>
>>I think M. Night will do fine. He is legit. Critics hate him
>>because he is good and M. Night wants to go down in history
>>and be able to sit down at the table with the Speilbergs of
>>cinema. Nah. Critics. The nerve of him? lol aint' having
>that.
>>They gonna shoot him down every chance they get. But, like
>>Spike Lee, M. Night ain't going away. When you are good,
>they
>>may hate you, but they can't deny you.
>
>Guys, M. Night's last two movies were BAD. And I'm a
>passionate defender of both Unbreakable and Signs, both of
>which I think are terrific. The guy CLEARLY has a degree of
>talent, especially in the directing portion.
>
>But the last two movies were bad, bad, bad. The Village was
>well directed but AWFULLY written, and Lady in the Water had
>nothing redeemable that I could note about it. Maybe a good
>original score. Decent special effects. *shrug*
>

Death Proof was bad and poorly directed and AWFULLY written.

Critics still love it.

>Critics did not hate M. Night until his last two movies. But
>they were hated for a reason. Because they're bad.
>

Death Proof was bad and poorly directed and AWFULLY written.

Critics still love it.

Your point?

If Quentin makes a bad movie, which he has, he will not get the vitriolic onslaught of criticism that M. Night has recently received. Never.


>I can hear all criticisms of QT and totally, completely
>understand them. But the talk of M. Night going down as a
>classic director is boggling my mind right now.

who said he was going down as a classic director? lol.

again, folks get sensitive and defensive when it comes to Tarantino. I don't know what it is, but they really do.

You can't have a rational conversation about Tarantino and how he stands amongst his peers in the field, without folks getting their underoos in a bunch.

I wonder why? Maybe they know something they don't want to admit. lol