Tarantino Vs. Ritchie

That's all I need to say....

Who?
Why?
How?
What?
Excuse me?

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

Tarantino.

Is there any contest?

Ritchie makes 100-minute music videos. He does nothing but rehash the pyrotechnics every video director before him invented. I don't see any kind of original style in his movies, simply because that's all they're about. It's like he's jumping in front of the camera saying 'look what I can do! I can use slow motion, fast motion, and still frame all in one shot!' I suppose you can make the case that he's been influenced by Tarantino in terms of how he sets up situations, plays with time, etc. That's not to say his movies suck, because I like both of them a lot, but I think in terms of originality, he's nothing special. Pretty much all I'm saying is I see so much more of everything in Tarantino's movies than I do in Guy Ritchie's. If he makes another movie like Snatch, I'll have lost all faith in him.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Ouch. Matt will not be responding kindly to that.

Tarantino, though I'm not going to gush over either.

Well, I love Guy Ritchie's films, Snatch much more so than Lock, Stock -- it being far supirior in everyway. But last night I saw Pulp Fiction and it struck me.

Is there any contest indeed? No there's not.
They are nothing alike.

Ritchie makes films fast paced and hard to keep up with, although I go far from calling them 100-minute music videos. He has countless characters that all interweave with each other leaving only a number standing at the end.

Tarantino makes slolwy, more thoughful paced films. He chooses not to make them so hard to follow, but rather likes to play with chronology to make more sense of the story he is trying to tell.

Ritchie uses a video-clip like approach to his editing and filmmaking (usually only in sequences that are all action and require the use of music much more, I note.)

Tarantino uses a more comfortable, laid back, 1950's, dare I say it, pulp approach. His films are edited and shot like you would expect to see in such a film in the 50's. It's grainy, natural.

Ritchie steers away from all pop culture references.

Tarantino bases next to all of his dialogue on it.

Ritchie doesn't build have his violence with such dialogue, his dialogue is meant to be more witty, more subtle, whereas Tarantino puncuates his violence (and makes the lack of seem less than it is) with his dialogue, which is meant to be straight out something we can connect to. Idle chit chat. There is very rarely any idle chit chat in the films on Ritchie.

The only tie is gangsters, an underworld.

The are two polar opposites in their filmmaking styles.

I suppose that's what I'm talking about, yeah. Sorry if I got a bit out of hand or whatever.

I think calling them polar opposites is a biiig stretch though. I can't imagine Guy Ritchie would have made the same movies if he hadn't seen Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. Of course, I'm just speculating.

I get bored with movies that use that video-clip style (there's exceptions, of course, Moulin Rouge comes to mind.) I think that's what I was ranting about. I see Ritchie's frenzied, insane visual style and it reminds me of a car commercial. I don't think he's a bad director technically, he's FAR from it actually. I just dont see anything beyond the style. He hasn't compelled me yet, not even just a little bit. I don't know if he knows what he's doing with characters, because he's so busy cutting back and forth between these intertwining stories. They're just chess pieces that he rearranges as it suits his stylistic needs.

Indeed. Ritchie has actually said in interviews that by no means was he trying to recreate Tarantino -- he went as far as to say that Tarantino wasn't even an iffluence. While this may be hard to believe, if you stop and think about it, it's probably true.

Meanwhile, who do I hold to be the better?
I never thought I'd say this but it's definatly Tarantino.
Pulp Fiction is so deep, so many hidden things to looks for, references to all aspects of everywhere, everywhere, and it's more real and engaging. Questions pour from Pulp Fiction, there's so much to think about. What is in the breifcase? Why the band-aid on Marsellus' neck? The film has a theme, it's redemption, it's something that ultimately, Ritchie fails to excapsualte -- heart, and themes.

My two cents.

Ritchie: Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels/ Snatch

Tarantino: Resevoir Dogs/ Pulp Fiction


out of those four movies, I rank them like this:

1. Resevoir Dogs
2. Lock Stock
3. Pulp Fiction
4. Snatch

I think they are equal in talent. Both are masters of their own style. They both dive deep into their projects; that much is obvious, and they define actor's careers. John Travolta was a sinking ship before Pulp. Resevoir Dogs launched Steve Bucemi and Tim Roth's careers. As for Lock Stock and Snatch, I've seen several of the British actor's that were involved, in American movies...so, that's something. I think they are both equal, for me. I like them both, not one more than the other.

They both haven't made many films. I'd have to say Tarantino, he's only directed 3 films but has written some good ones on top of his directed films.

Richie's is pretty good.

Ritchie's got an old bag of tricks...he needs to widen his horizons, try something new on for size.

I believe he is, in fact, Drug, Sex, Lies and Money (or something along those lines) is a film that is apparently about a woman (his wife, conincidentally. I hope she doesn't screw up his career) who gets trapped on a deserted island or something, I really haven't looked into it.

The reason Lock, Stock and Snatch are so alike is because Ritchie felt that there was enough content to fill another film, he's not a one track director, he just wanted to make a film with all the stuff he wanted to Lock, Stock.

Meanwhile, Tarantino is soon to begin another film with Uma Thurman, Kill Bill. Same old, same old?

Hmm.....regarding the band-aid on Marcellus's neck, I belive it was in order to cover a scar........

.....But reading Ebert's report on the annual movie discussions he holds, in which a movie is examined scene-by-scene, it was speculated that it may conceal the no. 666, relating to the theory that Marcellus may be the devil.

Found that quite interesting.

__________________
I am Jack's smirking revenge.

Yeah, I know that. I just chose not to the throw in the answers.

I find that hard to believe. There's so much that's so similar. I might be wrong, but hey, I'm a reasonable man, get off my case.

There it is. That's what I wanted to say. The heart part.

A good question.

Tarantino is certainly a more prolific director. But most of his films, in my opinion, are overrated. Pulp Fiction is considerably overrated. I saw that film once and that is all I care to see.

However, one of his films is in my top 10 of all time, and is a classic American piece of unbridled attitude: True Romance .
It is beyond my understanding how Pulp Fiction gets way more praise and attention than True Romance.

On to Ritchie. The only movie I saw of his was Snatch . Yes, his camera work is highly stylized, but I think it works in his case. Snatch is just a fun, wholly entertaining film. The characters may not all be real, but they are at least funny and envigorating. Tarantino's characters frequently try to hard to be cool. They usually come across as being contrived.

You remember that scene from the awful Jackie Brown , when Bridget Fonda says to DeNiro, "you wanna f***?" I mean, how imaginitive is that? I can picture Tarantino thinking, "oh yeah, I am a real slick dude."

They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

What's your problem with Jackie Brown? That's one of my favorite scenes in that movie, which I think is excellent overall, and better than both of Ritchie's pictures.

How in the Hell can Tarantino be called "prolific"?!? In the past ten years he's made exactly THREE movies (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown - plus the one segment of Four Rooms, so three and-a-quarter movies). Guy Ritchie's made two features in two years (Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch). If he makes just two more movies before 2008, he will be more prolific than Quentin was in his first ten years as a filmmaker.

Other Tarantino scripts have been filmed (True Romance, Natural Born Killers, From Dusk 'Till Dawn) and sadly he shows up as an "actor" in many projects (too many), but as a director he is far from "prolific". True Romance and Natural Born Killers were written before he started directing (obviously helmed by others: Tony Scott & Oliver Stone respectively), so you can't even call him much a prolific screenwriter during that ten year period.


As for which of these directors I prefer, it's probably a push, maybe leaning a bit toward Ritchie at this point. I think Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are good enough but incredibly overrated. I liked Lock Stock and Snatch a lot, I'd say a bit more than Tarantino's work overall. But while they're fun and I enjoy watching them, I wouldn't call either a "great" movie. They both have potential to do some special things as filmmakers, but they've got to broaden their pallets, try their style and perspective on some different kinds of stories and genres. Otherwise it's going to get really old really fast.

I think anyway.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I agree.

I just wanted to settle the Ritchie is Tarantino in Britain debate.
They do, however, both have the potential to be something special. They've proven that, now all they need to do is actually -- you know, do it.

Well, you asked; so I'll tell you. Jackie Brown is lame and that scene is even lamer. That's just lazy writing. Snatch is a substantially more entertaining film.

I didn't say Tarantino was prolific. I said Tarantino was more prolific than Ritchie, which he is.

I was also counting his writing projects as well, such as True Romance.

I thought so, too.