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.
“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.
The following review was written by Ultimate Rabbit correspondent, Tony Farinella.
It’s crazy to me to know “The Exorcist” is now celebrating its 50th anniversary. Unfortunately, we lost its legendary director recently in William Friedkin, a trailblazer who was not afraid to push the envelope and do things his own way in films such as “Cruising,” “The French Connection,” and “To Live and Die in L.A.” He was an outspoken and passionate filmmaker who never backed down from his vision and his principles. I think it’s safe to say his most talked about film of all-time is “The Exorcist” which recently got a 4K upgrade from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment. Even to this day, people go to their local theater to watch it on the big screen, or they revisit it on home video when it’s spooky season.
There is quite an infamous backstory to the making of this film and getting it off the ground. It’s a legitimate miracle the film was able to be made considering all of the roadblocks and obstacles the director and his crew had in making it. I could go into detail here, but it’s best to Google it, as it’s lengthy and strange. I’ll just say this–many thought the film itself was cursed because of all the odd occurrences which happened to this production. People would also heavily protest the film, and many filmgoers would faint and get sick while watching it. The film has certainly developed quite a reputation over the years for a variety of reasons.
“The Exorcist” is set in Georgetown, Washington, D.C. and introduces the audience to actress Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn) and her twelve-year-old daughter Regan (Linda Blair). They are renting a house while Chris works on a film directed by Burke Dennings (Jack MacGowran), someone she considers a close friend. We are also introduced to Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller), a psychiatrist at Georgetown University who works with fellow priests. Father Karras is struggling with guilt as he wishes he was spending more time with his mother, who is elderly, frail and unwell. He is also having a crisis of faith as well. At a party Chris is hosting, she notices some unusual behavior from Regan, and Regan is also talking about strange and weird noises in the attic.
From here, things only get worse for Regan as she starts to become vulgar, aggressive and develop facial sores. She has baffled modern science as they can’t understand what is wrong with her. They think it has something to do with her brain, but it still doesn’t explain her actions or her superhuman strength. Once Regan becomes a danger to herself and others, they decide the only solution is to tie her to her bed and perform an exorcism. There is a lot of hesitation on the part of Father Karras, as he doesn’t think it will turn out well and might only further damage young Regan. However, if a more experienced priest helps him, he will do it. This is where Father Merrin (Max von Sydow) comes in to help Father Karras with the exorcism that will hopefully save the child.
I’ve seen “The Exorcist” three times now, and I’ve really, really wanted to fall in love with it, but for whatever reason, it is a film I respect and admire but don’t love. I can see the great acting on display from Jason Miller, Ellen Burstyn, and Linda Blair. It’s impossible to ignore their range of emotions and their ability to sell this material and make it work. My issue is with the pacing of the film. I’m all about letting things breathe and building up to something, but this is very much an all-or-nothing film at times. At times, it’s moving a little too slowly without enough character build-up, and the plotting can be a little tedious. At other times, it’s in-your-face, intense, and really mind-blowing. There is really no middle ground with “The Exorcist.”
At fifty-years-old, “The Exorcist” is still an impactful horror film, without question. I just wonder if it’s more built on its reputation and folklore at this point. One might even argue if it’s a horror film or a thriller. It is a little bit of both, which I think most horror films are to some degree unless they are just flat-out horror with no plot. There is a plot here and a rhyme and reason to what unfolds, but it feels a little dated, in my opinion. All in all, I think “The Exorcist” should get its flowers for being a horror film that was ahead of its time and has really opened the door for a lot of the supernatural horror films we see today from “The Conjuring” and “Insidious” world. However, it’s a good yet flawed film, overall. As I stated earlier, I like it and it stays with me, which is a good thing, but I don’t love it and it doesn’t impact me, as much as I feel like it should, considering its place in film history.
* * * out of * * * *
4K Info: “The Exorcist” is released on a two-disc 4K release from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment. It comes with two different 4K versions of the film. One version is the theatrical cut, which is 122 minutes. The second disc is 132 minutes and features the extended director’s cut of the film in 4K.
Video/Audio Info: Warner Brothers did a pretty good job of cleaning up this film. However, they didn’t clean it up so much that you aren’t able to enjoy the dark and moody look of the film. I would say it’s a good but not great transfer of the film. I’ve seen better transfers of older films from Warner Brothers. It does come with a very, very good Dolby Atmos soundtrack for the film, though. I was really blown away by how good the film sounds. It also comes with subtitles in English, French, and Spanish.
Special Features: The theatrical version comes with the following special features: an introduction by William Friedkin, a commentary track by Friedkin, and a commentary track by William Peter Blatty, who wrote the novel and the screenplay for the film, with special sound effects. The unrated version of the film also comes with a commentary by Friedkin. These are all older commentary tracks and the introduction is much older as well. The big issue here is the fact they didn’t have a third disc with some of the special features from the previous Blu-ray release.
Should You Buy It?
This is a rather tricky one. I’ll say this–if you love “The Exorcist” and it’s one of your favorite films of all time, the transfer makes it worth the upgrade, even though I didn’t think it was a great transfer. It has its issues, as, at times, it can be a little unfocused and not super clear. If you own the Blu-ray, you should keep and not sell it because you will lose your special features with this 4K as it only has the commentary tracks and an introduction from the director. They really should have added a third disc just for the special features. Overall, “The Exorcist” is a film that has earned its place in horror film history based on it being released at the right time with the right director and the right cast and crew. It’s a good film. However, I don’t think it’s a great film in my personal opinion. If you love the film, I think you will be happy with what Warner Brothers has done with the transfer. It’s not a bad transfer by any means. It’s just not a transfer that is going to “wow” you. You will probably be very disappointed they didn’t port over the special features from the Blu-ray. However, if this is your favorite horror movie, you want to own it on the best format out there right now, which is 4K. If you are lukewarm on the film or think it’s merely good, you can keep your Blu-ray if you already own it.
**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 following review was written by Ultimate Rabbit Correspondent, Tony Farinella.
My unofficial title of a film buff might be revoked when I reveal this is the first Bruce Lee film I have ever watched. I do have “Bruce Lee: His Greatest Hits” on Blu-ray from the Criterion Collection, but I have yet to dive into those films. “Enter the Dragon” was the last film Lee completed before his untimely death. With it being the 100-year anniversary of Warner Brothers, they have taken it upon themselves to give this film the 4K treatment. While I have some issues with “Enter the Dragon,” for the most part it was a decent introduction to Lee. I look forward to checking out more of his films with my Criterion box set. There are too many films out there and not enough hours in the day.
Bruce Lee stars as Lee, a skilled and proficient martial artist and instructor, being approached by Braithwaite (Geoffrey Weeks), a British intelligence agent, about entering a martial arts tournament. The tournament is being run on a private island by the villainous Han (Kien Shih). He needs Lee’s help as he suspects Han is involved in prostitution and illegal drug trafficking. He needs Lee to enter the tournament and find out the inside scoop on Han and his operation. It’s also a deeply personal mission for Lee as he finds out one of Han’s goons has caused Lee’s family pain and misery.
Lee is joined in this tournament by a compulsive gambler named Roper, played by film veteran John Saxon, and the smooth-talking Williams, played by Jim Kelly. They are treated to beautiful women and told to stay in their rooms and not ruffle any feathers. One night, Lee goes out looking for clues and evidence, which leaves Han wondering what is going on with his security team. Can he trust his men to keep Lee, Roper and Williams in line? Lee seems to be one step ahead of Han, but Han has an army of men and will stop at nothing to keep his enterprise up and running.
“Enter the Dragon,” overall, was a mixed bag for me. The first hour of the film really lost me, and it seemed to move at a glacial pace. I’m all for building up the story, the characters, and giving us time to digest everything before the final battle. I’m on board with that one hundred percent, and I like interesting characters and a good build-up to a grand finale. However, the first hour is tedious and rather boring. It doesn’t really go anywhere. When we get to the last half-hour and Lee gets to do his thing, it’s a beautiful movie to watch unfold on screen. The martial arts sequences are put together like a work of art and are truly out of this world.
Maybe I’m asking too much for a martial arts movie to have a better story, but it’s more about the pacing. There is no sense of urgency in a film that is only 99 minutes or 102 minutes if you watch the special edition of it. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely was enthralled with the last act when it comes down to Han and Lee. The way they use the mirrors and what’s around them had me on the edge of my seat, literally. Bruce choreographed the fight scenes himself, and he has a great screen presence. I didn’t feel like he had a ton of screen time, but when he’s on screen, he really makes his scenes count. It’s remarkable how lightning fast and intense the fight sequences are, and they are flawless. You have to give credit to Bruce for looking the part, playing the part, and putting so much into this film.
Many people have talked about the spy aspects of the film and compared it to the James Bond franchise. I didn’t really feel like they fleshed out those aspects enough. I really wanted more of the meat and potatoes of the story. I know Lee was a silent but deadly killer in this film, but the rest of the cast can be a little too cartoonish at times. Again, I was blown away by the final 30-40 minutes. If they had properly built it up in the first hour, I would have considered it a classic, which many film critics and historians out there have labeled it. Maybe I need to give this one another watch, but on my first viewing, I can’t say I see the historical significance of this film.
* * out of * * * *
4K Info: “Enter the Dragon” is released on a single disc 4K from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment. The theatrical cut of the film runs at 99 minutes while the special-edition version runs at 102 minutes. The film is rated R for martial arts violence and brief nudity. It also comes with a digital copy of the film.
Video/Audio Info: The High Dynamic Range on this 4K release is very, very strong here. The film was released in 1973, and many scenes were incredibly bright, colorful and eye-popping. It still has a little bit of the old-school charm to it, but it’s also touched up. That being said, it isn’t so touched up that it looks too clean. This is a prime example of a film that is improved with a 4K release, but it still keeps its classic look at the same time. The Dolby Atmos track is perfect here. It also comes with subtitles in English, French, and Spanish.
Special Features:
Introduction by Linda Lee Cadwell
Commentary by Paul Heller and Michael Allin
Should You Buy It?
Film criticism is subjective, and I really wanted to love this film. I’ve loved what Warner Brothers has been doing lately with their restorations of classic cinema. I’m always looking to learn about new films and classic Hollywood stars. With that being said, I was bored and uninterested in two-thirds of this film. For a classic, it shouldn’t be the case. I will give credit where credit is due and say the final 30-40 minutes feature some of the best martial arts I’ve ever seen in my life. I didn’t expect the film to be wall-to-wall action, as that wouldn’t be feasible, but I was hoping for a little bit more out of the characters, pacing and storytelling, even in a martial arts movie. If you are a Bruce Lee fan and you adore this film, you won’t be disappointed in the least by this 4K release and transfer. I’m willing to watch this film again and see if I missed something. In the end, it’s one with a grand finale that needed a story and some build-up to accompany it.
**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 following review was written by Ultimate Rabbit correspondent, Tony Farinella.
When it comes to the genre of underdog sports films, they don’t make them any better than the original “Rocky.” It was a film that came along at the right place at the right time and with the right actor. After all, Sylvester Stallone was the writer of the original “Rocky” script, and he demanded to star in the film even though the studio wanted a big name. Stallone was unknown at the time. It’s been 47 years since “Rocky” came out, but its staying power will last forever. It is why I was extremely pleased to hear Warner Brothers was going to be releasing a collection of the first four “Rocky” films in 4K and in a set. It was one of my most anticipated releases of the year so far.
Many of you who are reading this review might be asking, “Where is ‘Rocky V?’ What about ‘Rocky Balboa?’ The ‘Creed‘ movies?” I heard rumblings that there are possible director’s cuts coming out for “Rocky V” and “Rocky Balboa.” As far as the “Creed” movies, I would imagine they will get a separate release, as they are part of their own universe. Now with all that out of the way, this review is going to focus on the first four “Rocky” movies and how they are available on 4K for the very first time.
The original “Rocky,” released in 1976, was nominated for 10 Academy Awards and won Best Picture. When revisiting the film, which I’ve seen a number of times, it is easy to see why it has such staying power. It starts with the relationship between Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) and a shy young woman named Adrian (Talia Shire) who works at a pet store. For my money, “Rocky” is a love story, first and foremost, and it is a sports movie second. The interaction Rocky and Adrian have with one another in his apartment is one of the most tender and genuine love scenes I’ve ever seen on film.
Rocky Balboa is a local southpaw boxer in Philadelphia where he makes little to no money, and he takes a lot of abuse in the process. He also collects for a local loan shark named Tony Gazzo, played by Joe Spinell. He hangs out at a local pub with his friend Paulie (Burt Young), who also happens to be Adrian’s brother. Paulie isn’t always the easiest guy to get along with, but Rocky is a very patient and understanding individual. As a matter of fact, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone that doesn’t like Rocky. It’s a well-known fact these days that Stallone was not someone the studio wanted to portray Rocky. However, the script was written by him, and he knew this character inside and out. He went on to write and direct “Rocky II, III and IV” which are also included in this set, along with “Rocky Balboa.”
That’s the beauty of this film. Stallone was an underdog actor at the time he sold his script, and the film is about an underdog boxer who is given a chance to fight the heavyweight champion of the world, Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers), after Creed’s original opponent ends up injured. Creed, being the shrewd businessman that he is, figures it would be a great idea to give an underdog a shot at the title in order to create a marketable gimmick and make some money. Rocky Balboa knows this is his chance to prove he can go make something of himself and stand out as a winner. He is trained by the cranky yet seasoned Mickey (Burgess Meredith), who is finally willing to give Rocky a chance. The two of them joust verbally back-and-forth with one another for some great comedic relief.
In “Rocky II,” Rocky is dealing with life after the big fight with Creed. Even though he didn’t win, he went the distance with the champion which shocked the world. He lasted all fifteen rounds and lost based on the decision of the judges. Regardless, many people think Rocky was the true winner of the fight. He has to figure out how to live a normal life now that he’s a well-known figure not only in Philadelphia, his hometown, but around the world as well. He starts to do commercials and even ends up with a manual labor job, but he realizes his true calling is as a boxer.
Apollo Creed also has a score to settle with Rocky. He wants to knock him out and prove to the world and himself that he’s truly the world heavyweight champion. Creed wants to show everyone that what happened in their previous fight was a fluke. Rocky, on the other hand, might go blind if he gets in the ring again after what happened in their last fight. He took quite a beating, but he came back for more. He knows he’s a fighter, and he knows the risks, even though he has to think of Adrian now and their child. Mickey has devised a plan for Rocky which he thinks will allow him to win the fight and protect his eyes at the same time.
In “Rocky III,” Rocky is forced to handle success. He learns that Mickey has been protecting him from the really good fighters out there because he wants to keep him safe and look out for him. This causes Rocky to feel like a paper champion and question his manhood. There is also a tough challenger coming for him by the name of Clubber Lang (Mr. T) who is hellbent on embarrassing Rocky in the ring and becoming heavyweight champion of the world. This time, though, he has a new trainer in Apollo Creed. Rocky once again must learn a new fighting style: it is one based on endurance and speed. Clubber Lang is bigger and stronger than Rocky, so it will take everything Rocky has in him in order to defeat him.
“Rocky IV” is where it gets very interesting, as there are two cuts of the film featured here on one disc. There is the original “Rocky IV” theatrical cut and also “Rocky IV: Rocky vs. Drago,” which is the ultimate director’s cut. This time, Rocky finds himself having to fight his biggest opponent yet in Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren), who is a foot taller and thirteen years younger than him. He also must train in Russia as the fight will be taking place there on Christmas Day. Rocky will not only train like he never has before, but he will have to win in enemy territory against “The Russian,” as he’s referred to many times throughout the course of the film.
I didn’t want to give four full-length reviews for these films, as I imagine almost anyone reading this has seen and knows them fairly well, much like myself. If I were to give my ranking of the films featured in this set, I would go with the original “Rocky” as the best, “Rocky II” as the second best, “Rocky IV: Rocky vs. Drago” as the third best, and “Rocky III” as the fourth best. I would really advise you to check out the ultimate director’s cut of “Rocky IV” over the theatrical cut. It’s only two minutes longer, but the film is more serious, intense, and flows in a much more effective manner. It’s all in the tone of the film, and I loved the tone of the ultimate director’s cut. It really gave me a new appreciation for the fourth “Rocky” film.
As soon as this set arrived, it only took me two days to go through all four films. It was truly a treat to revisit them. I understand why they released these four films in a set together. It makes sense after watching them. You can also buy them as standalone steelbooks at your local Best Buy, but I believe they have different release dates. This set is out right now and while it is far from perfect, I’ll explain why later, if you are a “Rocky” fan, you have to buy this set for your collection. The original “Rocky” will always be a great, great piece of cinematic history. The second film is very, very good as well. The third one is good, but not great. “Rocky IV: Rocky vs. Drago” is also much improved with the ultimate director’s cut.
4K Info: “Rocky: The Knockout Collection” is released on 4K from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment. This set features five discs. The first three films are on their own individual discs and “Rocky IV” has the theatrical cut and the ultimate director’s cut on it. There is also a Blu-ray disc of special features. The set also comes with a digital code to have all of them in your digital library on 4K. “Rocky” has a running time of 119 minutes, “Rocky II” has a running time of 120 minutes, “Rocky III” has a running time of 100 minutes, and “Rocky IV” has a running time of 91 minutes (theatrical cut) and 93 minutes (ultimate director’s cut). All the films are rated PG. The set comes in a flipper case with a thick cardboard slipcover, so the discs are not stacked on top of each other and can be flipped through with their own slot. On one hand, I would have loved it if they released these films in four separate cases with slipcovers in a box set. However, for space reasons, this set works for me as it’s easy to put on the shelf with all four films together on five discs (including the Blu-ray special features disc) in a single set which isn’t much bigger than your average 4K film with a slipcover. All of the films come with Dolby Vision as well, which I was VERY happy with as a 4K collector.
Video Info: Let’s talk about the look of these films. The original “Rocky” is probably the worst looking film out of the bunch. I say this because of the age of the film and its low budget. It doesn’t look awful or terrible, but I don’t think it’s ever going to be a film that looks spectacular or blows you away. There is noticeable grain here, but in many ways, it adds to the gritty nature of the original film. That being said, if you are looking for a major upgrade with the first film on 4K, you probably are going to be disappointed. “Rocky II” looks very, very good. It’s a clean transfer which is smooth looking and crystal clear. The boxing scenes, in particular, look the best I’ve ever seen them look. This is when you can see the Dolby Vision and the HDR really, really stand out. This is a major upgrade. For “Rocky III,” the transfer is above average. It’s better than “Rocky,” but it’s not as good as “Rocky II.” There was noticeable grain, but it didn’t have the same old-school charm as the original look of the film. The best-looking film out of the bunch, far and away, is “Rocky IV.” I wish the majority of the films looked like this. This counts for both the ultimate director’s cut and the theatrical cut. You can see everything on their faces, and they really cleaned up this film. It looks beautiful and modern.
Audio Info: The following audio formats were used: English DTS-HD 5.1 Master Audio, English/Spanish/French Dolby Digital, and 2.0 Dolby Digital with subtitles in English, French, and Spanish. I’ve read from a lot of people online that are unhappy with how the films sound. Personally, I don’t think the audio issues are as bad as advertised, and the problems don’t take away from the viewing experience. At times, the films can fluctuate in audio, but the dips are not that frequent. They are here and there throughout the four films. Truth be told, I would not have ever noticed these issues unless they were pointed out to me. Overall, though, I think it’s much to do about nothing.
Special Features:
“Rocky” 4K Special Features:
Audio Commentary featuring Sylvester Stallone.
Audio Commentary featuring John G. Avildsen, Irvin Winkler, Robert Chartoff, Talia Shire, Carl Weathers, Burt Young, and Garrett Brown.
Audio Commentary featuring Lou Duva and Bert Sugar
Bonus Features Disc:
The Making of Rocky vs Drago: Keep Punching
8mm Home Movies of Rocky
3 Rounds with Lou Duva
Steadicam: Then and Now
Staccato: A Composer’s Notebook
The Ring of Truth
Tribute to Burgess Meredith
Stallone Meets Rocky
Trailers
* * * ½ out of * * * *
Should You Buy It?
This set was delayed in getting to me as it had a street date of February 28th, and I imagine a lot of that had to do with people complaining about the audio issues. I’m not a film snob by any means, but I am very particular about the audio and visual quality of 4K releases, as I’ve invested heavily into the 4K format. With all that being said, the pros outweigh the cons. Yes, not all of the films look great, but this is the best they have ever looked, with “Rocky II” and “Rocky IV,” in particular, looking fantastic. Yes, the audio is problematic at times, but it’s not so noticeable that it impacted my ability to hear the films or enjoy them. Right now, the set is going for about $53 plus tax, and I think for four films in 4K that are hugely popular, it’s a good value for the price. I would say this set is imperfectly perfect, as I enjoyed watching the films and the quality of them when they were flying on all cylinders. For film fans or Rocky fans, I think there is A LOT more to like than dislike with this collection. You can buy this set with confidence and try to ignore all of those folks out there who are analyzing every little detail to death. I think people are getting way too particular with 4K films, and this is coming from someone with high standards. The key is watching and enjoying the films with quality video and audio, and I felt I was able to do that more often than not. As far as the films themselves, many would argue these are the best films in the franchise, so it’s fine that “Rocky V” and “Rocky Balboa” are not included. “Rocky Balboa” is enjoyable nostalgia, and I imagine it will get a proper 4K release along with “Rocky V” at some point. As I often bring up, the special features are old special features. It’s hard to get people to sit down and do special features anymore, I feel like. At the end of the day, buy this set and enjoy it!
**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.
Paul Schrader’s 1979 film “Hardcore” is one I have been meaning to watch for years. Many of my film friends have sung its praises, and I have been a big fan of Schrader’s work both as a screenwriter (“Taxi Driver”) and as a director (“First Reformed” and “Patty Hearst” among others). Regardless, this quickly became one of the many films I kept promising myself I would watch but never got around to it. But then one evening, I saw it was playing at the Nuart Theatre in West Los Angeles, and I realized the time had come to finally give it a look. Besides, this might be my only chance to see it on the silver screen.
“Hardcore” opens up on Christmas in Grand Rapids, Michigan to the tune of Susan Raye’s “Precious Memories.” Schrader quickly settles us into the peaceful and family-oriented environment which looks to be filled with church-going people who love and fear God in equal measure. You just might mistake it for the average Norman Rockwell painting which often gave us images that were all too wholesome to be believed. Everything looks to be together on the same page while singing faith-based songs and sharing in traditional ceremonies without question. Of course, it’s scenes like these that make me wonder when the cracks in this atmosphere will begin to show.
The main character of this piece is Jake Van Dorn (played by George C. Scott), a well-to-do businessman with strong religious beliefs. Originally, this part almost went to Warren Beatty, but as great an actor as Beatty, he would have been wrong. Scott is perfectly cast as he has the face of someone with deeply held beliefs to where questioning them could be hazardous to your health. Eventually, you know these beliefs will be tested in the extreme as the title “Hardcore” refers to more than the sexuality on display here.
Jake’s peaceful existence becomes undone when his daughter Kristen (Ilah Davis) goes missing while on a church-sponsored trip in California. He enlists the help of the police, but after seeing all the photos on the wall of missing children, some of who still haven’t been found in years, he decides to hire a private investigator named Andy Mast (Peter Boyle) to dig a little deeper. But what Andy finds is something Jake never could have expected nor be the least prepared to deal with.
Watching Jake view a porno film in which his daughter Kristen is having sex with two men is an unnerving scene as Scott portrays a deep shock and grief which illustrates the living nightmare any parent would be thrilled to avoid. While it threatens to contain, as Ralph Garman and Kevin Smith would call it, “exquisite acting,” and the scene has become an infamous meme for many, I am curious as to what depths Scott dug to capture such an unforgettable moment of devastation. Such a scene is impossible to erase from the memory once it is viewed, and it comes to inform the relentlessness and anger he will come to experience up to the movie’s end.
From there, Jake ventures into the seedy underworld of Los Angeles, or the one which existed back in the 1970s. Like “Taxi Driver’s” Travis Bickle, he is “God’s Lonely Man” as he ventures into a place he does not belong. His brother-in-law tells him early on that God is testing him, and it is clearly the case as ventures deeper and deeper into the city’s sleazy subculture where there are an endless number of sex shopkeepers, adult theaters, and massage parlors that do more for their clients than a simple rub down. At one point, he even disguises himself as a pornography producer in an increasingly desperate effort to find his daughter, and I kept wondering if and when he might give in to temptation.
“Hardcore” was Schrader’s second film as a director, following his brilliant debut with “Blue Collar.” As with “Blue Collar,” he had quite the time wrangling his cast. Scott was said to have not gotten along with Schrader, and at one point promised the director he would finish the film only if he vowed never to direct another motion picture ever again. Well, we know Schrader promised Scott just that to get him back on set, but thank God the filmmaker never followed through on his word. This is just as well as we still had other films like “American Gigolo,” “Cat People,” “Light Sleeper” and “Affliction” to look forward to.
Indeed, this is a film that could have been upstaged by its behind-the-scenes drama which, in addition to Scott’s behavior, included an ending forced on Schrader by the studio. Indeed, the ending is “Hardcore’s” biggest flaw as it doesn’t jibe well with all which came before it, and it feels lazily staged with a shootout that feels tacked on above all else. It is thanks to Scott’s performance in the final moments that I am willing to forgive the conclusion as he keeps it from ringing completely hollow.
Still, I think “Hardcore” is a triumph for Schrader as it allows him to dig deep into themes he has explored in his many works such as the conflict between man and immorality. Moreover, there is authenticity on display here which would be hard to find today as Schrader managed to gain access to real-life sex houses and adult theaters to where there is no doubt we are dealing with the real thing and not just some cheap set. Certain sticky stains on the windows make this abundantly clear by the way.
Looking at the credits, Schrader had quite the crew to work with. The film was executive produced by John Milius who remains one of the best screenwriters ever, the score was by Jack Nitzsche who helps add even more of a lurid feeling to the sights Jake is forced to take in, and the cinematography was by Michael Chapman who performed visual wonders on both “Taxi Driver” and “Raging Bull.” Seriously, the color palette Chapman uses here aids the story considerably, and I cannot help but believe it greatly influenced the later works of Gaspar Noe and Benoit Debie.
I enjoyed Peter Boyle’s performance as private detective Andy Mast as he makes this character look all too comfortable in a city that thrives on decadence than what might appear on the surface. Even as Andy gives in to his baser needs and desires, he knows how the story is going to end and makes very few apologies for who he is. While the ending feels a bit too similar to the one from “Chinatown,” Boyle makes it work as his dialogue rings very true in a cynical and sad way.
But another performance worth singling out here is Season Hubley’s as Niki, a prostitute and part-time adult actress who aids Jake in his search. The scenes she has with Scott represent the best “Hardcore” has to offer as their dialogue regarding both sex and religion illustrates their differences and similarities in ways only Schrader could have pulled off. She fully inhabits this character to where I never doubted how much of a survivor Niki was and will continue to long after the end credits have finished.
Like William Friedkin’s “Cruising,” “Hardcore” is a journey into a subculture that no longer exists in today’s world. These days, it is much easier to gain access to pornography through the internet, and it makes me wonder how Jake would deal with a similar situation in today’s world. Things would be a bit easier to trace, and that’s even though some lost children might forever stay lost (please feel free to prove me wrong on this). As devoutly religious as Jake is, I imagine in a time where the world wide web and cell phones control our lives more than ever, he would most likely be more isolated and closed off from those around him than ever before.
“Hardcore” is indeed classic Paul Schrader even with its inescapable flaws, and I have no doubt “8MM,” the 1999 film directed by the late Joel Schumacher and written by Andrew Kevin Walker, would not have existed without it. “8MM” also pales in comparison to it by the way. I look at movies like these and wonder why studios won’t leave the filmmakers alone in making them. You know how dark the material was when you started funding the project, right? So why insult everyone’s intelligence by trying to make things a little less dark?
The following review was written by Ultimate Rabbit correspondent, Tony Farinella.
As a film lover and someone who considers themselves well-versed in the world of cinema, I’m sad to report this was my first-time watching “A Clockwork Orange.” I feel like no matter how many films you have seen, there are usually a dozen or so that have just slipped through the cracks. This is the 50th anniversary of this Stanley Kubrick classic and, as a first-time viewer, I can’t imagine the impact it had on viewers when it first came out. I know from reading up on it, it was quite controversial and misunderstood, but it ended up gaining a cult following. After watching it last night, I can’t wait to watch it again. Kubrick is truly a genius when it comes to cinema. There is always so much happening in his films, but everything is happening for a specific purpose.
The first forty-five minutes or so of “A Clockwork Orange” are a little out there and a little frustrating from a narrative perspective. The film is set in a dystopian Britain where a group of young gang members run around terrorizing anyone who gets in their path. For example, when they run into a homeless man, they beat him up simply because they find it amusing and comical. In another instance, they go out of their way to create chaos and havoc for a writer and his wife by attacking them in the middle of the night. One night, this group of four young men takes it too far when one of their members, Alex (Malcolm McDowell) ends up killing a wealthy woman. His three fellow gang members leave him behind, the police catch him, and he is sentenced to fourteen years in prison.
The early part of “A Clockwork Orange” is not necessarily hard to watch as I’m used to movie violence, and it takes a lot to upset me or really get under my skin. It’s more so that Alex and his “droogs” are unpleasant to spend time with, which I would venture to guess was Kubrick’s intent as a filmmaker. This film is based on the novel by Anthony Burgess. I think they could have trimmed out some of their antics in the film as, at times, it’s beating the audience over the head with violence and becomes repetitive and dull. However, when Alex is sent to prison, it is when the film becomes really, really interesting and takes off.
After being well-behaved in prison for two years, Alex hears about this experiment which allows someone to be cured almost instantly of their bad thoughts and impulses. They start to think and behave without any lust or violence. The experiment exposes them to footage of violence, rape, and other heinous acts. When they see this footage, they start to become sick. Because of this, if they ever have the urge to misbehave again, it is quickly stopped because of how they feel after the aversion therapy. The prison chaplain tries to warn Alex against it by telling him the good should come from inside of him and the choices he makes.
What happens from there makes for an incredibly thrilling and intense final act. The beauty of a Kubrick film is the details all around you that are happening in a scene. For example, when Alex returns home, the way his house is shot is gorgeous. Kubrick is never afraid to use colors and lots of them. He knows the beauty of imagery, color and scenery, and it makes the scenes much more effective. There is also his use of music. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to listen to “Singing in the Rain” or anything from Beethoven again without thinking of this film. There is a purpose for everything in his films from a visual and audio standpoint.
I could go on and on about “A Clockwork Orange.” The best praise I could give the film is that I want to watch it again and again. Kubrick was a true visionary of cinema. This film also has a lot to say about politics, drugs (think of the milk featured here), violence, sex, karma and so much more. After I woke up today to write this review, the film was still in my head. His films really stay with you and mess with your head in the best possible way. On 4K, the brightness is taken to a whole new level. I know I’m stating the obvious here, but Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange” is a masterpiece. I absolutely loved this film. It’s a great reminder of how great movies will always stand the test of time, no matter when they were released.
* * * * out of * * * *
4K/Blu-Ray Info: “A Clockwork Orange” is released on a 4K/Blu-ray combo pack from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment. It comes with the 4K, Blu-ray, and also a digital copy of the film as well. It has a running time of 137 minutes and is rated R.
Video Info: The 4K of the film comes in 2160p Ultra High Definition with a ratio of 16×9 1.66:1. If any film ever deserved the 4K treatment, it is “A Clockwork Orange.” I plan on watching the Blu-ray of the film at some point, but the high dynamic range and the colors are on full-display with the 4K. The film is mesmerizing to watch on 4K. This is the reason why more and more people are getting 4K TV’s and players for films like this. They were made for 4K. There is no other way to watch it at home. The Blu-ray of the film comes in 1080p High Definition with a ratio of 16×9 1.66:1.
Audio Info: The audio for the film is presented in DTS-HD MA: English 5.1, Dolby Digital: English, French and Spanish. Subtitles are in English, French, and Spanish as well. This applies to both the 4K and Blu-ray discs.
Special Features:
Commentary by Malcolm McDowell and Nick Redman
Still Tickin’: The Return of Clockwork Orange [2000 Channel 4 Documentary]
Great Bolshy Yarblockos! Making A Clockwork Orange
Turning Like Clockwork
Malcolm McDowell Looks Back
O Lucky Malcolm!
Should You Buy It?
According to the press release, the special features are the same released on the previous Blu-ray of the film, which is a bit of a bummer. One would have hoped they would have done an updated version of the special features, especially with it being the 50th anniversary of this film. If you haven’t seen “A Clockwork Orange” before, you are missing out! I can vouch for that. This one is a no-brainer to add to your collection for the film itself and the visual aspects of 4K.
This film is going to stay with me for a long, long time, and I get to watch it again on Blu-ray and 4K. I can even watch it on my iPad because of the digital copy which comes with this combo pack. However, as Spike Lee says, do the right thing and watch it on 4K. There will never be another director like Kubrick. Kudos as well to Warner Brothers for their recent upgrades of classic films like “A Clockwork Orange” and “The Shawshank Redemption.” They are on a roll lately!
**Disclaimer** I received a Blu-ray copy of this film from Warner Brothers to review for free. The opinions and statements in the review are mine and mine alone.
The original “When a Stranger Calls” from 1979 is a horror movie I am tempted to say I have seen many times already. This is because the scenes with Carol Kane playing a babysitter who is menaced by an anonymous caller who taunts her endlessly as he constantly asks if she has checked on the kids are scenes I have watched from time to time. It’s those scenes which keep getting presented on shows which celebrate the scariest horror movie moments, and it was featured in the documentary “Terror in the Aisles.” Even Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson paid homage to it in the “Scream” movies, and they did to such a powerful effect. Those scenes were enough to frighten me to my very core as being alone in the house was always deeply frightening to me when I was young, and the sound of silence can make things seem even more unnerving as it can get punctured at any given second.
Truth is, I never watched “When a Stranger Calls” until now. I finally took the time to watch it when I found it was available to stream on Amazon Prime. Like many movies I watch on this particular streaming service, I figured I would just watch it for a few minutes and then turn it off, perhaps hoping to watch the rest of it later. But in the end, I found myself watching it to its brutal conclusion, and this proved to be for better and, especially, for worse.
“When a Stranger Calls” starts off with Jill Johnson (Carol Kane) arriving at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Mandrakis (Carmen Argenziano and Rutanya Alda) to babysit their children while they are at a party. Everything starts off fine with Jill relaxing at the residence and speaking with her friend about the latest gossip at school. But while working on school assignments, she starts receiving phone calls from a man who keeps asking her if she has checked on the children. As the calls keep coming at her with the volume of each ring getting increasingly louder, Jill hears the man saying he wants her blood all over his body. To her credit, she does the smart thing by calling the police who attempt to trace these calls to their source. Of course, then they discover that the caller is actually inside the house…
The opening 12 minutes of “When a Stranger Calls” have long since become iconic as it does provide audiences with one of the most terrifying scenes in a horror film, and it does so without any blood or gore. Director Fred Walton does a brilliant job of setting up this babysitter in a normal home environment which is no different from the ones we have lived in, and the silence of them when the stereo isn’t on and playing the top 40 hits proves to be quite deafening. With scenes like these, we are reminded of how what we don’t see proves to be more infinitely terrifying than what we do.
But therein lies the problem with this film, it peaks too soon. Once Jill’s horrifying predicament comes to an end as she runs straight into private investigator John Clifford (Charles Durning), the story then moves to a number of years later when John is obsessively pursuing the man on the other end of the phone line, Curt Duncan (Tony Beckley) who has just escaped the insane asylum he was committed to. What results from there is frustratingly dull as “When a Stranger Calls” wastes fine actors in a movie which looked to promise so much more than it ends up giving.
It really sucks to say this as this film features a very talented cast who do give the material their all despite it being so lackluster. Durning gives us a fully realized character who is ever so obsessed about capturing the man who laid waste to a family in the worst way possible. Beckley, who died six months after the film’s premiere, does a strong job of inhabiting such an insane and unstable character in Curt to where I never caught him overacting. We also have Colleen Dewhurst on board as Tracy Fuller, a person who comes into contact with Curt in a rather ambivalent fashion, but once she does, things become far too predictable.
“When a Stranger Calls” does eventually return to Jill’s life years later when she is married and has children of her own, and this does result in a much-needed increase in suspense and tension as we are reminded of the hell she went through. We even get one highly effective jump scare, but it all leads to a conclusion which proved to be deeply unsatisfying.
When it comes to Kane, she is the best thing this movie has to offer. She has long since proven to be a tremendous comedic talent in movies like “Annie Hall” and “The Princess Bride, the TV shows “Taxi” and “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt,” and she was fearless in her portrayal of one of John Munch’s ex-wives on “Homicide: Life on the Street.” Here, she goes from playing a young student and babysitter to a woman still dealing with the trauma and guilt over a horrific event. Kane looks like an ordinary person here which helps to make her terrifying ordeal feel even more real, and she inhabits Jill with an unshakeable fear as the phone rings louder and louder and the calls get more and more threatening. Her performance is tremendous as she made me feel Jill’s fear and desperation throughout.
Now as much as I try to view a movie for what it’s trying to be instead of what I want it to be, I cannot help but think of how much better it could have been. Frankly, I think it should have focused more on Jill and how she deals with all she has been through. It could have been something along the lines of David Gordon Green’s “Halloween” reboot which catches up with Laurie Strode 40 years after her near-death encounter with Michael Myers. This would have been more enthralling as Kane is so good here, and watching her trying to process all she has been through is far more interesting than following a cop obsessed with catching a killer.
It also would have helped if Curt had been kept in the shadows, like the alien in “Alien,” the thought of him proves to be more haunting than his appearance. Some people want to see the monster right away, but like the anonymous truck driver in “Joy Ride,” a strange voice can be far more unnerving. The fact the filmmakers give Curt a face within the first half hour just killed much of the suspense and terror they thought this movie would have.
Having finally watched the original “When a Stranger Calls,” I can see why it still resonates strongly with horror fans, as those first 12 minutes are truly terrifying. While the rest of it doesn’t hold up, the opening has long since enshrined the movie as a classic scary flick in the eyes of many. It even got a sequel, albeit a made for cable one, in 1993 with “When a Stranger Calls Back,” and both Kane and Durning returned to reprise their roles. And yes, there was an inevitable remake of it back in 2006, but judging from its trailers, the thing looks like a Noxzema commercial disguised as a horror flick.
But seriously folks, 12 great minutes does not a good movie make, and this one had the potential to much better than it was. The more I think about “When a Stranger Calls,” the more a certain question comes to mind; Is this film a cinematic example of premature ejaculation? Seriously, I’m asking for a friend.
WRITER’S NOTE: This screening took place back in 2011.
Jason Reitman described the last double feature he presented as part of his guest programming at New Beverly Cinema by saying, “Whereas the last few movies I chose were sad in some respects, these two just make you feel good.” After dealing with the downfalls and missed opportunities which were major parts of “Shampoo” and “Boogie Nights,” he finished off his slate of favorites with “Breaking Away” and “Bottle Rocket.”
The first movie shown was “Breaking Away” which was directed by Peter Yates, the same man who made the Steve McQueen classic “Bullitt.” For years it has been considered one of the best sports movies ever made, and it’s also a movie where several young actors got their start together like in “Taps” or “Fast Times at Ridgemont High.” Among those actors were Dennis Quaid, Dennis Christopher and Daniel Stern. We even got to see a teenage Jackie Earle Haley in it, and he has since gone from career oblivion to critical acclaim for his performances in “Little Children” and “Watchmen.”
Reitman asked how many people in the audience were seeing this film for the first time, and many hands, including mine, immediately went up. To this he replied, “I am so jealous!”
On “Breaking Away,” Reitman described it as a movie you associate with watching with your father, and one which captures the lives of twenty somethings very well in the indecisions of where to go from high school; unsure of what to do with the rest of their lives. It’s also a great story about class wars in society; of those who have everything and those who never have enough. Upon looking for trivia about “Breaking Away,” Reitman found the film was originally two screenplays. One was called “The Cutters” which became the name of the people from the working-class environment, and the other one was about the bike race the characters train for.
Joining Reitman for this screening were Dennis Christopher who played the endlessly obsessive bike rider Dave Stoller, and Daniel Stern who played Cyril. Reitman usually had his guests hidden from sight before introducing them, but they were already in the theater giving autographs and posing for pictures which got posted on Facebook. Both Quaid and Stern also said they were so envious of those who were seeing this for the first time.
Reitman started off by asking them if they knew they were working on something very special. Stern was the first to reply:
“That was my first movie,” Stern said. “I had never been in a movie before, and so I thought they were all like that. There is a wonderful simplicity to the movie, to the script, to the way the movie was made and the way it comes across. It does have a lot of depth to it too. I look back at it thinking, that was just an incredibly unique experience. I didn’t know what I was doing, I didn’t know where the camera was, and I didn’t know anything about that!”
Christopher, on the other hand, had worked in movies before with acclaimed directors like Robert Altman and Federico Fellini, so he knew a bit about being on big sets. The experience of making “Breaking Away” proved to be a bit different though.
“The thing that really made it special was because after that horrible first day of being a big Italian impersonator, because they made me all dark and I had my hair slicked back, black shirt, a tight waistline, etc. He was supposed to look like a ‘Saturday Night Fever’ guy,” Christopher said. “He (Yates) wanted him to be that kind of Italian. And I thought, why the fuck did they hire me? I looked like Lily Tomlin would when dressed up like men! That’s exactly what I looked like! I was waiting for them to glue hair on my chest!”
“I was so shaken, and the next day I came onto the set and I just burst into tears,” Christopher continued. “I told Peter that I just can’t do this and he said I KNOW, I KNOW! And we had a big talk with Steven (Tisch, who won an Oscar for his screenplay) and Peter, and then the character evolved; the way he looked and the way he was. So for me that was the special thing of collaborating with a director who cared about what you thought. So, for me I thought whoa, this is amazing!”
Reitman then spoke for those who had this on their minds after Christopher spoke:
“So what you’re saying is that Robert Altman really doesn’t care…”
This got a big laugh from the audience.
After making all the changes with Christopher’s character and making it more like him, they reshot everything and had to wait three weeks to see how it all looked. For those who have seen this movie, you have to agree this was one of the smartest choices Yates made. If Christopher was forced to do an Italian impersonation, it probably would have wrecked the movie.
Reitman also asked Christopher and Stern what kind of bike riding they did before production began. Christopher replied he did the “regular kind” and was never involved in any bike competitions like his character. Stern, on the other hand, said he was not a bike rider which turned out to be perfect for his character.
This led Stern to tell everyone he didn’t even audition for “Breaking Away.” He came into the office to read for Yates, and he was on a phone call nearby and saw him. Once he got off the phone, Yates handed Stern a script and was asked to be on set in a short time.
Unlike a lot of the big productions he had previously been involved in, Christopher said this film was almost completely the opposite of them. They had a very small crew working on it, and there was no overabundance of trailers parked on every street corner.
Barbara Barrie played Dave Stoller’s mother, Evelyn, and she got nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. However, it turns out she was a little peeved when she read the script and found there was no big scene for her. Christopher even recalled her telling Yates quite loudly, “WHERE IS MY BIG SCENE?!” So Barrie, Tisch and Yates worked together and did an improvisation which led to that wonderful moment where Evelyn talks about getting her passport and how she always keeps it handy.
People did not expect much from “Breaking Away” while it was being made, but it turned out to be a surprising success which won many awards, and it even spawned a prequel television series in which Haley and Barrie reprised their roles for. Of course, like many movies adapted to television, it lasted only one season. Stern called it “the little engine that could kind of movie,” and he even came to this screening wearing his white “Cutters” t-shirt. Christopher said this and “My Bodyguard” were the first movies for kids which were taken seriously by adults, and he and Stern said people’s overall reaction to it today is still quite powerful.
Christopher also told the audience about when he took his dad, whom he was estranged from at the time, to see “Breaking Away” when it was first released. After it was over, he said his dad came out of it “ruined” and looked quite frail. His dad could not believe how great the movie was, and when people outside the theater asked Christopher for his autograph, he got in line with the others. His dad even acted as his security chief in getting people in the line to move along.
The Q&A ended with both actors asking Reitman, “Is this a good print of the movie we’re showing tonight?”
“We’ll see,”Reitman replied.
Reitman said he had previously seen “Breaking Away” on VHS and laserdisc but seeing it with an audience was something else. The nearly sold-out crowd at New Beverly Cinema really got into the proceedings and cheered loudly throughout. You came out of the theater agreeing with Reitman that “Breaking Away” was as good as reputation has long since suggested.
Wow! This brings back so many memories! I still vividly remember watching these Peanuts specials when I was a kid. Sitting in front of the old Zenith television set in my pajamas, because I had to go straight to bed immediately after they ended, it was always a major event when Charlie Brown, Snoopy and the rest of the Peanuts gang made an appearance in their latest animated special. Of course, you could always count on Snoopy to steal the show from everybody no matter what holiday was being celebrated.
Sadly, we can only dream of ever having a dog as cool as Snoopy in our lifetime. Can you think of another dog that can cook dinner, be as enraged as John McEnroe during a tennis match, drive a motorcycle, or fly a doghouse in pursuit of the nefarious Red Baron? Cujo comes to mind, but he would be too busy terrorizing humans.
“A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” is one of those specials I had not seen in the longest time, but on Thanksgiving evening in 2008, the show was passed on to another generation as my brother and I got his daughter to watch it in all its animated glory. She was originally more interested in watching some show on Nickelodeon which looked infinitely lame if you ask me, but we successfully managed to wrestle the remote control from her and turned it to ABC. She got a big kick out of the episode, especially when Snoopy and Woodstock are fighting with each other over preparing for Thanksgiving dinner. Then again, the three of us were in utter hysterics when a certain wooden chair began to attack Snoopy with a vengeance. It’s always great when people of all ages can appreciate the same material at the same level.
“A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” is sandwiched between two of the most famous Peanuts specials, “It’s The Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown” and “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” As a result, it tends to get lost in the shuffle of other specials, but is still somewhat easier to find on television than “It’s The Easter Beagle Charlie Brown” (until 2020 anyway). This special revolves around Charlie Brown having to prepare a Thanksgiving dinner of sorts for his friends before he has to go to his grandmother’s place to have a more traditional Thanksgiving dinner. Peppermint Patty has somehow invited herself and her friends, Marcie and Franklin (the lone African-American character in the Peanuts universe), over to Charlie’s place, expecting a huge Thanksgiving dinner in the space of about an hour or so, as if such a thing were even remotely possible! My dad spent at least eight hours preparing our most recent Thanksgiving feast. Who does Peppermint Patty think she is anyway?
It’s interesting to reflect on how I viewed this special as a kid, and of how I view it now as an adult. I remember feeling sorry for Charlie Brown because I thought he was doing the best he could under terribly difficult the circumstances. Besides, he had Snoopy to back him up, and Snoopy buttered the toast as if he were a blackjack dealer opening a fresh pack of playing cards (the sound effects pretty much gave that one away). These days, he reminds me of myself when I was a teenager. Self-pitying and often quite hopeless, Charlie Brown is his own worst enemy. Watching him give in to Peppermint Patty’s demands makes me want to shake him and tell him to grow some balls. Stand up to Peppermint Patty. She may kick your bald ass at baseball, but not in the kitchen. But when it comes to Peppermint Patty, I think Charlie said it best:
“You can’t explain anything to Peppermint Patty!”
Indeed, Peppermint Patty has a one-track mind and cannot be easily reasoned with if at all. When she wants something, she seems to get it no matter what. At the same time, she can be so rude and oblivious to things she like good manners. Where does she get off inviting herself to other people’s houses? Why does she expect everyone to serve her needs? Doesn’t she have a clue? Inviting yourself to someone else’s house threatens to be rude and inexcusably imposing among other things… Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize I was kind of like that as a kid. I did invite myself over to a friend’s house when I was 7 or 8. I wasn’t really thinking about how my friend might think. It’s kind of embarrassing to think about now. Well, judge not lest ye be judged!
Of course, you can always count on Linus to make everyone see the true meaning of the holidays. As in “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” he tells everyone how Thanksgiving Day came about when the Pilgrims and the Indians came together for a feast, and of how thankful they were for the strong friendship which formed between them. You have to be impressed with the amount of knowledge Linus had at his age. Maybe he had some sort of cheat sheet in that blue blanket he always carried with him. You don’t actually see his blanket here in this episode, but maybe Thanksgiving was one of his most favorite holidays to where he needed no reminding of what it was all about. Linus was always a great friend to Charlie Brown, and it was nice to see Charlie always had him as a friend who could help him through those tough times.
But you have got to love Snoopy in this animated special. He saves the day by making a Thanksgiving dinner of popcorn, buttered toast and pretzel sticks among other things. He also inhabits the funniest scenes as he and Woodstock have to get a table and chairs together for all the guests, and they get caught up in playing table tennis, something Snoopy fares much better in than real tennis, until Linus reminds them they have work to do. Then Snoopy ends up getting into a fight with a rouge folding chair which seems to have a life of its own. They fight each other over which way the chair should be set, and the fact that the chair wins is not a surprise.
There’s one other thing I have to point out in this special. At the end, Snoopy and Woodstock are left alone at Charlie Brown’s house as everyone else goes to grandma’s house, and this is despite the fact Snoopy seemed every bit as excited about going as well. Snoopy goes into his doghouse and constructs a wooden table and chairs for him and Woodstock, and he manages to cook a Thanksgiving turkey (why he didn’t do this earlier is best left unanswered) for the two of them, and they both sit down to eat it and even break a wishbone. Now here’s the thing; a turkey is a bird, and Woodstock is a bird as well. So, by eating the turkey, doesn’t this in fact make Woodstock a cannibal? I mean, he is eating his own kind! Doesn’t Woodstock even take this into account? What would his parents think? Plus, how does he get the better half of the wishbone? How can a little bird manage to overpower a beagle’s strength when he does not have as much to work with? This is the world of animation for you! Making the impossible seem possible even if it defies reasonable logic.
As I write this in 2020, the networks decided not to air “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” or “A Charlie Brown Christmas” for the first time in decades. This seemed sacrilegious to many, and after a major uproar from millions of people, both specials are now being aired on Apple TV and PBS. It would be unthinkable for either of these animated specials to not be broadcast for all to see. Then again, they are available on DVD, Blu-ray and assorted digital formats, so they are never easily out of our reach.
With “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving,” I remembered of how certain things from childhood can remain ever so innocent from one generation to the next. Even if the Thanksgiving holiday is now seen much differently than before as people believe the Pilgrims laid waste to the Indians or instead observe this holiday as one where Native Americans (the Indians, mind you) fed a group of undocumented illegal aliens (the Pilgrims), this is still a celebrated time when families come together for a great feast. It’s all about togetherness, and this is one of the many things “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” preaches to great effect. Be sure to give this animated special another look when you get the chance. I don’t care how many times you have watched it because it is always worth watching again.
The Ultimate Rabbit 