sabine-d Reviews

Mayor of the Sunset Strip (2003)

Exploitative and Superficial (SPOILER)

[26 March 2005]

This was one of those films that I regretted renting, for fear that I had put some money into the pocket of the director. The main complaint is that the film is exploitative of Rodney B. Ironically, it reveals much more about the callous indifference of Hollywood by the way it treats Rodney and his life. Scenes I found particularly offensive were the one's where the director strove great lengths to create awkward situations at Rodney's expense, in order to give the film some 'reality' (i.e. scene at Rodney's estranged family's home, tremendously awkward scene with Rodney and Camille, and the director prodding Rodney about his true feelings for Camille, while she looks on, obviously uncomfortable). I understand the need for a documentarian to show the darker side of human life, but I firmly believe that this can be done while being sensitive to the person involved. There is no sign that this director has compassion for his subject. If any, it is of a perverse sort, like how you feel sorry for someone that you can't help but think is a complete idiot and who you think is ultimately to blame for their own demise. I think that one can see this if they are able to perceive the more subtle aspects of the picture--i.e. what scenes are present, how are they constructed, how are the questions posed, etc. Ultimately, this picture is not deep. There really isn't any attempt to really understand the man, likely because the director himself doesn't want to know or thinks he already knows him. The person who made this film is far worse off than Rodney is at present. At least Rodney has sensitivity and compassion. Lucky for us, and without the help of the director, Rodney's simple wisdom shines through at various conjunctures, hinting that there is much more there than a naive boy who buys into the rockstar illusion. If only this film were made by someone else, then we would have had a better grasp of why celebrities and people like Camille were drawn to him, and why ultimately it is a blessing to be spit out by Hollywood...a chance to reclaim your dignity and find more lasting happiness.

M. Butterfly (1993)

SPOILER: intriguing, exploratory and unpretentious film

[10/10 · 17 March 2005]

I am a Cronenberg fan, so my review is influenced by previous films directed by him that I have seen and enjoyed.I think that first and foremost this film is an exploration of desire and the idea that love may be inextricably bound up with illusion. I got the sense that the main character (sorry, I am HORRIBLE with remembering character names!) willfully permitted himself to be deceived. This sounds self-contradictory, but it seems that the game was only up when Butterfly revealed himself--not because he didn't already know the truth, but because the charade was impossible to maintain when both men were aware of each others knowledge. I found this psychological aspect of the story very engaging. I also enjoyed the way that the story unfolded and was turned on its head (i.e. the final outcome, where the protagonist transforms into Butterfly). The metaphor of transformation runs deep in this film, and Cronenberg seems seriously interested in man's desire to transform into other than what he is--fleshy, mortal, fragile organism that he is! In some ways I think that it is impossible to really pinpoint and explicate the ideas and themes that drive a director to create. Nevertheless, one can see that Cronenberg's investigations are never pretentious or intellectual (though the intellectuals are all over him), and they always penetrated deep into the heart of the matter. Thus, his films are thoroughly enjoyable for one who wants something more meaty, and without the pretense.

The Ninth Gate (1999)

Misunderstood, Underrated Work of a Genius..

[24 February 2005]

This is a first rate film by a cinematic genius. There is nothing un-Polanski about this movie. If you persist in thinking that there is, then your understanding of his genius is limited! How many people actually understood this film??? Not many. And I don't think it is THAT difficult to figure out what occurs at the end. Even people who rated it high failed to grasp the ending, which suggests that they failed to grasp it at all! Most people don't know why they like a movie that they see. And those who do know why and can put it into words are usually giving the criteria for refined entertainment, not art!! Polanski is a true genius, and hence, his films are by definition not likely to be appreciated by very many. Which is not to say that his work is an exercise in intellectual acrobatics. Not at all. I would expect that someone who has seen his other films would understand (i.e., the fearless vampire killers is a good one to compare this one to..), but alas, people jump on the critical bandwagon and say 'this is not polanski's finest'...WHATEVER! You have to be approaching his genius in order to see what perfect art he produces EVERY time he makes a film (what other kind of craftsperson could you imagine wakes up one day and forgets their craft? None! So don't be a fool and underestimate the true film artist!) Okay, enough ranting. THe ending: THere are two parallel levels of meaning to be interpreted in this film. THere is the superficial storyline, which obviously most people didn't not care to delve beneath. And then there is what is really going on. Johnny is living out his destiny, with fate (the blonde) to guide him and ensure that he gets through all of the gates. Johnny becomes greedy and ultimately kills to get his hands on the engravings. Johnny 'consumates' his commitment to the darkside when he finally beds the blonde devil-incarnate/devil's helper/fate itself, and although Johnny doesn't realize it, she is the gateway, and he has just gone through, so to speak. The last engraving being a rip-off, and Johnny's being guided to the real one in such an obvious way should tell you that this is not the 'real story' of how Johnny gets through. Also notice that Satan's helper (blonde) is in the engraving. It was Johnny's destiny to actualize each engraving, and be the dark prince. WHy him? Because he is so utterly naive, committed, and greedily curious...he actually believes that he is doing the work of figuring everything out... This is not a film for the general public who were probably disappointed at the lack of special effects or something. Polanski's films are not 'artsy' or 'intellectual' but nevertheless they are not going to be appreciated by everyone. He is subtle...a true genius.

Saturday Night Live (1975– )

Saturday Night Live Forever!

[20 February 2005]

It is a myth that SNL has been 'going down hill'. The people who say this aren't regular watchers and seem to have some nostalgic affinity for casts of the past (I doubt there is any true consensus about which season was the best). I speak from experience because I loved Phil Hartman and it is hard to accept that he is no longer around. I could be stubborn and not watch the show because he won't be on it, or I could embrace comedy in general and explore the diversity/uniqueness of existing comedians! Every time there is a new cast you have to take some time to get to know them and their different styles, but once you do, you have a new set of funny friends!! I love the current cast and am thoroughly addicted to the show. I started watching again--with a very skeptical attitude--about 3 months ago. Since then the cast has really grown on me...I think the cast in the late 90's was not as good as the one now (even though it seems many more Hollywood 'careers' were born on the show then). Of course, nothing compares to Phil Hartman, but nevertheless, this cast has chemistry and that's what makes them so much fun to watch..! My fav castmates (obviously I have had a problem narrowing down my list): Fred Armisen (zany), Seth Myers (boy next door sense of humour), Maya Rudolph (can't get enough of her strange musical numbers), Amy Poehler (totally wacky), Chris Parnell (very versatile and always funny), Finesse Mitchell (smart/critical sense of humour), Rob Riggle (nutty!), Will Forte (wierd and cute!)...I could say more but I think I've said enough. Maybe I am easy to please, but I don't think so; I just know when it's time to stop lazily criticizing and start giving props for great work!

China: The Panda Adventure (2001)

NOT the greatest imax film ever...give me a break

[6/10 · 19 February 2005]

i love IMAX films, and yes, they are judged by a different standard...that is because they are supposed to exploit the potential they have in virtue of the format...beautiful scenery, panoramic shots, aerial views...etc, etc,.. this film didn't do that so much because the focus was more on this Hollywood-style story, which i found a waste of time....not to mention the fact that the story is thoroughly romanticized. i would have loved more footage of the pandas and/or the Himalayas (the shots that WERE included made the film worthwhile). IMAX films should not try to pander to people who can't get enough of Hollywood...go to blockbuster for that junk!! the film about the Bengal tigers in India was far more impressive..