There’s scene in 1984’s Bachelor Party perfectly sums up just how stupid – and hilarious – the movie is. It involves a donkey overdosing on cocaine. Not because anyone gave the donkey cocaine, mind you. No, it’s the donkey’s choice, as he strolls over to a table full of drugs, chops up some lines with his hoof, and goes to town. He then dies of a massive heart attack. A cautionary tale, to be sure. If you haven’t seen Bachelor Party and that joke strikes you as in particularly bad taste, you probably don’t need to track this movie down because it doesn’t get any classier.
However, for a generation of us, Bachelor Party was a late night sleepover classic. It was like The Hangover of the 1980s, albeit not as big of a hit. It’s the raciest movie Tom Hanks ever made, with him playing a young man about to be married (to the late Tawny Kitaen shortly before she became immortalized by Whitesnake), whose idiot friends throw him the bachelor party to end all bachelor parties.
Bachelor Party came out just after Splash made Hanks a star, and given the family following he picked up for that movie, he opted to go a classier route in the future than Bachelor Party might have hinted at. Basically, rather than be the next Robert Carradine (star of Revenge of the Nerds) he became the beloved icon we know now.
As such, Bachelor Party has become somewhat obscure in his filmography, but it’s worth noting that the film made money ($38 million in 1984) and was a staple on VHS and cable. It actually became popular again during the DVD era, with it even getting a DTV sequel no one watched, and almost ended up getting remade. Yet, in recent years, it’s become a frustratingly hard movie to find…unless you live in Canada. In the States, it doesn’t seem to be streaming anywhere, but in Canada, ironically enough, given the movie’s content, it’s actually streaming on Disney Plus. Yep – a movie where a donkey overdoses on cocaine is streaming on Disney Plus (thank God!).
Like Ransom and Dutch, it doesn’t seem like there’s a specific agenda keeping Bachelor Party out of circulation. You can find plenty of DVD copies on Amazon even if they are out of print, as tons of them were manufactured during its second wave of popularity in the 2000s. Yet, it’s the kind of movie that’s begging for a special edition from a label like Arrow because it would be hilarious to reunite some of the movie’s stars, like Hanks and Michael Dudikoff (the American Ninja), who made his debut in this. It points to a problem, as like Dutch and Ransom, the rights are held by Disney (it was made by 20th Century Fox), who have bigger fish to fry. I get them not wanting to reissue a movie like Bachelor Party, but it would be nice if they were more aggressive in licensing their movies to indie labels, as I have to think a movie like Bachelor Party (or Johnny Dangerously) would sell well.
What do you think? Should Disney open the floodgates and release some MIA classics? Let us know in the comments!
Arrow Video has unveiled their February Blu-ray lineup, hitting some major titles that will find viewers cruising the streets of New York City, dining with the Sawyer family and fending off space vampires.
Arriving on February 25th from Arrow will be William Friedkin’s Cruising, which is being featured in a limited edition 4K release, notably restored from the original camera negative. While you’ll see some previously available special features, the set has some new extras. They include:
Brand new commentary featuring original musicians involved with the soundtrack
I Want to Be the Curator, a brand-new interview with actress Karen Allen
Walking the Line, a brand-new interview with actor, film consultant, and former police detective Randy Jurgensen
Breaking the Codes, a brand-new visual essay surrounding the hanky-codes featuring actor and writer David McGillivray
Cruising also comes with a 120-page perfect-bound collector’s book with photos, articles and essays, as well as a reversible sleeve featuring new artwork by Sister Hyde.
Arrow also has The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 arriving, with the sequel hitting shelves one week earlier on February 17th. Along with a 4K restoration from the original negative in 2160p, you can expect a lot of goodies, including special packaging, a booklet with new essays, postcards, and even a chili cook-off recipe. While the packaging is new (and incredible), those who dig the original artwork that spoofed The Breakfast Club will be happy to know that a reproduction is also included in the set. TCM 2 is a bit light on new special features, but does have some solid-sounding additions:
Are We Not Both the Living Dead?, new visual essay by Scout Tafoya
You’ve Got Good Taste: Cannibal Camp and Perverse Parody, new visual essay by Miranda Corcoran
Also arriving on February 17th is another Tobe Hooper essential, Lifeforce. Like TCM 2, Lifeforce is a bit light on new material but it does feature both the 116-minute International Cut and the 101-minute Theatrical Cut, immediately making it a must-own for fans. There, too, is new artwork and a collector’s booklet with writing on the movie.
Be sure to check out Arrow Video’s website for more details for in-depth details of the special features, technical specs and more, as well as other titles arriving in February.
Do you plan on picking up any of these Arrow Video releases this February? Let us know below!
Jeff Nichols has big plans for his future, as he has announced that in addition to his planned Cormac McCarthy adaptations, he will be penning his first original feature since 2016’s Midnight Special.
Jeff Nichols got his start as one of the most distinct auteurs to emerge in the mid-2000s, writing and directing Shotgun Stories, Take Shelter, Mud, and the aforementioned Midnight Special. His two most recent features, Loving and this year’s The Bikeriders, both had their roots in true stories, with the latter being adapted from a photo book. On the mixture of projects, Nichols told Deadline, “I’ve been making period pieces and films inspired by other people’s work and this next film for better or worse is going to be cut from Jeff Nichols cloth.”
In addition to these, Jeff Nichols will also go back to adapting, as he will take on Cormac McCarthy’s two Passenger books, The Passenger and Stella Maris, which ended up being the author’s final works before his 2023 death. McCarthy is a notoriously challenging author to adapt; add to that the books have been described by Penguin as “a breathtaking novel of morality and science, the legacy of sin, and the madness that is human consciousness” and “a philosophical inquiry that questions our notions of God, truth, and existence”, Nichols most definitely has his work cut out for him.
While there aren’t many details about Jeff Nichols’ planned seventh feature, we do know it will be set in Arkansas, the director’s native state where he also set Shotgun Stories and Mud. It’s also not entirely known if it is the same film that was reportedly set to star Brad Pitt.
I’ve been a fan of Jeff Nichols’ since first seeing Shotgun Stories, seeing him as the sort of visionary that was picking up where David Gordon Green left off. While I still respect Green for going back to roots of his best films (please see George Washington if you haven’t) with works like Prince Avalanche and Joe, his focus on stoner comedies and now horror reinventions has knocked him down too many pegs. But Nichols has remained loyal; OK, maybe he got a little too close to the superhero game, but he has emerged and stands as one of the most consistent and capable directors working today. Now let’s hope the studio gives these films a chance to breathe in theaters, unlike The Bikeriders…
Are you a fan of Jeff Nichols? Which of his planned films are you most looking forward to?
It may seem hard to believe now, but there was a time when Disney didn’t really do sequels to their animated films – or at least not theatrically. Outside of The Rescuers Down Under back in 1990, for a long time, Disney always did cheap, direct-to-video sequels to their biggest hits, which boggles the mind now given that of the ten highest-grossing movies of the year (so far), nine of them are sequels. Yet, in the nineties, Disney’s sequels to their animated classics, Aladdin and The Lion King, went straight to video, as the company focused on original projects as far as the big screen went. This all changed with Toy Story 2. Initially, it was supposed to be another cheap direct-to-video sequel, but the brain trust at Pixar balked and ended up redeveloping the film as a full-on theatrical feature. The result was one of their best-loved and most successful films ever, and while they continued churning out DTV movies, they became a lot more open to doing theatrical sequels. Now, one could argue they’re too focused on sequels, but given the success of Inside Out 2 and Moana 2 (which became life as a straight-to-streaming series), it seems likely that more and more sequels will be on the way. As far as their theatrical sequels go, which is your favorite? Take the poll below and let us know!
Very few actors have a resume as impressive and wide ranging as Denzel Washington. Since he hasn’t been in a giant franchise…yet, his box office numbers aren’t as big as some of his contemporaries. However, he’s made up for it with nine acting Oscar nominations and two wins. His new film “Gladiator II” is already…
Very few actors have a resume as impressive and wide ranging as Denzel Washington. Since he hasn’t been in a giant franchise…yet, his box office numbers aren’t as big as some of his contemporaries. However, he’s made up for it with nine acting Oscar nominations and two wins. His new film “Gladiator II” is already…
Everyone loves a good, especially if the person has lived an exciting life. The big problem is that some people don’t. So, to tell a compelling story on the big screen, filmmakers feel the need to tweak the truth slightly for dramatic effect. Maybe a tiny white lie here and there. When overdone, the film goes from a record of history to a completely made-up story. It turns out biopics have been lying to us for a long time. Who can you believe?
A great story of an ordinary man who stood up to the sprawling empire of Britain and who inspired the people around him to take up arms to protect their land. Except this movie has been listed as one of the most historically inaccurate of all modern film. Historians have stated that the William Wallace presented in the movie never existed. The real Willam Wallace was not from a simple farm life. His father was mid-level royalty. He was well educated and even traveled with his own chaplin.
Experts on the fashions of the time have stated that nothing anyone wears in the film is historically correct. The face paint they wear was out of use a thousand years earlier, and the kilts they were wearing didn’t come into use until five hundred years later. They equated it to a film about Colonial America but showing the characters wearing 20th-century business suits, also with the jackets on backward. Oof. Biopics are supposed to at least be partially accurate.
A lot has come out about the true story behind this film since it was made. In the movie, a well-off family adopts a homeless kid and shows him what he can achieve on and off the field. The film’s subject, Michael Oher, who would go on to play in the NFL, was not a big fan of his portrayal on screen. He felt they made him look dumb and knew nothing about football. In reality, he excelled in school once he was given a stable living environment and had been a big football fan since he was young. He did say he liked the film’s message, though, and chalked it up to dramatic liberties.
Years later, Oher would sue his “adopted” family and say that they never actually adopted him. He claims they put him under a conservatorship and used his name and likeness to bring in millions of dollars while he got nothing. The family would state that it was true they never adopted him because he was over 18 when they met him. As for the millions of dollars they supposedly received, the film company chimed in that they never paid the family that much money at any point. A review of the dealings found that most of the family had only received $100,000, which they evenly split between each family member, including Oher. An example of how biopics can go wrong.
Warren Beaty put maybe the most famous two names in criminal history on screen back in 1967. The duo is seen robbing banks and living to steal money only from big corporations. Well, that wasn’t really their motive. The pair ran their own gang, but Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow are probably the only two most known from the group. In the film, they romanticize the pair while also portraying them as middle-class heroes.
Meanwhile, in real life, the pair and their gang had no problem robbing small grocery stores and funeral homes. When they encounter Frank Hamer, they mock him and make him look like a fool. In reality, he was a distinguished Texas Ranger who was asked to come out of retirement to catch them. He didn’t encounter them in person until the shootout that killed them. One of the only surviving members of the gang, Blanche Barrow, complained that the film made her look like a screaming horse’s ass. Not even criminals are safe from movie license.
The creation of one of the biggest social media platforms in the world had to come with some hiccups, right? Yes, but maybe not as many as Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher would lead you to believe. The film would want you to think that Facebook was solely created to spurn an ex-girlfriend. Zuckerberg, if you can believe him, says this is inherently not true. He will acknowledge that the film does hit a bullseye in some departments, though. While he says the partying and drama shown in the film are false, he does say that everything they have him wearing in the film is clothes he has in his closet.
Others involved have said that their depictions in the movie are way off the mark, but they understand that without some drama infused into it, the film would be pretty dull. They show friendships being broken and backs being stabbed, but a lot of the real-life people are still friends to this day. Facebook’s COO Sheryl Sandberg has said that the film is very dramatized because if they showed what really happened, it would just be Mark Zuckerberg and his friends ordering pizza all the time. Is this the only biopic about a social media platform?
One of the biggest personalities in Rock and Roll had to get a biopic at some point. While not entirely accurate, some have said it hits at about 80%, which isn’t too bad. Many of the issues in the film are just timelines, as certain songs were shown being created out of order and played during some tours before they were actually written. It’s not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
The significant issues seem to deal with friction within the band itself. Mercury, doing some solo projects, seems to break up the band before they decide to get back together to play their legendary set at Live Aid. This isn’t true at all. Every band member had their own side projects, and no one cared that Mercury was doing his own thing. Their Live Aid performance was planned well in advance, and the band had just gotten off a world tour eight weeks prior to the event. We all need a little drama in our movies sometimes.
Well, no, duh. No one would expect that P.T. Barnum walked around singing about his day all the time. Even so, the life that they show in the film, as Barnum aims to put on a magical show to entertain the masses, leaves out a lot of things—pretty much all of them problematic. Hugh Jackman did what he could to make him seem like a master of entertainment, but if they had shown the truth, even the loveable Jackman wouldn’t have been able to win over an audience.
Barnum actually got his start showing off an African slave woman and claimed she was over 160 years old. She was 70. During this time, it was illegal to have slaves in New York, but Barnum got around that by “renting” her for performances. After her death, he performed a public autopsy and charged people to come and watch. All of this is on top of the cruelty to animals that would become a bigger part of his act years later once his circus started. Most who knew him claim that Barnum was a horrible human being.
Robin Williams as a funny doctor that made hospitals tolerable for sick children. How could that not be accurate? Well, you could ask the actual Patch Adams. While he appreciates Robin Williams playing him on the big screen, he said he’s not a fan of the film. His big gripe seems to be that the movie depicts him as a funny doctor. Not someone who has done serious work on preventing childhood diseases.
Another thorn in his side is that Adams said the film studio was supposed to donate a portion of the film’s profits to help build a hospital to continue his work. They allegedly never have. He was also salty at Williams, as he stated that Williams made $21 million for the film. He never donated any of it to his cause. Adams has softened over the years, but at the end of the day, he does not like the film.
One of the biggest names in early Rock and Roll can only be played by one of the most prominent personalities in cinema. That’s why Gary Busey got to play him in the 1978 film. Of course, this was before Busey’s infamous motorcycle accident made him the man we know today. While most know the broad strokes of Buddy Holly’s short career, this film really dove deep into his life. Or did it?
The titular Peggy Sue from the famous song called the film a bunch of Hollywood gobblygook. Even Paul McCartney dismissed it. He disliked it so much that he helped make a documentary called The Real Story Of Buddy Holly. The major points of contention seemed to be the treatment of Holly’s band, The Crickets, his family life, and the omission of producer Norman Petty.
Margaret Thatcher was a force to be reckoned with while she was in the government of Great Britain. While the film about her time shows that, it also embellishes some of her time for dramatic effect. This is not unheard of, but the film fiddles with timelines and puts her at events she wasn’t around for. This is not surprising, but it is easily found if one does a quick Google search.
When she begins her career, they depict her as being the only female in Parliament. This was untrue, as there were other female members at that time. It was also shown as a snooty boys’ club, which was overdone to set up more of a dramatic effect on her rise through the ranks. The film also suggests she was present for her fellow member Airey Neave’s assassination. This was false, as she was not even in the same city at the time.
What are some of the biopics you know are false? Let us know in the comments.
