Yes! Or else no!

(Which will be more controversial?)

Again, I'm having trouble understanding exactly what is so profound about Kubrick's movies. Once you scratch below the surface, I'm not finding a whole lot of substance there.

I honestly think that Kubrick's movies are overrated because of his persona. He acted so mysterious and profound, therefore there has to be something to his films. Also, he really did pay a lot of attention to the craft of filmmaking, and people assume he has a deep personality to go along with that.

Meanwhile I think that Tarantino's films are underrated—people think that his films have less substance because he acts like such a Goofus in real life.

With a formalist like Kubrick I don't think you can really separate style and substance.

With works like Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, Barry Lyndon and The Shining he is serving the original material, though admittedly bending things to his vision. Those movies do deal with serious themes and are substantial and powerful.

His earlier film noir movies are fantastic, late exemplars of the genre.

2001 got over on a lot of pot-addled "Dude...."

Meanwhile I think that Tarantino's films are underrated—people think that his films have less substance because he acts like such a Goofus in real life.

Partly this, but when he suborns history to the genre conventions of sixties WWII movies then he's going to piss people off too. His defense of grindhouse and other marginal, "low" genres also distorts critical response to his work. Not in film journals where they get what he's doing, but in newspapers.

A prequel to Wizard of Oz? With Robert Downey, Jr.?

Is this a good idea?

[link]

Meanwhile I think that Tarantino's films are underrated—people think that his films have less substance because he acts like such a Goofus in real life.

I agree with this while also loving Barry Lyndon beyond all reason.

I agree with this while also loving Barry Lyndon beyond all reason.

Watching Martin Scorcese rhapsodize about why he loves Barry Lyndon made me appreciate that film so much more (and I rather liked it the first time I saw it).

Wait, are you calling Will Ferrell a nihilist?

Watching him certainly makes me feel like there's no point to human existence.

Wait, are you calling Will Ferrell a nihilist?

Watching him certainly makes me feel like there's no point to human existence.

Man, truer words have never been spoken.

I think a good movie can stimulate thought, but I don't know if there's any movie that I'd call profound in itself. I like Kubrick because I find it entertaining to watch his movies, think about them afterwards, and then watch them again; it's not that complicated. I like their humor, I like the topics he explores, I like his anthropological remove, and I like the pretty, pretty pictures. I do understand why a lot of people find his movies boring or sterile -- or nihilistic. I just don't. I think the Coens have a similar sensibility, although they're more visceral.

But I like Tarantino as well (speaking of viscera). I think the fact that he keeps making movies about movies is a bit limiting. I do enjoy that kind of thing immensely, but I still think it's time for him to do another Jackie Brown.

I so don't get Tarantino. I do love Reservoir Dogs to pieces and quite enjoy Jackie Brown but I feel that if I don't get Pulp Fiction I don't get the guy. And I hate Pulp Fiction. I found it so deliberately hip and snappy. Just irritating.