The movie I saw four times must have been a different movie. I'm not even a fan of Tarantino's previous films but I hardly found the excellent Inglourious Basterds to be "slow, uneven, unengaging, and suspenseless." And I think, from what I've read, that this movie is a message to him that finally, because he put thought and care into it, he came up with his best film and that his previous films were not "utter gold." As for suspense, again, we must have seen a different film.

As for being negative about big directors, in some cases here you have an argument. I'll definitely agree with you on Spielberg. I'd like to think he's waiting in the wings with his masterpiece, but he sure hasn't delivered lately.

However, if you were to get the consensus from the majority of movie fans the world over, these filmmakers that you've listed are the ones that get people excited about cinema and will continue to get people excited about cinema for the next decade, no matter how many misfires they have had in the last couple of years. Even their failures will receive new context in a completed body of work, as will the successes of any of the exciting auteurs in your previous study (another job well done by the way).

The sole exception here is the Wachowskis, who I think we can all agree, belong in the same playpen as George Lucas. Or S&M dungeon. Whichever you prefer.

Most of this article comes from a place of passion. these are all great filmmakers, who we think can be fantastic, but are generally not living up to their potential lately.

I, for one, agree wholeheartedly with the above. But that's what makes us a diverse little group, and what you see in these pieces we published today is representative of roughly the majority opinion, as it's impossible for us all to agree on every major filmmaker.

To me, "Miami Vice" is pretty close to a masterpiece, but I do recognize it to be a very divisive film. Also, not huge on "Public Enemies"; the aesthetic feels less appropriate in that context.

basterds was too long, the basement scene alone could've been cut by a couple of minutes. also, am i to believe that shoshanna within minutes of meeting the man who viciously murdered her family would have the balls to immediately plan not only his murder but the murder of hundreds of Germans? didn't buy it one bit.

You guys write like a bunch of kids fresh out of college (if any college actually let you in). Your youthful arrogance is really quite ridiculous, and does nothing to hide your really quite transparent insecurity and naviete.

Nobody owes you anything, you babies. It's called subjectivism. It's callled a dictionary.

Casino is a great movie and you guys need to re watch it.

Gangs of NY wasnt what It could of been. He should of shot in the 70s with the clash when he had the fever for it.

The Avaitor is actually the best movie hes done in the recent.

The Departed had more grit in the script i remember billy(dicaprio) charcter more devolped with flashbacks of him to a child with his father and uncle. Billy also developed an affinty for snorting oxycotin and going over the edge more.

What Queintin needs to do is re team up with his boy Roger Avary(despite his recent trobules)

-R

(Not to mention, the episodes of Eastbound and Down that he directed were golden.)

I for one, have found mainstream filmmaking severely lacking this entire decade and agree with your assessments.

I have to agree with most of the earlier comments. I really enjoyed 'Inglourious Basterds' and have it as my favorite film of this year so far (I haven't been able to see many). It would be nice to see him 'get out of his comfort zone' but he's doing a fine job now at just being Quentin.

Yes, "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was pretty bad, but I feel a director of Spielberg's caliber should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to future projects.

The Wachowski's and Kelly were already dismissed in my mind.

Other than that, keep posting original stories like this. I may not agree with them, but it's an interesting read.