Uncategorized

‘Meg 2: The Trench’ Movie and 4K Review

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

The following review was written by Ultimate Rabbit correspondent, Tony Farinella.

I haven’t seen 2018’s “The Meg”, but after watching the sequel, I don’t see myself seeking out the original.  “The Meg 2: The Trench,” I thought, would be a fun little popcorn film to kick back and enjoy while I shut my brain off for 90 minutes or so. Instead, it is a film which is almost two-hours long and goes back and forth between being deadly serious and having silly over-the-top nonsense.  The problem with the silly over-the-top nonsense is, by the time it kicks in, things have already lost its audience to where it is far too late for anyone to recover.  Plus, the scenes do not feel natural or organic, and they seem to be in there saying, “See? Here is the stuff you came for: the killings, the mayhem, and random one-liners. Isn’t this movie fun?” “The Meg 2: The Trench” was a tedious viewing experience.

Jason Statham stars as Jonas Taylor, and if you have seen one performance from Statham, you have probably seen them all.  However, I do enjoy when he collaborates with director Guy Ritchie, as there are darker elements to his characters in those films.  In his other films, he’s the wise-cracking bad-ass who beats everyone up.  That’s OK once in a while, but when you keep playing the same tune, it gets rather repetitive and dull. In this film, he plays an environmentalist with a heart of gold who is looking after Meiying (Shuya Sophia Cai) after her mother passed away, along with her uncle Jiuming Zhang (Wu Jing). She’s a teenager who is looking to explore and be adventurous while her two guardians are also trying to keep a close eye on her.

One day on a deep-dive mission, Jonas and Jiuming discover there is an illegal operation happening deep down below in the water. So, this time, not only do they have to fight off the megalodons, but they also have to fight off the attacks of greedy and avaricious mercenaries who are looking to make billions of dollars off of this illegal mining operation.  Does any of this sound like fun?  It wasn’t fun for me.  It might have been fun if they kept the plot to 90-95 minutes, moved at a faster pace, and went with an R-rating.  They play it a little too safe here, and it is dull, uninventive, and very uninteresting.

Another problem with the film is the other characters in it.  There is nothing unique or original about them. They come and go with absolutely zero-character development or any significant reasons why we should care if they live or die.  There are some nice scenes between Jonas, Meiying and Jiuming, and there are some pretty cool shark deaths, but by the time they finally make it to the screen, as mentioned, the audience has long since fallen asleep and lost interest in anything happening on screen. I popped up for a minute to remark, “Oh, that was cool. That was a sweet moment.” When your film is nearly two hours long, though, you need a lot more of those scenes instead of random characters in scuba gear you can’t even identify or care about.

This film also suffers from not having any silly or fun villains.  The whole thing just felt like a cash-in sequel to me.  It made a lot of money, so I’m sure no one who made the film or was involved in it is disappointed by that.  There is also a wise-cracking supporting character played by Page Kennedy, and he’s trying way too hard to be funny.  It’s almost like they added him specifically for the purpose of forcing comedy on us when it wasn’t there. As soon as he appears on screen, you are waiting for the one-liners instead of them happening naturally.  It’s clear they were only thinking about the bottom line with this movie, and they had zero interest in making a film which could at least pass as escapist entertainment.

* ½ out * * * *

4K Info: “The Meg 2: The Trench” is released on a single-disc 4K from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment.  It comes with a digital copy of the film as well.  It is rated PG-13 for action/violence, some bloody images, language, and brief suggestive material. It has a running time of 116 minutes.

4K Video/Audio Info:  One of the good things about this release is we get the film released on Dolby Vision with a Dolby Atmos soundtrack as well.  As far as the transfer here, it’s a flawless transfer that is clean, crisp, and bright.  The Dolby Atmos soundtrack is also a really good one, as it’s not too loud or in-your-face.  Even though the special effects left something to be desired, I can’t deny how good the transfer looks and how good the film sounds. As a 4K, it’s one of the better transfers I’ve seen for a film released in 2023.  It also comes with subtitles in English, Spanish, and French.

Special Features:

The Making of “Meg 2: The Trench” – Cast and crew revisit the making of the film and working with new and returning cast members, then highlight the beauty and challenges of working with a Meg they can’t see.

Up From the Depths: Even More Beasts – Director Ben Wheatley, cast and producers guide fans through the creation and design of the new creatures seen in “Meg 2: The Trench”

Should You Buy It?

If you enjoyed the original “Meg” and are a fan of Jason Statham films, you will probably want to add this one to your collection.  However, I would say it’s a film you can wait to buy when it drops a little in price.  If you did not enjoy the “Meg or haven’t seen the original, I don’t think there is anything here that will convert you to this sequel.  It’s a shame, too, as the second half showed some promise and did deliver some cool kills.  If they had trimmed the fat, stuck to a reasonable running time, embraced the absurdity of the film and had better looking sharks, we would have a good popcorn film here.  Instead, we are left with a laborious viewing experience with only a few highlights. This one left a lot to be desired.

**Disclaimer** I received a copy of this film from Warner Brothers to review for free.  The opinions and statements in the review are mine and mine alone.

The ‘Friday the 13th’ Reboot – Jason is Vicious, But the Movie is Bland

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

WRITER’S NOTE: This review was written back in 2009 when this reboot was released.

What better way to spend Singles Awareness Day (a.k.a. Valentine’s Day) than with an old friend who butchers camp counselors because they didn’t keep him from drowning, or supposedly so? I somehow doubt you can call this latest slasher adventure of Jason Voorhees a remake. Each sequel to the original “Friday the 13th” was basically a reworking of the first sequel which introduced Jason as the main killer of the franchise. Watching each successive sequel has been like witnessing a perverted sports event. How is Jason going to kill off those promiscuous teenagers? What weapons will he use? Will the ladies be as cute as they were in the previous movie? Will the guys be every bit as gullible as before? I think this is what makes people keep coming back to this never-ending franchise. We are curious to see how Jason will dispatch his latest batch of victims before he gets laid waste to by the final girl. John Carpenter said evil never dies, and Jason Voorhees is proof of this.

This “Friday the 13th” comes to us from Platinum Dunes, Michael Bay’s film company which made such unnecessary remakes of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” “The Hitcher” and “The Amityville Horror.” A lot of people complain about Bay the director, but I am more worried about Bay the producer. Still, the idea of bringing back Jason was too intriguing even for me to pass up.

In this particular “Friday,” Jason more threatening here than he has been in ages. For the last few movies, he has become a figure of such unbridled camp that he comes across as more of a joke. Here, he is as vicious as ever. This Jason does not just walk at lightning speed like he did in “Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan.” Here, he thrusts his weapons and impales his victims with sheer velocity. His mommy issues have never been more deeply rooted than they have been since the franchise first began.

The movie starts off more or less condensing the original, as it was Jason’s mother who was the brutal killer in that one. We see Jason’s mother, played by Nana Visitor from “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” (never piss off a Bajoran), get decapitated by the one camp counselor, female of course, who she couldn’t kill. We all know how seriously pissed she was at the counselors who let her son Jason drown, and now Jason will carry on her vengeance. The prologue is much longer than I ever could have expected, and in it we meet a bunch of kids who are seriously interested in obtaining a huge quantity of marijuana. Jason, however, is there with a bag over his head, the iconic hockey mask gets introduced later, killing off potential profiteers. It made wonder if Jason was actually a drug dealer as he apparently lives near such a big farm of green.

These kids meet a gruesome end (is there any other kind?), and the movie then moves ahead a couple of months to introduce us to a new set of victims. These ones though are not there to be camp counselors, but instead to stay in a house by the lake to have a “relaxing” weekend. The house belongs to the father of a snobby little spoiled brat named Trent (Travis Van Winkle), and his name wreaks of snobbery whether he likes it or not. Along with him is his girlfriend Jenna (Danielle Panabaker) who has no business being with a guy like him, an Asian smarty named Chewie (Aaron Yoo) who has yet to get laid, and a couple others who, whether they get laid or not, will most likely not live through the weekend. You also have the sole black man, Lawrence (Arlen Escarpeta), who loves to mess with white people and their prejudices they are blind to. Arlen has one of the best lines of dialogue, and you will know it when you hear it.

What makes this particular “Friday the 13th” different from the others? Not much. It has the requisite killings and naked breasts. Sean S. Cunningham, the director of the original, is along for the ride as a producer, and he is intent on giving the audience what they expect from a movie like this. What makes this franchise reboot different is it is a lot bleaker and more unrelenting than the other sequels.

Marcus Nispel directed this installment, and he also directed the Platinum Dunes remake of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” He gives it a washed out look, and it gives the proceedings a more realistic feel as well as a foreboding one. The tension is thick in the air, and even though the scares are pretty much where you would expect them to be. The killings are effectively brutal, but Nispel doesn’t dwell so much on the blood and gore as much as you might expect.

As for the characters, they really didn’t stick in mind for long after I left the theater. That’s the problem with movies like these. Not that I expect them to be in depth character studies, but it is clear these characters are presented as being ones who are quickly disposable. There are those who you want to live through the night, and there are others whose demise constantly root for, especially Trent. In the end, they are all fair sport for Jason who kills everything in his path. Having an Asian and a black character also shows how this masked killer knows no racial boundaries when it comes to slashing trespassers. After all these years, Jason Voorhees remains an equal opportunity murderer.

Jason is played in this incarnation by Derek Mears, an actor who played the Chameleon character in that awful sequel, “The Hills Have Eyes 2.” I liked how he gave Jason a fury we have not seen from in over a decade. Not that I want to take away from Kane Hodder, but Mears gives Jason a viciousness which makes him feel more dangerous than ever before.

Regardless of these positives, there is nothing particularly special to this “Friday the 13th.” Despite a higher standard of production values the other sequels never got, it still feels like an ordinary run of the mill slasher movie to where the one word I can best describe it as being is bland. It’s the kind of movie which doesn’t stay in the brain too long after you have seen it. While Jason may be more threatening than ever, it is not enough to make this movie seem altogether satisfying.

Also, I am really getting sick of this plot device in which cell phones do not work. I find it hard to believe there are places on this planet which do not have cell phone signals. Granted, the Hollywood Hills never seem to have them, but still, while this scenario worked fine in “The Hills Have Eyes” remake, this singular excuse to isolate these dumb characters continues to get weaker and weaker.

For what it’s worth, this is the first “Friday the 13th” movie I have ever seen in a theater. I always kept hearing about these movies as a kid, and I was fascinated with them even while Siskel & Ebert kept tearing them apart as “cynical filmmaking.” It took me a while to get around to actually watching them, and even then, I had the volume turned down. I also kept hearing from my friends how people reacted during them. One told me how, when he saw “Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood,” everyone started a chant when it looked like the most unlikable character, a horribly spoiled girl with no manners whatsoever, was about to get killed off. This led the audience members to start chanting:

“Kill the bitch, kill the bitch, kill the bitch, kill the bitch, KILL THE BITCH! KILL THE BITCH!! KILL THE BITCH!!! KILL THE BITCH!!!!!!”

That would have been fun to witness, and the fact that this “Friday the 13th” movie did not have it took away from the experience. While I admire how they made Jason more lethal, part of me missed the tongue in cheek qualities of this franchise. You know, the moments which reminded you it was just a movie, and how some critics take them way too seriously. Looking back, I feel like I missed out on something.

Jason should really engage in a group therapy session with Norman Bates because they have more in common than they realize. Of course, Jason doesn’t talk, but maybe Norman could get him to or perhaps teach him sign language. Hey, anything is possible, right?

* * out of * * * *

Anthony Hopkins on Playing the ‘Psycho’ Director in ‘Hitchcock’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

WRITER’S NOTE: This article was originally written back in 2012.

Sir Anthony Hopkins has played real-life people in movies such as President Richard Nixon in “Nixon” and John Quincy Adams in “Amistad,” but he was initially hesitant about playing the brilliant filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock in “Hitchcock.” The master of suspense has been imitated so many times over the years to where it seems impossible to portray the man without it feeling like it is a joke. Hopkins, however, was won ever by the film’s director, Sacha Gervasi, who told him, “You’re not Alfred Hitchcock, you’re Anthony Hopkins playing him.” From there, Hopkins knew he would be portraying Hitchcock without ever having to do a mere impersonation of him.

Hopkins actually had the unique privilege of meeting Mr. Hitchcock while he was alive. It’s always great fun to hear from actors who have met the highly esteemed filmmaker as the majority of us have only seen him from a distance. We all wondered what Hitchcock was really like as his films generally delved into the pitch-black darkness of humanity, and that had many assuming he was a somewhat disturbed human being himself. Hopkins described the experience of meeting Hitchcock to Fox News.

“I met Hitchcock in Hollywood in 1979. He had just been awarded his knighthood and I was with my agent, and his agent in fact, George Chasen,” Hopkins said. “This was many years ago. I saw Hitchcock sitting in the restaurant and I said to my agent, ‘I’d love to meet him.’ He said ‘I’ll introduce you.’ So, we walked out of the restaurant after we finished our meal, and Hitchcock was sitting there drinking a large brandy. And George said ‘Congratulations Sir Alfred,’ and he said, ‘Thank you very much George. How are you?’ and George said, ‘This is my client Anthony Hopkins,’ and (Hitchcock) said ‘Charmed, I’m sure, very good luck to you.'”

For Hopkins, a key importance for him was getting the look of the famous filmmaker right. The fact is he is far slimmer than Hitchcock was, and Hitchcock famously known for being overweight. It was up to Academy Award-winning makeup artist Howard Berger to transform Hopkins into Hitchcock. In a conversation with Andrea Mandell of USA Today, Berger talked about doing six makeup tests with Hopkins before filming on “Hitchcock” began, and they experimented with all sorts of prosthetics to get the look right.

“I think the biggest challenge was finding the right combination of Alfred Hitchcock and Anthony Hopkins,” said Berger. “We knew from the get-go; we didn’t want to completely cover and disguise Tony. As Hopkins became more comfortable with the character, slowly we started to strip things away.”

Berger went on to describe the end result of his work as being a portrait of Hitchcock on Hopkins. The makeup process took two hours each day to complete, and this included applying a prosthetic jowl and neck pieces to Hopkins. In addition, Hopkins took to wearing a bodysuit and brown contact lenses, and he also shaved “a patch of hair at the back of his head to replicate the director’s hair pattern.” With the makeup done, it freed Hopkins to concentrate on the inner life of his role as opposed to the physical aspects of it. In the end, this is what actors need to focus on the most when playing any role.

But the one thing you will not find Hopkins doing during shooting is staying in character when the cameras are not rolling. Right now, the movie “Lincoln” is in theaters, and it stars Daniel Day Lewis as President Lincoln. Stories from that set have described Lewis as staying in character throughout the shoot to where other actors kept referring to him as Mr. Lincoln. In talking with Philip Sherwell of The Telegraph, however, Hopkins made it very clear how this method of acting is completely unnecessary for him.

“I think that’s a lot of crap,” Hopkins said. “I just don’t understand that. If actors want to do that, fine. If they want to be miserable, that’s up to them. I’m not interested. It’s a job. Who the hell wants to be with some miserable grump because he wants to get his performance right, so you have to call him this or call him that? It’s so boring. I’ve been with actors like that and… they’re unpleasant to work with and I don’t think they’re always that good either.”

With all the great performances he has given throughout his illustrious career in “Silence of The Lambs,” “Remains of the Day” and “Titus,” Anthony Hopkins doesn’t need to stay in character a whole day in order to give audiences a confident performance. His role as Alfred Hitchcock in “Hitchcock” is just the latest example of the kind of work we can always expect from an actor of his caliber. Hopkins never takes the easy way out with a role, and he understands it is the inner life of a character that the actor needs to work on. As for how he looks on the outside, that is someone else’s concern.

SOURCES:

“‘Hitchcock’ star Anthony Hopkins: To get a compliment from legendary director was ‘like being given a billion dollars,'” Fox News, November 21, 2012.

Andrea Mandell, “Anthony Hopkins’ scary transformation into Hitchcock,” USA Today, November 23, 2012.

Philip Sherwell, “‘Don’t call me ‘Mr. Hitchcock’: Anthony Hopkins does not want the Daniel Day-Lewis treatment,” The Telegraph, November 24, 2012.

‘Barbie’ Movie and 4K Review

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

The following review was written by Ultimate Rabbit correspondent, Tony Farinella.

I went into “Barbie” with very little knowledge of the film beforehand. I was aware that it gained a lot of money at the box office, and I also knew it was the most talked about movie of the summer.  It broke records at the box office, as stated, and it’s the rare film that has received positive reviews with critics and also with audiences as well.  It’s an important film in today’s world.  Of course, I heard of the Barbie brand name in my 38-years on this planet, but I didn’t consider myself the key demographic for this film.  However, the expert direction of Greta Gerwig and the top-notch writing from herself along with her long-time partner, Noah Baumbach, made this a very, very enjoyable viewing experience.  I also believe it can create healthy and meaningful conversations for families after they watch it together.  It’s the power of cinema.

“Barbie” opens up by introducing us to Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie) living in Barbieland.  She sees a world populated by Barbies, Kens and other characters, even if it is full of mundane routines at times. One of the Barbies is even President (Issa Rae).   One day, Stereotypical Barbie notices she has flat feet and is starting to think about her own mortality.  This is met with confusion by those in Barbieland where everything, on the surface, is always sunshine, rainbows and lollipops. They tend to live in denial at times. The Kens like to hang out at the beach and seek approval from the Barbies. This most certainly applies to one Ken, played by Ryan Gosling.  When Stereotypical Barbie meets Weird Barbie (Kate McKinnon), she realizes that someone has been playing with her and causing her to have bad breath, flat feet and even cellulite.

Ken insists on following her into the real world where he and Barbie are mocked, ridiculed and even thrown into prison. Barbie is not used to men making comments on her appearance and even groping her.  Ken, on the other hand, likes it in the real world as he sees the opportunities and respect that come with being a man. He didn’t have those same privileges in Barbieland.  Barbie meets young Sasha (Ariana Greenblatt) who lays into Barbie about how she has given young women unrealistic expectations of how they should present themselves in the real world. This is news to Barbie, who becomes quite depressed. 

When the Mattel CEO (Will Ferrell) finds out that Barbie is running loose in the real world, he wants to ensure she is put back into her box, as he doesn’t like the fact that worlds are colliding.  Barbie also learns more about what caused her to have problems in Barbieland.  She wants to find out how to make things better not only for herself, but for everyone else.  Since Ken is starting to feel overly confident and selfish, this puts Barbieland in serious jeopardy.  It’s up to Barbie, Sasha, and Sasha’s mother, Gloria (America Ferrera), to make things right not only for all of the Barbie’s out there, but for the entire Barbieland as well, which includes numerous Kens and also Allan, played by Michael Cera.

For a movie about a collection of dolls, “Barbie” has a lot to say, and it says it quite well with humor, intelligence and a powerful sense of self-awareness.  The filmmakers are also not afraid to take Mattel to task as well for some of their decision making.  This is a film about change, growth, empowerment, and being the best version of yourself.  It’s also a beautiful looking film with some of the best cinematography I’ve seen in a long time.  It’s filled with color, vividness and life.  At times, the film can be a little too on the nose and it does lag a little in the end, but this is a really, really good movie that is hugely entertaining while also having a strong message behind it at the same time.  It’s really remarkable what Gerwig has achieved with this film.  She took a lot of chances with this film, but nine times out of ten, they were the right chances to take.

“Barbie” is going to cause an uproar with certain groups of people and, quite frankly, that is their burden to carry around with them.  As the old expression goes, “For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t, no explanation is good enough.”  It’s fine if you don’t like the film, but if you are getting caught up in certain aspects of the film’s subject matter, you are missing the point entirely. “Barbie” is well-acted, well-made, incredibly funny, and it has a wit to it that I’m sure many audiences will appreciate.

Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling are tremendous here, of course, and the rest of the cast is top-notch, featuring such actors as America Ferrera, Rhea Perlman, Issa Rae, Michael Cera, Simu Liu, and Will Ferrell.  They know exactly how to hit all of the right notes with this material.  Everyone has bought into the film here, and they know how to sell it just perfectly.  This is sophisticated humor, and the actors are never too over-the-top or winking at the camera too much. Of course, there are moments where the movie is breaking the fourth wall, such as when its narrator, Helen Mirren, talks about it not being a good idea by the filmmakers to have Margot Robbie complain about being ugly, but those moments make sense because it shows the movie is right there with the audience in terms of what we are thinking.

All in all, “Barbie” was one of my favorite viewing experiences of 2023.  As stated earlier, it is not perfect. At times, it is a little too self-aware for its own good, and the last thirty minutes or so tend to drag a bit.  However, it is easy to see why this film garnered so much attention at the box office and with mainstream audiences. A movie about Barbie could have easily been banal and vapid. Instead, they trusted that audiences can be smart and they want something more out of a Barbie movie.  I really enjoyed “Barbie,” and I can’t wait to watch it again.

* * * ½ out of * * * *

4K Info: “Barbie” is released on a single-disc 4K from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment. It also comes with a digital copy of the film.  It is rated PG-13 for suggestive references and brief language. It has a running time of 114 minutes.

Video Info: The 4K look of this film is really, really on-point with its lively HDR and tremendous color palette.  It is not so bright that it will hurt your eyes or cause any discomfort.  It knows when to pop and when to shine and it always looks sharp, clear, and incredibly rich. It’s a visual feast for audiences. This movie was made for 4K.

Audio Info: The Dolby Atmos soundtrack is also vibrant and really consistent throughout the entire film.  It has a nice bass to it, as there are tons of great songs sprinkled throughout the soundtrack of the film.  Dialogue is easy to understand without any issues. Subtitles are in English, Spanish and French.

Special Features:

Welcome to Barbie Land – featurette

Becoming Barbie – featurette

Playing Dress-Up – featurette

Musical Make-Believe – featurette

All-Star Barbie Party – featurette

It’s A Weird World – featurette

Should You Buy It?

HECK YES!! I don’t care what age you are or what gender you identify as, if you have a sense of humor and heart, you will really, really enjoy Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie.” This is a great example of how to do a big studio film the right way while also making a ton of money at the box office.  The audio and visual aspects are also top-notch and really, really well done.  It’s a gorgeous looking transfer with an incredible Dolby Atmos soundtrack.  We also get some pretty cool special features as well.  “Barbie” is one of the biggest surprises of 2023, and it is the kind of film I love to see out of Hollywood. It comes out on 4K on October 17th, and it is a day-one purchase.  I don’t know if there will be a steelbook edition at some point or not, but this is the kind of film you would not mind double dipping on in the future.  This one comes highly recommended!

**Disclaimer** I received a copy of this film from Warner Brothers to review for free.  The opinions and statements in the review are mine and mine alone.

All-Time Favorite Trailers: ‘The Exorcist – The Version You’ve Never Seen’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

There are several trailers out there for William Friedkin’s “The Exorcist” which are very memorable, but the one which stands out for me is the one made for its rerelease back in the year 2000. In some ways, it is a huge surprise that this trailer was not treated like a red band trailer as the film remains ever so shocking after all these years. Regardless, it does a great job of reminding audiences, old and new, of what an incredibly unnerving and unforgettable experience this 1973 film was when it first came out, and how it remains so all these years later. Even if there was no new footage made for this release, this trailer made seeming it back on the silver screen an offer no movie buff could ever refuse.

I have to tell you, seeing this version on “The Exorcist” at a celebrated movie theater in Westwood, California provided me with one of the best cinematic experiences I ever had. On top of this film never having lost any of its power, as it contains scenes no studio would allow any filmmaker to capture on film today, the theater had the most extraordinary sound system which made watching it all the more adrenaline-inducing, exhilarating and enthralling to sit through. This trailer gave me such a great reason to check it out on the biggest silver screen in my neighborhood.

To date, there has yet to be an “Exorcist” sequel or prequel which can at the very least equal Friedkin gave us half a century ago.

Please check out the re-release trailer down below.

‘The Exorcist: Believer’ is Not a Worthy Sequel

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

William Friedkin’s “The Exorcist” was such a singular cinematic experience, let alone a singular horror film like few others, that making a sequel to it had to seem like a truly insane prospect. “The Exorcist II: The Heretic” proved to be as hideous piece of celluloid as the original was a brilliant one, “The Exorcist III” was undone by needless studio interference which made it look pitiful for no good reason, and the attempts to make a prequel got so messed up to where two versions of it were made, both of which proved to be quite flawed. Looking at this franchise, one which is quite accidental, it seems like one driven by profit more than anything else. Granted, sequels are generally made because the original was a big box office hit, but not all of them exist simply because of financial benefits for everyone involved.

Now we have “The Exorcist: Believer” which comes to us from David Gordon Green and his fellow filmmakers who gave us the recent “Halloween” trilogy which proved to be worthy sequels to a celebrated classic. And yes, I do include “Halloween Ends” which many despised. Like those films, this “Exorcist” installment serves as a direct sequel to Friedkin’s original, it completely ignores the other sequels to create its own cinematic path. What results is a motion picture which is not terrible, and I went into it refusing to expect it to be any equal to the original, but it still proves to be inconsequential and unnecessary as Friedkin’s film continues to be extremely difficult to make a sequel to.

We are introduced to professional photographer Victor Fielding (Leslie Odom Jr.) who is raising his daughter, Angela (Lidya Jewett), as a single parent following the tragic death of his wife. One day, Angela asks her dad if she can go over to her friend Katherine’s (Olivia O’Neill) to study. That’s okay, Victor says, but she needs to be prompt about returning home for dinner. When Angela fails to do so, and she and Katherine go missing, the whole town goes looking for them. Eventually, they are found alive 30 miles away from their home addresses, but both are convinced they were only gone for a few hours.

As you can expect, both Angela and Katherine turn out to be possessed, and Victor turns to others to help the girls before any more lasting damage can be inflicted. Among them are Ann (Ann Dowd), a nurse at a local hospital and a fallen Catholic, and Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn), an actress turned exorcism researcher who has since become renowned for her studies and her best-selling book on the subject. From there, we know we are in store for an exorcism, albeit one which cannot possibly be as intense as the one Friedkin gave audiences half a century ago.

Now you cannot go into “The Exorcist: Believer” expecting something along the lines of Friedkin’s original film as that is asking to be severely disappointed in the process. None of the sequels or prequels could touch it as the 1973 film is a cinematic experience not easily duplicated. But even with reserved expectations, “The Exorcist: Believer” just doesn’t work. It has some strong performances from Odom Jr. and Dowd, and there are some clever jump scares, but there is not enough to justify this as a significant follow-up to a celebrated classic.

The big news with this one is that Ellen Burstyn returns as Chris MacNeil for the first time since the first “Exorcist” film. But while Jamie Lee Curtis’ character of Laurie Strode was a major component of the recent “Halloween” trilogy, Chris MacNeil’s presence in “The Exorcist: Believer” feels like an afterthought, and while Burstyn is great as always, the character does not feel especially necessary to this installment. While it may give this film some legitimacy, Burstyn is barely in this film and does not get a lot to do.

When it comes to the climactic exorcism which the film’s title and its trailers have promised us, it is no surprise to find it utterly lacking in tension. Sure, there is some suspense as the adult characters are forced to make a choice no one wants to make, but it all feels lacking in the long run. As much as I wanted to view this film on its own instead of in comparison to the classic original, I could not help but be reminded of how intense and unnerving Friedkin’s film was. I wanted this exorcism to have the extreme intensity of what came before, and I knew that was not going to be the case which made this direct sequel all the more frustrating.

David Gordon Green is a terrific filmmaker. In addition to his “Halloween” trilogy, he has also directed films in various genres. He has given us “George Washington,” “Pineapple Express,” “All the Real Girls,” and “Joe” which features not only one of Nicolas Cage’s best performances, but also one of his most subtle, and that is saying a lot. I cannot help but wonder what made him, Scott Teems, Danny McBride, Jason Blum and all of Blumhouse were hoping to accomplish here. Were they hoping to make something which could stand alongside the original proudly, or at least be considered its equal?

For a moment, I thought Green might have some luck as the opening scenes in Haiti do have a documentary feel to them like the original did. But after a bit, it just felt like I was watching a movie. This is the biggest problem with “The Exorcist: Believer;” you watch it more than you experience it. You can see how the screws go in, and it does not help that the CGI effects utilized here are not all that great. Then again, I have long since been spoiled by the visual wonders of “Avatar: The Way of Water,” so nothing else can possibly compare.

Making a sequel or any kind of follow-up to “The Exorcist” is no different than anyone trying to make one to “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” Both those horror classics gave audiences a cinematic experience like few others, and they still remain enthralling and greatly unnerving so many years later. And yet, there are those who have turned these movies into franchises which may succeed financially, but never critically. They will forever be shadowed by a predecessor which can only make the best efforts look ever so pale in comparison, and yet people keep trying futilely to give us something worth watching. The fact that no one has succeeded in doing so should not come as a surprise.

Nevertheless, another “Exorcist” movie is set to be released in 2025, and the best way to look at this situation is to say Green and company have nowhere to go from here but up. Perhaps if they played around with the formula, they could audiences something more original which will stand on its own. Until then, I wonder if the ghost of William Friedkin will haunt Green just like he promised.

* * out of * * * *

The SAG/AFTRA Strike Continues on at Warner Brothers Studios

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

It has been a bit, but I finally made the time to walk the picket line in support of the SAG/AFTRA strike. The WGA strike concluded after 148 days after a tentative agreement with the AMPTP was reached, but many of their members still took the time to join the picket line in continued support of the union’s efforts to gain a fair contract. While I have traveled to different strike locations in the past, this one had me returning to Warner Brothers Studios in Burbank, California. This is because I do not often get over the hill (figuratively speaking) to the other side where the valley is.

Actually, this day, October 2, 2023, is a very significant one as the SAG/AFTRA negotiators are set to meet with the AMPTP in an attempt to end this long-running strike once and for all. In the meantime, we still marched up and down Barham Street to make our presence known. The sun was still shining brightly in the sky, but the temperatures have cooled down a bit and there was a nice breeze going on which we really could have used during July and August.

For me, this day allowed me to catch up with friends I have not seen in the longest time (thanks for nothing COVID). It was fantastic running into Madonna Cacciatore and Robin McWilliams, both of whom have been doing fantastic work as strike captains, making sure everyone crosses the street safely and no one gets hurt. In the past, the three of us trained together for the Los Angeles Marathon as part of Team to End AIDS. More importantly, we ran it in 2011 which became forever known as the monsoon marathon as the rain kept pouring down on us with a vengeance.

I also ran into a former neighbor of mine, a screenwriter whose career has unfortunately taken a hit due to the work stoppage. Fortunately, his wife has a big job which has proven to be all consuming, and this allows him to be a stay-at-home dad to his children. Of course, he would like to get back to work soon.

But even as the SAG/AFTRA strike could be reaching an end, another one is set to begin as the union has a authorized a strike against video game companies. I included a quote near the end of this video I edited about my day on this picket line from Ralph Garman, a longtime voiceover artist and host of “The Ralph Report,” who voiced his frustrations with doing video game work, and his remarks speak volumes about how performers are endlessly being taken advantage of.

Please check out the video below and be sure to make a donation to those artists in need.

‘Homicide: Life on the Street’ Commentary on ‘Son of a Gun’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

It has been a bit, but I am now back with another “Homicide: Life on the Street” commentary track. This time it is for “Son of a Gun,” the fourth episode of the first season. This episode contains several plot threads as the detectives furiously investigate the shooting of Officer Chris Thormann (Lee Tergesen), Tim Bayliss (Kyle Secor) and Frank Pembleton (Andre Braugher) continue to investigate the murder of Adena Watson, Stanley Bolander (Ned Beatty) goes out on a date with Doctor Carol Blythe (Wendy Hughes), and there is also the case of Calpurnia Church (Mary Jefferson) who has murdered many people for the insurance money. This is a lot for any hour-long drama to handle, but everyone involved seems to find the right balance to where nothing feels superfluous.

“Son of a Gun” was directed by Nick Gomez who helmed a couple of indie crime dramas back in the 1990’s: “Laws of Gravity” and “New Jersey Drive.” It marked the first appearances of Sean Whitesell who portrays Dr. Eli Devilbiss, Edie Falco who portrays Chris Thormann’s wife, Eva, and Walt McPherson who plays an patrolman who may or may not be Roger Gaffney, the most odious and bitter character in the “Homicide” series.

This episode was the first thing I ever saw Edie Falco in, and she previously appeared in Gomez’s “Laws of Gravity.” From here, Falco would go on to play a role in Tom Fontana’s HBO prison drama “Oz,” and she would eventually make her breakthrough a few years later on “The Sopranos.”

There are also other memorable performances to be found in this episode. The great Luis Guzman appears as Bolander’s next door neighbor, Lorenzo “Larry” Molera, who has quite the love for wood. Then there is the late Wendy Hughes who plays a potential girlfriend to Bolander in Carol Blythe, and seeing her and Beatty together provides this episode with the series’ more intimate moments.

Check out the commentary below. The complete series of “Homicide: Life on the Street” is currently available to purchase from Shout Factory. To this date, it is still not available to stream on any service. This is likely due to music rights.

Who is Billy Jack?

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

“Billy Jack” is a movie I have heard about time and time again, and it was on July 30, 2012, when I finally got to see it for the first time. Billy Jack is a half-Indian Green Beret Vietnam veteran whose experiences have molded him into this protector who is out to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Tom Laughlin, who played Billy Jack and directed all the movies this character was in, seems inseparable from Billy Jack as both are out to protect those individuals who were sworn by their government to protect them, but which have failed to do so. While no more “Billy Jack” movies have been made in the longest time, Laughlin still fought for the rights of others throughout his life.

The character of Billy Jack was first introduced to audiences “The Born Losers” which was inspired by the real-life incident where members of the Hell Angels got arrested for raping five teenage girls. “The Born Losers” proved to be the first of Laughlin’s movies which was embedded with a layer of social criticism and an anti-authority tone which remained constant throughout each “Billy Jack” film ever made.

The movie “Billy Jack” came after “The Born Losers,” and it was a response to the conflicts Native Americans often found themselves caught up in. Its sequel, “The Trial of Billy Jack,” was a comment on the anti-war protests which were met by violence from the National Guardsmen who fired upon those protesters, and its follow up, “Billy Jack Goes to Washington,” has the title character battling against senators who are more interested in representing the interest of those representing nuclear power than the people. Even his unfinished sequel, “The Return of Billy Jack,” had political overtones as Billy went to New York to fight those supporting child pornography.

Taking this into account, Laughlin appears to be the first liberal action movie hero as his politics played a big part in each film he made. Then again, calling him a liberal may not be entirely fair as he has gone from one political affiliation to another over the years. In the end, he does not need a particular political label as his goals remain the same; fighting for the rights of ordinary Americans who are not always heard in the way they should be.

All these political and human rights interests greatly informed each movie Laughlin did, and this of course led to many conflicts between him and movie studios. When it came to “Billy Jack,” the movie’s original distributor, American International Pictures (AIP), refused to release it unless Laughlin removed all the political references featured in it. Laughlin, of course, refused to remove them, and he and his wife Delores Taylor, who played Jack’s girlfriend and schoolteacher Jean Roberts, ended up stealing the movie’s sound reels and held them hostage until AIP gave them back their movie.

Warner Brothers ended up releasing “Billy Jack” in 1971, but it failed at the box office and Laughlin sued the studio to get back the rights as he was upset at the way it was promoted. He ended up re-releasing the film himself, and it ended up grossing over $40 million at the box office against a budget of $800,000. Adjusted for inflation, it remains one of the highest grossing independent films ever made.

“Billy Jack,” however, was not without controversies as critics assailed its apparent hypocrisy. In his review of the movie, Roger Ebert said that “Billy Jack seems to be saying that a gun is better than a constitution in the enforcement of justice. Is democracy totally obsolete, then? Is our only hope that the good fascists defeat the bad fascists?” Leonard Maltin ended up saying about the movie that “seen today, its politics are highly questionable, and its ‘message’ of peace looks ridiculous, considering the amount of violence in the film.”

Still, many embrace Billy Jack as a character and the movies he appears in, and this was proven by the large turnout at New Beverly Cinema which cheered him on as soon as he made his first entrance in the movie which is named after him. Seeing Billy grimace at and intimidate the bad guys who were foolish enough to end up in his path had us endlessly entertained, and this remains the case so many years after the film’s initial release.

Laughlin ended up leaving Hollywood to found a Montessori preschool in Santa Monica, California which later became largest school of its kind in the United States. He would eventually turn his attention to politics and psychology as they became the tools with which he could fight injustice. Looking at his life back then and now, it becomes clear how Laughlin and Billy Jack are in many ways the same person as they fight for those whose rights are in danger of disappearing.

Laughlin passed away in 2013 in Thousand Oaks, California at the age of 82. Back in 2007, he announced he was planning to make another film featuring Billy Jack, but this did not happen for a number of reasons. Still, had he made another film with that character, I have no doubt many filmgoers would have welcomed it with open arms.

Rolfe Kanefsky On His Horror Movie Satire ‘There’s Nothing Out There’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

WRITER’S NOTE: This article is about a screening which took place in 2012.

Writer and director Rolfe Kanefsky appeared at New Beverly Cinema where Brian Collins of the Horror Movie a Day website presented a special midnight screening of his directorial debut, “There’s Nothing Out There.” Joining him for this screening were two of the film’s crew members, still photographer Dave Shelton and assistant director Michael Berily. It tells the story of a group of teenagers, one of them a horror movie fan, spending spring break at a cabin in the woods, and it pre-dates Wes Craven’s “Scream” in making fun of the clichés horror movies always deal with.

Kanefsky spoke with audiences about what got him into movie making, and of what spurred the idea for this particular film of his:

Role Kanefsky: I’ve wanted to make movies since I was four years old. As I got older, I watched every horror movie that was ever made which got me to thinking about why people keep making the same mistakes in this genre over and over again. I wrote the script when I was in high school, but no one really liked it.

Kanefsky then went to college where he wrote several scripts, but then he came back to the one he wrote for “There’s Nothing Out There” after he graduated. It was 1988 when he started looking for the money to make it, and he was able to get a few private investors to help him out. He even told the audience his parents helped by selling their house, and after that he had a budget of around $150,000. One audience member asked him if his parents ever got to buy their house back with the profits and he responded:

Rolfe Kanefsky: You don’t get into movies to make money. You get into them because you love to make them.

When asked about the house used in the film, Kanefsky said a friend of his from college found it for him. It was located right near the border of New York and New Jersey, and he described what it was like filming in and around the house:

Rolfe Kanefsky: It was owned by two women who were a couple, and one of them was a sound artist which came in very handy for us. We did, however, have to use three different houses for the interior, and this forced us to cheat certain shots so that everything matched up in the end.

When it came to specific influences, Kanefsky looked mostly to 1950’s monster films, and he made several nods to them throughout. But he was also looking to make fun of the overused clichés in horror movies like the one where a cat jumps out at characters from nowhere, and of how one person warns of the danger ahead while everyone else ignores their advice. Kanefsky did, however, make one thing very clear to us:

Rolfe Kanefsky: It was never my intention to mock the (horror) genre, but instead the lazy filmmaking that has overwhelmed it.

One unique thing about “There’s Nothing Out There,” when compared to other horror movies of the time, is that what’s stalking the characters is not a deranged serial killer, but instead a monster from another planet. Keep in mind, this film was made long before the advent of CGI effects, so there was a lot of puppeteering involved in bringing this creature to life. Kanefsky was specific in what he was looking for:

Rolfe Kanefsky: I didn’t want a guy in a suit for the creature because I wanted to do something different. The way I saw it, the creature was half alligator and half octopus. I also intentionally made it a dumb creature, and you can tell it was not the smartest as there was a big learning curve going on with it. We ended up having to use crowbars just to move its tentacles around.

Kanefsky then invited his fellow crew members to share their experiences of making “There’s Nothing Out There.” Dave Shelton still has very vivid memories of how it all started:

Dave Shelton: I was working at Nickelodeon at the time and there weren’t many things being shot in New Jersey back then. When I met with Rolfe and he talked about his script, I knew right away what his vision was. He also said that no one is getting paid to make this movie and knew it was going to be good as a result. We got a lot of family and friends to be extras in the movie and we improvised a lot of stuff. Not everything worked, but we did the best with what we had. This was such a fun project to be a part of.

Michael Berily was originally hired to be the second assistant director on the set, but things changed for him very quickly:

Michael Berily: The first AD left three days into shooting, so I took over and spent a lot of time yelling and screaming at people because I didn’t know what I was doing. Still, it was an incredible experience working on it, especially when it came to raising the money. Rolfe was very ambitious then as he does a lot of set ups in one day.

Kanefsky attributed his working style of numerous set-ups a day, far more than what most Hollywood productions are able to accomplish, as he and his crew had a twenty-four-day shooting schedule. He has since made over twenty movies since “There’s Nothing Out There,” and to date it still has the longest shooting schedule of any movie he has made.

Horror Movie A Day’s screening of “There’s Nothing Out There” at New Beverly Cinema was certainly a historic one as it marked the first time a 35mm print of the movie had been shown in twenty years. Kanefsky said there were a number of reasons why this was the case:

Rolfe Kanefsky: When we showed it to studios and critics, they were all ambivalent about supporting it because they saw it as too funny to be scary and too scary to be funny. The movie ended up getting a small theatrical release back in 1992, and we managed to get some good reviews from newspapers like the Los Angeles Times. After that it began building up more and more of an audience through midnight screenings… and then the L.A. Riots (following the Rodney King verdicts) happened, and that destroyed us because no one went to the movies for a long time after that.

Kanefsky has attributed its ongoing success to cable and video and now sees this movie as an underground film which people found over the years. The studio which released “There’s Nothing Out There” never really got behind it, he said, and it really found its audience through word of mouth.

Before the evening ended, audience members asked Kanefsky if there would ever be a sequel or a Blu-ray release:

Rolfe Kanefsky: Blu-ray? Maybe, but right now it doesn’t make financial sense to do that and neither does the sequel. We do have the capabilities and original elements to remaster the movie in high definition, but the special edition DVD hasn’t sold enough copies to justify us doing that.

He does however have a title for the sequel:

Rolfe Kanefsky: ‘There’s Still Nothing Out There.’ The tagline for it is, ‘if you were afraid of nothing before, its back!’

Well, hopefully we will get to see a Blu-ray release and a sequel become a reality. There is no doubt “There’s Nothing Out There” was a passion project for Kanefsky and his crew when they made it, and it is clear everyone involved in it worked really hard to make it a reality. That people are still talking about it twenty years later makes it a triumphant motion picture which survived in a marketplace where many other horror movies get swept under the rug, never ever making it to the silver screen.