Gosh . Man I don t know what drugs you re doing but I want some
Tarentino reminds you of Kubrick ? everybit as talented as Kubrick ?
I think you should watch again the movie of the latter a couple of times (at least) and either watch more carefully tarentino movies or drop it altogether.

There s barely anything common between kubrick and tarentino
- storytelling : kubrick has mainly adapted famous litterary work (lnabokov's lolita , clark's2001 , stephen king's shining )always trying to get rid of anything he deemed unnecessary to the them and the main plot . Lot of writers have thus complained about how the Kubrick movie was unfaithful to the book. The method of kubrick was to purify and then translate the essence into images.
in the other hand tarentino almost always come up with his own script (even though heavily influenced by previous film) . And far from looking for a storyline as simple as possible he always make it as twisted as possible(his non linear storytelling is one of his trademark : the man's just unable to tell a story without dividing it in chapter).And he s not getting any better : in IB he obviously mixed two different plots (the bastard and shoshanna) for a very confusing result . It s the exact opposite of what kubrick was doing.

dialogues: kubrick as a former photographe was obsessed by images and never had any ambition about making memorable lines : they were mere by-products of an awesome movie . in AFI s memorable quotes you only find "Open the pod bay doors, HAL" which sounds extremely flat if you take it out of context . In the other hand Tarentino is obsessed by making cool lines or at least lines that sounds cool . And he brags as much as he can about it : remember when he send his script of deathproof to dylan because he thought that dylan , a recognized lyrist , would enjoy the exceptionnal quality of his lines ?

Music : Kubrick was a huge advocater of classic music and he s world known famous for that : 2001 , orange and barry lyndon are the epitome of this.
Tarentino is into pop music in the broad meaning of the term: leone soundtrack , rap , folk , and so on .

I could go on for ages like this .... my point is this comparison is pure non sense. I don t mind comparison now and then when it s relevant . But this is so wrong that there aren much to discuss

ghinzdra

Hi ghinzdra - thanks for stopping by and visiting us here at The Film Talk. :)

I read your comment with interest and hear where you're coming from , from but have to disagree with every one of your points - it seems we're diametrically opposed on this one. I'd love to get into it but right now am working on a new section of TFT that's launching on Monday so maybe we can revisit this later?

In the meantime if you're interested here's some more of our posts and podcasts on Kubrick and Tarantino, (including an interview with Dan Richter who worked closely for a year with Kubrick on 2001 and an hour discussion on Eyes Wide Shut):

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/08/06/2001-podc...

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/08/28/stanley-k...

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/02/13/stanley-k...

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/08/31/inglourio...

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/01/04/kubricks-...

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2008/08/28/my-favori...

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2008/08/22/the-film-...

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/10/19/5-things-...

LOL. Nice. I agree about Eyes Wide Shut. It's much better than is widely recognized. One commonality that Kubrick and Tarantino have: they both use the camera as a weapon.

I'm shocked that no one has commented on the cast of Inglourious Basters. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but having a cast that stars Brad Pitt and includes BJ Novak, Mike Myers, and Samm Levine (Freaks & Geeks) is just crazy.

I wonder if people don't know what to expect? For instance, what is BJ Novaks performance going to be like??

Reminds me that I missed my one and only opportunity to go and see Grindhouse the other night - a one off showing. There must be a single copy doing the rounds of the UK!

Haven't see Death Proof, but thought that in it's rough and ready version as part of Grindhouse was the best way to see it. I'll hold out for the Grindhouse DVD to inevitably emerge. Is it available on region 1?

Cable TV here in the states has been showing each individually, and not together.

Saw it in the theater (together) and really enjoyed the whole "recreated b-movie" experience. (the trailers are great)

Interesting that it's not available to you in the states either. I'm convinced it'll be available at some point though, there's got to be a market for it.

Yeah i wished I had seen Grindhouse as well - when it come out = was in the UK so we only had the films individually - so the longer Death Proof dragged in that 'Tarantino this dialogue is not as interesting as you think it is' kind of way + don't have any details re: regions

So what do you reckon the chances are that QT will make a good film again? I mean something comparable to Jackie Brown, obviously.
I don't think the rabid Tarantino fanbase will let him do anything other than their idea of "A Tarantino Film" ever again. More's the pity. :(

Oh sure, why not?

I didn't care for Kill Bill Part1 - but enjoyed Kill Bill Part 2. Would love to see a coffee-table book about his movies = something along the lines of that huge big ol' Taschen Kubrick tome = lavish photos - production memos etc.

One word (hyphenated): over-indulgence.
Kill Bill 1 was over-directed. Kill Bill 2 was over-written. That schlock half-movie he did with Kurt Russell was unwatchable. Alright I didn't watch it, but man it stunk from here. It's like nobody but his fanbase is allowed tell him anything and they all tell him go go go. Maybe that makes it right, because afterall they do lap it up -although I think if the next is as bad as the last he's in trouble.

He showed promise (IMO) with Resevoir Dogs and maturity with Jackie Brown. But, as far as I know, JB didn't make as much money, nor did it feature catchy lingo like his other movies. So it suffered.
That's why I don't think he'll return to "real" film again -don't mean to sound pompous- I mean movies "that are not about other movies", but ones that say anything original ie. original on film.

I agree the Kubrick Archives is one fine looking book. I'm sure something similar could be done with QT stuff. He'd probably insist on two of them though, with half a blood-dripping sword ripping through each one. Or something.

The car crash in "Death Proof" was fantastic.