Female Led ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ “Reboot” Moving Forward At Disney

BY: Amanda Guarragi 

The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has been a staple in the Disney library since Curse of the Black Pearl was released in 2003. Audiences were introduced to the fearless Elizabeth Swan (Keira Knightley), the blacksmith Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and the drunken pirate himself, CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) all three actors were at their peak and brought their characters to life. The franchise was financially successful at the box office, the five films in the saga have grossed over $4.5 billion at the worldwide box office.

The Pirates of the Caribbean films were nothing short of iconic. CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow gained Johnny Depp his first Oscar nomination in 2004, proving that he will forever be defined as that character. The love story between Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann is more than just Disney pirate lore, it’s a story that will be remembered by all forever because of how fun and adventurous their journey was. Orlando Bloom solidified his action adventure status with Pirates of the Caribbean and Keira Knightley truly outshined them all as Elizabeth Swann sailed towards her destiny as Pirate King.

These films ruled the high seas of the box office in the early 2000s and it’s one of Disney’s greatest franchises. So, here’s the question we’re all asking… “Why are you giving a beloved classic a reboot?” It doesn’t really make sense, since the last film Dead Men Tell No Tales fizzled with the storyline, even though it made $794.1 million at the box office. The original trilogy had a full story arc and they knew they story they wanted to tell. A Pirates of the Caribbean film without CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow, Elizabeth Swann or Will Turner is just not the same movie.

Earlier today it was reported by Disnsider that there would be a full on reboot with a female lead. Sources say that Karen Gillan is eyed to be the lead, but they are also looking for women of colour to be at the forefront in the film. According to Daniel Richtman, the story could possibly be centred around the Disney Parks attraction character, Redd, who is a meet-and-greet character. Jerry Bruckheimer is also set to return as producer on the project and Ted Elliot is as well to write the screenplay. The budget of the film, according to Disnsider, is $100 million and is being made for  theatrical release, instead of heading to Disney+ as a series.

Here’s the thing, Disney needs more original content involving a female lead that isn’t a princess. Their library is getting stale and making these reboots of their earlier films is just playing it safe at the box office. Instead of rebooting or remaking beloved classics that people grew up with, why not create an entirely new story with a female lead that could add to the Disney library? That’s the issue with reboots or remakes, there’s always going to be a predecessor that it will be compared to, even if it is a spinoff.

The time of CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow has come and gone. Everyone knows there’s no Pirates of the Caribbean franchise without him, and it’s extremely obvious that he won’t be involved in the reboot. So for the sake of clarifying what “reboot” actually means in this specific situation, it doesn’t actually mean a reboot, but a spin-off with an entirely new characters. I also don’t think a theatrical release would be beneficial to the pirate world, a series for this theme park character, would add some more family friendly content to the Disney+ streaming service.

The Hollywood Shift: What Does The Future Hold For Movie Theatres?

By: Amanda Guarragi

For the past couple of years the film industry has been gradually shifting and we know where it’s heading. Streaming content has finally become a major player in the industry,  whether the films are on; Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBO Max or Disney Plus, these major streaming platforms have acquired films from major studios, produced their own or found independent films to distribute. Streaming platforms have been silently progressing and they have changed the moviegoing experience entirely.

News broke out earlier this week that the Oscars will consider films that didn’t play in theatres as a part of the new Academy rules. However, there are guidelines as to how this would play out for Oscar season, Marc Malkin for Variety breaks it down, “To be considered, the streamed film must have already had a planned theatrical release. The film must also be made available on the Academy Screening Room member-only streaming site within 60 days of the film’s streaming or VOD release.” This is a welcomed change for independent films that only have a limited theatre release and head straight to streaming.

That wasn’t the only discourse the made headlines though. It was a huge week for the film industry as Trolls World Tour released it’s PVOD earnings, it took in $100 million in premium DVD rentals in its first three weeks of play in North America. The film apparently made more on VOD than the first instalment, which had a five month run in theatres. This raised a lot of eyebrows because of the profit it made in one month on VOD vs a 5 month run in theatres. CEO of NBCUniversal, Jeff Shell made this statement following the success of the film, “The results for ‘Trolls World Tour’ have exceeded our expectations and demonstrated the viability of PVOD. As soon as theaters reopen, we expect to release movies on both formats.” The reason why this is such a huge deal for studios is that they can create a bridge between theatrical releases and accessibility through streaming internationally.

However, the excitement of that news, was overpowered by movie theatre chains disagreeing with Universal’s decision to release their films on both formats. It first upset AMC, which is the largest theatre chain in the United States (who is also on the verge of bankruptcy) because they obviously want content to exclusively play at their theatres. They were clearly upset, they countered Shell’s statement and said that they would no longer show any Universal Studios pictures at their theatre. Not only did they decide to boycott Universal, but so did Regal, Odeon and now Cineworld in the United Kingdom. These are all major theatre chains boycotting a studio that has No Time to Die, Jurassic World: Dominion, Minions: The Rise of Gru and Fast & Furious 9 slated for a 2020/2021 release in theatres.

If you read the statement from Jeff Shell again, he did not say that there would be no theatrical release of the studios films. He just said, due to the success of Trolls World Tour on VOD, it would be a great business decision to do both. It’s a very simple statement that allows the rest of the studios to see how this formula could work moving forward. Warner Brothers is releasing Scoob! straight to VOD and Disney is moving Artemis Fowl to Disney Plus, are they also violating the code that AMC is apparently following? Why isn’t AMC going after them? What was so wrong in what Jeff Shell said?

I have been saying that we need to bridge theatrical and streaming together because it’s the future. The reason why people aren’t going to the theatres regularly is because the prices for tickets and concessions are way too high. Sure, it’s fine if you’re one person going to watch a movie, but the issue is that families are spending over $100 for one outing to the theatre. Majority of moviegoers only watch event/franchise films and those only come out once/twice a month. What Universal plans to do, will change the face of the industry and it has been a long time coming.

So, are movie theatres dying? The answer is no. The moviegoing experience will never die and it’s because people enjoy going out. Movie theatres will always be apart of the Entertainment experience. Whether it’s a date, a girls night, family movie night, alone time to catch that indie no one wants to watch with you or a massive event film that you want to experience in IMAX, movie theatres will never die, the studios just need to change their approach. If theatre chains don’t want to make their prices more affordable, then studios will create the accessibility to their films through VOD or streaming platforms.

This response from AMC and the rest of the theatre chains is just fear. It’s fear that the industry is changing and they feel like the entire experience will vanish. Were people scared to release talkies during the silent film era? Were people scared to switch over to Technicolour from black and white? Were people scared to film with IMAX cameras or in 3D? Were people scared to switch from film to digital? Were people scared to release their film on Netflix? The answer is yes, but look at how much the industry has accomplished. If the pioneers of cinema didn’t push the boundary, we wouldn’t have what we have now.

This is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to what movie theatres are going to go through during this period of time. Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, there is no date as to when this will be over and movie theatres will be open. It could take as long as a year to come up with a vaccine and the most important thing is to keep everyone safe. Opening theatres prematurely because you want to make money is a very inconsiderate thing to do. If studios can give people new content as a form of escapism from their reality, I think it would help so many people because then they have a little something to look forward to.

Joker: The Controversy Behind the Clown Prince of Crime

In the past six years, DC Comics has released films, that go against the grain of the comic book universe, in which audiences are accustomed to. Release after release, DC and Warner Brothers have been faced with countless (pointless) controversies that are still being discussed today. With the release of the Joker, the discourse surrounding it has reached new levels of ignorance and bias.

The first form of controversy came directly from CNN and other news sources claiming that there would be an uprising after the release of Joker. They continued to spread paranoia across the United States, by warning people that there could be a possible shooting at any of the screenings. They carried this narrative out because of the violence that is depicted by a villain in his own standalone.

This is the same argument that has been plaguing single shooter video games, such as Call of Duty. Media does not influence anyone to kill, the access to weapons does. The media continues to blame art and media in different mediums, rather than blaming their own corrupt system. As opening weekend for the Joker approached, undercover cops and extra security were placed at multiple screenings across the country for Joker. This narrative was completely forced by the media, it was almost as if they wanted this particular narrative to unfold, AGAIN, in order to fit their narrative of blaming the media for the violence in their country. There were even extra security guards placed in theatres in Canada and statistically, Canada does not have the same gun violence percentage as the United States.

The fictional character of the Joker has been a staple in pop culture for decades, so why are people finding an issue with him now? There have been multiple films that included violence, from John Wick to Rambo: Last Blood and every basic action movie in between. The controversy behind the Joker, lies with it being a DC character. With the rise of formulaic action films or comforting live action remakes, audiences are not used to a different moviegoing experience, especially ones that don’t leave you feeling all warm and toasty inside.

DC has and always will be the dark knight of the live action comic book universe, but they are the only ones putting out humanistic stories for audiences to reflect on. Man of Steel was a symbolic immigrant story, Batman v Superman was about unity over differences, Wonder Woman displayed love for humanity, Aquaman showcased power struggles between land and sea, Shazam showcased bullying and Joker depicted the treatment of those who suffer with mental illnesses in the most raw and brutal form we could have ever imagined.

The reason why audiences are turned off by Joker, is because they feel disgusted with how society treats people. Joker puts everyone who has every treated someone horribly at the forefront because of how Arthur Fleck’s internal pain fills the screen. People will constantly treat others poorly but they will never know how much their cruel acts truly affect them. People do not walk out of the Joker feeling uncomfortable from the violence, they are uncomfortable with the treatment of Arthur Fleck, or how terrible the world can be. No one sympathizes with the killing aspect of the Joker, the film showcases the mind of someone who has been so traumatized and feels so much pain because the world has treated him unfairly.

Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck

The lesson in Todd Phillips’ Joker is to be kind to everyone because they could be going through anything. That’s the real tragedy of life in general, no one considers their fellow person, it’s always for personal gain. There are moments in the Joker that are very emotional or even frustrating to sit through because of Arthur’s condition. It’s hard to watch him lose himself and come to terms with the fact that his whole life was a lie. He takes his suffering and transforms into this character of the Joker, he feels safer putting on the facade of a clown because clowns are unpredictable.

Lastly, since the Joker won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival and has been getting major Oscar buzz, Joaquin Phoenix is a lock for Best Actor and articles like these will not and SHOULD not stop him for getting the Oscar gold. Headlines such as these are laughable for multiple reasons. The headline on the right, does not match the article whatsoever because it resorts to clickbait. How have we gotten to the point where a film that amasses such success does not deserve the box office revenue that it receives? There have been many films that have not been good, and still made billions of dollars, but I didn’t see an article questioning the success of those films. Unfortunately, it has become a thing to piggyback off of controversies in order to gain clicks without having anything beneficial to add to the film and its process after it’s released.

As we head into Oscar season, the Joker has every right to be nominated because it changes a genre that has gotten very tiresome in the past 11 years. Todd Phillips truly changed the game and no matter the controversy, Joker belongs in the race. If we take away Joaquin’s brilliant performance, we are still left with unique direction, a haunting score, stunning cinematography, an in depth character piece, many references and nostalgia, many social issues being brought to the forefront, and a well rounded film overall. Joker will most definitely be nominated, not only for the reasons stated above BUT because the Oscar telecast hasn’t been doing well and they have been gaining viewers due to relevant films with the 18-34 demographic AND of course, the magic word, controversy.

The Joker is a film that demands to be seen and the message is booming throughout. People are afraid to feel terrible after a film because it’s a reflection on their own behaviour and how society actual treats people. It’s raw, realistic and a painful watch but it is definitely necessary.

Quentin Tarantino’s Films Ranked

Quentin Tarantino has developed his own cult following over the years and it is because of the way he structures his stories. The other reason, he has such a devout following, is because he only plans on making 10 films. Tarantino is considered an auteur because of his unique style throughout his filmography.

Ahead of the release of his 9th piece, Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, I decided to take a look at his previous films and understand how Tarantino received his cult status.

By doing so, I’ve also ranked the films from best to worst and will be analyzing them, by my own ranking, and not by their release dates.

  1. Jackie Brown (1997)
Pam Grier as Jackie Brown in Jackie Brown (1997)

Jackie Brown (1997) was a near perfect heist film and it’s all thanks to the incredible portrayal of Jackie Brown by Pam Grier. The way she carried herself from the opening credits really set the tone for how headstrong she would be throughout.

I also considered this a more political film for Tarantino because of the emphasis that was placed on gun propaganda in America. He also touched upon systemic racism and corruption in the police force, as he used Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Ordell to really explain it.

It felt like a buddy cop film, even though it was much more graphic and violent than your standard buddy comedy. Tarantino is known for adding comedic dialogue at the most unusual moments and that’s why some scenes end up sticking out from the rest. An example would be when, Ordell is in Max’s (Robert Forster) office and he’s explaining what the money would be used for. Or the scene in the van when Ordell and Louis Gara (Robert De Niro) figure out where the rest of the money went.

Samuel L. Jackson and Robert De Niro in Jackie Brown (1997)

Tarantino also uses a 5 part structure, majority of the time, to move the story along, even when it is linear. In this case, Tarantino allows a different point of view in the final act with Robert De Niro, when conducting the heist. Another trait I picked up on while watching his films is his famous “trunk shot” and he uses it to show a position of power for his characters towards the beginning of their journey.

What I loved about Jackie Brown was the connection between the dealer, the cops and the middle man, as they all work together, for different reasons, in order to perform the ultimate con.

2. Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003)

Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003) has Robert Richardson at his finest and he made this film so visually stunning, while telling a vengeful tale about a woman who had everything taken away from her.

The film plays out like a graphic novel and Tarantino incorporated many different aspects when creating the structure for this story. Yes, it has a disjointed narrative but it all fits together so well because of the voiceovers from Black Mamba (Uma Thurman), tying everything together.

Tarantino pushes his characters to the limit and always allows his actors to play around with their characters and make it their own. Uma embodied Black Mamba and pushed herself to her own limits. The fight choreography was so sharp and edited nicely. They didn’t shy away from the graphic content and it allowed this to be one of the best female led films ever. The choreography and the sound design were perfectly balanced and it definitely stood out from the rest of his films.

Having Lucy Liu and Vivica A. Fox as former Vipers, in the first instalment, made the fight choreography so much better because it was awesome to see, two women with the same skill-set, fighting each other to the death!

Richardson and Tarantino really played with lighting and silhouettes throughout the film and always placed these transitions at the right time. One distinct moment was the final battle sequence with the Crazy 88 vs Black Mamba. In this sequence there were vibrant colours, then once she gauges a member’s eyes out, it shifts to black and white… then afterwards when the lights are switched off, the background is blue, allowing the characters battling in front to be in a perfect silhouette. These are beautiful artistic choices that set Kill Bill Vol. 1 above the rest.

3. Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Michael Madsen, Harvey Keitel and Steve Buscemi Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Reservoir Dogs (1992) really sets the tone for his filmmaking abilities that he carries throughout the rest of his filmography. He always has the best opening credits that usually have a great song choice with the rest of a stacked soundtrack.

He tends to always start his film with a scene that has already started and the characters are in mid conversation. Sometimes the dialogue has no relevance to the actual content of the film and it’s just a tactic to get to know the characters on screen and the way they think.

What was so great about Reservoir Dogs was the cast, and the way Tarantino decided to hide certain parts from his audience, so that the implication was there but the audience didn’t see certain graphic scenes, such as cutting a victim’s ear off. The screenplay was simple but it was packed with heavy dialogue that would explain characters intentions and their backstory.

One of the most iconic scenes from this film was the “Stuck in the Middle With You” song playing over Michael Madsen’s Mr. Blonde aka Vic Vega, torturing a victim and cutting his ear off. It definitely reminds me of something Kubrick would do!

Each actor had great chemistry with each other and the stand off at the end was proof of that. It was a classic guns out, waiting game and they all said their piece before firing at one another.

4. Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Christoph Waltz, Omar Doom, Eli Roth, Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger in Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Inglorious Basterds (2009) is one of Tarantino’s most daring features because of how he depicted American soldiers and Nazi’s during World War 2.

Like the rest of his filmography, Tarantino has definitely structured this one in a similar way, there is a breakdown showing different groups of people who eventually come together to defeat the evil at the end.

This one is filled with vengeful dialogue and systemic hatred of Nazi Germany, which adds tension in every single scene that Christoph Waltz is in. Waltz is incredibly charming and moves through languages so fluidly, that I was left mesmerized by his effortless performance. The reason this film is in a league of its own is because of how Tarantino decided to perceive both sides and he was able to do that through philosophical dialogue between both parties.

This film not only has a brilliant performance from Christoph Waltz but has Brad Pitt’s best performance to date, Diane Kruger as a great British spy and newcomer Michael Fassbender knocking that infamous bar scene out of the park.

Tarantino’s love for cinema does not go unnoticed because he always incorporates references of the history of filmmaking in his movies. The plan at the end of this film to burn down the theatre with all the Nazi’s in there, while watching a Nazi propaganda movie was genius. He thought of everything and showed Shoshanna’s (Melanie Laurent) process in editing her own piece to fit the propaganda film.

Even though this film appears to be disjointed, everything fit together nicely and it’s one of his more engaging pictures.

5. Django Unchained (2012)

Christoph Waltz and Jamie Foxx in Django Unchained (2012)

Quentin Tarantino has always been vocal about the need as a filmmaker to be able to write whatever he pleases and to some extent, I agree. In this case, he approached slavery from a different angle and at times it was used in a powerful way.

We have Django (Jamie Foxx) breaking free from his chains at the beginning of the film, thanks to Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz), who is a bounty hunter and bought Django for his knowledge on the whereabouts of the Brittle Brothers.

Throughout the film we see Django break free from his trauma and harness the hatred into saving his wife from plantation owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).

The performances from Foxx, DiCaprio and Waltz were fantastic and that would be one of the main takeaways from this film.

I love the way that Tarantino often uses various languages for manipulation and secrecy throughout his filmography because it shows his creativity and love for all forms of cinema. Similarly to Inglorious Basterds, when he uses those languages to move the story forward, Django Unchained does the same when Dr. Schultz and Django plan on freeing his wife Broomhilda from “Candieland”. It was a tactic used because Schultz is German and Broomhilda speaks German as well.

It’s very difficult to watch this film because of the brutal violence that Tarantino often shows in his films, but it’s not surprising. If you’re going into a Tarantino film, thinking it won’t be brutally violent, then you haven’t been paying attention to him as a filmmaker. The only downfall of graphic violence, is showing it while making a film about slavery, especially through a white man and a white lens on camera. However, there was also a balance when Django started killing the plantation owners and took over for Dr. Schultz. Funnily enough, there is some sort of balance in Django Unchained in regards to power and it kept shifting throughout.

Django Unchained attempted to have a very political narrative and showed how brutal it has been for the black community in the United States, but in true Tarantino fashion, he pushed the limits too far. The 110 times that the “n” word was used throughout the film was excessive. It’s one thing to incorporate it into the dialogue at certain moments, but there is a way to show the trauma and brutality without using that word. The word was used almost in every sentence and it became exhausting to hear by the end of the film, we all know Tarantino is a better screenwriter than that.

Django Unchained fell apart at the end because Tarantino did not know which ending to give Django. If you watch the film, it seemed like there were two endings and the payoff was anticlimactic. When he was captured again and then attempted to break free AGAIN, the final half hour seemed like it dragged on, even though that ending would have made more sense.

6. Pulp Fiction (1994)

John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson Pulp Fiction (1994)

Pulp Fiction is considered the film bro cult classic and Tarantino’s masterpiece.

However, in comparison to the rest of his filmography Pulp Fiction lacks the disjointed, yet structured fluidity of the rest of his films.

His choices for his opening credits, accompanied by the most perfect soundtrack, truly go unmatched, because those two things will always be a Tarantino signature. Again, he opens on a scene with two characters in mid conversation.

I found that he developed his knack for everyday conversational dialogue and then he quickly cuts to an act of violence, all in one scene, to throw the viewer off and it was extremely present in Pulp Fiction.

It was hard to pay attention to the characters on screen in this one, solely because names were thrown around and never established. It wasn’t until Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman) came on screen, that I actually understood what was happening and who Marcellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) was.

Pulp Fiction had very strong moments that are memorable like Jules Winnfield’s (Samuel L. Jackson’s) Ezekiel speech, Mia Wallace and Vincent Vega’s (John Travolta) dancing sequence and the car scene with Vincent and Jules, when Vince forgot the safety was off.

The final two Chapters in Pulp Fiction dragged on and I made the assumption that it was resolved earlier. The entire subplot with Butch Coolige (Bruce Willis) was completely lost for me and it’s because the character was never fully developed or explained.

In many of his films Tarantino always takes it too far and there’s always one scene that pushes that limit. In this one it was the rape scene of Marcellus Wallace by the Confederate White Racists from the gun shop. The placement was incredibly unnecessary and I didn’t think it really should have been incorporated in the film. It felt like the majority of this film was imaginative with no real payoff. A series of “what if” moments that were somehow tied together.

7. The Hateful Eight (2015)

Tim Roth, Kurt Russell and Jennifer Jason Leigh The Hateful Eight (2015)

The Hateful Eight was a beautiful feat for Quentin Tarantino because he decided to film this on 70mm Panavision, which hasn’t been done in a very long time. The film was larger than life and truly can only be appreciated on the big screen. Ennio Morricone’s Oscar winning score at times seemed better than the actual content of the movie itself, but really set the tone for the journey these characters were about to take us on.

Tarantino uses his 5 part structure to tell his story and introduces his characters quite effortlessly. It was a very simple story about bounty hunters and “wanted” victims, locked together in a tavern during a snowstorm. Of course with a mixture of characters such as these, tensions arise and it definitely leads to interesting dialogue.

However, this film does not hold up over the years. I watched this on dvd in the comfort of my home and the beauty of the 70mm feat was stripped away, causing the grandiose of this Western to fade with it.

The ensemble cast worked wonderfully together but the dialogue was extremely heavy, almost too heavy to follow at times. There was little to no action in this film and the dialogue dragged on. Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth and Jennifer Jason Leigh were the standouts in this film and it was because they were the only ones who had somewhat of a different character to play with.

Halfway through this film, the purpose of the bounty hunters got lost because they were all locked in this tavern. Most of them were racist an continued to attack Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) for serving in the military. You could tell that Tarantino was grasping at straws trying to make this interesting, that he ended up creating a Whodunnit situation with John Ruth (Kurt Russell) and Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh).

The film dragged on and the ending was anticlimactic because again, he introduced Jody’s (Channing Tatum) subplot too late and then tried to make sense of Joe Gage (Michael Madsen), General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern), Bob (Demien Bichir) and Oswaldo Mobray’s (Tim Roth) placement in the tavern previous to all of them crashing there.

It’s sad to say, but Ennio Morricone’s score was better than the entire movie.

8. Kill Bill Vol. 2 (2004) & Death Proof (2008)

The reason why these two films are ranked in this way, is because Tarantino plans on making 10 films, as I have stated previously. So it’s only natural that I rank his two worst together.

Kill Bill Vol. 2 (2004) was incredibly disappointing to sit through because of how incredible Vol. 1 was. It felt as if Tarantino stretched out the narrative and it could have been resolved in Vol. 1. I felt as if the momentum from Vol. 1 did not carry out into Vol. 2 and it felt very bland.

Tarantino took on a film noir angle in Vol. 2 and it worked really well considering Black Mamba was trying to find out where Bill was. I think the reason Vol. 2 was bland was because he decided to show her training all at once and it was too long. The reason why Vol. 1 was better was because he placed her character in an environment where she already had this fantastic skill-set, so to show how she got to that point was redundant for me.

Uma Thurman Kill Bill Vol. 2 (2004)

The massive difference between Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, is that Vol.1 had little to no dialogue and managed to show the viewer everything and have them piece the story together themselves. Whereas Vol. 2 had too much dialogue and had characters overly explaining their actions, instead of just doing them.

After Black Mamba, aka The Bride, aka Beatrix Kiddo, aka Mom…. MOM? Yeah, mom… the entire time she thought she lost her daughter and then at the end we find out that her daughter is living with Bill, her husband. That part I never really understood because it didn’t make any sense. When we see Beatrix at the beginning of Vol. 2, she’s pregnant but doesn’t seem pregnant enough to have had carried a child for longer than one trimester. I felt as if the ending was quite convenient and extremely anticlimactic in how she executes finally KILLING BILL.

Lastly, Death Proof (2008) was a film that felt like a sadistic, male fantasy YET, it was female centric and empowering at the same time.

Jordan Ladd, Tracie Thomas, Rosario Dawson and Mary Elizabeth Winstead Death Proof (2008)

The most unique aspect that Tarantino added in Death Proof, was his own trailers and previews for satirical horror films. Now looking at it, it would most definitely caused audiences to get annoyed because the previews in the actual theatre are 15 minutes long and so were the ones that he added at the front of his film. So that’s a half hour wasted on empty commercials. Death Proof itself was a waste of time and a waste of his very limited filmography.

Kurt Russell was cast perfectly as Stuntman Mike, it’s because he’s incredibly charming and easy on the eyes, even though he was much older than the young girls he preyed on.

The film was centred around a group of girls, but the dialogue reeked of a man’s writing, it was filled with sexual dialogue and pointless chatter about how women enjoy the company of men. At the same time, the final act allowed the women to take control of the situation with Stuntman Mike trying to kill them, and instead they go after him.

Death Proof felt like a passion film for Tarantino and I just did not understand why he decided to make it. Yes, the use of film in the year 2008 was different, but the story was pointless and outdated. Considering the rest of his filmography, Death Proof is forgettable and is most definitely not up to par with the other 6.

Quentin Tarantino has definitely made a name for himself has a cult classic leader and his filmography has grown with him. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, seems like a love letter to his life’s work and to the beautiful medium of cinema. So, we shall see where this 9th instalment will rank in his filmography.