Underseen Movies

Terrence Malick’s ‘To the Wonder’ – Meandering but Still Unforgettably Beautiful

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

Terrence Malick’s “To the Wonder” is, in many ways, a mixed bag of a film. Not all of its parts go together in a way which feels entirely cohesive. It focuses on a couple played by Ben Affleck and Olga Kurylenko who fall in love and come to America to start a new life, but they eventually find themselves falling out of love, and they constantly struggle to understand how something so wonderful can go so awry. And then we have Father Quintana (Javier Bardem), a Catholic priest who is struggling to keep his faith even as he feels the presence of God eluding him at a time when he is desperate to believe in an afterlife. The balancing act between these characters is wobbly at best, but Malick still gives us many beautiful and wondrous images which are very powerful, and these images quickly remind me of how brilliant he is at capturing nature on film.

“To the Wonder” starts off in Europe where Marina (Kurylenko) finds herself completely enamored by her American boyfriend, Neil (Affleck), as they take a tour around town. Along with them is Marina’s daughter, Tatiana (Tatiana Chiline), who is thrilled when Neil asks her if she and her mom would like to move with him to the United States to live. After briefly viewing the European sights, the film then heads over to Neil’s home state of Oklahoma where the flatlands appear to stretch out as far as the eye can see. Heck, it almost looks like hardly anybody lives there, so it is a huge relief when we see t Neil and Marina actually have neighbors.

As with “The Tree of Life,” “To the Wonder” functions mostly as a silent film as the majority of the dialogue we hear is as a voiceover. Malick is far more interested in the inner thoughts of his characters than anything else as they struggle with the things they want and which are constantly outside of their grasp. We feel their passion for one another, and we also feel their pain and disappointment when their love eventually fades away.

Having read up on Malick as a filmmaker and as a person, it is clear to me how this film and “The Tree of Life” are his most autobiographical works overall. What the characters go through is not much different from what he has experienced in his own life, and with these films, it looks as though he is still trying to pick up the pieces of what went wrong.

Kurylenko first came to my attention in “Quantum of Solace,” and she has made the most of being a Bond woman as her performance here shows. It is thrilling to watch her dancing around the streets of Europe as well as in a corporate drug store which typically sucks the life out of everyone who shops at one. In many ways, Kurylenko is the best thing about this film as she takes us through Marina’s transcendent highs and her emotionally draining lows with complete conviction throughout.

Back in 20123, people had serious issues with Affleck as an actor, and this is even after his film “Argo” won the Academy Award for Best Picture. I myself have never had any issues with his acting abilities, and he gives a strong, understated performance as Neil, and it is never his fault we come to know less about this character than the others we are introduced to here. I really wish Malick had given Neil as much attention as he did to Marina as this would have made Neil’s journey in this story all the more illuminating. Nonetheless, Affleck is still very good in here.

Rachel McAdams is inescapably luminous as Jane; a childhood sweetheart of Neil’s who shows up after Marina has gone away. Malick makes Jane look beyond beautiful as he frames her against fields of wheat, and it is emotionally draining to watch Jane bear her soul to Neil and try to melt his heart in the process. McAdams ends up disappearing from “To the Wonder” a little bit too soon, but she is a vision to watch throughout.

Bardem’s character of Father Quintana at first feels a little out of place as much of the focus seems to be on the relationship between Marina and Neil, but his presence makes more sense as this film goes on. With this character, Malick seems to be saying how our loss of love for one another may have to do with our relationship to God, or lack thereof. Bardem does some of his subtlest work as he portrays a man struggling to hold onto whatever faith he has left, and it results in some of this film’s most emotionally draining scenes.

When we watch Quintana visit the sick, the elderly and the dying, I found myself being reduced to tears as these moments ring so emotionally true in a way I would rather not realize as death is becoming all too common for me to deal with. Plus, Malick just had to use Henryk Górecki’s third symphony entitled the “Symphony of Sorrowful Songs” which Peter Weir used to such great effect in “Fearless.” It remains a piece of music which is as beautiful as it is infinitely sad, and it always reduces me to a weeping wreck whenever I listen to it. I also have to admit I was very angry at Malick for using this piece of music here as it felt so unfair that he reduced me to a complete wreck in an inescapably manipulative way. Then again, I was in the midst of a very deep depression at the time, so that did not help matters.

But as mournful as “To the Wonder” is, there are still many beautiful moments to watch for as Malick remains a master of capturing the unpredictability of nature and animals on film. This includes moments like when Affleck and McAdams are suddenly surrounded by more buffalo than Kevin Costner dealt with in “Dances with Wolves,” the sunlight piercing through the colored glass in a church, or watching Kurylenko walking across the beach as the water covers the sand. These are moments which still will not fade away from my memory anytime soon. Working again with his “Tree of Life” cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, Malick still captures moments of visual poetry in ways few other filmmakers can ever hope to equal.

It is those incredible visual moments which make me want to forgive how meandering “To the Wonder” is as it unfolds before us. I have learned Malick actually shot this movie without a screenplay, and this made me wonder how the actors dealt with this style of filmmaking. Considering that Jessica Chastain, Rachel Weisz, Amanda Peet, Barry Pepper and Michael Sheen all had roles in this film which were eventually removed from the final cut has me believing there was a whole lot more to this film than what ended up onscreen. While “The Tree of Life” had several different story lines going on, Malick was able to rein them all in to where everything seemed to fit perfectly. With “To the Wonder,” he has a little too much going on, and the film ends up losing focus more often than it does not.

Still, if you are willing to tolerate those flaws, “To the Wonder” is still a profound experience filled with great performances and beautiful images which will stay with you long after this film has concluded. I really wish the audience I saw it with all those years ago felt the same way I did. I bring this up as one audience member remarked at how the lives of these characters proved to be far more boring than anyone else’s. Well hell, some people enjoy the simple pleasures in life more than others, but many are still insistent about how theirs are better than the average human being, and that is even though there is plenty of evidence to prove otherwise.

Seriously, it seems very fitting that “To the Wonder” was the last film Roger Ebert reviewed and gave to the Chicago Sun Times before he passed away in April of 2013. Rest in peace, Roger.

* * * out of * * * *

Underseen Movie: ‘Things I Don’t Understand’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

“You’ve got to get yourself together,

You’ve got stuck in a moment

And now you can’t get out of it.

Don’t say that later will be better…”

-U2

“Nothing fades as fast as the future,

Nothing clings like the past.”

-Peter Gabriel

 “More Than This”

What really happens to us when we die? It almost seems like a foolish question to ask because we will only get to find out when we depart this mortal coil, and we won’t be able to tell anyone what it’s like. The only thing people can seem to agree on is that they move towards a “bright light,” but this only tells us so much. Nevertheless, we still look for an answer to this question mainly because we hope it will confirm the things we are led to believe. At the same time, thinking about the future this deeply is not much different from being stuck in the past.

Movies like “Flatliners,” “The Sixth Sense” and even “Heaven Can Wait” have explored this subject in various ways, but David Spaltro’s “Things I Don’t Understand” is one of the more thoughtful I have seen on it in recent years. It’s not interested in coming up with some supernatural answer to this question, but instead in how our curiosity can somehow rob us of what meaning our lives have. Here we meet a variety of characters whose mind and thoughts are broken as their present lives seem unfulfilling because of physical and emotional scars, and their futures all seem relentlessly bleak as a result.

Molly Ryman stars as Violet Kubelick, a graduate student working on a thesis of what becomes of us after death. Over time, Violet has emotionally detached from the world and those around her after surviving a failed suicide attempt, and she has since developed a pessimistic attitude about life and what it has to offer. She lives to avoid every customer who enters the bookstore she works at and freely embraces a life of drugs, alcohol and promiscuous sex as though she is daring death to take her away from this ever so cruel world.

Things come to a head for Violet as she and her obsessively artistic roommates, bi-sexual musician Remy (Hugo Dillon) and hypersensitive artist Gabby (Melissa Hampton), face eviction from their home in Brooklyn and have to quickly come up with the money to save it. As this is happening, Violent comes to interview Sara (Grace Folsom), a girl with end stage cancer who approaches the end with a sardonic sense of humor, and she forms a friendship with lonely bartender Parker McNeil (Aaron Mathias) who is trapped by a tragic past that won’t leave him be. All these relationships bring about a much needed catharsis for everyone as they need to break free of what holds them back.

What I really liked about “Things I Don’t Understand” is how it doesn’t come to us with easy answers about the afterlife as it is far more interested in raising questions about life after death. To define what happens when you die in a movie is tricky because you threaten to lose half your audience with your own interpretation. Spaltro avoids this trap and examines how our questions about life after death come to define how we live life day by day. For these characters, it has seemingly robbed them of a positive outlook on life and has frozen their emotions at a moment in time to where they may never fully thaw.

The acting all around is very good, and Spaltro has given each actor a challenging role regardless of how big or small it is. Ryman has the tough job of portraying a character who is not altogether likable, and she simultaneously (and without words mind you) has to indicate the psychological trauma which has come to define her life. As Spaltro has us guessing as to what that is, Ryman gives us a deeply felt complex portrait of an individual we might easily, and thoughtlessly, dismiss as damaged goods, but who is fighting a battle within herself to find a reason to keep on living.

The best performance in “Things I Don’t Understand,” however, belongs to Grace Folsom as Sara. The role of a terminally ill person can be a thankless one as we have seen it so many times to where it often feels like a shamelessly manipulative device filmmakers use to lay waste to our emotions for no really good reason. But Folsom fully inhabits this character with a hard-won dignity and a biting sense of humor that keeps what is left of her spirits up. Everything Folsom does here feels genuine and real, and her emotions never ever appear faked in the slightest.

Aaron Mathias also has a tough role of someone whose happiness came to an abrupt stop years ago, and the shadow of his past hovers over everything he does. As Parker, he comes across as genuinely nice but still struggling with guilt he cannot put to rest. Mathias succeeds in capturing the complexities of his role in giving us a good-natured guy whose eyes betray a deep sadness which still overwhelms him. I could have done without his line of how being a bartender is like being a psychiatrist spiel, but that is only because I have heard it so many times before.

As for the supporting performances, they at first seem too broad for a movie like this, but in retrospect, they feel just about right. Hugo Dillon and Melissa Hampton play artists so dedicated to their art that they have foolishly denied other outlets which could very well add to it. Their characters strive not just for artistic truth but for acceptance from others, something they feel completely lacking in. In a world which can be so cold and unfeeling to their desires, they have forgotten to respect themselves. As much as Dillon and Hampton go over the top, they both inhabit their characters fully and are more than willing to experience their longings and horrific embarrassments (just wait until you see Gaby’s play) in order to reach a new level of understanding about themselves.

Other performances worth noting include Eleanor Wilson’s as Darla, the new to town actress who looks and sounds dumb, but who turns out to have a positive view of life by choice to where she cannot be mistaken as a victim of blissful ignorance. Lisa Eichhorn takes what could have been a throwaway roll as Violet’s psychiatrist, Anne Blankenship, and gives it a nice edge you don’t always see in characters like this one. And let’s not forget Mike Britt who gives great comic support as Parker’s good friend, Big Felix.

“Things I Don’t Understand” is one of those movies wandering around in the overcrowded world of independent cinema which I hope finds the audience it deserves. While it looks like yet another movie wondering about what happens when we die, it takes this question and uses it to define how we can live for today. The more I think about this film, the more it reminds me of the lyrics of one of my favorite Pearl Jam songs:

“You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, or you can come to terms and realize you’re the only one who can’t forgive yourself. Makes much more sense to live in the present tense.”

* * * ½ out of * * * *

‘Remote Area Medical’ Exclusive Interview with Jeff Reichert and Farihah Zaman

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

“Remote Area Medical” focuses on the non-profit medical provider of the same name, better known as RAM, when they opened a three-day clinic held at the Bristol Motor Speedway in Tennessee, and we watch as hundreds wait by their cars in the hopes of getting the kind of health care they never have any easy access to. While there has been an endless debate in the United States about how to handle health care, this documentary chooses to focus on people instead of policy. We get a close up look at how this clinic starts off with a 3:30 a.m. ticket distribution which determines who will get seen for routine check-ups, and the patients tell us about themselves through stories which prove to be both vivid and heartbreaking. In addition, we also get to meet those who volunteer their time at the clinic like the organization’s founder, Stan Brock, a doctor who happens to drive a refurbished 18-wheeler truck, and a denture maker who also works as a jeweler. From start to finish, “Remote Area Medical” puts a human face on what it means to not have access to health care, and it makes for one of the most unforgettable documentaries of 2014.

I got the opportunity to speak with its directors, Jeff Reichert and Farihah Zaman, while they were in Los Angeles back in 2014. They are married to each other and actually volunteered at a RAM clinic back in Pikesville, Kentucky in 2011 where they were overwhelmed by stories they heard of patients in need and volunteer doctors working overtime to provide care. Reichert and Zaman also directed the documentaries “Gerrymandering” and “This Time Next Year.” They discussed what stunned them most as volunteers at RAM, what they learned about people who live in the Appalachian community, and they talked more about the conversations they had with Stan Brock.

Please check out the exclusive interview down below, and I have also included a trailer for “Remote Area Medical” as well for you to check out. This documentary is now available to own and rent on DVD, Blu-ray and Digital.

To learn more about Remote Area Medical (RAM), please feel free to visit their website at ramusa.org.

Bernardo Ruiz and Oscar Hagelsieb Talk About ‘Kingdom of Shadows’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

WRITER’S NOTE: This interview took place back in 2015.

The U.S.-Mexico drug war is one many of us watch from a distance, but the documentary “Kingdom of Shadows” forces you to look at the war more closely than usual as it puts a human face on the damage left in its path. Director Bernardo Ruiz observes the ongoing conflict through the perspectives of three individuals: activist nun Sister Consuelo Morales who prods government officials to take action against the drug cartels who have kidnapped many people, Texas rancher and former drug smuggler Don Henry Ford Jr. who offers a descriptive context for the evolution of drug trafficking, and undercover agent turned Homeland Security officer Oscar Hagelsieb who offers a unique perspective on America’s role in the drug war. The majority of what we see takes place in Monterrey, a devastated and violence scarred town in Mexico that Oscar felt less safe to be in than when he was a soldier in the Middle East.

Watching “Kingdom of Shadows” is deeply moving and unsettling as we see how vicious the war on drugs has become, and it makes the intense thriller “Sicario” feel all the more real and unnerving in retrospect. Bernardo takes a real close look at the cost of this war from both the U.S. and Mexico sides, and he gives us an unflinching look at the human rights crisis it has generated and which only recently made international headlines.

I was among a group of reporters who got to sit in on an interview with Bernardo Ruiz and Oscar Hagelsieb while they were in Los Angeles to promote “Kingdom of Shadows.” Bernardo also directed the documentary “Reportero” which chronicled a veteran reporter and his colleagues at a weekly newspaper challenging drug cartels and corrupt local officials during an unprecedented wave of violence against journalists in Mexico. Oscar’s life began in a drug infested neighborhood where he was raised by undocumented parents, and despite having been an undercover officer for several years, he explained why he was more than willing to show his face in this documentary.

Bernardo talked about the kind of resistance and challenges he faced in making “Kingdom of Shadows,” and he explained why he introduced Oscar the way he did. Oscar was asked how he manages not to take his work home with him, and he explained why the legalization of marijuana will cause the drug war to become even more violent.

Please check out the interview below, and you can also check out the trailer as well. “Kingdom of Shadows” is now available to own and rent on DVD, Blu-ray and Digital.

‘Blue Beetle’ Movie and 4K Review

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

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

For those of you who keep up with my reviews on this website, you are familiar with my feelings on most superhero films. It is not my favorite genre, but I’m always willing to give it a try and hope for the best.  It hasn’t happened in a while, which is why I was so pleased to be completely enamored with “Blue Beetle.” I went into the film knowing absolutely nothing about it, and it ended up being one of the more enjoyable viewing experiences I’ve had this year.  When you sit down to watch a movie, you truly never know what is going to transpire on screen. It’s the beauty of cinema.

Prior to seeing “Blue Beetle,” I had never even heard of this character in any shape or form. After watching this movie, I hope to see more of this character, especially if he’s played by the uber-talented Xolo Maridueña, who is terrific on “Cobra Kai.” However, after the low box office numbers, I wonder if it’s a realistic expectation.

Maridueña stars as Jaime Reyes, a recent college graduate with a degree in pre-law, who returns home to Palmera City to discover a plethora of problems for his family.  They are struggling to keep their heads above water as the father had a heart attack, recently lost his job, and they are about to lose their family home.  However, he believes if they stick together, they can find a way to make it work.

Family is at the heart of “Blue Beetle,” and the film has a big old heart attached to it which I absolutely adored. This is a family of fun, eccentric and entertaining characters.  You have the wise-cracking sister, Milagro, played wonderfully by Belissa Escobedo. You have the tough, no-nonsense Nana Reyes played by Adriana Barraza. There is also the pot-smoking conspiracy theorist Uncle Rudy played by George Lopez. All of these characters are unique and fun in their own way. They feel like a real family as the chemistry between all of the characters on screen is off-the-charts.

When Jaime discovers that jobs are hard to come by after college, he gets one with his sister working for the CEO of Kord Industries, Victoria Kord (Susan Sarandon), at their mansion.  After Jaime and Milagro end up losing their jobs when they are caught eavesdropping on a conversation between Victoria and her niece, Jenny (Bruna Marquezine), Jaime must figure out what to do next.  Jenny was impressed by the way Jaime stuck up for her and might have a job opportunity for him. When he goes to meet up with her, she hands him the Scarab, an artifact which holds special powers. She tells him not to open it, but when his family opens it for him, he soon finds out that his life will never be the same again.

With this Scarab, it chooses you, you don’t choose it.  It has chosen Jaime, and he has to figure out how to handle the responsibilities which come with it. He’s also dealing with a nosey family, a newly developing crush on Jenny, and having to fight off Victoria who wants to have the Scarab to create a series of One-Man Army Corps. He also learns that Jenny’s father was Ted Kord, a vigilante named Blue Beetle who left the family company because they were more interested in creating mayhem instead of working for the greater good. Victoria is also not pleased she was overlooked by her father in favor of her brother when it came time to take over Kord Industries.

“Blue Beetle” is a film I was able to follow with relative ease, which is a huge accomplishment considering I didn’t know anything about it or the character as previously mentioned. I do believe a comic book movie should be able to stand on its own two feet for first-time viewers and long-time fans.  This film does this for first-time viewers, and I imagine fans of the “Blue Beetle” comic will not be disappointed.  I was also quite pleased to see the film really lean into the ethnic dynamics of the family.  It’s rare to see a film which is almost entirely composed of Latino actors. Even though I’m an Italian-American, I felt as though the film was accessible to everyone.  Although, I imagine you will enjoy it even more if you are Latino as some of the jokes and TV shows they reference will be more in your wheelhouse.

This film is about 15-20 minutes too long, but it is never boring or uninteresting.  Some of the scenes involving lasers, blades and various high-flying actions can be a little repetitive, but I thought the special effects looked terrific and they were still fun to watch. This is one of the best superhero movies I’ve seen in a while.  As a matter of fact, it’s my favorite superhero movie I’ve seen since 2022’s “The Batman.” It has so much going for it: the cast, the love story, the backstory, the acting, and the fact it wears its big heart on its sleeve.

I like when my superhero movies are grounded in reality with a sense of wonder, and “Blue Beetle” knows all of the right notes to hit. Maridueña is perfect at getting his ass kicked and being a likable underdog to root for, as we have seen in this film and also in “Cobra Kai.” He’s incredibly likable, and he has the emotional elements of the character down pat along with the physical transformation as well.  The family is hilarious, and I loved spending time with them.  This is a fun superhero movie with a tremendous sense of humor.  I really enjoyed “Blue Beetle,” and I hope it finds a second home with this physical media release.

* * * ½ out of * * * *

4K Info: “Blue Beetle” is released on a single 4K disc from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment.  It has a running time of 127 minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of action and violence, language and some suggestive references.  It comes with a digital copy of the film as well.

4K Video/Audio Info:  Once again, we are treated to a tremendous Dolby Vision transfer.  I loved the look of this movie on 4K. It has a gorgeous blue hue throughout, and when the suit lights up, it looks absolutely incredible.  It’s an eye-popping transfer.  The Dolby Atmos soundtrack also brings the film to life in your home theater.  Subtitles are included in English, Spanish and French.

Special Features:

“Generations: Blue Beetle” – 4-part documentary

Told in distinct chapters, explore the journeys of actors and filmmakers bringing “Blue Beetle” to the big screen for the first time ever. Audiences will be immersed in the POV of filmmakers who showcase their experiences on set and in their creative studios making the story of this DC character a reality.

 Nana Knows Best – featurette

Witness Nana’s transformation from an adorable ‘abuelita’ into a machine gun-wielding revolutionary, and stop in for a few of her most fun moments on set throughout production.

Scarab Vision – 2-part featurette

Xolo Maridueña hosts this series of scene study walk throughs that showcases how the scarab works and the role it plays in some of Blue Beetle’s most epic moments.

Should You Buy It?

I can’t tell you how pleased I was with “Blue Beetle” both as a film and as a 4K release with tremendous visuals and a powerful Dolby Atmos soundtrack.  One of the greatest joys of being a film reviewer is when you are completely caught off guard by a movie in the best possible way. You go into most movies with an open mind and open heart, but certain movies you are more excited to watch and review than others.  As soon as I finished this one, I couldn’t wait to write this review and spread the word to those who have not seen it to check it out.  It’s a film which deserves a lot more attention than it has received so far. This is the kind of superhero film I truly enjoy and want more of in the future.  The 4K was released on Halloween, and I think the Best Buy steelbook looks really, really cool. If you can pick that up, I’d recommend it. If not, the 4K slipcover is really good as well. 

Do yourself a favor and check out “Blue Beetle.”  It’s one of the most pleasant surprises of 2023.

**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.

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.

Joe Swanberg on the Making of ‘Drinking Buddies’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

WRITER’S NOTE: This article was written back in 2013.

Filmmaker Joe Swanberg has been a major figure in the Mumblecore movement, a subgenre of American independent film which is characterized by low budget production values and naturalistic dialogue. Among his films is “Hannah Takes the Stairs” which stars Greta Gerwig and was actually shot without a script. The way Swanberg works, he gives his actors an outline of the plot of what he wants to film, and they improvise their scenes from there. This way of filmmaking offers actors the opportunity to take a lot of risks and make the kind of movie Hollywood studios do not want to right now.

Swanberg’s latest film, “Drinking Buddies,” stars Olivia Wilde as Kate, an employee at a Chicago craft brewery who spends her days flirting with her co-worker, Luke (Jake Johnson). They would make the perfect couple, but Kate is already going out with Chris (Ron Livingston) while Luke is seeing Jill (Anna Kendrick). But when their significant others are out of town one weekend, both Luke and Kate begin to wonder if the feelings they have for one another will eventually come to the surface.

As with “Hannah Takes the Stairs,” “Drinking Buddies” was shot without a script, and the actors improvised all their scenes. Swanberg took the time to talk with us about the experience of making the movie while at the Four Seasons Hotel in Los Angeles, California as well as the fascinating world of craft beers.

What would you say is the difference between a microbrew and craft beer?

Joe Swanberg: Same thing, different terminology. The way that the world is soused out is basically in terms of how many barrels a year that places are outputting between micro-breweries and macro breweries. I would argue that you’re either there because you’re passionate about it, or you’re there because it’s a job, and that’s the difference between the two.

You mentioned “Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice” as one of your influences on this film, and that was a studio comedy with an adult point of view. Your films always have that great point of view and you keep going back to that well time and time again. What keeps you going back there, and what was your motivation to do this film?

Joe Swanberg: Well, a lot of it has to do with operating in a space where I can carve out a little area for myself to play in. Sadly, complex contemporary adult movies, there aren’t many of them. I’ve always been allergic to just doing what everybody else was doing, so it’s kind of just remained a place where there aren’t that many other things happening. I don’t have to be nervous that we’re sort of recycling the zeitgeist or anything like that, then it’s also just one I’m fascinated by. I think if you were to catch me most days of the week and asked me what I was thinking about, it would be a conversation my wife and I had about making time for each other to both be able to do our creative things, or some friend of mine who’s going through a breakup or something. I’m interested in people in that way, how we interact with each other. It’s very easy for me to continue to generate stories that are based around that because it’s kind of always on my mind anyway.

What would you say was your favorite scene in “Drinking Buddies?”

Joe Swanberg: My favorite sequence in the movie is Jake and Olivia playing cards, he’s playing blackjack with her, and Ron and Anna are hiking in the woods. Just the start of the back-and-forth of seeing these two couples we’ve established in terms of each other sort of swapping a little bit and feeling out how to flirt with someone else. I feel like I have this experience in my own life within the context of my relationship with my wife where I’ll just be with another woman and you just sort of get to play make-believe for 45 minutes or something of “oh this is what it would be like if we were together and we went to get lunch or something. This is how we would relate to each other,” and it’s different than the relationship you’re in. These little daydream scenarios, that scene in particular is really fun to me to see play out. I also love listening to Jake and Olivia on the porch. Anna has fallen asleep and they sneak out. I’ve had a lot of those nights in my life where the floodgates open and you just start being really honest and it starts feeding into the other person’s honesty. Before you know it, you’re just talking about things you’ve never told anybody with someone you hardly know. It was fun to try get something like that into the movie and to let them share stories with each other, and I just get to bear witness to it.

Did you have this great cast in mind from the beginning?

Joe Swanberg: No. Usually I’m working with friends of mine so I do know exactly who is going to play the parts before I gear the thing up, but this was one where I just sort of had broad stroke ideas about who the characters were. It’s the first time I’ve ever done a casting process where I met with a lot of actors and try to think about chemistry and placing different people in different roles.

Why did you film in Chicago? Why not Boulder, Colorado?

Joe Swanberg: Well, I live in Chicago, so that’s a big reason. Also, there’s a specificity that I can give the movie because I know what kinds of apartments these people live in and what bars they would drink at. So, every choice gets be a real choice because I know them and I’m friends with them. I’ve been to places I’ve never been to before and done the same process, but then I either have to take somebody else’s word for it like where the hipsters drink, or where it’s just not specific at all. I’m just like choosing places that look nicer something. It was fun to do something at home where I could use the city is an indicator of certain things. Also, I have a kid now so traveling is way less appealing than it used to be. Going to sleep in my bed every night was a huge bonus.

Was the backpack scene in the woods between Ron and Anna when they have that awkward moment completely improvised?

Joe Swanberg: Yeah. It’s the first film that I’ve done where I had an art department and a props master and all these people, so it was really fun as a director to show up to the production office every day and have somebody bring in four different backpacks that I could choose from. It was just too funny to pass up. It says a lot about her (Anna Kendrick). It’s a really great use of a prop.

Beer wise, what are you drinking now especially after you’ve had this little bit of education?

Joe Swanberg: I’m still leaning on the hoppy IPA side of things, but it’s interesting because I didn’t drink at all until I was 25. On my honeymoon I had a beer. I guess I must’ve felt like “alright, I’m here,” so it’s new to me. It’s really been something that I’ve just gotten into in the last five years. It’s interesting because I remember drinking a really hoppy beer early on and just thinking it tasted disgusting, and now I really like the flavor so I’m really curious as to where my taste buds will lead me in terms of the stuff. I find that I go through cycles with it. There was a period of time where I just wanted to drink stouts and dark beers, and then I got into Belgian stuff and then went to the hoppy stuff so I don’t know what the next wave will be.

Any brands you like?

Joe Swanberg: Sure, but too many to even name. I’ll stick to the Midwest: Revolution Bar where we shot, Three Floyds, and Half Acre. We are very spoiled in Chicago. I think twelve new breweries opened this year. It’s a nice time to be in Chicago right now.

“Drinking Buddies” is available to own and rent on DVD, Blu-ray and Digital.

‘Trouble in Mind’ Celebrates Its Anniversary Screening at New Beverly Cinema

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

http://www.allwallpapersfree.org

WRITER’S NOTE: This article was written in 2010, back when this anniversary screening took place.

Alan Rudolph’s 1985 neo-noir movie “Trouble in Mind” reached its 25th anniversary in 2010. This is especially significant because it got lost by its distributors about twenty years ago, and they only recently found a print of it. The movie has since been restored and been released in a new special edition DVD. To celebrate its anniversary, the producer of “Trouble in Mind,” Dave Walker, showed a new print of it at New Beverly Cinema. Along with him were actors Keith Carradine who played Coop and Lori Singer who played Georgia, and they were also joined by the composer of the film’s score, Mark Isham.

In talking about working with Rudolph, both Singer and Carradine said they never really rehearsed any scenes. A lot of it came down to them meeting with Rudolph, talking about the screenplay, and getting on the same page with what he wanted to accomplish. Singer explained how he created a “very vivid atmosphere” which came about from an “organic, real feeling.” In summarizing Rudolph’s filmmaking process, Singer said, “Whatever he was shooting, he was capturing his vision. That was our rehearsal.”

Isham described Rudolph as a “jazz director” in that he wanted to get everything right in the first take. When asked how he got the job on “Trouble in Mind,” Isham explained he was being represented by CAA and his agent encouraged him to make a list of directors he wanted to work with. After seeing one of Rudolph’s other movies, “Choose Me,” Isham decided he wanted to work with him. Rudolph ended up listening to one of Mark’s albums, liked it and hired him.

One question asked of Isham was in regards to working with singer Marianne Faithful on two of the film’s songs. Isham said he knew nothing about Faithful beforehand, but that he quickly learned she was an artist of instinct, and they captured a lot of magic on tape whenever she sang. Basically, he did an acoustic piano version of each song she would sing, and he gave her the music through headphones. Isham went on to say he added synthesizers to the soundtrack afterwards.

Isham is also considered one of the best trumpet players ever, and he did perform on one here. He stated how he has been playing the trumpet since he was eight years old and is always looking to put it in any movie he works on.

Another audience member asked Carradine about Coop’s hair and why it got all funky throughout. Carradine said he contributed to the look and described it as an “expression of descent into a kind of netherworld from innocent to deeply urban sensibility he was defenseless against.” Coop saw the change of hair as him becoming beautiful, and he was convinced that Singer’s character would like it. Carradine described it as Coop’s way of trying to fit into a world he was utterly clueless about, and that the hair he used was indeed his own, and these days he doesn’t have much of it left.

Carradine and Singer also spoke of working with Divine, the actor made famous in several films directed by John Waters, “Pink Flamingos” in particular. They said they really loved him because he was the sweetest guy and wonderful to work with.

After twenty-five years, “Trouble in Mind” still holds up very well, and hopefully its DVD release will open it up to a young audience waiting to discover something new and different. Rudolph has said this films is meant to have the look of a dream, and he gave Singer all the credit for that. The dream is still a strong one even with an elongated passing of time.

Ultimate Rabbit Audio Commentary on ‘Pump Up The Volume’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

Okay everyone, The Ultimate Rabbit is doing something new here, at least for him. I am doing my first ever audio commentary, and it is for the 1990 film, “Pump Up The Volume.” Written and directed by Allan Moyle, it stars Christian Slater as Mark Hunter, a high school student who has been uprooted from his hometown in New York and now lives with his parents in Paradise Hills, Arizona. Depressed and lonely, Mark ends up venting his frustration with his situation, and the world at large, on a pirate radio station where he performs under the name of Hard Harry. Chaos ensues as more and more students begin listening in, and parents and school officials do what they can to shut him down.

Now everyone who knows me best knows just how much I love “Pump Up The Volume” (click here to read my review). I first saw it at Crow Canyon Cinemas with my mother back in 1990, and it felt like a godsend to me personally. I very much related to what Mark Hunter went through as he struggles to adjust to a new environment he has been unwillingly thrust into, and I loved how Moyle deals with adolescent struggles and emotions in a real and intelligent way.

Currently, there is no special edition of “Pump Up The Volume” anywhere. It was recently released on Blu-ray, but the only special feature on it is the theatrical trailer. Perhaps Criterion, Arrow Video, Shout Factory or Vinegar Syndrome can show this film the love it deserves.

Basically, this commentary track is to be played as you watch your own copy of the film at home, be it on DVD, Blu-ray or Digital. Feel free to listen in as I try to provide information on the film’s making, and of what it still means to me all these years later.

You can check out the audio commentary below.

Stu Zicherman and Ben Karlin Discuss the Making of ‘A.C.O.D.’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

WRITER’S NOTE: This article was written in 2013, and it contains spoilers for this film.

Stu Zicherman and Ben Karlin are best known for their work as writers in film and television. Zicherman was one of the screenwriters on “Elektra” which he did not even try to hide his disappointment over, and the Hong Kong action film “2000 AD,” and he is currently working on the FX show “The Americans.” Karlin made a name for himself as a writer and executive producer on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report,” and these days he serves as one of the writers for the acclaimed ABC comedy “Modern Family.” But what you may not know is these two were best friends when they were growing up, and they are also children of divorce.

When they reunited as adults, Zicherman and Karlin began working together on the screenplay for “A.C.O.D.” which tells the story of when Carter (Adam Scott) is tasked to get his bitterly divorced parents, Hugh (Richard Jenkins) and Melissa (Catherine O’Hara), to come to their youngest son Trey’s (Clark Duke) wedding. Writing the script allowed Zicherman and Karlin to deal with their own memories of their parents separating, but they also manage to find humor in a situation which is usually filled with tremendous sadness and anger. In the process, they both succeed in turning a lot of comedy conventions on their heads and give us a movie full of endless surprises.

I got to participate in a roundtable interview with Zicherman and Karlin when they appeared for the “A.C.O.D.” press junket held at the SLS Hotel in Los Angeles, California.

Question: What was the genesis for this movie?

Stu Zicherman: Ben and I have actually been friends since we were born. What’s the quickest way to explain this? Basically, my mom was friends with Ben’s parents, and Ben’s parents were friends with my mom’s first husband who I didn’t even know about. We’ve been friends our whole lives. I have always wanted to do something with this subject matter, this generation of divorced kids. We’re both part of this generation.

Ben Karlin: Yeah. We were friends growing up and our families were friends growing up, but then, when his parents got divorced and shortly thereafter my parents got divorced, we stopped hanging out because that was the end of our families getting together and doing things.

Stu Zicherman: It was a very romantic journey where our families used to go on vacations together.

Ben Karlin: So, when we were both professional and we were established as adults in our careers, I moved to New York, and Stu was working there already and he said, “Hey, I want to write a movie about how messed up we all are” (laughs). I went, “I’m in!”

Stu Zicherman: We grew up on movies like “Kramer vs. Kramer” and dramas that were kind of tragic. Ben and I talked about this when we first started working on the movie. Our parents’ divorces were tragic and sad in their own way, but they were also not to be believed at times (laughs). They were irreverent, funny and weird. We wanted to try and find a way to make light of it and make a comedy that still had some gravity to it because it’s something that people don’t laugh about. What’s been really fun about making this movie and about taking it around and showing it at Sundance and all these places is that people are excited and relate to it. People will come up to me after screenings and want to tell their stories like, “My parents got divorced when I was 8.” We’re almost giving them license to laugh about it.

Ben Karlin: We were shooting in Atlanta, and the night before production started, it was just us. It was me, Stu, a couple of the actors, a couple of the producers, and we were out in the bar at the hotel. There was a wedding going on and there was the after party for the wedding. There was the groom, the bride, the whole bridal party. Everyone was in tuxedoes. So, it was like these two worlds. We were about to make this movie about divorce and these people who were just starting. And they were great. They were lovely people. We closed the bar down with them. And then, a week later, I got a letter from one of the bridesmaids who I had been chatting with, and she told me this long story about her family’s divorce and how it affected her. It was just so weird. Even in that moment, people were just connecting to what we were trying to do, and we found that throughout the whole process, that there seems to be something that everyone can relate to about this subject.

Question: So, everybody is trying to figure out who got married at the movie’s end…

Stu Zicherman: Well, you know, we didn’t really want to give it away. Ben and I always talked about the movie as being an anti-romantic comedy. There were certain beats we would get to in the movie as we were writing it. There’s the obvious romantic comedy beat. We were trying to turn away from that wherever we could, not to the detriment of the movie, but the end of the movie was not so much about who got married. It was more important to us that the characters, especially those three men, have evolved through the movie to a point where it could be any of them. When pressed, I always say it’s all three of them, but we like the idea of leaving it open-ended because it didn’t matter.

Ben Karlin: It didn’t really trouble us, I have to say. We wanted to create a scenario where all three characters were repaired to the point where you’d be just okay with any of them. And it could be all three of them or none of them. The point is that whatever was waiting for them in there in the church was okay.

Stu Zicherman: And it’s funny too, when editing the movie, every single time I would adjust frames or tried a different shot and put it in front of an audience, people always guessed a different person. It was bizarre. I started to lose track of why people felt what. We had to calibrate it so that it’s pretty hard to tell now. We’d had a version where there was a faceless bride running through the background.

Ben Karlin: Oh, deep, deep background. A limo, a bride, the whole thing.

Stu Zicherman: Again, it distracted from the movie. It’s such a nice, clean moment with the three of them walking in, and we like it.

Question: Everyone seems to have their own version of the movie’s ending, and that really serves as a testament to your writing because you got us so deeply invested in every single character to where we really want to know what happens to them

Ben Karlin: It’s a very hard thing to do. You want to give in. You want to give people what they want. And then, there’s the creative jerk part of you that’s like, “I know better.”

Stu Zicherman: But also, we thought about a lot of this when we were writing the movie that we didn’t want people to be right or wrong. It’s not a right or wrong thing. It’s the dad who does this impetuous thing and they get back together. He’s not wrong. He’s following his heart. What’s wrong with following your heart? And again, at the end of the movie, I always say to people it’s not a movie about divorce per se. I don’t want people just to think it’s about that. It’s really about if you’re married, if you’re not married, divorced, whatever kind of family you’re from, you’re not destined to repeat the patterns of your parents. You’re free to make your own mistakes. You’re free to live your life. That’s why I always love the word “adult” being in the movie. I always felt like you become an adult when you actually can put your past into perspective. That’s when you really start becoming an adult. And I like that about the ending because, up to that point, everybody is acting like a child.

Question: You have said the script is loosely based on your families. Have you gotten any flak from them about it?

Ben Karlin: We’ve done a pretty good job of hiding or changing details. There used to be more stuff in the script that was literally word for word from our lives. There was an incident in his family and a specific incident in mine that involved the handing off of kids on a bridge, like a prisoner transfer, but it was between the parents. And it literally, at this moment, happened to me in Cape Cod where it was my dad’s new wife actually and her children and her ex-husband, and they had to exchange and they decided the exact mid-point. It was like North Korea-South Korea. Here’s the DMZ and we’re going to trade these children over that line, and we had that exact scene in the movie for years. That probably wouldn’t have gone over so well.

Stu Zicherman: And then there was a thing in my family called the hysterectomy conspiracy that was so absurd that when it was in the script, people would read it and be like…

Ben Karlin: “That’s not real.”

Stu Zicherman: They didn’t believe it. “No, no. It’s real.” We had to take it out because people didn’t believe it. But that happened to me. There’s one moment in the movie that is sort of torn from my life and its funny. It’s the one where Carter sits his parents down. My sister was getting married, and my parents would not agree to come to the same wedding. My brother-in-law and I sat them down. What’s hilarious about that is my parents don’t remember that. They block it out.

Question: How long did it take you two to get this film made?

Ben Karlin: Oh my God! I was just talking about this the other day. I was living here (in Los Angeles) and I moved to New York in 1999, and Stu was already living there at that time. He probably approached me in 2000 or 2001 to start working on it. Obviously, we had other jobs.

Stu Zicherman: Yeah. We had other jobs, so we were working on it nights and on weekends and vacations.

Ben Karlin: The amazing thing is we were both single when we started working on this movie. I have since gotten married, had children, and gotten divorced (laughs).

Stu Zicherman: It’s crazy. We were both single when we started this thing, and now I’m married with two kids and he’s got two kids, which I think helped inform the movie a little bit.

Ben Karlin: Yes, definitely.

Stu Zicherman: It’s been a long process. It’s funny though. The movie almost got going at one point. It came really close to get going. What was great about it was once we committed to Adam Scott, the movie started to finally roll. Finally, eventually, you get so frustrated with all the games you have to play to try and get a movie made. The thing is that we always loved Adam for this. And again, it fits in a little bit with the anti-romantic idea. He’s got an anti-romantic lead in a way because he’s got a very cynical humor and perspective on life. It just worked really well. And once we got Adam, then we got Richard Jenkins. It just started to roll.

Ben Karlin: Once you have those first few pieces in place, it starts to gain a terminal velocity.

Stu Zicherman: Right. The phone starts to ring and all of a sudden people want to be in your movie. That was very exciting.

Question: What I like about the script is that you don’t know where it’s going to go. From a distance, it looks like your typical formulaic comedy, but it really isn’t. How did you go about that? Were you looking to avoid certain things that you see in a lot of comedies like this?

Ben Karlin: Yes. There are so many tropes to these kinds of movies. Because we always were around, we were like, “How do we deal with the subject of a wedding in a movie that’s essentially about divorce?” We were very resolute that if we were going to have a wedding, we were going to do it differently than that typical moment at the end of the movie where people are walking down the aisle. So, we knew we wanted that outside the wedding moment to end it. We just were acutely aware of convention and trying to understand why those conventions worked and why they existed, and then trying wherever we could to tiptoe around the obvious thing.

Stu Zicherman: But the big thing was stakes. I mean, there were so many times where we were hyperconscious with the movie, and we would do readings just to find out where we were with it. The main character, Carter, is in every single scene of the movie and he doesn’t have cancer. He isn’t beaten. It’s the kind of thing, at a certain point, where the audience could be looking at him and go, “Hey dude, get over it.” And so, there were scenes we really liked but we felt like we were going to lose the audience. We said, “We have to keep the audience rooting for him.”

Ben Karlin: We didn’t want to turn the guy into a jerk.

Stu Zicherman: So, it was this balance. At times, people would read the script and say, “Why doesn’t he want his parents to get back together?” We just had to find a way and we kept trying to find ways in through relationships. But we did at times always try to move away from the tropes like the scene with the ring that turns into the key, and moments like that. It was funny. I did a Q&A; in New York the other night and someone asked me about the whole cheating thing with Jessica Alba and how he never gets caught. In the classic romantic comedy, you always get that scene where she’s like, “What were you doing with that girl?” It never crossed our minds to go there, and the truth is because in real life most people don’t get caught. You’re just forced to live with it. And that was the great liberty of making this movie independently. We’re not beholden to a studio to hit certain tropes. Also, it made the tone what it is, because the movie is funny but it’s also got some gravity to it and it’s got this balance. I’m excited. The fact that the movie is finally coming out, I’m excited for people to see it, but I’m also going to miss it because we’ve just been carrying it around like this for so long.

“A.C.O.D.” is now available to own and rent on DVD, Blu-ray and Digital.