Mudbound tells the story of two opposing families in the 1940’s. The first is the Jackson family, impoverished and residing in rural Delta, Mississippi. The heads of the family, Hap Jackson (Rob Morgan) and Florence (Mary J. Blige) have hopes of owning a large property. Meanwhile, the second family, the McAllan’s are middle class family lead by Henry (Jason Clarke) and Laura (Carey Mulligan), much like the Jackson’s, they aspire to having better living conditions.

The film starts off in unconventional manner beginning with the inner monologues of each character, and although the parallels are established in each monologue it does appear to be a slow burn. However, the wait was worthwhile as we begin to see the conflict emerge in the relationship between to the two sons, Jamie McAllan (Gareth Edwards) and Ronsel Jackson (Jason Mitchell).

The onscreen chemistry between Mitchell and Edwards is undeniable, as the characters mirror each other in a number of aspects. Both sons are decorated World War II veterans and golden children of their respective families. Ultimately both young men are haunted by their pasts and the uncertainty of their futures in racially divided delta. In respect to its character’s, Mudbound finds a sincere way to reveal the ways in which they are emotionally confined, mostly through their social and economic backgrounds. At various points throughout the film, Dee Res is able to match these stories and emotions in a poignant manner, with some very consistent and dedicated performances from the cast.

Mudbound does an excellent job of consistently building good tension, with editing and pacing creating a good sense of unrest and leaving no room for the audience to breathe in between scenes. It will at times literally have you at the edge of your seat.

The film especially does a good job about not pulling its punches when it comes to its rawer and brutally honest scenes. Res made sure to address the conflicts of anti-war and racism head on, in a time where political and social issues seem to overlap in a violently manner, Mudbound couldn’t have arrived at a more critical point in our society. A sobering reminder that while the horrors of the film might have occurred almost 76 years ago, the attitudes of characters like Henry, Pappy, or Laura are still prevalent in today’s society and Mudbound does not try to deny that. Instead, it forces us to examine our roles in it either creating these atmospheres or dismantling them and ultimately forces us to have a conversation.

All in all, Mudbound is a very well-crafted character-driven film full of thrills, family dramas, and critical storytelling. Despite the lack of pace in the beginning, most viewers will find it to be a rewarding, didactic and overall entertaining experiences.

4 out of 5 stars

The post Bound To Be Good: Mudbound Film Review appeared first on SCAD Radio.

Imagine being approached to make a film, and only having the title as your jumping off point. Sound a bit crazy?

Well back in the 1940’s, Val Lewton was approached by RKO Motion Pictures to produce nine horror movies, and all he was given to work with was the names of each picture. The first being 1942’s Cat People starring Simone Simon.

Taking place in New York, Serbian immigrant Irena Dubrovna, (Simone Simon) meets young and handsome marine engineer, Oliver Reed (Kent Smith), and instantly falls in love. The two marry, but Irena’s fears of an old Serbian superstition about evil witches turning into cats causes major friction between the lovebirds. So much so, that Oliver’s coworker, Alice (Jane Randolph) makes a move on the married man. Oliver asks Irena for a divorce, leading her to terrorize the man she loves and anyone who gets in her way.

It’s all a giant metaphor for a woman’s burgeoning sexuality.

I’m not reading too much into this.  The film makes it very clear from the beginning. A quiet and shy girl who’s never had a friend meets and falls head over heels with a good ol fashioned red blooded american boy, but when the wedding night falls upon her, she gets cold feet and begs him to wait. Later, she loses the man she loves to a woman who’s more in control of her sexuality. Only when tossing her cares away and becomes a bit of a b word—for lack of a better term—does she become empowered and in control.

For the hour and thirteen minute long film, it takes a while for the plot to really get going. The film makes up for it though by moving fast enough that you don’t mind. I wasn’t fully engrossed with the movie, but it did hold my attention.

The real jewel of the movie has to be Simone Simon as Irena. Playing up the pure and naive aspect of the girl’s personality, Simon does her best with a character that could have come off as incredibly annoying. She almost plays it too well. I really hated her husband for leaving her for Alice, and Irena is suppose to be the bad guy.

One moment that really speaks to Simon’s acting is when Irena plays with her pet bird.  It seems sweet and comedic until she accidentally kills it, then feeds it to a panther at the local zoo. Ms. Simon’s face after realizing what she’s done goes through so many layers of denial, sadness, regret, then acceptance of what she is, and what she has done. All the little things that Simon puts into her role are what really sell her as Irena. The icy daggers she shoots at Alice, the chipperness she uses as a mask to hide all the pain inside, I admit I choked up a bit at the little wave she gives to Oliver as she escapes near the end of the film, which he doesn’t see.

Another amazing moment of the movie is the stalking scene. Irena, after seeing Oliver and Alice run into each other, gets suspicious and follows the couple down a dark alley. Alice leaves Oliver, and it’s just now her and Irena. The whole film we’ve been teased of what could happen to Irena if she becomes mad or jealous. Now we’re starting to get some payoff. We watch Alice as she walks alone, all the while hearing Irena’s high heels clicking far behind her. Suddenly, the heels stop. Alice, along with us, becomes weary. We wait in silence to hear the heels again, but nothing. A faint noise of what can only be described as a cat lurks in the darkness, but it’s suddenly juxtaposed by an extremely loud bus. A very well done jump scare. Just like Alice, we want to get out of the situation as fast as possible.

The ending, however, was lackluster to say the least. I don’t want to give the final moments away, but it really left a bad taste in my mouth. I was angry that Irena was treated so horribly by everyone in the film.

Yet after spending some time away from the movie, I realized that no one in the film was really all that innocent. They all dealt with some sad and hard decisions. Irena’s dark past kept her from living a life she wanted. Oliver tried his best to love someone that just could not be saved. Alice had to watch the man she loved marry another and then watch him slowly fall apart when it didn’t work out. Everyone’s a sinner, and no one is a saint.

The film’s minor characters are laughably bad. They are so indicative of the time that there is a character whose lines almost all consist of, “Gee whiz” and “Dearie”. Then again, with how some of the dialogue is written, I don’t think the actors had much to work with. It is bad enough though, that it’s kind of endearing. It’s the kind of bad that you can get a giggle out of just because they seem so serious, but sound so ridiculous.

The cinematography definitely has it’s moments, especially whenever Irena is in her cat form. The last fight of the film is done beautifully, playing with shadows rather that flat out showing all the gorey details.

Costuming is fine, as I am not a big fan of 40’s clothes or their shoulder pads. I do have to hand it to the film. There is some seriously subtle costume changes for Irena. Her clothes get darker and darker throughout the film, and it’s a little on the nose that her coat oddly enough looking like panther fur.

It is a very cheap looking film. Almost all the action goes back and forth from two different sets: Irena’s apartment and the zoo. I don’t hold it against the film though as it works with what it has.

My main problem with the film is not exactly the film’s fault. I’m talking about the time period in which the film came out. The idea of divorce or annulment was almost blasphemous to talk about in a 40’s picture. Even today, it’s still a little problematic; therefore, I applaud the film for addressing it. My issue is that back in the 40’s, there were certain rules in film that kept the bad guy from having a happy ending. (That’s why in the original Italian Job, the film literally ends on a cliffhanger.) They couldn’t show the bad guys getting away with their ill gotten gains. I hoped that Irena would not be seen as the bad guy, and in the last five minutes of the film, the story tricked me into thinking that I would be right. Alas, it was not meant to be. Irena still gets a sad ending to her sad life. Now, if her character were in a modern film, she might be spared such a tragic ending as she is a likeable character. Therefore, I submit my honest opinion:

I think this film should be remade.

Yes, it’s already been done as in 1982. RKO changed up parts of the story to make it a bit more interesting. Along with giving it a killer theme song done by the late and always great, David Bowie. And the newer film wasn’t that bad. It’s wasn’t great, but it wasn’t bad.

The idea can still have another great rendition if put into the right hands. Perhaps, instead of making the film about sexuality, it could be an allegory for depression.  A young woman who hates her own existence and tries to move on from her troubled past and find happiness, but only to spiral downwards into self-hatred and despair? In the ‘42 version, you definitely read that Irena is depressed, and may have thought of suicide to end her cursed existence. I know it’s a bit harsh, but it could work.

The film still holds up pretty well. It definitely has it’s hokey moments. It looks a little cheap, the writing is really dated, and the message may not be read too well for a modern audience. A woman who is afraid of what she’ll become if she enters into a sexual relationship and becomes an evil murderous beast when she fully accepts herself and her sexuality? I don’t know. It’s a little mean spirited towards women; however, the film still has something about it that makes it worth a watch.

So dim the lights and settle in for a chilling night, go enjoy Cat People.

3.5 out of 5 Black Cats

The post Cat People: Dated, yet Ahead of It’s Time appeared first on SCAD Radio.

In 1989, The National Film Registry started a project with the Library of Congress to ensure the preservation of films for future generations. Every year, twenty-five films are added to the list, ensuring their legacy until the end of time. The very first year of nominations, right along with films Citizen Kane and Casablanca, was one little space opera that had won the hearts of millions.

That film was Star Wars.

Now remember, this was before it was called Episode: Know Your Roman Numerals, and long before there was ever a “special” edition to split people’s opinions.

Flash forward to 2017, where we have been subjected to the constant retread of special editions. Many of us fall victim to the endless parade of DVD and Blu-ray releases that come around every few years. Now with the recent acquisition of George Lucas’s magnum opus by Disney, it seems that the continuance of beating the dead horse will continue indefinitely.

I’m not complaining about it though, I’m just pointing out that this is what’s happening. Tiny bits of the film are slowly being chipped away. They not be much, but over time, it adds up.

Remember, this is an oscar-winning film that’s constantly being changed. Wouldn’t we be up in arms if someone kept changing Citizen Kane or Casablanca? Why fix something that isn’t broken?

A while ago, I was walking in one of my favorite antique stores in my hometown, and an unusual artifact caught my attention. It was a 1989 VHS release of all three of the original Star Wars films.

I didn’t buy them, but it got me thinking. The eldest version of the Star Wars films I had ever seen were the 2004 re-releases. This bugged me up until this year, when I found out about a very unique pastime of one dedicated Star Wars fan by the name of Harmy.

Harmy took it upon himself to create a forum with the goal of making a faithful recreation of the 1977 theatrical release of Star Wars, completely fan-edited.

Using sources that go all the way back to the film’s original release, editors, color-correctors, and others from all walks of life take on the painstakingly arduous task of bringing Lucas’s original vision back to life.

So, what’s the despecialized version like?

It’s Star Wars. It’s freaking Star Wars.

When you get right down to it, it’s all a matter of aesthetics. If you are happy with watching the constantly changing films, then that’s fine, more power to you. Just know this; Lucas will never be happy with them. He or his minions will always want to “fix” the films, even though there’s nothing wrong with them. Honestly, some of the newer effects of the re-releases do not hold up nearly as well as the original’s.

Something that really surprised me about the film was how much John Williams was utilized in the film. We all remember film’s iconic original soundtrack, so when you do a side-by-side comparison to the newer releases of New Hope, you notice that Williams’s score is drowned out by the sound effects. The most notable moment of this is during the epic climax of the film, the x-wings attacking the Death Star. The music adds so much to the scene, forcing us to really feel the anxiety that these rebels are feeling. Throughout the whole trench run, you don’t notice that you’re becoming as tight as a coil of springs. It’s such a shame that the newer editions totally ignore the music for sound effects. Sound in space.

Fun Fact: There’s no sound in space. Sound cannot travel in space. Try watching Star Wars now.

The editing in the despecialized edition is choppy at best, as it is different clips of New Hope smashed together. Still, the movie’s plot moves so smoothly, that you hardly notice, or you’re too wrapped up in the story that you don’t care that it has a few awkward moments.

Now one of the most divisive moments of the film, answers a very important question that has split families and friends apart for decades. Who shot first?

It’s Han. The newer editions changed it so that Greedo shot first, causing Han to shoot in self-defense. Yet they do it in the most terrible way possible, using a photo rendering of Harrison Ford’s head to move over the film’s frames, making him look like his neck is having a spasm to avoid Greedo’s shot.

The whole cantina scene is brought back to it’s original glory, removing the dumb cgi aliens that look completely out of place. It also marks the return of wolf man!

This adds to film, as Mos Eisley is said to be a troubled and frightening place for a young Luke Skywalker. So adding some CGI blue blob smoking? Not really living up to Mos Eisley’s dangerous reputation.

That’s the biggest problem with the newer editions. They take away the small things that don’t seem important, and replace them with things that either don’t make sense, or muddle up the film’s plot and consistency. Changing up Ben Burtt’s Oscar winning sound effects, removing John Williams’ work, and adding pointless scenes that don’t add up to much in the grand scheme of the film is just asking for trouble.

If you are interested in the despecialized edition, it is a lot of work to get your hands on it without having to buy it or go about it the pirate’s way. Yet the work is well worth the rewards.

I will never get to see the version that hit theaters back in ‘77. My mother was in high school and my father was out of college when this film came out. I’ll never know the amazing film that they got to see on the big screen. I still want to get as close to that experience I can get, and the despecialized edition is a great first step for me, and for any hardcore Star Wars fan.

The post May the Fourth Be With You: Star Wars, the Despecialized Edition appeared first on SCAD Radio.

I enjoy a film that has a sense of style. Film has the capability to diverge from reality as much as it wants. Anderson exemplifies this with his trademark visual effects in The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and The Grand Budapest Hotel (which is my favorite film). Directors who implement a particular style in their work without adhering strictly to its conventions often grab my attention.

This is where Brian De Palma comes in.

Best known for hits like Carrie, Scarface, and The Untouchables, Brian De Palma directed and wrote the film Phantom of the Paradise early in his career, as a loving send up to all things scary and sweet-sounding. This 1974 movie follows aspiring composer and singer Winslow Leach (William Finley) as he struggles to get his rock opera produced. He makes a deal with record producer Swan (Paul Williams), who then steals the music without crediting Winslow. After attempting to take his music back, Winslow is badly disfigured by Swan’s goons, and decides to exact revenge. He dons a mask and cape and terrorizes Swan’s music hall as the titular phantom. In this role, Winslow finds a new muse in the beautifully talented singer Phoenix (Jessica Harper). Their relationship, and the feud between Winslow and Swan, culminates in a bloody, musical rendition of Goethe’s Faust.

But that only scratches the surface. This is not simply an homage to horror, and it is apparent within the first ten minutes that a great deal of time and effort went into this film. It references many classic horror films, among them, Psycho and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. The opening narration is even done by Rod Serling of The Twilight Zone fame.

Paul Williams shines especially bright in his role. His acting may be a bit hokey, but the style of the film, along with the fact that many of his fellow actors are even worse, works in his favor. Still, it’s a better performance than when played the orangutan Virgil in the original Battle for the Planet of the Apes. It’s also funny to see the 5 foot two inch actor stand next to the six foot four inch William Finley. It’s an ironic statement: the little man has all the power.

Not only does Williams play the dastardly villain, Swan, he also composed and sang most of the music for the film. Listen to the closing credits music, “The Hell of It.” It is amazing. The whole soundtrack is dark and catchy, in a similar vein as The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

My biggest problem with the film is definitely the editing. As this is one of De Palma’s earlier works, there are a lot more mistakes than his newer films contain. Costumes change in-between frames; some scenes look like they were inserted just for the hell of it, or to give the film a better flow. Many of them achieve the latter effect, but it’s still a bit off-putting to see Paul Williams change clothes in between entering and leaving a room.

Another problem is the pacing. Parts of the film happen so fast that if you blink, you’ll miss important details, while other moments seem to drag on for about five seconds too long. That’s a minor criticism, though. Phantom is still enjoyable throughout the hour-and-a-half run time.

And here’s a fun fact: Sissy Spacek (who would star in the movie adaptation of Stephen King’s Carrie two years later) was the set dresser on the film.

If you are interested in watching this film, I can’t recommend it enough. It’s gory, goofy, and good for the eyes and ears. I also highly recommend the Blu-Ray Collector’s Edition. I first watched the film on DVD, and it looked like a typical ‘70s film: grainy, and a bit muted. I was able to watch a few clips of the Blu-Ray, and the quality was infinitely improved. In addition to the higher resolution, the saturation of colors and the contrast in values is much greater. It no longer resembles a ‘70s film so much as it does a feature from Hammer Horror.

If you love The Rocky Horror Picture Show, you’ll love this rock-pop creature feature.

4 out of 5 Phantoms

The post A Classic, Revisited: Phantom of the Paradise appeared first on SCAD Radio.

Yes, the reason for this particular remake is understandable (spoiler: it’s all about the money, baby) and yes, the 1991 version is in itself a kid-friendly remake of the 1946 Jean Cocteau film. However, its 2017 counterpart retains the songs and characterizations of the 1991 film. So please, spare me. The 1991 film is plenty original.

Unfortunately, that’s more than can be said of this new Emma Watson/Dan Stevens vehicle. By my count, this is the fourth film in this new line of Disney’s live action remakes, following Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella and The Jungle Book (I don’t personally count Maleficent, because it’s really not a strict remake of Sleeping Beauty), and probably the least successful remake of the bunch. I haven’t seen Burton’s Alice in Wonderland since its release, but I remember thinking that it at the very least added some substantial visual flavor that, while occasionally off-putting, injected some much-needed invention. Kenneth Branagh’s Cinderella almost felt subversive in its non-revisionist approach, and in turn actually improved upon the original Disney film. It actually gave a motivation behind the central romance, as well shaded in the relationship between Cinderella and her evil stepmother. It’s not a perfect film by any means, but I found it sweet and highly watchable. By contrast, Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book took a much darker and more complex spin on the original Disney film to mostly successful effect. It may not have improved that much upon the 1967 classic, but it was entertaining and more importantly, different. It justified its own existence. Herein lies the problem with this new adaptation of Beauty and the Beast. Beyond the obvious financial imperative, I’m not sure who this film is really for. You can make the argument that it’s for people who grew up on the original to show to their kids, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who’d rather watch this version, other than the fact that it stars Hermione Granger. Maybe that’s just my opinion.

I also don’t want to make it sound like it’s a film completely bereft of merit. There are things to like about it, namely the performances. Both the voice actors and live action performers do a very good job, but the star of the show is Luke Evans’ Gaston. Yes, it’s as underwritten as it was in the 1991 film, but his presence really fills the room. He’s operatic and hammy, and it seems like he’s having a great time. Emma Watson and Dan Stevens also manage some good chemistry. And the songs are still great, even if some of the lyrics aren’t changed to fit the new story. I’ll give you an example: in his song, Gaston describes himself as a “the size of a barge,” but Luke Evans is actually shorter than I am in real life. The only difference between us is that he’s really in shape. Here’s another example: in “Something There,” the Beast sings, “And when we touched she didn’t shudder at my paw.” This doesn’t make any sense, because in the movie he doesn’t actually have paws, just furry hands. There are several more that I could point out, but I’ll stop there. They’re more than a little aggravating.

To be fair to the filmmakers, I’m not sure there’s a good alternative. I wouldn’t really want them to change the lyrics, as that would throw off the whole song. And I definitely wouldn’t want them to remove the songs, as they’re easily the best part of this film. The only way these inconsistencies wouldn’t have bothered me is if they had more faithfully recreated the original film, but then that removes almost all hypothetical reason for a remake. Hopefully you’re starting to notice that this is a problem without an easy answer.

I touched on this before, but I’ll expound upon it now: the Beast just isn’t scary or animalistic enough. In a world where we’re blessed with incredibly realistic and unnerving motion capture performances (Gollum from Lord of the Rings, Koba from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and Smaug from The Hobbit come to mind), this portrayal of the Beast never quite hits home, at least not to the level it did in the 1991 version. This veneer of artificiality extends to the rest of the visual effects. The practical and CGI sets are lavishly constructed, but they don’t feel quite as grounded in reality as Cinderella’s did, for example. They lack the whimsy of the animated film, as well as the reality needed to anchor the emotions of the film. This strands it in a sort of uncanny valley.

There are other problems inherent in adapting this particular story in live-action. As anyone who’s seen the 1991 film can attest, the beating heart of the film is the relationship between Belle and the Beast, and this version doesn’t quite sell it. I think I know why. It’s because an audience is typically willing to give a little bit more of the benefit of the doubt to the story of animated film, as it’s easy to be caught up in the visuals and the charm of it. However, casting real people in these roles can illuminate some of the storytelling problems, and that’s certainly the case here. The foundation of the central relationship feels oddly problematic and Stockholm syndrome-y. It doesn’t help that Belle doesn’t really mention her home life until it becomes relevant right at the end of the film. Perhaps instead of adding a couple songs that don’t resonate at all, or a few needless plot points, those extra 25 minutes could have been used to strengthen the foundation of the film. As such, it devolves into a rickety mess.

All in all, the film is enjoyable for all the reasons the original is enjoyable. If this were an original film, I would probably give it a higher grade, but I feel like I have to mark it down a little bit because it’s an adaptation that doesn’t really add any new attributes to an already existing film. It takes a classic film and makes it completely average. I don’t really know how to put it any more simply than that.

2 out of 5 Teacups

The post Beauty and the Beast: All Bark and No Bite appeared first on SCAD Radio.

Yet, we must remind ourselves that what we see on the screen, is not what we see in real life. The twenty foot giants that glide on our movie screens are not our best friends, our boy/girlfriends, or our family. They present us with a fantasy, and we accept it.

We should ask ourselves a lot of questions about which fantasies are good and which ones are harmful, but many can agree that the realm of cinema is a bit of a mixed bag. Films can inspire change, influence generations to come, and open up new ways of thinking.

Film is still one of the best forms of fantasy for the modern person. It’s a one to two hour long realm of escapism, free to be whatever the realm dictates itself to be. With that said, what is a more iconic fantasy, than a beautiful brunette in a black cocktail dress staring into the window of Tiffany & Co.?

Based on Truman Copote’s novella, Breakfast at Tiffany’s is about a down on his luck writer, Paul Varjak (George Peppard), who moves to New York City. By a moment of chance, he meets his downstairs neighbor, Holly Golightly (Audrey Hepburn). The wild and eccentric call girl flips his life upside down as the two deal with Holly’s crazy clientele, suitors of the foreign and rich variety, and a ghost of Holly’s shadowy past, all while the two deny a budding love for one another.

Now, before I talk this film any further, I feel I must address the issue that plagues this classic. Mickey Rooney donning yellowface as Mr. Yunioshi.

As I watch Mickey Rooney:

Ellen: What am I looking at? Who said yes to this?

It is a gross miscasting that remains a black spot on an otherwise perfect film. Is he a throw away character who only shows up in one scene? No. He’s a recurring character throughout the whole film. Supposed to be the comedic relief, he’s a clumsy man who constantly knocks into the items of his heavily japanese decorated home. It’s “Ha ha! He wouldn’t have knocked into that paper lamp if it was hung there. But since he has to have his home in the traditional japanese fashion, we can make fun of him when he knocks into stuff because it’s his fault his home’s like that.”

Thankfully he is in the film for less than ten minutes so you don’t have to look at him for so long. The majority of the film is spent on our two main leads, Holly and Paul.

In her most well known role, Hepburn is mesmerizing as Holly Golightly, despite Truman Capote’s lack of faith. (Just remember that Stephen King hated Stanley Kubrick’s film adaptation of The Shining. The author is not always right.)

She does act a bit more melodramatic than I am used to as I’ve been more acquainted with method and Shakespearean trained actors. Her reactions are more theatrical compared to more modern movies, but that’s a minor problem with the film.

Her chemistry with Paul works great. They are close, but always at a distance. Her flirtatious nature with every man she meets is playful and harmless. However, I think her best relationship is with her cat, Cat. Appropriately named. “A couple of no-named slobs…” Holly says. She pretends that she doesn’t care about anything, even her own pet, sending it out into the cold rain to prove a point. Yet she comes to her senses and runs back to him in the end.

Peppard’s Paul is alright, just a plain main character who learns half of the information of the film along with the audience. Most of his performance is a reaction to Holly’s decisions. That is made up for, however, when we learn that [SPOILERS] he is having an affair with an older woman. Interesting. He’s at first a boring and flawed character, but after a while, you learn that he has some heart and deserves to get a happy ending with the original Manic Pixie Dream Girl.

The side characters of the film also work to it’s advantage. Let’s just ignore Mickey Rooney and proceed onward. Holly’s two suitors, Rusty and José are both funny and memorable in their own ways. One of my favorite characters was Doc Golightly, a man who wants to help the woman he loves, but knows what’s right and what’s wrong.

Blake Edwards’s directing and George Axelrod’s screenplay go hand in hand as the script reads like an 80’s soap opera, but still carries enough weight and charisma that you genuinely care for the characters.

The cinematography done by Franz F. Planer and Philip H. Lathrop (uncredited) is serviceable, while editing (Howard Smith) is done as well as to be expected in the studio system of Hollywood. It’s good, clean and simple. Not as experimental as say an Orson Welles’ project.

One aspect about the film that I could gush over for hours is the Edith Head designed costumes. Nominated for twenty five Oscars, winning seven, Edith Head’s designs for the film have gone down in movie legend. The black dress worn in the first five minutes of the film has become one of the most recognizable pieces of clothing ever to hit the big screen. Every look that Holly wears, I want to rip out of the television and put in my closet.

The film’s run time is about one hundred and fifteen minutes, but the pacing of it makes it feel even longer. The story is just a jumble of random events that happen over a long period of time, but they feel like they just happen out of the blue. I have no issue with that, but for people who like quick and painless films, and not ones that kinda wander around aimlessly for a while, then this might not be the one for you.

What can I say, I do love this film. It’s funny, it’s sad, it knows when to be loud and when to be quiet. It’s characters are fleshed out, even though the story may not be at times. Great actors, writers, editors and direction went into this film and it will not leave you disappointed.

Curl up with your favorite cat and enjoy, Breakfast at Tiffany’s.

4.5 out of 5 cats

The post A Classic, Revisited: Breakfast at Tiffany’s appeared first on SCAD Radio.

And it does not fail to impress one bit.

Logan is the Wolverine we have been pining for since X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It has the right amount of humour, drama, action, and blood that makes it worth the R-Rating. (Thank You Deadpool.)

Loosely based on the Wolverine comic, Old Man Logan, the film takes place in the same timeline as The Wolverine and X-Men: The Last Stand: a distant future where people have forgotten about the superhero team and mutants in general. While not fully stated, it is implied that anyone who carried the mutant gene had died a long time ago and that the species itself is on the brink of extinction; all except for Logan (Jackman), Charles Xavier (Sir Patrick Stewart), and a mutant by the name of Caliban (Stephen Merchant). Logan now spends his days working as a chauffeur in Texas while at the same time helping Caliban take care of a fading Charles Xavier. It seems like a simple day-to-day life as each struggles to live in this new world, but their peace only lasts for so long. One day, Logan is approached by a woman who tells him that he must take an 11 year-old girl, Laura (Dafne Keen), to a place in North Dakota called “Eden”. Taking the job, Logan realizes that the girl is being hunted by Donald Pierce (Boyd Holbrook) and his enforcers known as the Reavers. I don’t want to give away the rest of the plot, but I can tell you that what happens next is a good old fashioned western epic that does not limit you on the blood, gore, and Hugh Jackman swearing. Speaking of which, let’s delve deeper into the stellar performances by Hugh Jackman, Sir Patrick Stewart, and newcomer Dafne Keen.

Considering the impressive acting range of both Hugh Jackman and Sir Patrick Stewart, it is understandable that each would give a stellar performance for their characters. Hugh Jackman truly captures the raw emotion of Wolverine as he is forced into the role of guardian and hero to Laura. It is reminiscent of his relationship with Rogue in the original X-Men film series. To be perfectly honest this is his best performance and overall portrayal of the character since then. You could genuinely see how much time and compassion was put into this version of Logan as he becomes more grounded in humanity. He struggles with his morality and what it means to have a family throughout the film. This is also the case for Charles Xavier.

I have always considered Sir Patrick Stewart to be one of the greatest actors of our time. He has an incredible range that transcends nerd culture and classical theater. As an aging Charles Xavier, Stewart captures the insanity of an aging telepathic mutant losing control of his abilities. It is captivating to experience an emotional death that has been absent in the previous films. Yes, we know that he is wise beyond his years and possibly one of the smartest people in the X-Men universe, but it also is good to see the humanity that is within him. On another note, there is Laura/X-23 played by Dafne Keen. Truly a scene stealer, Dafne Keen’s performance as the mutant daughter of Wolverine was truly a great moment in the history of X-Men films. Considering this is her big screen debut, Keen does an amazing job of capturing the rage, innocence, and overall primal nature of her character. Laura is a child who never had interactions with the outside world. She has no idea how to be a child. It is the perfect dynamic for Wolverine, considering he has no idea how to be a part of a family. Because of this, it is very cute to watch their relationship unfold on screen as they try their best to understand each other.

Overall, Logan is a seemingly perfect ending to the character’s story. It explores family and love. I can’t possibly imagine a more fitting conclusion and only hope that 20th Century Fox does not try to cash out, and include the Wolverine in other projects.

A solid 5/5 angry wolverines for making everyone in the theater cry

The post Logan: A Fitting Ending appeared first on SCAD Radio.

One of the most tried and true examples of great, grade-A Cyberpunk is Masamune Shirow’s 1995 transhumanist police drama political thriller Ghost in the Shell, based on the 1989 manga of the same name. After nearly three decades, two more theatrical anime films, three animated television series, and an animated TV movie, Ghost in the Shell has finally made it to the big screen with the series’ first dive into the world of live-action.

I would be remiss not to mention the elephant in Ghost in the Shell’s particular room: the blatant whitewashing of its lead characters. Whitewashing is a much bigger issue than I, a twenty-something white male, am capable of handling alone in the space of this review, so I won’t comment on it any further than what I’m about to say.

Whitewashing, the process of replacing non-white characters with caucasian stand-ins, insults non-white viewers by erasing their representation. It marginalizes them, invalidates them, and makes them feel unwelcome and abnormal. It also assumes that all white viewers are stupid,  narcissistic, and racist. It’s unacceptable, yet deeply ingrained in the Hollywood culture and I hate it.

Now then, back to the movie.

The music is lovely! It’s uninspired synth droning that’s directly vamped from the original film, but it’s just lovely.

The visuals in Ghost in the Shell are fantastic, and call up a rust-and-chrome world where aesthetic values stopped advancing after 1979. Every inch of the landscape is awash in holographic neon and breathing with digital movement. The world feels lived in. It feels alive. Most importantly, it feels like Ghost in the Shell.

The costuming totally nails the look and style of the original film, with each major character’s iconic outfits being recreated to the last accessory on-screen. The cybernetics are similarly rendered in glowing detail. I don’t think there has ever been as much effort put into the accuracy of an adaptation’s costuming. Ghost in the Shell goes that extra mile, and deserves kudos.

The cinematography and shot design of Ghost in the Shell is stuffed to the gills with visual touchstones and callbacks to its 1995 counterpart. At first it was hard to stop myself from the constant, giddy realization of, “Oh hey it’s that scene from the anime!” While these shots are lovingly recreated and re-worked to suit the film’s story, I did find the use of these touchstones a little annoying after a while. I get it, cinematographer Jess Hall, you did your homework. What do you want, a medal?     

You may have noticed that I haven’t discussed the story itself. There’s a reason for this.

Ghost in the Shell’s plot centers on The Major (Scarlett Johannson) a counterterrorist agent and full-blown cyborg in a world full of evil corporations and false memories. She is the first of her kind, seen as a product by the people who created her. She’s a human who gets treated like a robot, like an object, because of her body. This is the primary thematic thrust of the film, and it’s kind of a boilerplate thematic element that we’ve all seen done better in other films. The original film contemplates the whole of humanity as brains in robot bodies, asking, “Where does humanity go after reaching its pinnacle?” The adaptation, however, reduces the issue of “to what extent is a non-human?” singularly onto the Major and treats the issue more as “why am I treated differently?” with her constant pulling of the “it’s because I’m a robot card.” This film, attempting to connect to a modern audience, shirks the original film’s grand transhumanist message and replaces it with a poorly executed allegory for the rights of the individual.    

This movie is not well-acted, which is surprising considering the actors involved. Scarlett Johansson’s performance was more stilted and robotic than her performance as an actual robot in Her, and Peter Ferdinando is so oddly over-the-top and out of place in his Evil Corporate CEO role that it feels like he stepped out of a different movie, like one of those 80’s jams about saving the rec center from land developers. These performances not only turn each line delivery into a disconnected attempt at shoving the movie’s message down your throat, but also undermines the “suspenseful” and “intricate” plot in-between all the action sequences. I could not care less what happened to these characters and that genuinely upsets me because I love these characters.  

Speaking of the action sequences, boy are they poorly edited and performed. The editing pace switches between “Zack Snyder slow-mo” and “Marvel overly-cut single punch” mode with jarring regularity. This muddling of the action seems almost purposeful, because when the film shows any action in a normal, evenly paced way it feels stilted, poorly executed, and boring. It’s still boring when it’s moving at full-blast, it’s just harder to follow. The fight choreography is uninspired, even when it’s not adapting directly from the original, and I’ve never been less interested to see someone fire a submachine gun while running on a wall.

Ghost in the Shell is a pretty movie. It’s a visual spectacle that will make for great conversation while it plays, sound muted, at your brother’s Christmas party next year. [Ed. Note: He’ll tell you “the show was better” and you’ll call him a nerd, because that’s what you do in those situations.] The story is rote and uninspired, stealing disparate elements from the original film, the television show, and the manga and Frankenstein’s Monster-ing them together to say something completely different. The acting is subpar and the action is muddled by poor execution and frantic editing. In the end, it’s a very pretty movie with a lot of other issues weighing it down. It doesn’t create a good place for newcomers to the franchise and it alienates its baked-in fanbase. Maybe next time. Actually no, never next time.

1 Major Kusanagi out of 5

The post Ghost in the Shell: Pretty, Yet Vacant appeared first on SCAD Radio.