What's with all the Tarantino-McDonagh comparisons?

Perhaps I should have expected this, but I still find it frustrating as a Martin McDonagh fan: the buzz coming for In Bruges, from Sundance and otherwise, all seems to be comparing Martin McDonagh to Quentin Tarantino (such as here, here, here and here). I guess when you're coming from a film perspective, QT is who you think of when you think of smart dialogue + violence. But anyone who's versed in McDonagh's theatrical work would find the comparison quite strange and misguided.

To be fair, I have seen In Bruges, and McDonagh doesn't fall into the trap of making it too theater-like: it's a living, breathing movie, and a good one at that, if a bit strange. The Chicago critics I saw it with were laughing throughout at McDonagh's dialog, and seemed genuinely taken off guard by how fresh it sounded. I would have been surprised if it was any less fresh.

But other than the mix of impressive banter and gun violence, the similarities between McDonagh and Tarantino end. For one, In Bruges is strictly linear, which goes against an absolutely essential Tarantino touch. There's also a distinct Cockney/Irish gangster flair to McDonagh's dialogue, while Tarantino's dialogue is as rough and tumble American as it gets. There's a macabre and surprisingly humanist touch to In Bruges. I don't need to remind you of Tarantino's lack of taste, (well maybe a little). If the film was based entirely on its trailer, I'd say the comparison's legitimate. But the trailer is deceptive; there's a lot more complexity to the film than the Shoot 'Em Up, Smokin' Aces model in which the film is stupidly being marketed.