With movie theaters now closed due to COVID-19, many films will forgo a theatrical release and be sent straight to digital rental and streaming services. 

Disney’s “Onward” has already hit Disney+, with “Artemis Fowl” scheduled to join it on June 12. However, this will not be the case with Disney’s live-action “Mulan” film, which is now set to be theatrically released on July 24 according to collider.com. 

Some fans are appreciative of the decision, because it means the studio’s intended viewing experience is being preserved. Others feel the empowering distraction of a female warrior would do people some good, and that the release is being held up for financial reasons.

According to indiewire.com, “Mulan” had a budget of around $200 million, making it the most expensive female-directed, live action movie ever made. While “Onward” had a budget of $175-$200 million, it was released on the big screen before the theater closings, and it was even sold as a digital download for $19.99 before it came to Disney+. The studio likely profited from it as much as they could under the circumstances. 

As for “Artemis Fowl,” the decision for its new Disney+ debut stems from the studio’s belief that it will at least give the lower-budget film the opportunity to “draw more subscribers,” according to variety.com — this would be a weighty economic gamble for an anticipated blockbuster like “Mulan.” In fact, variety.com reported that “Mulan” is predicted to earn roughly $85 million when it hits the U.S. box office alone.

GHC economics student and Disney enthusiast, Brittany Skeen, was upset that “Mulan” would not be available yet, but she has also examined the financial side of the situation. 

“I was highly disappointed when they did not release the movie to digital download,” Skeen said. “However, from an economist standpoint, I see why they did not as well. This is their first Asian film to be released. They have put so much into marketing and want to give it the huge moment it deserves.” 

“There is very little in Asian representation out there,” Skeen said. “So for Mulan to be finally coming out in Hollywood, I can see the bigger picture for Disney.” 

She also expressed that, despite understanding Disney’s side, people would benefit from seeing a strong, brave character like Mulan in times like these.

Want a side splitting new read? A Deadpool volume would suit you nicely.
How about some poetry? Sylvia Plath would hit the spot.
You’d like something nostalgic? Well, go right ahead and read that Curious George story. Kindle Unlimited won’t judge you.
Kindle Unlimited is a service that offers free access to a wide variety of ebooks to subscribers for a monthly flat rate of $9.99. It can be accessed on any device once the Amazon Kindle app is downloaded, and over one million titles are currently available.
From Rachel Hollis’ “Girl, Stop Apologizing” to Herman Melville’s “Moby Dick” you are sure to find something that interests you, and you get a 30-day free trial when you sign up.
To start reading, just look through the labeled selection lists or search for any specific book you have in mind. Any titles marked “Kindle Unlimited” are free for subscribers to enjoy.
Everything is stored on your device, so it doesn’t take up any extra space in your house. You’ll never have to hear, “Seriously, why can’t you get rid of your Curious George collection? It’s overflowing from those dirty old bookshelves” ever again.

Many purists believe that there’s nothing quite like the crisp, savory rush of air that comes from opening a theater door to tell you that you’re about to step into a new movie’s world. Others find that the ability to stream a film from anywhere via Netflix, Hulu or one of the many other services is the more favorable option because it allows for a flexible viewing experience.

Me, I’m somewhere in the middle. After all, everyone loves a good movie. And a good movie is always worth watching, whether it’s watched from a theater’s velvet folding chairs with a silence so sharp and a screen so mesmerizing that none of the outside world can seep in or watched from your living room recliner as dogs bark and the microwave beeps in the background.

We live in an age where entertainment surrounds us, and there has never been a better time to be a movie buff, a cinephile, a film fanatic or whatever else you want to call it. We have options. Technology is evolving, and our creative pursuits, ambitions and movie experiences evolve and expand as a result.
So, before anyone tells you that “The Shining” wasn’t meant to be watched on your iPhone’s Hulu app, think about all the progress movies have made so far. The oldest piece of surviving film is a two second clip from 1888 titled “Roundhay Garden Scene.” It doesn’t show very much — its brief run-time only affords the viewer a glance at a group of people as they walk and enjoy some fresh air — but it did give the director, Louis Aimé Augistine Le Prince, the opportunity to use a new invention unlike any the world had ever seen: the motion picture camera.
“Roundhay Garden Scene” is uninteresting on its own, but when people came to realize the potential it held as a new technological magic, we did what we as a species do best. We transformed it into something truly special.
As the years flew by, the film industry became more daring than ever. The visionaries behind these masterpieces did not fear the past or the future of film. They took what they knew and built upon it with fresh ideas and technological advancements. Audience members should try to do the same when it comes to how they watch films.

Today, we continue to dream through the medium of movie-making, and changes are happening all the time. We can enjoy both the classics and new spectacles of the screen. If film-makers themselves aren’t afraid to embrace both an appreciation for old and modern methods, why should the modern movie audience have only one viewing preference when we have so many wonderful choices available?

The answer is simple: we shouldn’t.

Imagine if movies were still only two-second clips. What if they never experimented with different styles? How repetitive would it feel? Now imagine shunning Netflix because watching movies on a laptop isn’t captivating enough. Or, on the other side of things, imagine refusing to go to an anniversary screening of “King Kong” because you could watch it at home.

Every way we have to consume movies has something to offer. We should never limit ourselves to thinking that one way is better than the other. Whatever you prefer, sit back, relax and just enjoy the show.

“Let’s do something fun for spring break!”

Everyone knows where the conversation usually goes from there. Maybe someone suggests a trip to the beach, a girls’ night out at a concert or a nice amusement park vacation — in short, “something fun” probably involves travel, lots of people or both.

But what about now? The COVID-19 outbreak has been officially declared a pandemic, and while students should remain calm, everyone should exercise caution and use whatever preventative methods they can in order to stop the spread of the virus.
These preventative measures include washing hands, refraining from touching one’s face and avoiding travel and crowded areas where germs can be easily spread. What does this mean for spring break?
For many GHC students, it means staying home.

Nathan Jourat of the Paulding site said he normally tries to go out of town for spring break, but knowledge of the coronavirus will be keeping him in his house this year.
“My family and I are not for sure we want to go anywhere,” said Paulding student, Astrid Hernandez.
Hernandez and her family like to visit Florida during the break, but the recent events have left them uncertain about this year’s plans.

Despite these necessary changes caused by COVID-19, it is still possible to have a restful, entertaining and even productive break.

“I’m probably going to relax and enjoy the downtime,” said Paulding student Richard Chewning, “but if I have any studying I feel I must do, then that will be part of my break as well.”
Students should remember to prioritize their safety and that of those around them as they move forward. Spring break plans should be made accordingly.

Director Autumn de Wilde’s “Emma” is the most visually stunning and comedic, cinematic adaptation of Jane Austen’s satirical novel yet.

Romance, indulgence and drama abound in the story of the young, well-to-do Emma Woodhouse. Audiences will not be disappointed by Emma’s often selfish, sometimes well-intentioned and always hilarious antics as she attempts to navigate the path to love for those around her, despite her claims that she herself does not want to marry.

After helping her former governess find a husband,  the much adored and encouraged Emma begins to fancy herself a matchmaker. Even though Mr. Knightley, her brother-in-law and dear friend, teases and chides her for it, she is now determined to spark a romance between her companion Harriet Smith and Mr. Elton, the local vicar. However, many surprises await Emma in her arrogant pursuit. She learns more than she ever realized she would need to about love, herself and the true nature of those around her.

Blushy pinks, sky blues, seafoam greens and many other pleasing pastels light up the not-so-silver screen. From Emma’s gorgeous dandelion dress to the mint walls of her home at Hartfield, every shot is filled with rich color down to the simplest detail.

Paired with breathtaking, outdoor shots and exquisite Regency era costumes — courtesy of the brilliant vision of veteran Austenian costume designer, Alexandra Byrne — this movie is as delicious as the cakes and treats its characters frequently fill up on. Thankfully, the eyes can feast much longer than the stomach can.

While the painting-like quality of “Emma” alone is worth the price of admission, it still has more to offer, especially when it comes to laughs. Each cast member’s performance is remarkable in its own right, but the funniest by far is from Miranda Hart as Miss Bates, a talkative woman who is quite fond of Emma, even though their friendship is usually one-sided. Hart delivers her lines in an eager and rambling manner that sits at the perfect level of awkwardness to make for a hilarious rather than an uncomfortable portrayal of the character.

From its vivid color palette to its breathtaking setting and costume designs, “Emma” lives up to the grand promises of its source material.

Score: 4.5/5 stars

Destin Daniel Cretton’s latest biopic, “Just Mercy”, features a talented cast and a soulful soundtrack that manages to deliver a strong yet necessary horror to audiences: hopelessness.

Set in Monroeville, Alabama, the film is packed with all the tragedy of the civil rights era, yet shockingly takes place in the 1980s.

Inspired by Bryan Stevenson’s memoir of the same name, the movie follows Stevenson, a young African American lawyer fresh out of Harvard, has resolved to represent several downtrodden death-row inmates, namely Walter “Johnny D” McMillan.

McMillan has been falsely accused of murdering a young white woman and has largely given up on fighting for his own freedom. He knows that being black in the South is often seen as a crime worse than killing

However, Stevenson is armed with not only a keen understanding of law but also hope, which is arguably the most powerful weapon of defense any human being can possess. With this young man seeking justice for the longsilenced black community, even some of McMillan’s faith is restored.

Both the leading and the supporting cast members gave impressive performances.

Michael B. Jordan’s nuanced portrayal of Stevenson demonstrates a simultaneous gentleness and passion, while Jamie Foxx conjures a rage as McMillan that is strong without seeming overly emphasized — a fact that adds to the feelings of despair throughout the film as the audience witnesses this exasperated man being literally beaten down to a state of exhaustion.

iend and collaborative partner of Cretton’s, put together a musical score that will resonate with film-goers on multiple levels. Its jazzy tones and deep vocal harmonies unite to reflect the heartwrenching struggles characters face in the everyday world of the film, illustrating the overlap of calmness and hardship in a world where practiced inequality makes life easy for some and unfairly difficult for others.

The cinematography, while not poorly executed at all, was fairly standard. The film relied on close-up shots of actors’ expressions, which, considering the subject-matter, is understandable.

“Just Mercy” is a must see film for movie buffs and casual viewers alike because its message is for everyone: when all hope seems lost, we must stand up for our fellow man. After all, we humans aren’t so different at our core, and if a film like “Just Mercy” can bring us together, even in some small way, by inspiring us to hold a little more compassion in our hearts, isn’t that one more lovely thing we can have in common? Score: 4/5 Stars

Sam Mendes’ film “1917” was filled with beautifully choreographed violence and dizzying rapidity at the center of this film. It follows two British soldiers, Lance Corporal Blake and Lance Corporal Schofield, on their quest to relay a potentially lifesaving stand-down message to a battalion of 1,600 men.

War I, provides only the amount of information necessary to understand the weight of the characters’ situation: a battalion, which includes Blake’s brother, is in danger because they have planned an attack based on the erroneous belief that they now have the upper hand against German forces, and these men will certainly die if Blake and Schofield fail to reach them in time.

The film focuses on the fact that any war is hell. Its straightforward storyline and simple dialogue are paired with gruesome images and complex shots, enhancing the overall viewing experience. The corpses of animals and people casually litter the screen. Low-level shots combined with long takes and stabilized camera tracking make it impossible to look away or fully reflect on these victims.

These technical tricks mimic the protagonists’ movements and bring audiences into their reality so that they come to the horrific realization that war, so riddled with death, robs people of even a moment’s grief when it is needed most.

This is all thanks to cinematographer Roger Deakins, who also worked with Mendes on “Skyfall.” His dedication resulted in the film’s nearly perfect one-take illusion — an immersive cinematic technique that is magnified by the performances of the viewer’s two Mendes-assigned comrades.

George MacKay shines as Schofield, who has come to grasp the true insanity and materialism behind war yet demonstrates an admirable determination when he knows he is truly needed.

Schofield forms a skillful juxtaposition with DeanCharles Chapman’s youthful and eager Blake. The on-screen conversations between these two, which often mention other soldiers or hint at previous events in their own lives, are delivered so naturally that the viewer will feel like a third member on the mission.

While other brilliant actors are featured — such as Benedict Cumberbatch as Colonel Mackenzie, Colin Firth as General Erinmore and Andrew Scott as Lieutenant Leslie — they have very little screen time. Of course, the lack of well-knowns at any given moment arguably adds to the realism MacKay and Chapman offer. After all, these are just a couple of regular guys facing the many dangers of war.

“1917” is a spectacular film that showcases some of the best cinematography and acting of the last few years. It is a uniquely immersive spectacle that will make audiences forget they are sitting safely and soundly in their cushiony theater seats rather than shoving their way through the trenches of World War I.

Score: 5/5 stars