey through Bonaparte’s rise and fall from power doesn’t make powerful comment on the corruption of man, nor does it evaluate the emperor’s influence on war or peace, on Europe or France or the United Kingdom or Russia. In fact, it doesn’t say much at all…

It would be difficult to chronicle Napoleon’s story and fail to capture the imagination in one way or another. This is one of history’s most important figures, an emblem of power and greed. His various roles in post-revolution France took him across continents, saw him as the figurehead of coups, and brought about the deaths of more than one million people. His was a life filled with so many historically significant events, moments, and decisions, that anyone with so much as an Encyclopaedia Britannica could recount his story with at least some drama, shock and awe. The issue with this $200million film is that the script does little more than precisely that, recounting the significant moments of his leadership as if listing them out of a book, with a cheap and at times barely legible love angle tacked on to evoke empathy and provide commentary on the events that come fast and often with little context.

Joaquin Phoenix tries his best. He dominates every scene, embodying a character he clearly sees as more of a creature than a man. Under his spell, Napoleon Bonaparte is worthy of attention, a character whom we are desperate to investigate, to interrogate. But the film doesn’t allow for that. As we depart the beheading of Marie Antoinette in revolution-era France to first meet our subject, Phoenix is not unlike a lion with his jaw clenched, his eyes glazed, his uniform as extravagant and symbolic as a mane. There is so much promise held within this introduction – a potentially world-shifting performance, some spectacular wardrobe work, effective framing and blocking – and instead it sadly becomes emblematic of a film that leaves so much of its potential unfulfilled.

The bullet point journey through Napoleon’s conquests, political manoeuvres, and exiles, requires an emotional core for any potential audience to attach to, and it finds that in the would-be emperor’s marriage to his beloved Josephine. Vanessa Kirby embodies the infamous leader’s muse as if a witch who has cast a spell, and the Oscar-nominated performer’s turn is at times just as beguiling as Phoenix’s. Together, they never hit the highs of some of their other on-screen relationships (Phoenix in Her, Kirby in Pieces of a Woman), nor is their relationship as moving as that presented by Mel Gibson and Catherine McCormack in Braveheart, or as lustful as that presented by Omar Sharif and Julie Christie in Doctor Zhivago. There isn’t even a sense of dangerous plotting as underlined by the incestuous relationship hinted at between Phoenix and Connie Nielsen in Gladiator, which at least provoked a reaction. In Napoleon, Phoenix and Kirby are believably brought together, but they are far from enchanted by one another, and as time passes and events occur, you expect that to become part of the commentary on Napoleon’s lack of humanity, but it doesn’t. Napoleon instead frames this relationship as the beating heart of its subject, as the primary motivating factor, the biggest achievement, the biggest regret. And the film only takes brief moments to dissect this, or even present a valid argument as to how the relationship motivated the man to achieve otherworldly horrors. Theirs is a story that runs parallel to the story of Napoleon’s “achievements”, evolving from time to time but largely suffering from the same “this happens and then this happens and then this happens” that plagues the rest of the tale.

Beyond the limitations of David Scarpa’s screenplay, which was no doubt limited in its potential by the vast period of time it sought to cover (a period of more than 25 years), and the effects this has on Claire Simpson’s editing and pacing of the film, Napoleon does achieve a lot cinematically. First and foremost, the costume work is spectacular. David Crossman and Janty Yates’ work in costuming is nothing short of stellar, and a glimpse at the level of quality many expected a modern Ridley Scott historical epic to achieve. Everyone looks unique and period-appropriate, but the smaller details on the limited selection of main characters are worthy of the biggest screen possible and plenty of critical acclaim. Similarly, the production design by Arthur Max is a significant factor in bringing cinematic qualities to scenes that are otherwise inconsequential or at least far from unmissable. The party and governmental scenes are where the latter shines the brightest, some sequences decked out and presented as if the period’s great paintings.

Ridley Scott must be commended for his role in bringing this to life, too. Some shots are of the highest cinematic calibre, a master clearly touching on the greatness that has been foundational to his visually impressive career to date. His party scenes are filled with life, there are unique physical qualities to many of the major historical figures at play in the story, and he seems intent on ensuring that not a single battle is presented in as bland a fashion as many other director’s have long since settled. His work with cinematographer Dariusz Wolski in the capturing of cold, of fog, of early morning winter sunrises, imbues the piece with a sense of reality and ensures that nobody can be bored by the achievements held within each frame. Some sequences, such as the one in which Napoleon takes Moscow, are worthy even of a highlight reel that includes The Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise and Gladiator.

As has often been the case in more recent Scott movies, there are also shots, scenes and sometimes even entire sequences that seem absent of his once unique and form-topping touch. Early on, it is easy to be removed from the reality of the time period courtesy of poor CGI, such as that showing Joaquin Phoenix riding a horse on a beach or large crowds resembling AI renditions more than actual people. The picture is also so awash with greys that it seems more like a mid-2000s early digital filmmaking release than even Scott’s own from that era. Some night time shots are utterly spectacular, and seem to be of the same school as those celebrated in Jordan Peele’s Nope, but there are vast periods in which everything looks washed out, and it is almost certain that minutes of this film will be barely legible (too dark) to anyone who eventually watches it at home.

Ridley Scott has spoken a lot in the press tour for Napoleon about how his movies do not need to be historically accurate. When a film seeks to explore something thematically, personally, or ideologically, then Scott is most certainly correct. Film is art, and art seeks truth rather than fact. Gladiator worked because of this perspective, because of how it abandoned fact in search of the truth held within the myth. But Napoleon doesn’t do that. It presents moment after moment from the history books, often inaccurately out of negligence as opposed to deeper purpose. There is no doubt that a lot of care and artistry can be seen on screen in Napoleon, but that negligence will be the story of this film: a movie that could have been great, that could have meant something, that could have simply been accurate, and ended up being none of those things. Like Napoleon himself, Napoleon thinks itself as greater than it is. It isn’t insulting like Ridley Scott’s idea of Napoleon firing canons into the Great Pyramid of Giza was to historians the world over, but it does offer only glimmers at its full might. Some individual pieces are greater than the whole in this instance, and what a shame that is. This should have been special.

Score: 15/24

Recommended for you: Ridley Scott Films Ranked

Gance’s most acclaimed and perhaps most well-known work remains the silent film Napoleon (1927), which is a gem of the epic genre.

Napoleon (1927) can be considered as the peak of French Avant-garde cinema in the 1920s as Gance made wise use of editing techniques, such as jump-cuts, and he played with the possibilities offered by the manipulation of film (superimposition of images) and the use of multiple film reels (the so-called ‘Polyvision’).

In particular, Gance uses superimposition, which emphasises the extreme close-ups of Napoleon’s face, which in crucial moments convey intense meaning – thus painting the character’s personality – but he also uses quick cuts, which gives us the impression of being in Napoleon’s mind, like we’re travelling through his memories. An example of this can be found during a snow fight at the college where Napoleon lives as a boy. In this very long sequence, we see the fight through Napoleon’s eyes thanks to the use of superimposition, extreme close-ups and fast cuts. More precisely, we find superimposition at the beginning of the long sequence and then mostly fast cuts and extreme close-ups on Napoleon. The snow fight obviously is a foreshadowing of Napoleon’s future as military strategist and his great skill as a leader, the language through which we are told this being somewhat revolutionary for the time.

Snow fight sequence: Close-ups on Napoleon’s face and superimposition.

In this sequence, handy-cam shots also convey the excitement and confusion of the skirmish between the boys, and the emotional and psychological state of the main character.

Most importantly, Gance uses a completely new and therefore unique screen technique, the so-called ‘Polyvision’. This consisted of three different cameras in order to project simultaneously three reels of film and to obtain a particularly large aspect ratio on screen. In the final sequence we can find an example of Polyvision:

An example of Polyvision (x)

Although Gance initially wanted a number of sequences to be filmed this way, he was later forced to abandon the idea as the costs and complexity of the process would not allow him to carry it out for multiple sequences.

Today Napoleon’s final sequence is considered an early version of the ‘Cinerama’ that would be introduced in the 1950s.

One may ask, what was the advantage of this very unusual technique?

The main aim of the use of Polyvision in Gance’s film was to widen the screen without using the more common split screen technique. Polyvision also made it possible to not have to use cross-cutting for every frame – although that could also be achieved by using superimposition, thus showing two related moments in the story at once, without cutting – but to instead saturate each frame with complex information (in the case of Polyvision scenes, he created a composition of three shots).

Napoleon’s rebellious and brave nature becomes apparent through the whole of Gance’s work as he masterfully explores the possibilities offered by the interplay of the different elements at hand – lights, film, cutting and camera movements – to create a unique result; one that continues to influence filmmakers to this day and was a fundamental piece of cinema achieving a visual language.

Bibliography and further reading

Abel, Richard. French Cinema. The First Wave, 1915-1929. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1987.

Brownlow, Kevin. “Napoleon”. Abel Gance’s Classic Film. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1983.

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_SOCIAL_ICONS]