Comments on: Quentin Tarantino Compares ‘Interstellar’ To Andrei Tarkovsky & Terrence Malick

By: Francisco

Francisco — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:58 +0000

Well, Tarantino didnt compare Nolan\’s work to Trakovskys of Mallicks, he said something about the dust. Thats all. That being said, i like the fact that Nolan is always trying to push the plot boundaries in a clever way. He doesnt thinks the audience is stupid, and that is something to be thankful (sadly).

By: mike

mike — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:58 +0000

Wait, he didn\’t really compare so much as said he hadn\’t seen films like those since Tarkovsky era. Besides Nolan and Tarkovsky in the same sentence? No way.

By: GERARD KENNELLY

GERARD KENNELLY — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

tarantino called DRIVE " a nice try "

By: Dice

Dice — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

even though the editing, cinematography, and dialogue was kinda shit when they weren\’t traveling through space, i liked the parable. Matt Damon as israel and Mcconaughey as Holy Russia.

By: Nayanmoni Baishya

Nayanmoni Baishya — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

The climax really disappointed me. The whole seriousness of interstellar travel was diluted. Plus the core of the movie shifted to something totally ridiculous. As for influences, they are evrywhere, primarily, Kubrick & Tarkovsky.He released the movie after two years of The Dark Knight Rises and that means not enough had been done on the part of Nolan.

By: Zinjo

Zinjo — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

Yes, Nolan is one of those few film makers who doesn\’t dumb down his projects to the slack jawed yokels who wouldn\’t pay to see it anyway… Glad he\’s around!

By: Kim

Kim — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

Well, for a director who doesn\’t think his audience is stupid he sure went overboard with making his characters explain way too much up to the point all the exposition kept the rambling story from being great. Nolan tried really hard to achieve Kubrick-status (or Malick for that matter) with this picture, but Interstellar, albeit a visual triumph, is far from succeeding.

By: yoyomadman

yoyomadman — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

Blame Obama!

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

Tarantino obviously did not compare Nolan to either Tarkovsky nor Malick, all he said was that he did not expect Tarkovsky/Malickian level of ambition in a Nolan flick. You click bait whore.

By: Angelo Da COsta

Angelo Da COsta — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

Why do we have alwasys to compare stuff ? Kubrick 2001 is a master piece of course , but i believe Interstellar is remarkable . And the theme of 2001 is very different from interstellar . Plz stop comparing

By: MARCELO

MARCELO — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

Richard Linklater\’s Boyhood says a lot more about the human condition, time, and the everyday life of ordinary people than Nolan\’s Interstellar and most contemporary American films.

By: enzo jerez

enzo jerez — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

Michael….A.Tarkowski meant that his SOLARIS was the worst. I see clear that 2001 Space O. remains in a materialistic level.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

I watched the film last night and was expecting a lot, unfortunately it didn\’t hit home for me. While I admire the grand reach and how amazing it looked, the script was very clunky at times as well as cheesy. Even at times of the narrative it felt cliched.

By: MJR

MJR — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

"Little" explosions?

By: Michael Siebert

Michael Siebert — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

STANLEY KUBRICK is the real MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE 2001 Space Odysseee

By: Mick Wolt

Mick Wolt — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:05:57 +0000

I totally agree Fransisco. I mean, did Anybody even see "following?" We are dealing with a Total master of film making. He can make a bicycle out of a pair of glasses. In my opinion Tarantino aint got crap on him anyway.