Movies

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      Review: In ‘To Leslie,’ an Unflinching Working-Class Elegy

      by

      The small-budget indie is a complex portrait of the ways that trauma and addiction haunt an alcoholic mother, and her family, in the South.In gritty detail, “To Leslie” traces the fall of a one-time lottery winner who, years later, has lost everything she holds dear. The British actress Andrea Riseborough (“Nancy”) gives a deft performance as Leslie, an alcoholic mother in West Texas barreling toward rock bottom in this deceptively simple yet heart-wrenching character study.Allison Janney, Marc Maron, Owen Teague and Andre Royo fill out the solid ensemble cast in this small-budget indie, which accomplishes what its bigger-budget peer “Hillbilly Elegy” wanted to, but couldn’t pull off: a complex portrait of the ways in which trauma and addiction haunt a working-class white family in the South.The director, Michael Morris, knows from the start what movie he’s making: one that robs us of our easy assumptions about who Leslie is. She’s unbearably flawed, and the screenwriter Ryan Binaco explains why without forcing long beats of exposition upon the viewer. And he does so while still leaving room for surprise. Leslie doesn’t tank her sobriety when we think she will, yet her recovery is free of narrative subterfuge.The cinematography by Larkin Seiple (“Everything Everywhere All At Once”) is a real feat of visual character development: The camera movement is both protective of Leslie and unflinching in its raw portrayal of her vulnerability. Some of the most affecting shots take place at the bar, like one close-up where Leslie spars with the guy who wants to bed her — “Tell me I’m good.” It’s shot with a depth of field that keeps Leslie’s face in focus, while the rest of the frame is blurred.“To Leslie” probably could have left 15 more minutes on the cutting room floor. But its intermittent lags don’t diminish the overall satisfaction one feels in the film’s final act, when Leslie’s rocky road settles into something believably triumphant.To LeslieRated R for explicit language and violence. Running time: 1 hour 59 minutes. Rent or buy on Apple TV, Google Play and other streaming platforms and pay TV operators. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Mr. Harrigan’s Phone’ Review: Are You Still There?

      by

      In this thriller based on a Stephen King story, a lonely student and a lonelier old man make a connection that persists, even after death.With its curmudgeonly swipes at digital technology, there’s something mildly “get off my lawn!” about “Mr. Harrigan’s Phone.” Based on a Stephen King story, the John Lee Hancock movie tells the story of a teenager who appears to receive calls and texts from his mysterious former employer, Mr. Harrigan, who has recently died.Donald Sutherland portrays the reclusive billionaire who hires Craig (Jaeden Martell) to come to his mansion on the outskirts of their Maine town and read to him after school. Craig’s father (Joe Tippett), although not a fan of Harrigan, trusts his son’s moral compass. Whether it will maintain its true north is one of the movie’s intriguing tensions.There’s a bittersweetness to Craig and Harrigan’s friendship and good chemistry between the leads. It’s as if Mr. Potter from “It’s a Wonderful Life” found some nice local kid who had no idea about his mentor’s Bedford Falls history. The analog world, with its hard-bound literature and daily papers, is fundamental in this parable about the lure of digital technology.When Craig enters high school, he becomes the target of a bully, makes friends and finds a champion. The actor Kirby Howell-Baptiste provides a beam of light and the voice of caution as Craig’s science teacher, Ms. Hart. At the same time, the iPhone is making its debut as a must-have status object. With an unexpected windfall, Craig buys one for his old friend.When Harrigan suddenly dies, Craig is shaken. What happens next makes the movie less a chiller than a diverting drama about technology with things that go bump in the night, along with some nicely apt ethical quandaries for Craig — and for us.Mr. Harrigan’s PhoneRated PG-13 for thematic material, some strong language, violence and brief drug exchanges. Running time: 1 hour 44 minutes. Watch on Netflix. More

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Hellraiser’ Review: Hurt Me, Please

      by

      A mystical puzzle box unleashes indescribable agony and knockout special effects in this reimagined horror movie.With its potent blend of sadomasochism, blasphemy and body horror, Clive Barker’s “Hellraiser” (1987) was a genuinely disturbing dip into deviance that multiple sequels failed to replicate. Taking another shot, the suits behind this reimagined “Hellraiser” smartly handed directing duties to David Bruckner, whose résumé might be brief, but whose gift for injecting dread — even into otherwise inert projects — is apparent.Here, Bruckner reveals a new talent: holding his own against practical effects (by a team led by Josh and Sierra Russell) so spectacular that the movie’s lack of a theatrical release is almost criminal. A visual and ideological upgrade on the original, “Hellraiser” centers on Riley (Odessa A’zion), a frazzled addict in her 20s who gains possession of a mysterious puzzle box belonging to Voight (Goran Visnjic), a degenerate millionaire. Configured correctly, the box opens a portal to another dimension, releasing ghoulish creatures called Cenobites who delight in taking the human desire for extreme sensation to its logical conclusion.More intricate and more numerous than their forbears, the Cenobites threaten to steal the show. In particular, Jamie Clayton’s performance as their leader (a role memorably originated by Doug Bradley) has a menacing eroticism that underscores the movie’s thematic focus. Less notable are Riley’s sidekicks, a ho-hum bunch that quickly squanders our patience. And a slack, overlong middle section inside Voight’s mansion — itself an intricately designed puzzle — cries out for a more ruthless editor.As an ambitious allegory for the chaos and torment of addiction, “Hellraiser” works mainly because of A’zion, who gives her scattered character a deeply human desperation. For Riley, demons from hell are hardly scarier than the ones she fights every day.HellraiserRated R for sex, substances and sickening stuff with needles. Running time: 2 hours 1 minute. Watch on Hulu. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      Kitten Natividad, Movie Star in Russ Meyer’s Bawdy World, Dies at 74

      by

      She was top-billed in his final feature, “Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens.” She was also his paramour and, he said, his favorite leading lady.Kitten Natividad, who brought audacity and ample physical attributes to some of the final films of Russ Meyer, whose over-the-top sexploitation movies acquired a certain cachet in some quarters and influenced John Waters, Quentin Tarantino and other directors, died on Sept. 24 in Los Angeles. She was 74.Eva Natividad Garcia, her sister, said the cause was complications of kidney failure.Ms. Natividad had little film experience and was working as a go-go dancer and stripper when, in the mid-1970s, she met Mr. Meyer, who was by then near the end of his notorious filmmaking career.In the 1960s Mr. Meyer, who died in 2004, became known for outlandish films like “Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!” and “Vixen,” most of which featured absurd plots and insatiable naked women with large breasts.According to Jimmy McDonough’s “Big Bosoms and Square Jaws: The Biography of Russ Meyer, King of the Sex Film” (2005), Mr. Meyer was already editing his 1976 feature, “Up!,” when he decided to add a part for a dancer who had been suggested to him by an actress from one of his earlier films. He asked Roger Ebert, the film critic, who was one of the writers of “Up!,” to throw together some dialogue for a character he named the Greek Chorus.“It doesn’t matter what she says,” Mr. Ebert recalled Mr. Meyer saying. “She just has to say something. And it should sound kinda poetic.”The newcomer was Ms. Natividad, and what Mr. Ebert wrote for her paraphrased the Imagist poet Hilda Doolittle.“Armed with Ebert’s lofty gobbledygook,” Mr. McDonough wrote, “Meyer took the New Girl out in the woods, stripped her down, and made her recite all this complex, arcane narration while she hung from trees and hid in bushes.”Mr. Meyer also fell for Ms. Natividad, who was married at the time, and they began a relationship that lasted for the rest of the 1970s. And he made her the star of his next movie, which would be his final feature film: “Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens” (1979).The movie is often described as Mr. Meyer’s riff on “Our Town” — for instance, it employed an onscreen narrator named “The Man From Small Town U.S.A.” Ms. Natividad plays a woman whose husband’s preoccupation with anal sex leaves her sexually frustrated.Ms. Natividad had little film experience when she met Mr. Meyer. It didn’t matter.via Siouxzan PerryCritics didn’t have much good to say about the movie, which Mr. Meyer wrote with Mr. Ebert.Gene Siskel of The Chicago Tribune, Mr. Ebert’s television partner on the film review show then known as “Sneak Previews,” wrote that Mr. Meyer’s “Vixen,” released in 1968, had been “an enjoyable nudie film because it featured the first joyfully aggressive woman we’d seen in a skin flick.” But he added, “Meyer hasn’t grown up in 10 years; if anything, he’s deteriorated.”“Beneath the Valley” would be Meyer’s last hurrah, but it held a special place in his heart. In a 1999 interview with Pop Cult magazine, he called Ms. Natividad his favorite leading lady.“She could just go and go and go,” he said. “It was just marvelous. You really had to measure up to this girl, or you caught hell.”Mr. McDonough said that Mr. Meyer had “met his match in Kitten Natividad.”“Meyer’s productions were mercenary boot camps, with the woman inevitably in an adversarial role,” Mr. McDonough said by email. “And in 1979’s ‘Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens,’ Meyer puts Kitten through the usual insane challenges, perching her buck naked atop mountains, in rivers at the bottom of canyons, and shot from below a metal bed frame (sans mattress) while she bounced vigorously atop metal bedsprings.“She blew through Meyer’s challenges like a marathon runner, always a wide, gung-ho smile across her face, and try as he might, Meyer could not vanquish her. That movie is a dazzling, obsessive tribute to Natividad.”Ms. Natividad in 2011. In her later years, she had small parts in mainstream movies like “Airplane!”Brian Cahn/Zuma Press, via AlamyFrancisca Isabel Natividad (she later used the first name Francesca) was born on Feb. 13, 1948, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua to Juan and Delia Davalos Natividad. In 2018, when she received the Legend of the Year award from the Burlesque Hall of Fame in Las Vegas, she told an audience that when she was growing up along the U.S. border, she would gather other children and make clandestine trips to a disreputable stretch of road where they would peek in on strip shows.“When I looked in there and I saw these beautiful women with the big breasts, the red lipstick, the big hairdos,” she said, “I wanted to grow up to be just like them.”Her mother later moved the family to the United States, and at 14 Ms. Natividad worked as a house cleaner for the actress Stella Stevens, getting a taste of the Hollywood crowd.She got a job as a key punch operator, but when she learned that a neighbor who worked as a stripper was making twice as much as she was, she changed careers, taking her first job as a go-go dancer in 1969 and soon moving to stripping. When an agency urged her to adopt a stage name, she chose “Kitten,” she said, because she was considered the shyest among the dancers she worked with.In 1973 she won the Miss Nude Universe title in San Bernardino, Calif.She was dancing at the Classic Cat, a club in Hollywood, when a fellow dancer, Shari Eubank, who had starred in the 1975 Meyer film “Supervixens,” suggested she introduce herself to the director. She is said to have done so by poking him in the back with her bare breasts.That got her into “Up!,” which she once described this way: “I’ll skip over the plot, which had something to do with Hitler’s daughter and sadomasochism. The film starts with me perched in a tree, nude.”Mr. Meyer paid for her to have breast augmentation, replacing an earlier enhancement. He also paid for a voice coach to help her lose her Mexican accent. (Her dialogue in “Up!” was dubbed.)When she and Mr. Meyer were together, he would revel in the attention her body and her bubbly personality brought. In 2004 Ms. Natividad joined three other Meyer favorites in a round-table discussion for The New York Times; one of them, Erica Gavin, the star of “Vixen,” recalled the couple’s entrance at her birthday party.“Kitten walked in first,” she said. “Russ loved to walk behind Kitten, because then he could see all the reactions after she passed people. She was wearing a nude-colored chiffon sheer outfit with no underwear at all.”After Mr. Meyer’s career died out, Ms. Natividad appeared in numerous other movies, including some hard-core pornography, and had small parts in “Airplane!” (1980), “My Tutor” (1983) and a few other mainstream films. She had a double mastectomy in 1999 as part of treatment for breast cancer.In the 2004 round table, Ms. Natividad reflected on her career.“I’m proud to be a Russ Meyer girl,” she said. “There are lots of beautiful women with great bodies and even bigger boobs than ours, but they didn’t get to be Russ Meyer girls. We are very, very special.”Ms. Natividad was married and divorced three times. In addition to her sister and her mother, she is survived by six half siblings, Teresa Natividad, Amelia Natividad, Diana Ramirez, Victor Ramirez, John Natividad and Estella Ramirez.Mr. McDonough, in his email, said he first saw Ms. Natividad at Show World in Manhattan, where her act consisted of splashing around naked in a baby pool while the song “Rubber Ducky” blared from the loudspeaker. Then, for a few dollars more, she’d pose for Polaroids.“Somehow Kitten made it all seem innocent,” he said. “She possessed a ferociously positive spirit, and that light always blasted through, no matter how tawdry the circumstances.” More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Movies

      Angelina Jolie Details Abuse Allegations Against Brad Pitt in Countersuit

      by

      In court papers related to a legal battle over a French winery they once owned together, she claims that he was abusive to her and their children during a 2016 plane ride.Angelina Jolie filed a cross complaint against her ex-husband Brad Pitt on Tuesday, disclosing new details about what she described in court papers as abusive behavior by him on a private plane in 2016 that led to the dissolution of their marriage.In a court filing in Los Angeles, filed as part of a legal battle over a winery the prominent Hollywood actors once owned together, lawyers for Ms. Jolie stated that negotiations to sell her share of the business to Mr. Pitt had broken down over his demand that she sign “a nondisclosure agreement that would have contractually prohibited her from speaking outside of court about Pitt’s physical and emotional abuse of her and their children.”Her filing goes on to describe an extended physical and verbal outburst in September 2016 as Mr. Pitt, Ms. Jolie and their six children flew from France to California. “Pitt choked one of the children and struck another in the face” and “grabbed Jolie by the head and shook her,” the filing states, adding that at one point “he poured beer on Jolie; at another, he poured beer and red wine on the children.” Federal authorities, who have jurisdiction over flights, investigated the incident but declined to bring criminal charges. Days after the plane trip, Ms. Jolie filed for divorce.Lawyers for Mr. Pitt did not immediately return several phone calls and emails seeking his response on Tuesday. In 2016, unnamed people close to Mr. Pitt were quoted in various publications saying that he had not been abusive toward his children.The decoupling of Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt has stretched on for years, drawn out by a court battle for custody of their children and, more recently, a lawsuit instigated by Mr. Pitt over the French winery, Château Miraval, that the couple bought more than a decade ago. Mr. Pitt’s lawsuit, filed this year, accused his ex-wife of violating his “contractual rights” when she sold her half of the company to a subsidiary of Stoli Group without his approval.Ms. Jolie’s cross complaint said she only sold her stake elsewhere after talks broke down over his demand for a nondisclosure agreement. Her filing states that the F.B.I. agent who investigated allegations that Mr. Pitt physically assaulted Ms. Jolie and their children on the plane in 2016 had “concluded that the government had probable cause to charge Pitt with a federal crime for his conduct that day.”The Château Miraval property, which is near Brignoles, in the south of France, in 2008.Lionel Cironneau/Associated PressA redacted F.B.I. report on the case, which was reported on by several news outlets in August and later obtained by The New York Times, states that the agent provided the United States Attorney’s Office “copies of a probable cause statement related to this incident.”“After reviewing the document, representative of the United States Attorney’s Office discussed the merits of this investigation with the case agent,” the report said. “It was agreed by all parties that criminal charges in this case would not be pursued due to several factors.”The F.B.I. report described Ms. Jolie as “conflicted on whether or not to be supportive of charges” related to the case.Representatives from the F.B.I. and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles declined to comment.“She has gone to great lengths to try to shield their children from reliving the pain Pitt inflicted on the family that day,” Ms. Jolie’s lawyers wrote in the cross complaint. “But when Pitt filed this lawsuit seeking to reassert control over Jolie’s financial life and compel her to rejoin her ex-husband as a frozen-out business partner, Pitt forced Jolie to publicly defend herself on these issues for the first time.”According to Ms. Jolie’s account of the 2016 flight in the court papers, the dispute began when Mr. Pitt accused Ms. Jolie of being “too deferential” to their children and then began yelling at her in the bathroom. “Pitt grabbed Jolie by the head and shook her, and then grabbed her shoulders and shook her again before pushing her into the bathroom wall,” the filing states. “Pitt then punched the ceiling of the plane numerous times, prompting Jolie to leave the bathroom.”When one of the children came to Ms. Jolie’s defense, the court papers said, Mr. Pitt lunged at the child, prompting her to grab him from behind. Amid the altercation, Mr. Pitt “choked one of the children and struck another in the face,” the suit said.The 2016 flight has been the subject of news media reports since shortly after it occurred. In November of that year, the F.B.I. released a statement saying that it had closed its investigation into the flight and that no charges had been filed.Puck News reported this August that Ms. Jolie had been seeking information about the F.B.I.’s case as an anonymous plaintiff in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, with the publication including details of the report.It is unclear whether the heavily redacted F.B.I. report included allegations that Mr. Pitt had choked or struck any of the children.Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt met each other on the set of “Mr. & Mrs. Smith,” a 2005 action movie in which they played married assassins. In 2008, they purchased a controlling interest in Château Miraval, viewing it as both a family home and business; several years later, the couple was married on the property.Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt have six children, now between the ages of 14 and 21.The French winery, known for its rosé, is at the center of a legal dispute between the divorced couple.In February, Mr. Pitt sued Ms. Jolie and her former company, alleging that she violated his “contractual expectations” when she sold her interest in the wine company to Tenute del Mondo, a subsidiary of Stoli Group. According to his lawsuit, the former couple had an understanding that neither party would sell its share of the winery without the consent of the other.“Jolie pursued and then consummated the purported sale in secret, purposely keeping Pitt in the dark, and knowingly violating Pitt’s contractual rights,” his lawsuit alleged.Last month, Ms. Jolie’s former company, which is now owned by Stoli Group, countersued Mr. Pitt, rebutting his version of events and his claim that the sale constituted a “hostile takeover.”In Ms. Jolie’s own countersuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday, she said that she opted to sell her share of the wine business, in part, because she was growing uncomfortable with participating in an alcohol-related business, considering Mr. Pitt’s “acknowledged problem of alcohol abuse.” Mr. Pitt told The Times in 2019 that after Ms. Jolie filed for divorce, he spent time in Alcoholics Anonymous and was committed to sobriety.Her filing said there was no written or verbal understanding like the one Mr. Pitt described, claiming that Mr. Pitt had, in fact, rejected the idea that there needed to be a plan in case the relationship ended.In their lawsuits, Mr. Pitt and Ms. Jolie shared divergent accounts of how negotiations around him buying her portion of the wine company fell apart.Mr. Pitt’s lawsuit asserted that Ms. Jolie pulled out of the tentative deal last year after a judge overseeing the custody dispute issued a ruling against her, prompting her to turn to Stoli Group.Ms. Jolie’s countersuit claimed, however, that Mr. Pitt had been the one to pull out of the deal after she declined to agree to his nondisparagement clause, forcing her to turn to another buyer. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Beavis and Butt-Head’ Was the ’90s Cartoon That Mattered

      by

      It doesn’t make best-of lists, but the series, then and now, was always much smarter than its characters, and it didn’t try too hard. Sorry, Bart Simpson.When “Beavis and Butt-Head” premiered in spring 1993, “The Simpsons” was finishing up what many now consider not just its greatest season, but perhaps the greatest ever. Beloved by critics and comedy nerds, it was producing classic episodes like “Marge vs. the Monorail” (written by Conan O’Brien), building a reputation that earned it second place on a recent Rolling Stone list of the 100 greatest shows in history. “Beavis and Butt-Head” didn’t make the cut.Yet if you talked to me back then, I would have told you with sniggering teenage confidence that the critically ignored “Beavis and Butt-Head,” a crudely drawn cartoon about two idiots chuckling over music videos, was clearly better. This was no provocation but a considered take — one I don’t regret. Can I explain why Beavis pulling his T-shirt over his blond bouffant and declaring himself the Great Cornholio made me laugh louder than anything Bart Simpson has ever done? No, but it’s true. Sometimes life (and thus comedy) is stupid.Mike Judge, who created the cartoon along with directing cult movies like “Idiocracy” and “Office Space,” is a master of the moronic. It’s why Paramount+ made a major investment in his dormant animated creation, putting old seasons online while rolling out a solid new movie, “Beavis and Butt-Head Do the Universe,” and an even better rebooted series that captures just enough of the original delirious spirit to make you want to imitate the old catchphrases. (“Are you threatening me?” “Fire! Fire!”)This is part of a broader corporate strategy playing on the nostalgic impulses of those of us raised on a steady diet of MTV and VH1. There’s a reunion of the original two casts of “The Real World” (takeaway: time heals few wounds) and a revival of “Behind the Music.” While the reality and music-documentary genres have grown plentiful enough to make those shows seem unnecessary, “Beavis and Butt-Head” remains singular. Its new version includes the title characters as teenagers, but also a few episodes depicting them in middle age, and they all hit comic notes ‌with moseying cadences you can’t find elsewhere.The film “Beavis and Butt-Head Do the Universe” is among the new Paramount+ offerings.Paramount+“Beavis and Butt-Head” was always much smarter than its characters, but it resonated with young people because it pulled this off without trying to appeal to their parents. Most ambitious animation, including Pixar movies, tries this trick of telling jokes for one generation layered with references for another. It can be done well, but there’s a price, because kids can tell when you’re talking over their heads. Mike Judge would never smuggle in a satire of Gilbert and Sullivan, as “The Simpsons” did, and his plotting was pointedly indifferent. What mattered to him was capturing the language and attitude of a specific kind of bored, nihilistic boy. As it happens, he also created one of the most memorable acerbic girls of the era, Daria, who started on “Beavis and Butt-Head” before getting her own show.When Butt-Head tittered at a vaguely sexual-sounding word (“He said ‘hanging’”), it was juvenile but familiar. So was the perspective that identified some things that were cool (explosions, lizards, breaking stuff), others that sucked (college, words, alt rock) and nothing in between. When television children were still speaking in zingers, these guys were defiantly inarticulate. In the rare moments that Beavis made a point eloquently, Butt-Head slapped him. But there was a catchy music to their stammering (the way Butt-Head said “hey baby” sticks in the mind), betraying an unmistakable love of the sound of words.Judge’s dialogue was most famous for its steady bass line of grunting laughter. This only seemed stylized. There’s much more laughing in the real world than in our entertainment, most of it not a response to a joke. “Beavis and Butt-Head” was the only show that reflected this.The series belonged to the last decade when sneering at television, and those who watch it, was a respectable prejudice. It’s tempting to say the show came about before the culture war politicized everything, but “Beavis and Butt-Head” was actually a magnet for criticism and moralizing. Controversies about viewers imitating the cartoon were of great interest to journalists but seemed ridiculous to fans. Who would want to be like Beavis, the sycophant forever trying and failing to “score” with girls? Or his alpha pal in braces?Judge satirized liberal teachers and hypocritical authority figures, but his primary source of mockery were the title characters, who spent entire episodes trying and failing to pull off the prank of ringing someone’s doorbell and running way. The heart of the show was them watching and commenting on music videos, a form no serious critic spent much time on. And while it was not the first pop culture product to regularly portray characters analyzing other pop culture products (“Mystery Science Theater 3000” premiered earlier), a big part of the humor of “Beavis and Butt-Head,” particularly for a budding critic like myself, was essentially watching the performance of criticism.The original series satirized authority figures and its own stars alike.MTV, via Everett CollectionThe boys could be withering, as when Butt-Head asked of an Amy Grant video, “Is this a Clearasil commercial?” And they could surprise you, as when they were won over by the Bee Gees. Judge realized years before Jon Stewart did on “The Daily Show” that showing something absurd, then making a face, is all you need for television comedy. Music videos matter less today, but certain themes from the show are only more relevant. In a running joke from the beginning of the series, nothing seemed real or important to these guys unless it was on a screen — even moments you would expect them to find hilarious, like walking in on the principal getting spanked.The reboot, now called “Mike Judge’s Beavis and Butt-Head,” drills down on this point and updates the content they critique to include TikTok videos, YouTube how-tos and A.S.M.R. footage.The new show’s look is a mite slicker and the comic situations are set up and executed better, including Episode 1 in which Beavis and Butt-Head mistake an escape room’s bathroom for the place they need to escape. When Butt-Head stares into a toilet, sticks a finger in the air and says: “Now why would someone put a turd in a toilet?” you know the rightful stupidity has been preserved. It’s also a nice surprise to see the new show understand that there are more laughs to be had from Beavis repeating the word “manslaughter” than from any clever joke.But the writers can’t help but jack up the ambition. Butt-Head takes antidepressants (his new gentle laugh is disconcerting) and imagines an alternative universe where Beavis and Butt-Head are smart. In a religion-themed episode, Beavis sees Jesus Christ in a nacho. Seeing what happens to these delinquents in middle age is perhaps inevitably dark, with Beavis, in pants (the horror), sounding like a MAGA fan, albeit one too clueless to vote. Shoehorning Beavis and Butt-Head into a “12 Angry Men” satire is an amusing premise but feels like something “The Simpsons” would do. There are signs of strain.One of the most telling moments in the original show came when Butt-Head spotted a guy in a video and asked, “Is that that Christian Slater dude?” Beavis tried a pun: “It’s like, uh, Christians? Later, dude.” Butt-Head responded with disdain: “Beavis, quit trying to be funny. It never works.”To Butt-Head, nothing sucks more than trying. On this point, teenage affectation and a certain philosophy of wit overlap. Mike Judge understood that while comedy is hard work, hard work isn’t funny. Butt-Head would probably agree, chuckle, then add, “You said ‘hard.’” More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      Will Smith Film ‘Emancipation’ Will Be Released in December

      by

      Apple said the movie, Mr. Smith’s first since his infamous slap at the Oscars, will be in theaters on Dec. 2 and begin streaming on Dec. 9.The Will Smith film “Emancipation” — the actor’s first since his infamous slap at the Oscars this year — will be released in December, making it eligible for the upcoming awards season.While releasing a trailer for the film on Monday, Apple said “Emancipation” will have a limited theatrical release on Dec. 2 before becoming available on the company’s streaming service on Dec. 9. The announcement followed a long discussion of whether Apple would release the film this year or delay it until 2023, considering the controversy surrounding Mr. Smith after he slapped the comedian Chris Rock during the Academy Awards ceremony in March. Apple had declined to comment on its plans for the film.After the incident with Mr. Rock, Mr. Smith won the best actor Oscar that night for his performance in “King Richard.” It was his first Academy Award, but shortly afterward he resigned from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, saying he had “betrayed” its trust. The academy then barred him from the organization and all of its events for the next decade.That punishment does not preclude the actor from being nominated for his work, though it did not augur well for “Emancipation,” which had been considered an awards candidate before Mr. Smith slapped Mr. Rock. The decision to release the film in a limited number theaters ahead of its debut on the service suggests that Apple is planning to push it for award consideration this year.That could backfire. The academy has signaled that it is ready to move on from the slap. Bill Kramer, the organization’s chief executive, said it would not even be joked about at the next Academy Awards ceremony.“Emancipation” stars Mr. Smith as Peter, a real-life figure from the 1800s who escaped slavery and fought for the Union Army. Directed by Antoine Fuqua and written by William N. Collage, the film had its first public screening in Washington on Saturday night, during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s 51st Annual Legislative Conference. The event was followed by a question-and-answer session featuring Mr. Fuqua and Mr. Smith, who has remained largely out of the public eye since the Oscars.Mr. Smith issued a public apology on his YouTube channel on July 29. It has been viewed close to 3.9 million times. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Movies

      Sacheen Littlefeather, Activist Who Rejected Brando’s Oscar, Dies at 75

      by

      The actress was booed at the Academy Awards in 1973 after she refused the best actor award on Marlon Brando’s behalf in protest of Hollywood’s depictions of Native Americans.Sacheen Littlefeather, the Apache activist and actress who refused to accept the best actor award on behalf of Marlon Brando at the 1973 Oscars, drawing jeers onstage in an act that pierced through the facade of the awards show and highlighted her criticism of Hollywood for its depictions of Native Americans, has died. She was 75.Her death was announced on Sunday by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The cause of death was not immediately known.Her death came just weeks after the Academy apologized to Ms. Littlefeather for her treatment during the Oscars. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter in August, Ms. Littlefeather said she was “stunned” by the apology. “I never thought I’d live to see the day I would be hearing this, experiencing this,” she said.When Ms. Littlefeather, then 26, held up her right hand that night inside the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles — clearly signaling to the award presenters, the audience and the millions watching on TV that she had no desire to ceremoniously accept the shiny golden statue — it marked one of the best-known disruptive moments in the history of the Oscars.“I beg at this time that I have not intruded upon this evening, and that we will, in the future, our hearts and our understandings, will meet with love and generosity,” Ms. Littlefeather said at the podium, having endured a chorus of boos and some cheers from the crowd.Donning a glimmering buckskin dress, moccasins and hair ties, her appearance at the 45th Academy Awards, at the age of 26, was the first time a Native American woman had stood onstage at the ceremony. But the backlash and criticism was immediate: The actor John Wayne was so unsettled that a show producer, Marty Pasetta, said security guards had to restrain him so that he would not storm the stage.Ms. Littlefeather and Mr. Brando had become friends through her neighbor, the director Francis Ford Coppola.Associated PressShe told The Hollywood Reporter in August: “When I was at the podium in 1973, I stood there alone.”Ms. Littlefeather, whose name at birth was Marie Cruz, was born on Nov. 14, 1946, in Salinas, Calif., to a father from the White Mountain Apache and Yaqui tribes in Arizona and a French-German-Dutch mother, according to her website. After high school, she took the name Sacheen Littlefeather to “reflect her natural heritage,” the site states.Her website said she participated in the Native American occupation of Alcatraz Island, which began in 1969 in an act of defiance against a government that they said had long trampled on their rights.Her acting career began at the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco in the early 1970s. She would go on to play roles in films like “The Trial of Billy Jack” and “Winterhawk.”Ms. Littlefeather said in an interview with the Academy that she had been planning to watch the awards on television when she received a call the night before the ceremony from Mr. Brando, who had been nominated for his performance as Vito Corleone in “The Godfather.”The two had become friends through her neighbor, the director Francis Ford Coppola. Mr. Brando asked her to refuse the award on his behalf if he won and gave her a speech to read just in case.With only about 15 minutes left in the program, Ms. Littlefeather arrived at the ceremony with little information about how the night would work.A producer for the Oscars noticed the pages in Ms. Littlefeather’s hand and told her that she would be arrested if her comments lasted more than 60 seconds.Then, Mr. Brando won.In the speech, Ms. Littlefeather also brought attention to the federal government’s standoff with Native Americans at Wounded Knee.She later recalled that while she was giving the speech, she had “focused in on the mouths and the jaws that were dropping open in the audience, and there were quite a few.”The audience, she recalled, looked like a “sea of Clorox” because there were “very few people of color.”She said some audience members did the so-called “tomahawk chop” at her and that when she went to Mr. Brando’s house later, people shot at the doorway where she was standing.Last month, Ms. Littlefeather spoke at a program hosted by the Academy called “An Evening with Sacheen Littlefeather,” recalling how she had stood up for justice in the arts.“I didn’t represent myself,” she said. “I was representing all Indigenous voices out there, all Indigenous people, because we had never been heard in that way before.”And when she spoke those words, the audience erupted in applause.“I had to pay the price of admission, and that was OK,” she said. “Because those doors had to be open.”After learning that the Academy would formally apologize to her, Ms. Littlefeather said it felt “like a big cleanse.”“It feels like the sacred circle is completing itself,” she said, “before I go in this life.” More