Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Movies

    Jim Abrahams Brought Timeless Gags to “Airplane!” and More

    With the death of Jim Abrahams, one third of the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker writing and directing trio, a looks at some of the funniest moments from their key films.It’s almost hard to believe that at one point Leslie Nielsen was thought of as a serious actor who was an odd choice to play a comic role like the deadpan doctor in the disaster movie spoof “Airplane!”But casting the unflappable Nielsen to deliver lines like “I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley” in response to the completely reasonable phrase, “Surely you can’t be serious,” was part of the brilliance of Jim Abrahams, who died Tuesday at the age of 80. Along with David and Jerry Zucker, his pals from his youth in Wisconsin, Abrahams was a pioneer of some of the most beloved, gleefully over-the-top comedies in cinema history.Nielsen delivering his “don’t call me Shirley” line in “Airplane!”Paramount Pictures, via Everett CollectionThe Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker movies took their extreme silliness extremely seriously. Their actors, like Nielsen, were as committed to the bit as they were. With a few exceptions — like the kidnapping comedy “Ruthless People” (1986) — the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker mode was parody, taking genres that audiences loved and deliciously skewering them. But their humor was so undeniable that even if you didn’t know what they were making fun of you could lose your breath laughing.When my parents sat me down at a young age to watch “Airplane!,” I had never seen any of the flicks it was riffing on, like “Airport” (1970) or “The Poseidon Adventure” (1972), the latter of which also featured Nielsen. Instead, I was captivated by the sheer absurdity and sometimes perplexing strangeness. The quotable lines are legion, but the bizarrely funny images are also why “Airplane!” lingers so large in the cultural memory.For me, it’s the eggs. During the flight where nothing can seem to go right, Nielsen’s Dr. Rumack attends to a woman who is feeling ill. With ominous music in the background he starts gently, but firmly extracting a series of eggs from her mouth. After the third one comes out, he cracks it against the side of a cup. A little bird flies out. The tension that exists in the scene is real and almost frightening, the woman’s face contorting like something out of a horror film, but the end result is just so ridiculous.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 63 Shares129 Views

    in Movies

    ‘Sweethearts’ Review: Friends Without Benefits

    Two college freshmen conspire to simultaneously dump their exes in Jordan Weiss’s unremarkable debut feature.Bright, breezy and requiring little in the way of close attention, the teen rom-com “Sweethearts” is perfect for those who prefer their movies to be barely more than background noise. Otherwise, the lame plotting (by Dan Brier and Jordan Weiss, who also directs) and lack of jokes soon become painfully obvious.Even so, this direct-to-streaming bauble benefits from two leads whose charm effortlessly outshines the material. Kiernan Shipka and Nico Hiraga play Jamie and Ben, friends since childhood and now freshmen at the same college. Both are feeling hobbled by their high-school sweethearts, whose incessant sexting is ruining their enjoyment of college life. Deciding to dump these millstones, Ben and Jamie head home to Ohio for Thanksgiving and a spectacularly convoluted plan to free themselves from their romantic pasts.Though embodying a rather sweet message about finding community and healing the scars of high school, “Sweethearts” is more often vulgar than funny. A gentle but unnecessary subplot involving the public coming-out of a close friend (Caleb Hearon) at least allows the fine Tramell Tillman to low-key capture some scenes as a gay football coach. Likewise the talented comedian Sophie Zucker, who makes the most of her too-brief appearances as Jamie’s mouthy hometown nemesis.Like so many movies these days, “Sweethearts” languishes for the want of a decent screenplay. You can’t just shoehorn in clips from “When Harry Met Sally” (1989) and hope some of that film’s magic rubs off.SweetheartsRated R for flying urine and a flaccid full-frontal. Running time: 1 hour 38 minutes. Watch on Max. More

  • 63 Shares169 Views

    in Movies

    ‘Reinas’ Review: Memories of Lima

    The political turmoil of Peru in the 1990s serves as the backdrop for this intimate domestic drama about growing up and learning to let go.To this day, political violence continues to be an issue in Peru, though the ‘80s and ’90s — when the Maoist guerrilla movement Shining Path waged bloody conflicts against the Peruvian government before being crushed by President Alberto Fujimori — are considered the country’s rock-bottom.“Reinas,” by the Swiss-Peruvian filmmaker Klaudia Reynicke, takes place during this tumultuous period. For most of the running time, it keeps politics on the margins, like a phantom presence looming over the members of one bourgeois family’s everyday lives.The principal characters are two sisters, the teenage Aurora (Luana Vega) and her younger sister, Lucia (Abril Gjurinovic), both of whom can’t entirely wrap their heads around why their mother, Elena (Jimena Lindo), wants so desperately to leave Lima.Preventing their departure is the girls’ estranged father Carlos (Gonzalo Molina), a taxi driver who decides to reconnect with his daughters on hearing that Elena might soon whisk them away to the United States. Both parents must sign a notarized form for their children to leave the country, but Carlos stalls, and his renewed interest in the family gives Aurora (whose world seems to revolve around her friends and the beach) hope that she might be able to stay behind with him.More compelling than this somewhat unconvincing family dynamic, structured around the coming-of-age arc and the trite theme of learning to let go, is the film’s intimate sense of time and place, and the subtly effective manner by which the grim social context is made known (such as a citywide curfew and sugar shortage). Seemingly inconsequential moments — like a cozy house party scene — shine with loving specificity, making the perpetual return to the Carlos drama feel dutiful. In this case, thematic focus is bit of a buzz kill, pulling an otherwise unique portrait onto generic grounds.ReinasNot rated. In Spanish, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 44 minutes. In theaters. More

  • 88 Shares109 Views

    in Movies

    ‘Nutcrackers’ Review: A Bumpy Ben Stiller Christmas

    Ben Stiller stars in a tonally bumpy comedy with genre roots in Hallmark territory.If you tilt your head and squint, “Nutcrackers” resembles a Hallmark movie, though it certainly is not one. Michael (Ben Stiller), a big-city real estate guy, is on the verge of closing the deal of a lifetime when he’s called away from Chicago to rural Ohio. There, his estranged sister and her husband have died tragically, leaving behind four feral nephews to whom he is now technically guardian. He intends to stay just long enough to get them placed in foster homes, but mischief of all kinds ensues. Also, Christmas is in three weeks. You can see where this is going.The best part of “Nutcrackers,” directed by David Gordon Green, is those four kids, whose easy demeanor with one another makes them feel less like child actors, more like a pack of little hooligans who happened to wander onto set. They come by it naturally, presumably, since in real life, they’re brothers (delightfully named Homer, Ulysses, Atlas and Arlo Janson). The movie’s most clever line readings and funniest bits are all them, and I’d love to know how much they improvised and deviated from the screenplay.That screenplay, by Leland Douglas, lacks imagination. It’s a mash-up of the often feminine-coded Hallmark formula and its closest variants are “Garden State” or “Elizabethtown,” in which a world-weary guy finds himself in small town life. So two minutes into the movie, it’s obvious what will happen: This mean metropolitan man will come to grudgingly enjoy, then love, both his nephews and small-town life; a lady will happen along (in this case, the social worker, played by Linda Cardellini); and probably they’ll figure out how to save Christmas or enjoy its true meaning or whatever. The pattern is set in stone, seemingly since the dawn of time.There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a formula, especially one that has been so richly successful and beloved as the Hallmark one. Clearly the idea of the urbanite who can only regain their soul away from the hustle and bustle taps into some vein of desire or anxiety in audiences. It’s what makes the movies comfort viewing: You always know what will happen, and they make you feel like the world is a safe and good place.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Movies

    ‘Beatles ’64’ Review: They Wanted to Hold Their Hands

    This documentary, directed by David Tedeschi, comes up with a solid compendium of the band’s arcana from their first trip to the United States, when fans went wild.Few cultural events of the 20th century have withstood as much scrutiny as the Beatles’ first trip to the United States, but the documentary “Beatles ’64,” directed by David Tedeschi, a frequent collaborator of Martin Scorsese’s, comes up with a solid compendium of Beatlemania arcana.Tedeschi (“The 50 Year Argument”) revisits the excitement surrounding the Fab Four’s arrival through the eyes of early fans. Among the more unlikely Beatles enthusiasts who appear is the filmmaker David Lynch, who attended the band’s 1964 concert at Washington Coliseum and remembers music that could inspire “tears of happiness.”The writer Jamie Bernstein recalls a childhood crush on George Harrison. Her ardor surely helped convince her father, the composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein, to weigh in on the merits of rock ’n’ roll: “I think this music has something terribly important to tell us adults,” he says in an archival clip. The musician Smokey Robinson describes being “elated” when the Beatles covered “You’ve Really Got a Hold on Me,” even though, he says, he didn’t know about it until the record came out. “There are a billion songs on earth, man,” he says. “To just have somebody like the Beatles, who are great songwriters themselves — out of that billion songs, to take one of my songs and record it? I can’t beat that as a songwriter.”The present-day footage can seem self-reflexive to the point of parody: Paul McCartney gives the documentary team a tour of the Brooklyn Museum’s Paul McCartney exhibition. Ringo Starr is shown hanging out with Scorsese, a producer on this documentary and the director of a previous one on Harrison.But with respect to Harrison’s status as the quiet Beatle, the quiet star of “Beatles ’64” is superb footage by the brothers Albert and David Maysles, to whom the film is dedicated, and who trailed the Beatles during those two weeks. (They made their own 1964 documentary, “What’s Happening! The Beatles in the U.S.A.,” out of the material.) Watching the band in the Plaza Hotel and fans in the streets, hoping to catch a glimpse of their idols, you can’t help but get swept up in a 60-year-old fervor.Beatles ’64Not rated. Running time: 1 hour 46 minutes. Watch on Disney+. More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Movies

    Jim Abrahams, 80, Dies; One of Trio Behind ‘Airplane!’ and ‘Naked Gun’

    Along with David and Jerry Zucker, he revolutionized film comedy with a style of straight-faced, fast-paced parody.Jim Abrahams, who with the brothers David and Jerry Zucker surely comprised one of the funniest trios of comedy writers in film history, layering on the yucks in classics like “Airplane!” and “Naked Gun,” died on Tuesday at his home in Santa Monica, Calif. He was 80.His son Joseph said the death was from complications of leukemia.Mr. Abrahams and the Zucker brothers — often known around Hollywood as the “men from ZAZ” — revolutionized film comedy with their brand of straight-faced, fast-paced parodies of self-serious dramas like 1970s disaster films and police procedurals.Along the way they littered pop culture with a trail of one liners seemingly custom-cut to drop into daily conversation: “Have you ever seen a grown man naked?” “Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.” And “Nice beaver!”Their films spawned an entire genre of spoof comedy, many of them pale, scruffy comparisons to the tight scripts and cleverly paced plots that gave the ZAZ films their punch.The trio shared writing credits on five films, starting with “Kentucky Fried Movie” (1977), a compilation of parody sketches that grew out of a comedy show they developed after college in Madison, Wis., and took to Los Angeles in 1972.The idea for their second film, “Airplane!” (1980), came after watching a 1957 thriller called “Zero Hour!” about an ill-fated passenger plane on which the crew are stricken with food poisoning, forcing one of the passengers, a psychologically scarred ex-pilot, to take control.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Movies

    ‘Queer’ Review: The Seductive, Damaged Charm of Daniel Craig

    The star kills off his Bond to inhabit a dissolute American expat in Luca Guadagnino’s handsome adaptation of the William S. Burroughs novella.When William Lee stalks through Mexico City in “Queer,” he often seems on high alert, though sometimes he’s just high. The louche protagonist in Luca Guadagnino’s soft-serve adaptation of the William S. Burroughs autobiographical novella, Lee is a smoker, drinker, heroin addict and epic storyteller. He’s a refugee from America who at times seems like a visitor from another dimension. Played with sensitivity and predatory heat by Daniel Craig, Lee has a feverish mind, eyes like searchlights and a mouth that’s quick to sneer. There are moments when he seems possessed, though it’s not often clear what’s taken hold of his soul.As in the book, the movie follows Lee during an adventure that takes him from Mexico circa 1950 further south — to Panama, Ecuador and parts distinctly unknown — only to bring him back to where he began or thereabouts. The novella runs a scant 160 or so pages, and while it’s crammed with incisive details, characters and observations, the story is fairly compressed and, for the most part, focuses on Lee’s preoccupation with another American, Eugene Allerton (Drew Starkey), a tall, good-looking veteran. Lee first sees him gawking at a street cockfight, a distinctly Guadagnino take on what romantic stories call the meet cute.It’s rapture at first sight, at least for Lee, who’s soon chasing Allerton across the city. The younger man coyly, coolly, keeps Lee at a distance until they fall into bed. Guadagnino stages and shoots their encounter with discreet intimacy and pretty lighting, imbuing it with longing. This sensitivity may seem surprising given the outrageous visions, including a talking anus, that fill Burroughs’s most famous novel, the phantasmagoric “Naked Lunch” (1959). Yet desire suffuses his “Queer,” which he began writing in 1952, some six months after he fatally shot his wife, Joan Vollmer, during a horrifying, calamitously drunken game of William Tell.Burroughs remains best known as one of the coolest cats in the Beats; it was Jack Kerouac who suggested the title for “Queer.” Burroughs came from money, had a difficult past, sartorial flair, a hypnotically droning voice and a sinister aura. “He’s up there with the pope,” Patti Smith said. “Without Burroughs,” Lou Reed said, “modern lit would be a drama without a page, a sonnet without a song and a bone without gristle.” Burroughs, who died in 1997, and Kurt Cobain collaborated on a project, and Nirvana is featured on the soundtrack, suggesting Burroughs’s reach. He was a classic American figure: the nonconformist as cult.The most unconventional thing about the Lee in Guadagnino’s version of “Queer” is that he’s played by Craig, who, of course, is famous as the most recent James Bond. It’s understandable that Craig would seek out roles that put distance between him and Bond, a glossy cartoon of masculinity. It’s both startling and funny when, early in “Queer,” Lee enthusiastically claps a hand on the naked butt of an unnamed guy (Omar Apollo), a moment that Guadagnino presents in close-up so that the backside all but fills the screen, becoming a monumental landscape of desire. Craig isn’t just committing to this role; he is also throttling his Bond.Written by Justin Kuritzkes, who wrote Guadagnino’s “Challengers,” “Queer” follows the novella fairly faithfully, though with customary and unexpected liberties. Lee pursues Allerton, and they become involved amid a blur of drinking, partying and talking. (Jason Schwartzman pops up as Joe, a lampoon of Allen Ginsberg that borders on the offensive.) In time, Lee and Eugene take off for South America to find what Lee calls yagé (the hallucinogen ayahuasca), a mystery drug with potential powers. The trip is by turns brutal and tender, and ends in a jungle where they meet an ayahuasca expert, Dr. Cotter (Lesley Manville), and her husband (the filmmaker Lisandro Alonso), who fling open the doors of perception.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Music

    Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Is Denied Bail a Third Time

    A federal judge ruled against the music mogul’s efforts to be released from jail while he awaits trial on sex trafficking and racketeering charges.Sean Combs, the embattled music mogul who has been charged with sex trafficking and racketeering, was denied bail again on Wednesday after a federal judge rejected his lawyers’ third attempt to challenge his detention.Judge Arun Subramanian wrote in the order that prosecutors had presented evidence of Mr. Combs’s propensity for violence and that he had violated jail regulations by trying to obscure his communications with the outside world.The judge wrote that “there is evidence supporting a serious risk of witness tampering.”The decision orders Mr. Combs to remain at the Metropolitan Detention Center, a hulking federal facility on the Brooklyn waterfront, until his trial, which is scheduled for May. Mr. Combs, 55, has been detained since his arrest in September after a nearly 10-month federal investigation.After Mr. Combs’s arrest, his lawyers offered a robust bail package that they argued was more than sufficient to assuage the court’s concerns about the risks of his release. They offered a $50 million bond, secured by Mr. Combs’s Florida mansion and said that Mr. Combs would pay for round-the-clock security, with visitors restricted to family. Apart from contact with his lawyers, he would have no access to phones or the internet.Prosecutors asserted that there was no way the government could trust that private security guards, paid for by Mr. Combs, could be depended on to prevent efforts toward obstructing justice, which, they argued, he had been engaging in before and after his indictment.Judge Subramanian agreed, writing in the order that “the Court doubts the sufficiency of any conditions that place trust in Combs and individuals in his employ — like a private security detail — to follow those conditions.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More