mike_usagisan Reviews

Wild Palms (1993)

A love letter to Phillip K. Dick

[22 December 2001]

How to describe this series? Imagine if Shakespeare was alive during the late sixties and seventies and decided to write a sci-fi epic at the height of the early nineties hype about virtual reality, and you'd only be in the same ballpark.

The story? Okay, the story revolves around an unassuming family man, Harry, who only begins to realize the strangeness that is going on around him. A secret police force are kidnapping people. His daughter refuses to speak. His son is developing some violent behavior. His wife is withdrawing into a bottle. And a strange woman from his past is offering him a glimpse at a world he could only imagine before.

Combining elements of Japanese and Eastern myths, Phillip K. Dick's quest for reality, Twin Peak's surreality, a grand opera's sweep, and science fiction's imagination, Wild Palms sets up the dominos of a world that could be and then lets them fall.

Harry is drawn into the New Age cult of a powerful senator who is about to transform the world by introducing a new form of media - one that is so close to being real that it's often hard to tell the difference. If you had the choice of this world, or a world of your own creation, which would you choose? But what if that world was being controlled by someone with their own agenda? And as the world starts to deal with those questions, a group of libertarian `Friends' attempt to stop the senator any way they can. Two powerful houses will fight until there is only one remaining.

This is not a series for everyone. It isn't sci-fi in the genre of Star Trek like most television fans are used to. It's also told in the fashion of an opera, with high melodrama and amazing leaps of logic. And lest you think that it is heavy, it also has some great patches of absurdity. But it is thought provoking, and has something to say about technology, religion, power, politics, drug use, and a range of other topics. And it says it in a way that doesn't speak down or make the audience feel they are being unduly manipulated. It is fine television for a very small audience.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

Okay, but missing something

[27 August 2001]

Okay, let me start by saying that I am a Smith fan, and more importantly, a Mallrats fan. I think Mallrats is second only to Chasing Amy, (yes, I am a little ashamed of myself). While I like almost everything Smith writes, this one just didn't do much for me. And I think I figured out why. The heart of all of Smith's other movies have been the give and take of witty (if raunchy) dialog that is most often very intelligent and insightful (like what constitutes a food court eatery or a race between 3 fictional characters and a male-hating dyke). This dialog is what made all of Smith's movies so funny, not raunchy swears. Listen to the dialog thrown around by Jason Lee or Ben Affleck, or Dante or Randall, or even Matt Damon, and then listen to the dialog in this movie. Notice the difference? Unfortunately, with moving Jay and Silent Bob to the forefront, the dialog is limited to a guy who does nothing but swear and a guy who rarely ever speaks. The dialog is simply lacking. That leaves the comedy dependent on sight gags and Hollywood satire. And while that creates a few funny moments, more often than not, this movie falls flat. I don't mind a movie with no apparent point (i.e. Mallrats), I just would like a good one.

Manhattan (1979)

Positive existentialism!

[13 November 2000]

This is one big spoiler, so don't bother reading this if you don't want part of the movie to be ruined. Sorry.

So, I had just watched Interiors with a friend and remarked that the problem I had with the majority of existentialism films and characters is that they make everything so depressing. Now I love Crimes & Misdemeanors. It is one of the greatest existential movies ever made, but damn, if it isn't depressing. Alright, I understand that the world can be a horrible place. I understand that life doesn't play fair. I'll even concede that there are no rules to life except those that we make. But why would people continue if this is how they see life?

My standpoint has always been that existentialism doesn't have to be depressing. If you look at it from the standpoint that each moment is precious because there is nothing afterwards, it makes each moment of joy meaningful because it is simply that - joy. Therefore the reasons to continue living are those things that bring you joy. And the hope of future joy.

What Woody Allen has done with Manhattan is bring that theory to life. Unlike his other serious existential movies (Interiors and Crimes & Misdemeanors) he uses his humor to show that joy. And in the end when he realizes what will make him happy he jumps at it. And like life, it isn't easily obtained. It has to come through hope. And trust. And patience.

Woody said that after the success of Annie Hall and the complete harsh objectiveness of Interiors he wanted to use the humor of Annie Hall to bring out the important messages he had to say with Interiors. With Manhattan he did that beautifully. And although I think there might be too much humor, it is one of the best movies to deal with human nature from an existential viewpoint ever made.

It is one of my favorite movies. It was a joy to watch it. There's no higher praise than that.

Breaking Up (1997)

A great movie, but not for everyone

[10/10 · 25 October 2000]

I watched this movie for the first time last night and was completely blown away. I read somewhere that it came from a stage play, and you definitely get the feeling for that. So all of those of you who can't sit through movies like The Big Kahuna or Glengarry Glen Ross because "nothing happens", don't bother trying to watch this - you'll be bored. But for those of you who want to watch a movie about something, that will actually deal with it, rather than pander to the lowest common denominator, you might want to give this movie a shot.

One reason I liked it so much is that I like a healthy dose of symbolism in my movies, and this movie has it in spades. A lot of the complaints that I've seen about this movie is that the movie never tells us what is keeping these two characters apart. (There may be spoilers ahead.) Well, the answer, it seems to me, is that these characters symbolize men and women in love, not just individual characters. Men are often seeking independence and individuality while women are often looking for reassurance of love. (Yes, those were two big stereotypes, but the reason they are stereotypes is because you see them so often in reality.) And the fact that the two characters go out to interview people on the street about how to stay in relationships, I get the feeling that the movie is trying to broaden its horizon beyond these two characters.

The other reason I liked this movie is that it recognizes that real love, that passionate feeling that controls your actions whether you want it to or not, is so intense that it has a tendency to both pull people together and tear them apart. I especially liked the way it brought in the philosophies of Marx, Einstein and Freud to give the movie's ideas context from history, science and psychology.

The final thing that caught my attention was the way the the movie tried to make a universal statement about love vs. happiness (because they aren't the same thing), and the best way to make it through this muddled life may not have anything to do with either, even if it is dull. I found the whole thing very fascinating and insightful.

And if that hasn't completely scared you off, it is an incredibly funny and touching movie. I laughed as I recognized my own reactions to relationships brought to life in front of me. The performances are wonderful. Russell Crowe is one of the best actors working now, and Salma shows that she has a real talent waiting to come out to play. So, if you're still with me and this sounds like something that will appeal to your particular tastes, you might want to give it a chance.

Zero Effect (1998)

A true hidden gem

[10/10 · 19 June 2000]

I heard about this movie on Siskel & Ebert and wanted to see it, but it never came to my town. So when I finally found it on video I rented it, watched it, watched it again, and again. It has quickly become one of my all time favorite movies. Why? Because it starts off as a comedy and quickly moves into a really involving mystery and romance. Funny, this is the same combination that makes Casablanca such a great movie. But what really gets me every time I watch this movie is the depth of the characterizations. Ben Stiller is at his best in the understated comedy of playing the sidekick. You can see how torn he is trying to be a friend to an obnoxious @$$hole, but knows that he is needed by said @$$hole. Kim Dickens is absolutely wonderful, in a role that should have catapulted her to more. She is so grounded, that all of the odd goof-ball things that go on around her can happen only because she plays it absolutely straight. It is her groundedness that makes the mystery/romance so compelling. But really, this is Bill Pullman's best performance ever. He starts off in the same sort of oddball, goofy stuff that he's so well known for. But there's a depth underneath. We find out why he's like that. We find out what it must be like to be the most brilliant detective. And the price for it: complete and utter detachment from life. It is this compelling characterization, so well pulled off by Pullman, that opens up the romance. It is quite unlike any romance I've ever seen on screen. Usually it is the man who is suave and in control. Here, Daryl Zero has no control, and is forced along a path he's never taken before. And we see as he is forced out of his shell, exactly what brought this brilliant man to the point in his life where he's never even kissed a girl. It's really an incredible story. And before I go, I would just like to make one final point. There is a scene where Daryl is talking to Gloria in a diner. In this scene, Gloria confronts Daryl and forces him to tell her the most horrible memory he has. There has been a lot of questions about whether Daryl is telling the truth in this scene. In watching the DVD with the commentary, Jake Kasdan says that even he isn't sure whether Daryl is telling the truth, but he says that Daryl is telling the "emotional truth." I think that's a good distinction. Watch Pullman's face as he tells this horrible story. You can see the pain on his face, and the obvious attempts to hide it, and he's not sure whether he should hide it. And once it has come out, he feels relieved, and scared and a whole lot more all at the same time. Without a doubt, this is the finest scene of pure acting I've ever scene. Pullman should be very proud of this performance. It is the finest in his career and deserves to be seen. So, as you can probably tell, I highly recommend this film. Not only does it work as the compelling drama I've described above, it is a hilarious comedy and has a great mystery at its heart. Dig through your video store to find this one. It is definitely worth it.