Pushing Daisies - Season One : Blu-ray Review

The Show Itself is created by Bryan Fuller.

Ned has an incredible ability — he can reanimate dead things. However, the gift is bittersweet because if he happens to touch the reanimate once again, it goes back to being dead… forever. Worse still, if he reanimates something for longer than a minute, it stays alive, but something else nearby dies. Lonely and afraid of his power, Ned finds comfort in baking pies — after all he can take dead fruit and freshen it up, right? — and opens his own restaurant. It isn’t long after that a Private Investigator learns about Ned’s surreal ability and convinces Ned to work with him to solve murder mysteries, and subsequently share the cash reward. All is well and good until Ned is confronted with the corpse of his long-lost childhood love, and first kiss. Unable to bring himself to put her back to rest, he keeps her alive, and thus sets into motion the most complicated and perilous relationship that’s ever been. Together, they’ll have to work to keep her reanimation quiet — lest Ned’s secret gets out — and solve a slew of murders along the way.

With a show like “Pushing Daisies” it’s easy to see how its greatest strengths could very easily double as its weaknesses. That is the unfortunate price everyone pays in the creative community for making something bold, daring and wholly original — you invariably polarize your target audience. In the case of this particular broadcast-TV diamond-in-the-rough, audiences were not only polarized, but many viewers — like myself — simply never got around to watching the show during its premiere run. To make matters worse, the writer’s strike came along and mucked everything up, capping its first season at a mere nine episodes. Worse still, when the show returned for its second season, the viewership simply wasn’t there — at least not like before. It seemed like there was no way the show could catch a break despite its resounding critical acclaim and hopelessly devoted fan-base. Then, confirming the fears of the cast, crew and fans everywhere, the plug was pulled forever, a fate which no lonely pie maker could possibly reverse.

While I’ve only seen the first season of the show, I can honestly say that I’m going to miss the show a lot. The little romantic-comedy/murder investigation procedural had a tone and a vision all its own, unmatched on TV or film. It wasn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread, mind you, but it certainly represented a welcome respite from the hyper-realistic and documentary-style television series that seem to be everywhere on TV. Where shows like CSI and Law & Order are more concerned with justice and doing things “by the books” this show was interested in the surreal, and oftentimes hilarious consequences of reanimating the deceased in order to solve a murder case. You’d have to be dense not to see the potential in such a novel concept, and thanks to its original core, the show deftly set itself apart from everything on TV.

However, as I said before, it’s easy to see how the show’s strength also became its weakness. Because of the show’s irreverent and humorous approach to death it scared off a lot of mainstream viewers for one reason or another. Many people don’t like to give death any thought at all, and despite the show’s earnest attempts to make light of death, that’s still not good enough for those people. Even still, I imagine there were others that took opposition the moral ambiguity of Ned and his willingness to reanimate the dead for profit, irrespective of the fact that their killers were being brought to justice. I for one don’t get offended by much, and certainly not the reanimation of fictional characters — real people, now that’s another story — but by the end of the first season, I must admit that I was getting a little tired of the formulaic nature of the murder-investigation-solution narrative device. Granted, the show was conceived as a procedural show, wrapped around a romantic-comedy core, so I suppose there’s little point in debating the components of the show, but even still, I just feel like the creative team was selling the show short. I would have liked to see a couple episodes that didn’t revolve around a murder case. Also, I wasn’t a huge fan of the little-Ned introductions once I was familiar with Ned’s abilities and limitations. I realize that it was a choice to use the parallel narratives, and for the most part it works well, but I can see this narrative technique growing tired in the second season — assuming they continued to utilize it.

Minor criticisms aside, I can’t recommend this series enough to everyone. It’s terrible that the show has been canceled — especially when there are so many uninspired shows that need to be cut anyway — but it doesn’t change the fact that this first season is a sight-to-be-seen sensory overload, and a wondrous fairytale murder-mystery show that never fails to delight and entertain.

I can only hope that the second season maintains the same light-hearted, irreverent tone that made me fall head-over-heels for this season. If so, I can’t wait to get my hands on the inevitable Blu-ray release.

Dumb and Dumber : Blu-ray Review

The Movie Itself is directed by the Farrelly brothers, Peter and Bobby (“Kingpin,” “There’s Something About Mary,” “The Heartbreak Kid“)

Am I wrong to give this film a 5-Star Rating for the film itself? No. I don’t think so. I wrestled with myself for all of five seconds, wavering between 4.5 and 5 for this film, and ultimately I’ve decided to stick with my gut, and what I believe to be true — at least for me.

Many will agree, and many will object — and that’s fine — but I whole-heartedly believe that “Dumb and Dumber” is the finest comedy to have ever graced the silver screen. Is it lewd, crude, and inappropriate? Absolutely. It’s the epitome of slap-stick, low-brow, laugh-out-loud humor, but beyond that it boasts — what I think to be — the best comedic performance by Jim Carrey, in addition to the surprisingly hilarious turn by the incredibly talented, Jeff Daniels. Say what you want about the comedic duos and buddy pictures that have come and gone — this one stands alone as the best of them.

Never before has a comedic script been so deceptively witty while being so crude. On the surface, “Dumb and Dumber” appears to be just another 90’s slapstick comedy. But there is so much more hilarity beneath the fart jokes and the immature banter. As I continue to grow with the film, I frequently find myself coming back to it, laughing just as hard as I did in theaters, discovering a new comedic element — thanks to the beautifully nuanced comedic delivery by Daniels or the over-the-top idiocy of Carrey’s “Lloyd.” It’s easy to miss the subtle and masterful comedic writing amidst the gut-busting laughs the film provides, and as such, a second/third/fourth viewing is highly recommended.

For these reasons, and many others, I believe that “Dumb and Dumber” is one of the best examples of comedic film ever committed to film. As you might imagine, I could go on forever about this film, but I won’t because my words will do little to entertain, and inform. All of that is best left to a viewing of this now-classic picture.

Youth Without Youth : Blu-ray Review

The Movie Itself is directed by Francis Ford Coppola, of “The Godfather” fame, and based off the short story — of the same title — by Mircea Eliade.

An old professor, Dominic Matei (Tim Roth), is struck by lightning and is miraculously given a new lease on life. Restored to his youthful self, he seeks to understand the nature of his condition, and ultimately complete his book on the origins of speech — known as the proto-language. It’s no easy task, but a chance encounter with a woman — who resembles his lost love — could hold the keys to unraveling the mysteries of life, and the origin of man.

I don’t know about you, but there’s just something about metaphysical subject material that enthralls me, especially when it is presented in film. Perhaps it’s because the film medium is far more expressive and boundless than text, and as such, it can convey complex abstract thoughts far easier — not to mention, make them more entertaining. Even still, I’d venture to guess that I in the minority here as box-office returns for metaphysical epics such as “Youth Without Youth” and “The Fountain” — to name a few — represent a general consumer indifference to the philosophical narrative.

If I had to guess, I would say that the main difference between myself and the average movie-goer is that I’m more patient, and far more interested in the exploratory nature of these most delicate, and personal films. I’d much rather see directors take a chance on a labor of love and fail, than to turn churn out a mainstream piece of crap.

Of course, not everyone can appreciate these types of films. They are largely inaccessible because they only appeal to those with open minds — which seems to be something of rarity these days — and they demand your full attention, which doesn’t bode well for film-goer that’s accustomed to mind-numbing action flicks. Nor are these films intended for the raucous crowd that’s compelled to give their own uninvited commentary in the middle of a packed theater.

If you are willing to give this film your undivided attention, and you are even mildly interested in the metaphysical realm of science/philosophy, then this film will likely become a new favorite of yours.

Aside from the metaphysical roots, the film also boasts a very potent, romantic core — not just between the two lovers in the film, but comparisons could also be drawn to Man’s passion for knowledge, his quest for meaning, the origins of time, our love of science and our pursuit to understand the unknown. Needless to say, Coppola and Eliade heartily romanticize the scientific and philosophical elements of the story and the result is intoxicating, and occasionally dizzying — perhaps even requiring a second or third viewing to digest all of the theories throughout. All of it is done to great effect though, as the lead character is obsessed with his life’s work — the pursuit of the “proto-language” — and the visual/narrative techniques employed throughout help to strengthen our understanding of his dedication.

Beyond that, it is also a cautionary tale about the advancement of science to the point of extinction or — on the flip side — evolution. Could it be that all we’ve come to know and understand, and subsequently create, might destroy us? Or could it be that all of these forces around us will coalesce and bring about the next great leap in human evolution?

These are but a few of the questions that the film posits, or that you might derive from it on your own. If any of that sounds boring or dull, you should probably skip this one. However, if you find yourself genuinely intrigued by what you’ve read thus far, I urge you to give this film a rent at the very least. Personally, I found the film incredibly engaging and rewarding, and while I can’t envision it garnering mass appeal, I still heartily recommend it to anyone that’s interested.