Pee Wee’s Big Holiday, a Holiday Present for Fans

This blog should not just be about movies shown currently in theatres. For one reason, movies tickets are expensive and neither I nor you can go each week to see the latest thing. For another, so much of the great movies we love, we see secondhand on TV, sometimes years later. Netflix and other streaming services has helped with this and they even add their own original content on a regular basis. I feel like I wouldn’t be doing this blog right if I didn’t write about it a little bit.

One of the things Netflix does is resurrect old series to play the nostalgia angle. Whether or not you like it, nostalgia is a big moneymaker and sometimes it can work. This month Netflix released Pee Wee’s Big Holiday. Paul Reubens has played his man-child character before in feature films and on his eponymous TV show. He has since been known for getting into trouble with the law (the less said, the better) and many people may think of him that way, but he also happens to be a brilliantly funny comedian. This is true outside of Pee Wee Herman, on a first season episode of 30 Rock, Reubens guest starred as a prince in an episode that, for the first time with that show, embraced a certain absurdity that later became its trademark.

We may call this brand of humor camp. It’s weird, outrageous and may not make sense. It has a lot of physical gags, exaggerated personalities, puns, non sequitirs, distortions of reality, madcap adventures, silly costumes like a real-life cartoon which is exactly what Pee Wee Herman is. He is blind and oblivious to the world around him for better or worse.

Vroom, vroom bitches!

 

But that’s old news. In many ways, Pee Wee’s Big Holiday feels the same. Pee Wee finds life in his idyllic, small town a little dull until a mysterious stranger, whom Pee Wee doesn’t know is Joe Manganiello shows up and they become fast friends. But when Joe invites Pee Wee to his birthday party in NYC, Pee Wee has to travel outside of his humble hamlet for the first time.

“Triple cool!”

 

The plot is a little contrived and the misadventures are weak and fall too flat for my liking, but it’s still funny. The friend moments between Joe and Pee Wee are some of the sillier parts of this movie. My favorite parts are casual jokes about Pee Wee’s somewhat ambiguous sexuality, which has been a guess for some four decades. When Pee Wee has no idea who Joe is, Joe starts naming movies, asking if Pee Wee has seen Magic Mike, “you’d think so, but no.” Damn funny joke.

Bromance? I don’t know…

 

Pee Wee gets a little meta and can play with its own ridiculousness in this movie. I won’t say it’s great, but it’s silly, fun and enjoyable. If you grew up watching Big Top Pee Wee or Pee Wee’s Big Advenure or Pee Wee’s Playhouse, I’m sure you’ll love it.

What show, movie or characters from the 80s or 90s do you think Netflix will resurrect next?

 

Take A Ride With Maggie Smith: The Lady in the Van

The Maggie Smith film The Lady in the Van is different from the other films I’ve posted about on this site. I did an action movie, a comedy and a family film. This is a drama (or some may say dark comedy) and British. Many Americans aren’t used to seeing British movies, it takes some getting used to. Most audiences will recognize Smith from the Harry Potter movies and Downton Abbey, but she is a phenomenal actress who within the past 15 years or so (though she’s never really gone anywhere) has had a renaissance in her career.

 

Smith is known for playing dodgy, old ladies. Her age may give her a somewhat limited range is who she can play, but never in what she can play. Smith is one of the most versatile actresses on the planet, and make no mistake, this is her movie. She can be equal parts tough and vulnerable, strong and weak, giddy and curmudgeonly, hilarious and heartbreaking all in one movie. The title character in this film is one of the whackier old biddies she’s played.

WHEEEEEE!!!!

Mary Shepard is a homeless woman who lives like a packrat in her run-down van in one of the more fashionable streets in London. The denizens of the neighborhood treat her with curiosity, contempt and ignorance. Yet she forms a bond with playwright Alan Bennett under fear of arrest parks her van in his driveway where she stays for some 16 years.

“So I flirted to get out of a ticket, don’t be jealous.”

Bennett forms a bond with this old lady and we’re left to wonder why. Are they both antisocial outcasts? Ms. Shepard is one for obvious reasons, she smells from never bathing, she lashes out at almost everyone, and claims to speak to the Virgin Mary. Bennett happens to be a gay man and protects Ms. Shepard (though he asserts doesn’t care for her) out of a sense of guilt he feels from not caring for his own elderly, senile mother. The two aren’t exactly friends, but the two are the closest either one has to a real friend.

Meanwhile we are given snippets of Mary’s life leading up to her decision to live in a van. Smith can play comedy, such as during a wheelchair ride down the hill of the street and painting her van a garish, bright yellow. She can play fear, such as when a mysterious stranger pounds on the van in the middle of the night, or when a gang nearly tips the vehicle over. She plays anger, cutting Alan to pieces when he goes through her belongings. She plays an intense sorrow and sympathy, when disabled and near the end of her life, she allows a social worker to take her to a day center to bathe her.

“You don’t like it, do you?”

I won’t give the details of the plot away. This film can get dry and stuffy at times and the plot moves somewhat slowly. Yet there is an authenticity to the film; it was based off a true story. One recurring element is the bits of shit (presumably Mary’s) Bennett finds in his driveway.

Funny Shit

 

It’s an odd story. I am always weary of films that try to balance comedy and drama, because they so often fail at a difficult task. Too funny and the dramatic parts of the film can come on too strong and out of nowhere, or not taken seriously. Too sad and serious and no amount of comedy can save you from the blues. This film manages it quite well.

Somebody better call Hoarders

 

It is also a moving story, largely because of Smith’s performance. Overall, this outshines much of the storytelling, unfortunately. I guess it’s just so-so. However, I think that if you’re the kind of viewer who enjoys actors acting, you won’t be disappointed by one of the best at the top of her game.

Disney’s Jungle Book Remake Done Right

This weekend I indulged my inner child by eating candy while seeing Disney’s new adaptation of the Jungle Book. Disney is starting a trend of doing live action of their old animated movies. While the magic of CGI and computer animation brings up the question of exactly how live action these films really are, they add a “real-life” feeling to the story, even if the story does not change much. I have mixed feelings about Disney’s master plan but the Jungle Book seems like the perfect choice for it.

That’s not to say that the story’s tone or narrative style doesn’t change. It is a bit darker, and more grown up than the animated version. Small kids might find moments in the film a bit too scary. And for good reason. A vicious tiger is after Mowgli and will stop at nothing. Life is tough in the jungle. It’s a eat-or-be-eaten-world of survival. The colors of the computer world are very earth toned, not bright and happy. Greens, browns and grays. The movie can play out like an action film. The fights themselves are choreographed and filmed in an epic fashion. One brief moment with Shere Khan reminds me of the action movie 300.

One example is the character of King Louie. Louie lives in a gargantuan ancient temple with what seems like slave monkeys at his control, who push Mowgli around and fight Baloo and Bagheera. When Louie comes out from the shadows, he is presented as a gigantopithecus (basically a monstrous orangutan) and voice actor Christopher Walken adds a sinister quality to him and his power lust for fire that sync up well with the wide blue eyes. Later, he chases Mowgli through the mazelike temple, destroying it in his path. This is one of the scarier scenes in the film.

For comparison, here’s Louie from 1967.

Not is not to say that the film does not include its happier moments. Bill Murray as Baloo gives plenty of laughs, including one that had me in stitches for a solid 30 seconds.

But be forewarned that there are heavy moments in the movie. The characters of Raksha and Bagheera add a parental element to, what is ultimately a coming-of-age story. Disney loves their coming-of-age plots: a crisis or threat, trying to run away, and ultimately returning as a man (Lion King and Frozen anyone?)

Ultimately what made this movie very enjoyable for me was how well it was casted. Neel Sethi makes for a good Mowlgi, giving childlike sass, glee and ultimate bravery and fearlessness with credibility (even if he does look like Dora the Explorer). But the animals are the stand-outs here. Watching the film I could not help thinking that Bill Murray always did seem somewhat bearlike, likewise monkeylike for Walken. Scarlett Johansson as Kaa is so mesmerizing, the audience is hypnotized with Mowgli. Who knew a python could be sexy? Perhaps this picture isn’t the best example but…

I think that most audiences will enjoy it. Adults with Disney nostalgia still will get The Bear Necessities and I Wanna Be Like You along with some action and deeper things as well. It might be an interesting idea to watch the 1967 original and this newest version back to back for a little fun.

Have any of you seen it? What did you think? Please like, share and leave comments.

Until next time…enjoy the simple bear necessities of life.

Why I didn’t Love the Hateful Eight

Okay, okay…so I know this movie came out some time ago, but I’ve been wanting to say something about Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight for a while now. It’s now out on Blu-ray and DVD so if you don’t mind indulging me a little while I get this off my chest.

Tarantino has been making movies for a long time now…25 years at least. He’s one of the industry’s biggest success stories, but always maintained the image of an outsider–and for good reason–there’s no one else quite like Tarantino. His style is bold and brash. His dialogue is unforgettable, but that doesn’t begin to scratch the surface. Tarantino loves violence. Throughout his career we’ve seen

• a man shot in the face
• a woman’s eyeball torn out

• a black woman in a hot, metal box
• slaves eaten alive by dogs

• a woman’s arm cut off by a samurai sword
• Lucy Liu’s head by the same sword.

The list goes on.

So it’s safe to assume Tarantino likes his violence, but the question is why do we like it so much? Maybe because it feels different from so much other movie violence that we’ve seen? Pulp Fiction for example, is about gangsters. Casino and The Godfather are also about gangsters, and just as violent, but they seem like two totally different movies.

In The Godfather we start off not by seeing Don Corleone killing mobsters with impunity, but as a family man at his daughter’s wedding. He looks old. His voice is a weak whisper. His body looks clumsy in that tux. Similarly, we start out by seeing his son Michael as the son who does not want to follow the family “business”. Don’t forget the mob world is at peace and the families are in a truce. What makes the violence so shocking is that it relates to a corruption of  a character. We see men like Michael Corleone or Henry Hill from Goodfellas get swept into a mob lifestyle that culminates in violence.

The difference with a Tarantino movie is that his characters are basically cartoons. They start off corrupt.The basic motivator for any Tarantino character is revenge. Look at his most recent films: Uma Thurman in Kill Bill. Shoshanna and the Basterds in Inglourious Basterds and Django in Django Unchained. The interesting thing about this revenge set-up is that we automatically side with one character because we think their quest for revenge is noble. Who among us wouldn’t go after the assassins who killed our baby and the chance for a new life? Who wouldn’t side with a slave trying to get his wife back? Or against freaking Nazis?

That’s my major problem with The Hateful Eight. There is really no character to root for. All of them are awful, duplicitous murderers and liars. The lawman played by Kurt Russell acts self-righteous around southerners for being friends with Samuel L. Jackson, but beats the crap out of prisoner Jennifer Jason Leigh. Samuel L. Jackson’s character Major Marquis Warren carries around a fake letter and one scene shows how crazy and weird his quest for vengeance against a white man gets (no spoilers!)

There are other problems. The pacing, even for a Tarantino film, is slow. We meet each one of these characters one by one and get their basic back story, or all we need to know. Secrets come out. Surprises are revealed. Alliances are broken. There’s murder, murder, murder. A flashback changes all that we think we know. The whole movie seems to me like one of those old Agatha Christie who-dun-it plays…or a really fucked up Murder She Wrote.  Jessica Fletcher drinking the blood of her enemies.

It’s entertaining, but that’s because it’s Tarantino. The pacing lags in places, but the story and characters are compelling enough to keep you watching for the whole 3 hour plus running time. But the ending leaves you disappointed. The pay-off isn’t big enough for all the action leading up to it.

At least, that’s what I think. It’s one theory. I want to know, what do you think? Did you see the movie? Did you love it? Hate it? Do you agree or disagree with what I said? I wanna hear from you. This blog may be called Troxtalks but he listens to. So comment, please share with friends. More posts to come.