Why not Ridley?

04 May

     Dear Errol Fans,

       Why not Ridley Scott?

           I see that he (Ridley) has a way of cutting through the 'bull' and telling the story as it is , or was. Whatever you think of him personally, you have to admit that he knows his stuff. Look no further than “Bladerunner”, one of the best films ever made.(in my humble opinion, that is) I do not have a problem with that as long as it is truthfull. I think we Errol fans tend to embrace the good and turn a blind-eye to the bad. That is par for the course for folks who are blinded by the “boilerplate” that was penned by journalists who were paid to ignore the bad and play up the 'good'. I believe a true story of Erroll's life with all the warts and  human weakness he had would be a blockbuster. I think it would be “R” rated. Errol is a combination of good, evil, saintly, and maybe a little wicked . This is a story of us all, whether we admit it or not.

         I admire Errol because he was his own man, and never apologized to anyone. This sort of man is hard to find these days.


— john


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  1. Anonymous

    May 4, 2010 at 7:08 am

    A single 'R' rating ??? My goodness man !
    'ERROL' has always been spelt with two 'R's' !!

  2. Anonymous

    May 4, 2010 at 9:12 am

    I like the guy cuz I see him ALL THE TIME on my dad's bookshelf. Like an old friend. =^.^=

  3. Anonymous

    May 4, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Ha, Ha! You are right! John

  4. Anonymous

    May 4, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    Hallo, Kgood! I'm so happy you wrote something on the blog! Smiling BIG TIME!!!

  5. Anonymous

    May 4, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    Because, as I opined earlier, his style lacks certain components essential to capturing the complete Errol (one “L”, btw).

  6. Anonymous

    May 4, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Yeah, tag-teaming Robert's comment again – Ridley Scott is too slam-bang-in-your-face to capture Flynn's deeply poetic side – pearls before swine and all that.