Tony Scott was clearly the superior talent in the family. (RIP)

Tony Scott was clearly the superior talent in the family. *RIP

Secondly @JP, Again you appear to be another moron who spouts nonsense like it\’s the gospel, you write this "If any other director had the run of turgid crap that Scott has had, they\’d be out of a job", i take it you have never heard of francis ford coppola? he\’s the guy who made three classics in the 70\’s and one extremely overrated movie and has largely made nothing but crap since, yet he\’s treated like hollywood royalty.

Thirdly @ gabriel

in response to your comment "So, basically, he made two fantastic movies, in early 80\’s and people start to idolize him.", no he made several good movies like the duellists, alien, blade runner, thelma and louise, gladiator, black hawk down, matchstick men, american gangster and the martian, most of which were either box office hits, won award recognition or were received favorably by audiences. I wouldn\’t say anyone of these movies can be described as terrible, they\’re all in different genre\’s with the exception of three of them and a lot of people consider them good "movies", because that is what scott makes, he makes "movies" not films like whatever indie douchebag or rich new york socialite has made and put out this week about how great it is living in a Manhattan loft apartment. They are just "movies", or entertainment.

fourthly @ jerk diggler "They\’re not wrong, he\’s one of the most overrated directors of all time. Tony Scott was clearly the superior talent in the family. (RIP)", you\’ll probably be kissing his ass when he\’s dead to, as that is what happens to most filmmakers when they die.

fifthly @ harry caul "Mark – If I understand your argument, what you are asserting is that the critics\’ opinions are more or less wholly incorrect. By that reasoning, the scoring should be reversed to show Alien and Blade Runner as D- films and Robin Hood, Exodus & Kingdom Of Heaven as A+ bona fide classics. Your logic, not mine.", critics slagged off the duellists harry, they also slagged off blade runner and many other of scotts movies when they were first released, once they see that the audience liked them and they gain some kind of cultural importance the critics quickly change there tune. The fact is critics know sod all about films, all they are there to do is offer there opinion in much the same way anybody else does. What makes them an authority? well nothing, i studied film and know what many other morons who write criticism know which is a little about film history and a whole lot about my likes and dislikes. Let\’s put it this way film criticism is one of the only professions where a person can get paid for giving his opinion whilst having no experience of the actual job they are critiquing. what they think would make a good film or what a director should have done better is moot because the only experience they have comes from a text book, i can\’t imagine how hard it would be to make a good film let alone a movie as good as alien or blade runner. The way i see it if i try to use logic is film is subjective, which doesn\’t make critics an authority it just makes them people like us, it\’s just they have had access to a pointless education off daddy\’s buck that got them a piece of paper saying they\’re a journalist and free to peddle there worthless opinions, or they can spell a little better then the rest of us dummies.

@ pedro "Truth be told, this overrated director, has now 4 good films to his name: "Alien", "Blade Runner", "Thelma and Louise" and "The Martian". All the rest, polish it as you may, is mostly deeply flawed and mediocre stuff.", how many "masterworks" does marty have? taxi driver, raging bull and goodfellas, i count three but hey he\’s a top notch film maker if ever there was one, i certainly liked boxcar bertha, after hours, the color of money, bringing out the dead, kundun, new york new york and every other movie he\’s made with dicaprio in the last fifteen years, sarcasm detected i hope, i know it sometimes goes amiss due to a lack of intelligent on the part of most movie board enthusiasts.

To anybody else out there who wants a clue just buy a book on scott and read it, it\’s quite clear that after legend he had to change course. He in fact became a director for hire on movies like someone to watch over me, black rain, white squall and g.i jane and he\’s pretty much been working with the studios with a one for them one for me policy ever since. Mainly because his early work was misunderstood by critics and the audience at the time.

Lastly to indiewire/playlist please just stop writing articles about the dude, if you hate his work then it doesn\’t make sense, also look into mise en scene, lens language and visual poetry and you might understand why some film enthusiasts and other film makers like the guys work and please stop insulting his fans. The guy is not god but neither is woody allen who has been putting out one good film next to one shit one since the early nineties, neither is spielberg god with movies like 1941, amistad, hook, A.I, the terminal, war of the worlds or the hugely overrated munich on his resume, never mind other overrated syrupy nonsense like E.T or war horse. And lastly as has been mentioned is scorsese god? it would probably appear so because in your retrospective of his films you give a movie he disowned called boxcar bertha a B and yet you give the duellists a B minus. You have also changed the scores from the original retrospective, i see black hawk down\’s score has been lifted. If i can remember originally you had a problem with the politics of the film, i guess the wolf of wall street and a whole career of misogyny is just brushed aside with scorsese\’s films, but then again he\’s a yank who reflects american culture. All i can say to everybody else is if you don\’t like his movies and this is one for the people on the message boards then don\’t watch them.