Book Review: A YEAR OF MOVIES

By Ivan Walters. (2015, 443 pp).
ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD

We have a few annual movie traditions at my house. I watch The Poseidon Adventure every New Year's Eve and actually wait until 11:35:19 PM to hit the play button, so when the clock strikes midnight in the movie, it's also midnight in my living room (that's right...I have no life). My daughter and I always watch Die Hard on Christmas Eve because that's the day John McClane single-handedly wastes a dozen terrorists and saves his wife. And though technically not a holiday movie, I celebrate each Easter with Charlton Heston and The Ten Commandments, a habit I developed when ABC used to air it at that time every year.

With A Year in Movies, author Ivan Walters has taken the idea several steps further, painstakingly compiling a list of 366 films, both recent and classic, for every single day of the year. All or a significant part of every movie included takes place on a specific calendar date, so you can look up your birthday (as my family did when the book arrived) and read about a film where that date is significant to the story. And if a particular date isn't mentioned in the film itself, Walters often (but not always) includes the novel or historical source which does. Other times we just have to take his word for it.

There are the usual suspects, of course, such as the aforementioned Poseidon Adventure for December 31 and The Longest Day for June 6, along with quite a few surprising - and perplexing - choices. For example, I looked up my own birthday (November 22) fully expecting to read about JFK, but found Tim Burton's Batman instead, supposedly because that's the date the caped crusader thwarts a couple of guys during a robbery (even though the film itself doesn't provide any dates). And while I appreciate the author's attempt to avoid the obvious titles, doesn't it make sense to include original Halloween for October 31, which takes place almost entirely on that day? Instead, that day is reserved for To Kill a Mockingbird, which is an undisputed classic, but come on.

Each entry includes the year of the film's release, genre, running time, primary cast & crew, availability on home video, major awards or nominations and alternate titles taking place on the same day. In that respect, this volume makes a nifty historical reference guide. There's also a one-to-two paragraph synopsis of the plot (including mild spoilers). Less essential is the author's extremely brief personal assessment of each title, one or two lines at-most, and seldom in complete sentences. Considering the serviceable detail of each synopsis, the sudden shift in style to sound bites of praise - he loves a majority of the films selected, though significantly, not The Godfather Part II (!) - almost reads like they were written by a different author.

Still, the basic concept of A Year of Movies makes it unique among film reference books, one that'll be fun to grab off the shelf every now and then when pondering a particular calendar date. And I suppose the book also poses the ultimate challenge to any film buff...to view each of these titles on the dates in which they take place. I wish I had the time and resources to accept such a challenge. What a journey that would be.

KITTY CONSENSUS:

PURR...A GREAT LITTER BOX COMPANION

BATMAN v SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE: A Recipe for Disappointment

Starring Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter, Gal Gadot. Directed by Zack Snyder. (2016).

At this point, it's probably a given that Batman v Superman will enjoy a phenomenally lucrative opening weekend when finally released in March 2016. It wouldn't matter if the entire film consisted of an overweight guy in a Batsuit mowing his lawn for two hours. The brand names alone practically guarantees rabid fans worldwide will arrive in droves, having spent the last couple of years working themselves into a frenzy over this long-awaited match-up.

There will probably be a lot of cosplayers at the premier, a ritual I never understood considering they'll be spending two hours in the dark. But hey, I'm of a different generation and it's a different era, when it's now cool to let your geek flag fly. So who am I to judge?

Some of of the less-obsessive-but-still-curious will show up, perhaps wondering how well Ben Affleck fits the cowl only a few years after Christian Bale hung it up. Those people are likely to be the least disappointed in that respect, because what made the Dark Knight Trilogy the definitive superhero franchise had less to with Bale than it did Christopher Nolan.

Then there's Batman's supposed foe, Superman, previously rebooted in the polarizing Man of Steel. Some fans loved it, others (myself included) despised its descent into CGI overkill with a final act which played more like a Transformers sequel, not-to-mention pointlessly rehashing Superman's origins and turning young Clark Kent into a brooding loner. Even those who champion the film have to admit no recent superhero movie has sparked more love-it-or-loathe it debates (though one could make a strong case for The Dark Knight Rises).

For better or worse, Man of Steel has become the springboard for Warner Bros' attempt to emulate Marvel's incredibly lucrative Cinematic Universe. Like Disney's recent acquisition of Marvel, WB has owned DC comics for years, but based on what I've seen of the trailers, Dawn of Justice reeks of an desperate attempt to play catch-up, loading it with enough heroes and villains for a half dozen movies. Not only is Warner Bros burdened with re-introducing yet-another Batman before the corpse of the old one is even cold, they're throwing Wonder Woman, Aqua-Man and Cyborg into the mix, bringing back most of the major characters from Man of Steel (including General Zod, apparently back from the dead) and adding Lex Luthor for the cherry-on-top. The whole thing is already threatening to collapse under the weight of its own ambitions before we've even discussed a story which would make it plausible how these characters would even occupy the same space.

Is there even going to be room for a story that's more than a checklist of DC's greatest hits? Were these other minor heroes in the DC canon written into this film because the story actually needs them, or are they simply gratuitous appearances so mindless masses can clasp their hands and say, "Ooh! There's Wonder Woman!" without ever contemplating why they're being shoe-horned into a film that's supposedly a stand-off between DC's two biggest characters? Wouldn't that be the same blatant product-placement as prominently placing a Pepsi machine in the middle of an action scene?

Yeah, she's hot. But is she relevant?

It makes one wonder why Warner Bros. didn’t simply bite the bullet and call this the Justice League movie they’ve obviously had a hard-on for ever since reading the opening weekend box-office reports of Marvel’s The Avengers.

At least Marvel appeared to have a master plan from the beginning, establishing most of their major characters in at-least one previous film before tossing them together for The Avengers. The considerable amount of audience and critical goodwill generated by the first Iron Man, Captain America and Thor movies practically guaranteed The Avengers would be huge, especially with someone as narratively skilled as Joss Whedon at the helm. The only way to fuck it up would have been to replace Robert Downey Jr. with Adam Sandler and hand the directorial chores to Michael Bay or Zack Snyder. Speaking of which...

There was once a time when I thought Zack Snyder was a promising director, defying all odds by helming a remake of one of horror cinema's most-scared cows, Dawn of the Dead. Not only was it a solid film, it was more of a re-imagining than a true remake, with a lot of surprises and nasty tricks up its sleeve. His follow-up, 300, was also noteworthy for its technical brilliance and surreal imagery. Considering the story's graphic novel origins, Snyder's approach to the material was supremely effective.

Since then, however, he's fallen in love with style over substance, more concerned with bombast and spectacle than telling a truly compelling story. He may have brought Watchmen to life, but that doesn't mean he brought life to Watchmen. Sucker-Punch was nothing more than a misogynist, adolescent male fantasy. As for Man of Steel...it is a story that didn’t need to be retold, this time mashing-up Snyder's penchant for CGI overkill with Christopher Nolan’s 'dark' take on a superhero legend to superficially create a bloated film that is utterly joyless.

Think of some of the directors involved in the MCU so far...Jon Favreau, Joss Whedon, Shane Black, Joe Johnston, Kenneth Branagh, the Russo Brothers. They have one thing in common...the understanding that all the visual fireworks in the world don’t amount to much if the story and characters take a backseat.

But Zack Snyder has since-become the latest incarnation of Michael Bay....each film bigger, longer and louder than the last. He’s fallen from the higher faith and joined the dark side. Yet Snyder is the one primarily in charge of the entire DC Cinematic Universe (including the upcoming, ominously titled, Justice League, Parts I & II), despite the rickety franchise foundations laid down by Man of Steel. Sure, the film made a ton of money. But pure profit has never been an indication whether or not a movie is any good. Avatar is currently the biggest moneymaker in history, but how often do you run into anyone today who thinks it's a great film?

How Donald Trump pictures himself.

Do I hope Batman v Superman movie is any good? Of course I do. No true film fan goes to a movie rooting for it to suck. But so far, I’ve seen no indication which suggests otherwise. I was burned before by Man of Steel’s promise of an epic and dramatic variation on the Superman legend, only to fall asleep in the theater after it turned out to be nothing but visual chest-thumping. Maybe it’s my age, but I personally like to give a shit about the characters I’ve paid ten bucks to spend two hours with before the mayhem ensures. Regarding Batman v Superman, from the recent trailers that have been pointlessly over-analyzed frame-by-frame, I’ve seen nothing which makes me want to be first in line in March. It looks like another cynical exercise in spectacle, counting on brand name recognition and the gullibility of zealous fans who’ll blindly hand over their hard-earned cash for the promise of mindless action and product placement.

I'm also wary of the fact this is the first live-action film featuring Batman interacting with characters with supernatural abilities. For me, part of the appeal of the Batman films (even the awful ones directed by Joel Schumacher) was the fact that nobody actually had any inherent superpowers. In the end, Batman himself was still a human facing off with other humans. That tenuous tie to reality is what always kept the franchise grounded into something that seemed superficially plausible. That's all gone now. Batman is now hobnobbing with aliens and demigods. While I know this has been part of the comic book franchise for years, part of me is sad that future Batman films are likely to go in that direction too. Considering how effectively Christopher Nolan presented Batman as someone who could conceivably exist in our world (to the point where even the staunchest movie critics took him seriously), Batman v Superman seems like a big step backwards.

I hope I’m wrong, of course. Despite inevitable cynicism that comes with age, as a movie fan, I’m truly rooting for Affleck to totally nail the Batman character in a way no one ever has before (it'll make up for the fact Henry Cavill as Superman is as compelling as cat food). I’d love for Zack Snyder to pull his head out of his ass long enough to remember what makes a classic epic film involves much more than hyperkinetic CGI and countless brand-name characters.

Still, countless fanboys have already decided Batman v Superman will be, by default, the greatest superhero film of all time, and many of them absolutely DO NOT WANT to hear anything to the contrary.

Case in point...not too long ago, I watched the first teaser trailer for Batman v Superman and was decidedly unimpressed. When I expressed my opinion on the Facebook page of a site I sometimes write for, you’d have thought I just pissed on The Pope. Countless people called me a troll or a hater, simply because my opinion differed from their personal anticipation of the film. Others tried in vain to convince me that my assessment of the trailer is simply wrong.

Batman v Superman is literally months from being released. Whether it ends up being the cynical product I’m predicting or the out-of-body experience its fans are expecting, that fact remains none of us know how this movie will turn out. Fanboys reading this can argue, debate and speculate to their hearts’ content, but until they're staring up at that screen with popcorn in-hand, they simply have no idea.

After all, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Star Wars Episode I was going to be the greatest film of all time as well. With Star Wars in the title, how could it not be? We worked ourselves into a frenzy of anticipation long before the film came along to utterly deflate our expectations. By the time Episode II came around three years later, most of us were simply hoping it didn't suck.

And that's where I'm at now with Batman v Superman. Yeah, I'll probably catch it in theaters, mostly out of curiosity, not the blind assumption it's going to be stupendous just because they've thrown a few thousand DC superheroes together. At this point, I'm just hoping it doesn't suck as bad as Man of Steel did. Still, I can't help but think there will be more-than-a-few cosplayers shuffling from the theater on opening night, cowls hanging low with a level of disappointment they'll never openly admit to.

Blu-Ray Review: EIGHT MEN OUT

No, Charlie Sheen isn't the star.
Not even close, in fact.

Starring John Cusack, Clifton James, David Strathairn, Christopher Lloyd, Charlie Sheen, Clifton James, D.B. Sweeney, John Mahoney, Michael Rooker, Michael Lerner. Directed by John Sayles. (1988, 117 min).
OLIVE FILMS

"Don't know much about history;
Don't know much about base-ball-o-gy..."

-Sam Cooke...sort of

I hate to admit this, but prior to viewing Eight Men Out, everything I knew about the 1919 Black Sox Scandal (several Chicago White Sox players took payoffs to lose the World Series) came from Field of Dreams. That's probably because I never really liked baseball, but absolutely love movies about baseball. Put a game on TV and I'll be sawing logs by the third inning. Present it on the big screen with sweeping music, expertly-choreographed action and characters whose fates depend on the outcome of a single climactic game...man, I'm hooked every time. There's simply something inherently cinematic about it.

But Eight Men Out isn't one of those inspirational, triumph-of-the-underdog, sports-as-a-metaphor movies. It turns out Shoeless Joe Jackson was not-so-much a crucified major league martyr as an illiterate rube who just happened to be a great ballplayer. And he isn't even central to the story, which focuses mostly on Buck Weaver (John Cusack), who didn't take a payoff and played his best throughout the 1919 World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. As for those who did...some display a certain level of greed, but we are made empathetic to their motivation: White Sox owner Charles Comiskey (Clifton James) is depicted as a frugal miser with little regard for his players' well being off the field. Especially sympathetic is David Strathairn as pitcher Eddie Cicotte, financially forced to throw the games after being denied a promised bonus which would have paid for his children's college. This was an era long before pro athletes were set-for-life simply by signing a contract.

"I know you are, but what am I?"

I'm no expert in baseball history, but the events depicted in Eight Men Out seem pretty authentic, presenting the events as they happened without too much dramatic embellishment. As such, it's a fascinating depiction of what's arguably the very first professional sports scandal, a revealing behind-the-headlines look at the greed involved both on and off the field, as well as the suggestion that the mafia played a large part in fixing the 1919 World Series.

Unlike such aesthetically similar baseball films which transcended their genres to appeal to the masses, such as The Natural or Field of Dreams, it helps to be a fan of the game's history itself, since Eight Men Out aims more for accuracy than a feel-good vibe. In that respect, I feel like I've been both educated and entertained.

BONUS FEATURES:

• Retrospective Documentary - an extensive look back at all aspects of the making of the film (primarily featuring director John Sayles, as well as a few of the supporting actors).
• Audio Commentary by Sayles
• Trailer

KITTY CONSENSUS:

PURR...LIKE A GOOD SCRATCH BEHIND THE EARS

Digital Review: ANT-MAN

Starring Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Evangeline Lilly, Corey Stoll, Bobby Cavannale, Michael Pena, Tip "TI" Harris, Anthony Mackie. Directed by Peyton Reed. (2015, 117 min).
WALT DISNEY

After the bloated Avengers: Age of Ultron, the decidedly more down-to-Earth Ant-Man is a welcome change of pace. Sure, the fate of the world is (sort of) at stake yet again, but not before laying the groundwork with a terrifically entertaining origin story.

Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is a former engineer and recently released ex-con who wants nothing more than to go straight and re-establish a relationship with his daughter. Unfortunately, he can't find work other than helping his former cellmate rob a house by using his skills to break through its security systems. But all he finds is a mechanical suit owned by Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), who arranged the robbery to begin with. This suit shrinks the wearer to insect size, but also magnifies their strength, making it the perfect tool for infiltration, war and espionage. Having been forced out of his own company by apprentice-turned-rival Darren Cross (who's willing to sell his own version of the suit to the highest bidder for nefarious purposes), Pym fears this power falling into the wrong hands, so he recruits and trains Lang to become this "Ant-Man" to stop Cross.

Guess who peed in the shower...

That's the perfunctory story in a nutshell, which has the usual ominous implications standard in any superhero movie. But what makes Ant-Man worthy of mention among the best Marvel movies (the first Iron Man and both Captain America films) are the smaller moments (no pun intended). We really like Scott Lang and empathize with him long before he ever dons the suit. The same goes for Pym and his estranged daughter, Hope (Evangeline Lilly). These three personally have a lot at-stake long before the usual mayhem ensues during the third act. Hell, we even become attached to the insects they've learned to control with Pym's technology.

There are worse things that can happen to a lawn than gophers.

As for the visual effects and action...Ant-Man is simultaneously spectacular and comical. There are the usual fireworks during the final showdown, but the premise leads to a few hilarious bits of product placement which, for once, aren't gratuitous. Best of all, despite some obvious and unavoidable CGI moments, the viewer seldom feels like they're being force-fed spectacle for its own sake.

However, having never read a single comic book in my life, with no prior knowledge of Ant-Man's role in the whole Marvel Universe, I have to say the film's attempts to incorporate the character into the ongoing MCU are dubious at best (these scenes feel pointlessly shoehorned into the plot). From a purely cinematic standpoint, Ant-Man is enjoyable enough on its own terms without the intrusive hints of the character's crossover future. But since I'm probably in the minority on that point, I suppose that's just nitpicking.

BONUS FEATURES:

• 4 "News Clip" Shorts
• Featurette: "Making of an Ant-Man Heist: A How-to Guide"
• 16 Deleted Scenes (some with commentary)
• Gag Reel

KITTY CONSENSUS:

PURR...DESPITE THE UNNECESSARY MCU BAGGAGE, THIS IS A FUN MOVIE.

MINIONS New Mini-Movie "Competition" Premiere

Two Minions compete in a series of escalating games in which both are doomed to lose in the all new mini-movie "Competition" in celebration of the upcoming release of MINIONS on Digital HD on 11/24 and on Blu-ray & DVD on 12/8. This marks the first time a mini-movie from the Despicable Me franchise has been made available in its entirety prior to the home entertainment release.

CHECK IT OUT HERE:

Blu-Ray Review: GOODNIGHT MOMMY

Starring Lukas & Elias Schwartz, Susanne Wuest. Directed by Veronika Franz & Severin Fiala. (2014, 100 min).
ANCHOR BAY

That old saying, the journey is more important than the destination, certainly applies to movies like Goodnight Mommy.

The journey in this Austrian horror film is certainly a strange one. Two twin boys' mother returns home after a horrific accident which has left her face covered in bandages. Her subsequent odd - almost abusive - behavior has them suspecting she's not their real mother at all, and they take measures to find out the truth. Goodnight Mommy is a moody, surreal film with a lot of deliberately ambiguous moments which have us wondering who the true villain is, and suggesting a big plot reveal that will tie everything together. For the most part, though the journey isn't necessarily a fun one, it's fairly fascinating, anchored by a couple of frankly-unnerving performances by Lukas & Elias Schwartz as the twins.

Somebody really sucks at Hide & Seek.

The destination, however, is sort-of a letdown. First of all, the final act descends into minor torture porn which, while suitably disturbing, negates the eerie tone the directors worked so hard to establish early on. Second, sharp-eyed horror fans will likely predict the big twist ending long before it's actually revealed (maybe even within the film's first few minutes).

Despite all that, Goodnight Mommy is never dull (the worst sin a horror film can commit). Writer/directors Veronika Franz & Severin Fiala manage to instill a good amount of dread in the viewer with a minimum of exposition, relying on the creepy imagery and characters' actions to propel the story forward. While there aren't a lot of surprises, it's a journey worth taking at least once.

BONUS FEATURES:
"A Conversation with Filmmakers Veronika Franz & Severin Fiala"

KITTY CONSENSUS:

NOT BAD...LIKE CAT CHOW

DVD Review: THE HUNTING GROUND

Directed by Kirby Dick. (2015, 104 min).
ANCHOR BAY

As a long-time educator in the real world, I like to think I'm instilled with an adequate amount of empathy required to deal with the individual needs of my students on a meaningful level. Granted, it's sometimes difficult, as it is for most people from time to time, to imagine walking a mile in the shoes of others. But shockingly, you'll see no such empathy from the prestigious college institutions exposed in The Hunting Ground.

Of course, any sane individual knows sexual assault is the worst non-homicidal crime one can commit, and it's disturbing how often this apparently happens on campuses all across the country. In this incendiary documentary, countless victims (male and female) offer their horrifying stories of rape & sexual abuse while attending college, where they understandably assumed they’d be safe. But what’s just as obscene is the aftermath, where an overwhelming number of these institutions either attempt to sweep these reported incidents under the rug to protect their reputations, or go on the offensive and turn the tables on the victims, questioning how they were dressed or their level of intoxication at the time.

Much of the focus of the film is on two victims and their efforts to create an awareness of this serious problem, and their fortitude is inspiring. In contrast, we also see what they’re up against...a fraternity system which objectifies women and practically encourages rape amongst their ranks, most effectively demonstrated during a pathetic, caught-on-camera fraternity chant in which its members repeatedly chant “No means yes!” Worst of all, many colleges rely on considerable donations from alumni of those very fraternities, thus turning a blind eye to these incidents and exasperating the problem.

Of course, no representatives of these colleges appear on camera to explain themselves, but at the same time, how do you defend blatant sexual assault in any way, shape or form? Not only that, even the few abusers (often athletes) consequated for their actions are given relative slaps on the wrists in relation to their crimes. The uphill battle the victims face in an effort to get some kind of justice is enormous and enraging.

Still, despite numerous interviews and testimonies which are truly heartbreaking, the film manages to convey a sense of hopeful optimism at times, that this is a societal problem which could be fixed if enough people are made aware of it. Since creating awareness is what the best documentaries are able to do, The Hunting Ground certainly should be seen be everyone at least once. At the very least, they'd come away with a level of empthy these numerous colleges never did.

BONUS FEATURES:

• Additional Stories (of victims)
• Q&A with Annie and Andrea (prominently featured in the film)

KITTY CONSENSUS:

PURR...A FILM EVERYONE SHOULD SEE AT LEAST ONCE

MINIONS Take Homestead-Miami Speedway for the NASCAR Championship!

MIAMI – Minion Mayhem is coming to Miami! The lovable stars of the Universal Pictures and Illumination Entertainment summer blockbuster hit, Minions, will be at the Ford Championship Weekend from November 20-22, it was announced today by Homestead-Miami Speedway. The three Minions – Kevin, Stuart and Bob -- will be a fixture throughout Homestead-Miami Speedway, making appearances with fans and participating in the Ford EcoBoost 400 pre-race ceremonies on Sunday, November 22. Minions will be released November 24 on Digital HD and Blu-ray/DVD on December 8.

Blu-Ray Review: BAD BOYS I & II: 20TH ANNIVERSARY COLLECTION

BAD BOYS
Starring Martin Lawrence, Will Smith, Tea Leoni, Tcheky Karyo, Joe Pantoliano. Directed by Michael Bay. (1995, 119 min).
BAD BOYS II
Starring Martin Lawrence, Will Smith, Gabrielle Union, Jordi Molla, Peter Stormare, Theresa Randle, Joe Pantoliano. Directed by Michael Bay. (2003, 147 min).
SONY

This action-comedy franchise didn't exactly re-invent the wheel, but definitely struck a chord with undemanding action-comedy fans happy to see yet another take the tried-and-true Lethal Weapon formula. Both films have been remastered in 4K and packaged together for this 20th Anniversary Blu-Ray collection (has it already been that long?).

Looking back at both of these films, there's a before-and-after dichotomy that's rather interesting.

The original Bad Boys (while not remotely original) coasted on the appeal of its stars (Martin Lawrence & Will Smith). Both were popular on television, but had not yet proven to be box office draws. Bad Boys changed all that, most likely because of their chemistry together, which went a long way in making the audience forget there isn't much of a story here. Personally, I never thought Lawrence was the least bit funny, and this film didn't change my mind, but he and Smith play off each other pretty well. While their banter is seldom laugh-out-loud funny, it's sometimes mildly amusing.

Most significantly, Bad Boys is the movie which unleashed director Michael Bay on the world. As his first feature film, he trucks out the visual fireworks and hyperactive style he first-honed making music videos, but not to the overwhelming extreme that would soon become his dubious trademark. For the most part, the action is deftly handled and exciting, another factor which helps us forget the plot itself is perfunctory.

"Hey, which one of you is the comic relief?"

Fast forward to 2003, and what a difference eight years makes. By now, Will Smith is one of the biggest stars in the world, with an ego to match. There isn't a single scene in Bad Boys II when he isn't depicted as the coolest dude to ever walk the Earth. Lawrence is still totally unfunny, and the banter between he and his now-much-bigger co-star feels completely forced...almost desperate in its attempt to make us laugh. Some scenes are embarrassingly bad and serve zero narrative purpose, such as the entire mortuary scene involving a female corpse's breasts, as well as these two characters' verbal assault on a 15 year old kid dating Lawrence's daughter.

Worst of all, this is post-Armageddon Michael Bay at the helm, now in full !MICHAEL BAY! mode, ready and willing to forgo what loosely resembles a story in favor of more volume, more boobs, more car chases, more explosions, more seizure-inducing editing, with a deadly-long 147 minute running time. Ultimately, Bad Boys II is a cold, cynical Hollywood product which counts on brand name recognition and audience goodwill to carry it over. Why Smith agreed to do this but later said no to an Independence Day sequel is beyond me.

On the plus side, this is the first time Bad Boys II has ever been available on Blu-Ray, so if you are a fan, you'll be happy to know it's never looked or sound better on home video. It must be said, however, that all of the bonus features for both movies have already been included on previous releases. Despite being the 20th Anniversary of the original Bad Boys, there are no retrospective documentaries or interviews.

BONUS FEATURES:

BAD BOYS (Same as the previous Blu-Ray release)

• Audio Commentary
• Featurette: "Putting the Boom & Bang in Bad Boys"
• 3 Music Videos
• Original Trailers

BAD BOYS II (Though the film is new to Blu-Ray, the bonus features are the same as the DVD release)

• Production Diaries
• 2 Featurettes Focusing on Stunts and Special Effects
• Music Video
• Deleted Scenes
• Original Trailers

KITTY CONSENSUS:

NOT BAD...FOR US, BAD BOYS II IS TRULY HISS-WORTHY, BUT FANS WILL BE HAPPY TO HAVE IT ON BLU-RAY

DIRTY MARY, CRAZY LARRY and the Fifth Nature of Conflict

Starring Peter Fonda, Susan George, Adam Roarke, Vic Morrow, Kenneth Tobey, Roddy McDowell. Directed by John Hough. (1974, 93 min).

Essay by D.M. ANDERSON

While I try to never provide spoilers in an essay or review, in this case it’s a necessary evil. I apologize in advance...

Not too long ago, I was watching the entire Back to the Future trilogy for the umpteenth time. I've always loved that franchise and enjoy a sitting down for a marathon of all three movies every couple of years or so. I often catch some small detail I never noticed before, such as the Roger Rabbit doll in the display window of a 2015 antique shop in Back to the Future Part II (a nod to director Robert Zemeckis' previous film). But sometimes you can watch a beloved movie too much and eventually spot something that suddenly doesn't quite jibe with your inherent common sense.

Unless a film totally insults my intelligence, I generally don't look for lapses in logic, and the best-made movies have a knack for glossing over pesky details that, in the real world, aren't remotely plausible. Still...logistical flaws are eventually bound to surface. In this case, I'm referring to one of the final scenes in Back to the Future Part III, when Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) returns to his own time and manages to leap out of his DeLorean mere seconds before it's smashed to bits by a speeding freight train. Not only is the time machine completely destroyed, the train rolls on without even slowing down.

Either that train is a runaway or it's engineered by a homicidal maniac, because any sane individual at the controls would have hit the brakes the second they nailed something as big as a DeLorean. Granted, trains are massive iron behemoths capable of obliterating damn-near anything in their way, but you'd think anyone occupying the lead engine, even if they weren't looking out the window, would've at-least felt something. Hell, I recently noticed the audible thump of an unfortunate squirrel caught under my wheels during a morning commute. Though I know virtually nothing about the rules and regulations of engineering, I'm pretty damn certain that anyone who keeps choo-chooing along after taking-out a car has no business being in control of a 200 ton locomotive.

So while wrapping up this most recent Back to the Future marathon, I said to my wife, "Hey, how come the train doesn't ever stop? It just obliterated a car."

She shrugged indifferently, either because she was too preoccupied with Facebook or because such a detail doesn't really render the Back to the Future trilogy any less awesome. We're so caught-up in the conclusion of this labyrinthine time-travel tale that we simply never notice that the 'Oblivious Train' development is just a standard, time-honored movie trope.

Only then did I recall similar scenes in other films, such as...

Blue Thunder, where police chopper pilot Frank Murphy deliberately lands the title machine directly in front of a moving train, which literally blows it to pieces. Not only do the locomotive engineers survive the fiery impact unbarbecued, the train continues unabated throughout the end credits.

Then there's Final Destination, in which a speeding train wipes out a stalled car on the tracks, in addition to beheading one of the main characters. Still, the train kept a rollin’ (all night long).

Or how about the subway platform fight scene in The Warriors? A gang member is thrown onto the tracks, just before a train comes along to pancake him without even stopping at the platform to let more passengers onboard. Who the hell's driving the damn thing, Stevie Wonder?

And lets not forget the classic bridge-crossing scene in Stand by Me, in which four boys are halfway across before being forced to run in terror from a steam-driven locomotive right behind them. It makes no attempt to stop or even slow down (though it's moving slow enough to do so). Two kids barely make it, leaping off the bridge as the train chugs onward, oblivious to whether or not they’re okay.

I could go on, but you get the point. Unless they are central to the story, trains are depicted as unstoppable, mindless entities, indifferent to the havoc they wreak...like a giant Bill O’Reilly on wheels.

Dating back to classic Greek literature, there have always been four basic forms of narrative conflict: Man vs. Man, Man vs. Self, Man vs. Society and Man vs. Nature. Nearly every book, movie or play you’d care to name establishes one or more of these conflicts in order to tell its story. With the exception of Man vs. Self, the conflict is external, that of the protagonist forced to overcome an obstacle outside himself. Internal conflict is the biggest bitch (which most-fucked with my head in college literature classes) because the protagonist is usually at-odds with his own marbles.

But I have to wonder what those nutty Greeks would have thought about the nature of conflict if the Oblivious Train was around back then. As an antagonist, the Oblivious Train doesn’t fall under any previously established category. They might have declared Man vs. Train to be the fifth, most nihilistic, nature of conflict, depicting the utter futility of a character’s will to overcome an obstacle.

Why? Because sometimes, out of the blue, shit happens. The Oblivious Train is the result of nothing more than bad timing, yet ultimately a game ender. It’s also a supreme example of both external and internal conflict: external because it’s an outside force, internal because it'll likely bust you apart like a pinata if you happen to be in its way.

Man vs. Train is the ultimate metaphor for ‘shit happens,’ whether a character deserves it or not.

Trains...still undefeated.

As a superlative example, Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry is one of countless car chase movies that were hugely popular on the drive-in circuit in the 1970s. Like most films of its ilk, we’re expected to root for the guy behind the wheel being pursued by police. In this case it's Peter Fonda, still milking his anti-hero status established in Easy Rider. He plays Larry Rayder, a wannabe NASCAR driver who plans to finance a race team by robbing a supermarket with the help of his mechanic, Deke (Adam Roarke). Tagging along is Mary (Susan George), a thrill-seeking groupie who Larry’s been sleeping with. Pursuing the trio is an obsessive sheriff (Vic Morrow as a less comedic version of Buford T. Justice in the Smokey and the Bandit films), thwarted at every turn by these fugitives.

Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry eventually became a minor cult classic, partially because it earned Quentin Tarantino’s seal of approval, but also because it’s very well made for high-speed drive-in fodder, loaded with expertly-choreographed chases and stunts. By this time, Fonda had the whole anti-establishment schtick down pat...a total rebel while still remaining somewhat likeable. George's character, despite being complete white trash, oozed a sleazy brand of sex appeal much-appreciated by us impressionable young boys in the audience (I think I was 13 or 14 when I first watched it as the second half of a double bill).

But what ultimately renders Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry especially memorable is the ending. Despite the protagonists being criminals, we find ourselves rooting for them through one thrilling car chase after another. It’s 90 minutes of silly audience-rousing amusement right up until the final scene, when a cinematic sucker-punch completely negates all the fun we’ve been having. After a particularly harrowing car/helicopter chase through a walnut grove (the highlight of the film), our three protagonists manage to elude the police and emerge victorious with their ill-gotten supermarket bounty. As they’re speeding down the road, laughing in celebration, their car is nailed at a railroad crossing by a speeding freight train. The car explodes and they’re instantly killed. The Oblivious Train continues onward as the end credits roll.

Sitting in the audience back in the 70s, we were stunned. This train (with absolutely no foreshadowing) came out of nowhere and completely changed the entire tone of the film in a split second. Instead of exiting the theater cheered by Peter Fonda’s stick-it-to-the-man mantra, we’re cruelly reminded that, sometimes, shit happens. There are random elements beyond our control that simply don’t give a damn about man’s struggle with nature, society or himself.

Perhaps that’s why, in movies, the Oblivious Train always keeps rolling down the tracks even after killing our protagonists or creating fiery destruction. Not-so-much a logistical story flaw, maybe the narrative nature of Man vs. Train is meant to serve as a metaphorical (and nihilistic) reminder that even an individual’s most epic struggle, internally or externally, can be abruptly altered by a random twist of fate.

Because, hey...shit happens.