I was 6 years old when that rebel ship first came crashing over my head. Wowing me momentarily before the thunderous empire ship dwarfed its impact in every way. But it was not Star Wars then, it was Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. My innocent eyes did not notice Greedo shooting first or wonder what the hell was up with that Jabba the Hutt scene. I just took it in, absorbing the history of the Lightsaber and falling in love with Princess Leia years before puberty was even in my vocabulary. I saw the remainder of the trilogy as they were released that year and each viewing was among the most transformative and memorable cinematic experiences of my childhood. It was special to me but was it ever mine?

Looking back it almost feels like I was being groomed into buying tickets for the three prequels. I was still the perfect age when the The Phantom Menace arrived two years later (yeah I LOVED Jar Jar), and it was not until Revenge of the Sith that I really began to question the quality of those prequel films. I think I initially latched onto the prequels because I wanted the Star Wars of my generation to be Star Wars, just not a recycled version of it. I cannot be sure how concerned I actually was about it at the time but I was always aware that they were old films. The nostalgia I feel for the original trilogy is real, but it feels recycled. I was a kid in the 90s being fed the same thing the kids in the 70s were. Imagine if you showed the 6 year olds in the 70s a re-release of Ben-Hur. I doubt they would get the same kick out of that (at the time) 20 year old film as we got from Star Wars. I guess it speaks to Star Wars’ strength, or Lucas’ meddling, that its age did not show. Having your mind blown by Star Wars is not unique to my generation. Sure you can argue that the removal of the Yub Nub Ewok song (the only good alteration), and Greedo shooting first is but does anyone actually want them as part of their generations collective nostalgia? So what films did belong to me, and to every other 90s kid who could never truly out nerd the Star Wars old guard. What was my Star Wars?

A hard learnt lesson came in the shape of Jaws. If My Star Wars has to fit into a collective nostalgic criterion then Jaws never stood a chance. I heard first seen Jaws on VHS at the most likely too young age of 10; it scared me but had me gripped. Even Quint’s Indianapolis monologue had me mesmerised even if I could only guess at its meaning. So by the time my English teacher showed it to us when we were all 12-13 I had seen it a bunch, which was apparently 100% more than the rest of my class. They hated it. Unable to get past the way the shark looked. One classmate’s complaint about the bolts in the beasts head stuck with me and now I see those damn bolts every time. Any scenes originally evoking fear or suspense in me were just laughed at by them. I learnt for the first time that I watched films differently to the average viewer. They meant more to me and stayed with me once the credits rolled. Jaws could never have been mine anyway; it was older than Star Wars for one and it would never be a talking point for my generation’s pop culture.

The trilogy structure seems key to crafting a phenomena like Star Wars. Something about the traditional three act structure just clicks. The biggest trilogy from my youth has to be The Lord of the Rings. Seeing The Fellowship of the Ring in 2001 was as monumental as seeing Star Wars was to me just 4 years before. I feel like I got the real Star Wars experience with that one. The Harry Potter film series began that year, I read Harry Potter when it was at fever pitch popularity and it feels like Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone should have been a bigger deal to me. But the iron forged trailer with sword and axe wielding warriors running across crumbling staircases spoke to me more than any whimsical kid friendly wand-up-the-trolls-nose action from Harry Potter ever could. The Fellowship of the Ring looked dangerous and gritty by comparison, the perfect film for my close to teenage brain.

I anticipated it and waited for the trailers to end in a packed theatre feeling like none in attendance really knew what to expect, yet feeling sure I would love it. The swelling soundtrack and intense action triggered the same parts of my brain that John Williams and George Lucas had four years prior. I asked for The Lord of the Rings memorabilia, posters covered my walls, and I even embarked on a failed attempt to read the books (I did not succeed at this quest until starting again 2 years ago). It was the talk of the playground in my last few months of primary school. It was ours. Not some borrowed nostalgia. Its pioneering visual effects and conquering of popular culture cemented it for me. It was the new pop-geek trilogy. So much so that some Star Wars fans rejected it. I felt like I had finally experienced the huge unique cultural phenomenon of my lifetime, (an enthusiasm that did not waiver throughout the releases of The Two Towers and The Return of the King). There was finally a film series that could rightfully be my catalyst for a love of film and the awakening of my sense of wonder.

Looking back on it I guess even that was borrowed. I continue to look for something that was truly individualistic from my generation. The visual effects of Lord of the Rings go some way to giving it this feel but in truth we were just being told a story that originated from the 1950s. A tale from a previous generation made flashier and more accessible for the new. This is really no different to Star Wars, which is heavily influenced by old fantasy serials and Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces. It rehashed something old, and uncovered something previously neglected for new pairs of eyes. You can tumble down a billion rabbit holes if you start comparing films in terms of the tropes established in Campbell’s work (and you likely will; every film class will throw this at you within your first months). Even Tolkien borrowed heavily from his predecessors, taking from Norse and Germanic Mythology. 2009s wildly successful but clichéd Avatar is another testament that the familiar is still a huge attraction to movie goers, and Avatar might just be the perfect example of a modern answer to Star Wars for the 2000s kids.

I think I have always been looking for the wrong thing. I guess Star Wars will always be my Star Wars. No film can truly be a project of any generation. I loved The Lord of the Rings as much as I did Star Wars because they hit all the same beats, and to tell the truth these musings on their place in my personal history never crossed my mind as Aragorn faced down the Urak-hai or Luke toppled the AT-AT. As much as I would like to pretend I was some Roger Ebert wunderkind, it is just my own revisionist history. Star Wars was as much mine when I was 6 in 1997 as it was to the 6 year olds in 1977. It was only hindsight that ruined this for me, everyone wants to be original. I saw Star Wars with an audience when I was 6 and not many people can say that. I will never see it with those eyes again and that upsets me more than any digital alteration George Lucas can make. It was mine for just a few short years. A boy mystified with the adventure and wide expanse of the infinite galaxies had it ruined by learning too much about his own.

The Wolfpack is back and they are a fuck load richer than they were before. The Hangover was a smash hit. It made piles of money and no doubt made a lot of studio executives very happy. Its commercial success was only half of its victory; it also succeeded in achieving the currently rare feat of entering popular culture. Galifianakis beards + babies became a popular Halloween garb and positive word of mouth spread like a disease. It became populist and critically praised, yet no one turned on it. They still came in droves and went on into that good night laughing about tigers and holocaust rings. The Hangover is hard to fault; yeah it’s a dumb comedy film but a lot of intelligence went into crafting that idiocy. Meddling’s with the Fabula and syuzhet provided the perfect perspective for the viewer. We discover everything along with the characters, and laugh at and with them where appropriate. Resulting in a film about drunken misadventure where we see no drunken misadventures. It was a resounding victory and naturally a sequel was ordered.

The Hangover Part II might not be the best title for the continuation of this series. I do love no nonsense sequel naming and roman numerals (The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, The Godfather Part III and Rocky, Rocky II, Rocky III, Rocky IV, Rocky V etc.), but this doesn’t exactly feel like the second act in a series. It could’ve been the first and many would argue that is basically is and they’d be right to an extent. The real debate is if that really matters. I believe that if this was released in place of the first it would’ve achieved the same success that the first film did. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it is one of many clichés that come to mind but it’s true. This is just as enjoyable as the first, but unfortunately there is always going to be diminishing returns. It hits all the same beats as the first film and remains funny, but the surprise is gone. You know nothing is as it seems, and that everything that can go wrong will go wrong until the 75 minute mark. Luckily this is only the second film in the series, and they can get away with it. But if The Hangover Part III rolls up (which is inevitable right?) only offering a new city then the countdown to a backlash begins. For now we let it slide, surprise is nice but entertainment is priceless.

Two years after Doug’s (Justin Bartha) bachelor party, Stu (Ed Helms) is preparing for his wedding. Las Vegas has become his Vietnam, and the idea of a bachelor party is repulsive to him. His life has been normalised after the craziest weekend of his life. He has a beautiful fiancée, Lauren (Jamie Chung), and he is contempt with being a simple ordinary dentist. His only niggles are Lauren’s disapproving and traditional Thai father (Nirut Sirijanya), a character type that I like to think was cribbed from Wayne’s World 2.

His approval is only something Stu would like, it isn’t vital. He has seemingly reverted to his passive nature seen in his pre-Vegas state from the first film. He and Doug meet with Phil (Bradley Cooper), their fellow Vegas Veteran, for a bachelor brunch. This is instantly recognised as both intensely lame and a betrayal of an unwritten rule by audience and characters alike. They have to fly all the way to Thailand for his wedding and they don’t even get to have any fun. Worst of all in Stu’s mind, Alan (Zach Galifianakis) has heard about the wedding and is eagerly anticipating his invitation. None of them have had much to do with Alan since Vegas, except Doug who has brother-in-law obligations. This seemed a little strange at first, after going through such an insane series of events together you’d assume that the bond formed would have been unbreakable. A bond of this nature was formed but it’s decidedly one sided on Alan’s part. Their abandonment of Alan seemed a little unfair to his character and the sequels continuity as they’d seemed to have come to love his quirks by the first films conclusion. But when you consider that this guy roofied and almost inadvertently killed them all you realise their current relationship with him is entirely correct. But I’ll be damned if his dangerous presence isn’t endearing.

This is another potential problem in The Hangover’s future. I can’t help but feel that we might be only several films away from severe Zach Galifianakis fatigue. We know he is capable of more variety in his roles from It’s Kind of a Funny Story and he is certainly still a bizarrely original standout in the stand-up comedy circuit. But this is another appearance of the quirky and socially misadjusted Galifianakis character, his trademark. It’s still funny and I personally can’t envisage ever getting sick of it but it has to happen eventually. The Hangover is the film that brought this character type to the mainstream and many will be thrilled to see the return. But if you saw Due Date, made by The Hangover 1 and 2 director Todd Phillips in between the production of the two films, then you’re more advanced on the path to Galifianakis fatigue. And the Alan character is such a large component to The Hangover’s triumphs that it will be a damn tragedy when that happens. Let’s live in the now, where he’s still funny.  

So, Stu reluctantly agrees to invite Alan and a reunion of the Vegas crew ships off to Thailand. Alan is disgusted to find that they have a tag along. Lauren’s brother and Stu’s soon to be 16 year old brother-in-law Teddy (Mason Lee) is flying out with them. Teddy is getting a rare break from studying to attend the wedding; his dedication to his education is a result of his overbearing father. Alan hates him instantly. The Wolfpack reunion he has been dreaming about since leaving Las Vegas has been ruined by the presence of a non-wolf. Alan’s unjust hatred is played off of effectively allowing Galifianakis to show off some of his best petty man-child rage. They arrive in Thailand to a perfect resort, the setting is beautiful and everything is perfect for Stu except his father in law. After Alan makes things even worse do to upsetting cultural and social norms the Wolfpack + Teddy continue Stu’s wish of easy going celebrations with the promise of one beer and roasted marshmallows by a fire on the beach. They toast Stu’s marriage and then bang. Stu, Phil and Alan awake in a grimy hotel room. Alan’s head is shaved, Stu has a face tattoo and all that remains of Teddy is his finger. It happened again, this time in Bangkok. Doug has had a lucky escape after leaving the ‘one beer’ on the beach session early and awakens bright eyed and clear headed in the picturesque resort. The absent party is now Teddy, and as he is only 16 and apparently missing a finger. The consequences of not finding him would be disastrous; especially considering Stu’s father-in-law already hated him before he lost his son. There is more than a disappointed bride to deal with this time around. They have to unravel the whole mystery and start putting the pieces back together and their first clue, a returning Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), is somehow compromised.

The trio got into some deep shit and their complete ignorance of the severity of the night is the films returning genius. Cooper’s straight man wrangles with two unhinged but distinct comedic presences. Stu is a wreck, overcome with regret and shock about the situation they landed themselves in. Alan is a quirky dangerous presence and clearly loves the whole thing, the other two remain wary of him yet seem to be slowly remembering why they formed a reluctant friendship with him the first place. The three leads put in hilarious performances. Helms’ constant freak outs are a brilliant contrast to the composed and level headed Cooper and the oblivious Galifianakis. Their encounters with the seedy criminal world, biker monkeys, silent monks and Bangkok’s partial namesake are as funny as anything found in the first film. Your overall enjoyment of it will depend solely on your enjoyment and familiarity with the first. It provides more of the same and right now, that’s all I wanted.  

Somewhere should be incredibly boring. It opens with a scene that has a sports car and a race track but doesn’t use them to produce a badass fast paced action scene; instead we see a continuous long take of it continuously lapping the track. The engine noise peaks and troughs as it makes the same off camera corner. Some 2 minutes of this pass but it’s the first of many long scenes. Soon after the opening credits rescue us we’re treated to a long dance scene. Yeah it’s pole dancing but still. The minimal cuts and dialogue of the early scene hint at something really egregious. You’ll need patience to see it, but eventually they start to convey something. Take any scene out of context and it’s nothing, just images of a man slowly smoking a cigarette, but between his drags is an intense loneliness.

Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff) is a successful Hollywood actor. He spends most of his time in solace and lives at the Chateau Marmont in Los Angeles. A popular hotel amongst the rich and famous, John Belushi died there and Led Zeppelin rode motorbikes through the lobby. No signs of the fun times that the hotel is famous for are apparent in Johnny’s life. Even when at parties he retains his distant and introverted manner. He uses his desirability to women to his advantage but his heart doesn’t even seem to be in that. A private pole dance show from twins doesn’t incite much of a reaction.  He seldom socialises and his only true friend seems to be Sammy (Chris Pontius (Yes party-boy from Jackass got cast in a serious role for some reason)) an old childhood friend. You learn all of this from next to nothing. The first 10 minutes have only several lines of dialogue with the rest of the exposition being left to other means. I realised some time into the film that I had learnt he was a successful and famous actor without ever being directly told it. And I’m not entirely sure how that was pulled off. His swanky car is an indicator to his wealth and people’s recognition of him shows his fame but you mysteriously attain a far deeper understanding off him than this. Somewhere lets you fill in its multiple blanks, playing off of suggestion. Suddenly a long take of a car lapping a track becomes a visual symbol of his directionless life, and the solitary smoking of a cigarette becomes profound existentialist reflection.

It’s possible that you won’t see any of these things because there is precious little to form them from. But they’re very clear and not left to interpretation. What’s left unsaid can be incredibly powerful and Somewhere executes this perfectly. Emotional emptiness is expressed with empty scenes. Nothing happens because he feels nothing. He needs an emotional jump start and it comes in the form of his daughter, Eleven year old Cleo (Elle Fanning). She arrives one day after being dropped of unannounced by her mother and Johnny spends time with her out of unexpected obligation. They are bonded only by their blood. He seems to have spent little time with her previously and knows even less about her. After watching at her ice skating lesson he is impressed by her advanced abilities and when complimenting her it comes out that he had no idea that she had been learning for so long and had become one of her keenest passions. He seems unapologetic for his lousy parenting skills and isn’t recklessly attempting to right these errors. After dropping Cleo off he pays her no further thought, just as incapable of emotionally connecting with his daughter as he is with himself. It takes a few enforced reoccurrences by Cleo’s mother before a deeper relationship begins to emerge. Cleo even initially seemed closer to Sammy than to her own father. Cleo’s Mother/Johnny’s ex-wife then spontaneously decides to go away for undisclosed reasons. Reasons probably linked to dissatisfaction with her own life and the burdens of motherhood. She leaves Johnny responsible for Cleo, unsympathetic that it interferes with his celebrity roles. The only instruction he is given is to get her to camp on a certain date. With this he is forced to become a father.

As they spend more time together he begins to awaken from his stupor. Being given a responsibility outside of the movie business he becomes some form of a Dad. They enjoy each other’s company and Cleo likes experiencing a world she’s never really seen before. He takes her to Italy with him when he goes to promote his latest film and they attend an awards ceremony. The ceremony is one of many examinations of celebrity culture. Johnny’s success despite a lack of passion is straight commentary, how can someone in such a desirable job have no love for it? He sees it as a job and carries out his tasks without question. The fakery of press encounters are shown in the tense conversation Johnny shares with co-star Rebecca (Michelle Monaghan) in between their giant smiles when the cameras are on, and a long take of a special effect team making a cast of his head shows how ridiculous an actor’s life can get. He just accepts it and gets through it as quick as he can, due to his complete boredom with the celebrity lifestyle.

Somewhere feels like a very personal film. This can be credited to its focus on a character during a very personal time in his life, but it mainly comes from seeming as if it could only be made by someone with knowledge and experience of the celebrity lifestyle and the inner workings of Hollywood. Being from the Coppola family, Sofia Coppola has extensive exposure to the film industry and the life surrounding it. She wrote, directed and produced the film which seems to be heavily influenced by her own experiences. Cleo’s experiences with her father just have to be rooted is Sofia’s experiences with her father Francis Ford Coppola. A child’s perspective on the life of a celebrity is a unique and intriguing one. It was likely a defining part of her upbringing and remains personal to her. Somewhere is thematically similar to Coppola’s most successful work Lost In Translation. Both films feature explorations of self and emotional relationships in hotels. They even both see characters seeming lost in foreign worlds. Somewhere’s Italian award ceremony is excessively reminiscent of the difficulty of complete comprehension that was at the forefront of Lost In Translation. They differ mainly at the age groups of their characters; while they both explore celebrity ennui Somewhere explores it in a younger actor. Their similarities don’t detract from each other and they will certainly make great companion pieces to one another. Coppola’s rich visual style is maintained and subtle camera tricks liven lingering long takes. It’s a great directorial piece and the more you know about Sofia Coppola the more you will take from it. It’s rich even if minimalist.

The performances don’t suffer from the rare and basic dialog. Stephen Dorff portrays Johnny with believable fragility. He’s passive and reluctant to take charge but still exhumes slight sympathy from the viewer despite being completely ungrateful of the opportunities he’s in possession of. Elle Fanning is a standout actress for her age, playing Cleo as uncharacteristically mature in some areas while retaining the fun loving personality of a real eleven year old. Neither main character gets to substantially show intense emotion as their character dynamics are explored more deeply in wordless scenes. Cleo gets one scene to show something unique and it’s instantly memorable. Fanning gets across the turmoil of growing up in a broken home with periodically absentee parents with complete ease and it stands as the only example of raw emotion in Somewhere.

This will be a very polarising film. Either seeming like slow paced pretension or a genius subdued character study. It’ll work for you or it won’t. The style is as important as the story in this emotional exploration of lack of emotion.

Cinema has taken us to a multitude of worlds, to fantastical realms, to the edge of space and to the bottom of the ocean. It’s shown us criminal underworlds, the horrors of battle and even the most mundane aspects of life. Film has an inherent ability to hurl us into something we would never get to experience in reality, and due to technological advancements the only remaining limit is imagination. There’s a lot of talk in all art forms about how true originality is dead and how every possible idea has already existed. With new content only being retellings of what preceded them. Cormac McCarthy addressed his opinion on this brilliantly saying: “The ugly fact is books are made out of books. The novel depends for its life on the novels that have been written” Yeah he was talking about books   but it’s also problem in Film due to the ridiculous number of rehashes and remakes that the studios throw funds at, and this inevitably seeps into its portrayal of settings and cultures. We all like to think we know how the mafia works due to all the media that resides in that world. But regardless of me expecting to never truly encounter something entirely foreign I still did.

Never would I have anticipated a film encapsulating the world of Roller Derby. Something I’d never even heard of. Whip It chronicles a newcomers foray into this roller skate based theatrical contact sport. The sport involves 2 teams of roller skaters trying to prevent the opposing teams designated scorer (the jammer) from overtaking them. It’s bizarre and the film knows it. Bliss Cavendar (Ellen Page) is an unenthusiastic beauty pageant entrant. The victim of her dream forcing Mother (Marcia Gay Harden) who herself is a former beauty queen. Bliss is your typical small town girl, enticed by the big city and full of desires and needs to escape Bodeen Texas. Her mother’s disapproval isn’t aided by her almost complete lack of direction. Knowing for certain that she wants to escape but not knowing the means. Her best friend Pash (Alia Shawkat) plans to go to college but Bliss has no true interests to pursue. She begrudgingly works at a local diner. Even being subpar at this menial task as she never gets tipped, Pash also works there and this is likely the only reason she can tolerate it. Bliss moves through life entirely passionless, her pastimes are forced on her and her aspirations are non-existent. She seeks her own un-encountered world and on a routine lacklustre Austin shopping trip with her mother she finds it. In between her mother’s disapprovals of her fashion choices three roller skaters skate into the shop and leave behind fliers for a roller derby event. Mystified by their appearance and their general otherworldliness she takes a flier and attends with Pash.

They find not just a sporting event, but a subculture of sorts. A major event full of hip people with the roller skating girls as the stars. The sport is a fast paced violent contact sport covered in glitter, featuring girls in fishnets and eyeliner beating the shit out of each other. They’re characters. Taking on new names that personify their play style such as Maggie Mayhem (Kristen Wiig), Bloody Holly (Zoë Bell) and the mega cartoony villain Iron Maven (Juliette Lewis). Bliss and Pash observe as the team Hurl Scouts are beaten by the Holy Rollers. Bliss is entranced and talks to Maggie Mayhem following the game who invites her to try outs and well, you see were this is going. She’s found the world she was looking for. All the glamour and goings on that she’d strived for are in reach, so she digs out her Barbie skates and practices. And what do you know she has a natural talent for it. Her gateway to a glamorous world is a not so glamorous person, Razor (Andrew Wilson) is a no nonsense scruffy jean shorts wearing coach. A great juxtaposition to the mascara clad battle skaters.  His unwavering severity is a great offset to such a ridiculous sport. Razor notices Bliss’ potential and she joins the Hurl Scouts becoming Babe Ruthless. Finally her life starts and progresses from the dull foreplay that it resembled for so long. Passion and direction have been gained and she throws everything she’s got into roller derby becoming a full blown skating devotee. Whilst loving the sport and its surrounding social scene she finds romance with Oliver (Landon Pigg) a singer in a rock band. Every path is now accessible due to a pair of roller skates. But drama, she had to lie about her age to join the hurl scouts, her new found boyfriend is going on tour and her disapproving mother remains unaware and still expects Bliss to participate in Beauty Pageants (now even duller after a Bright Lights Big City couple of weeks). A balancing act ensues with her trying to keep everyone unaware of her secrets, and her occasional failures to allow strong emotional scenes.

Considering how quirky the sport and its participants are Ellen Page seems to be the perfect choice for a starring role. After making a name for herself as a wise beyond her years psychopathic teenager in 2005’s Hard Candy she’s gone on to play several premature intellects. Most notably portraying a quip firing pregnant teenager in 2007’s quirk fest Juno. But post hamburger phones and ball dissections she’s broken into the mainstream earning a role in Christopher Nolan’s Inception and finally getting to play someone normal. However she hasn’t forgotten her roots and seems to pick projects that she likes rather than pay days, and frequently dwells in Indie films. This is the likely reason for her presence in Whip It (having the ability of still looking 17 can’t have hurt either). Page has returned to where she’s comfortable, a vulnerable teenage girl, but thankfully leaves the quirk to the backdrop. Taking on the role of a protagonist for a crazy venture on roller skates. Bliss’ intelligence and abilities are completely appropriate for her age. Possessing raw natural ability that has to be refined, it feels real and grounds a sport that is pretty stupid. Page shows great range, showing her dissatisfaction at her life and the joy of discovering a new one. And the hearts to hearts with her family show yet another side. The fact alone that she can move from reality to its hair sprayed skating counterpart with ease is impressive, creating effective drama in two different worlds and differing types of drama. Both character based drama and action based roller derby drama take centre stage.

With an unconventionally un-quirky Ellen page fronting the film the quirk is left to the supporting cast. Kristen Wiig is a goofy delight as Maggie Mayhem and Jimmy Fallon adds to the comedy as a hyperactive derby announcer. The star of the supporting cast is Juliette Lewis’ Iron Maven. Ludicrously evil in every way and unjustly out to get Bliss just because she can. Maven is a cartoon character. Lewis chews the scenery beyond all recognition perfectly making use of her unique blend of crazed energy. Pash is more of an atypical female best friend character, lightly jealous of Bliss’ success and while showing a little cold shoulder now and then she would never truly seek to sabotage their bond. Marcia Gay Harden brings a commanding presence and incites compassion when her exterior is wounded.

Whip it marks the directorial debut of Drew Barrymore and considering her famed rebellious teenage years she can probably relate to Bliss’ dismissal of the old ways. I’d never expected Barrymore to have an eye for a shot but the films direction is a strength. The construction of the Roller Derby scenes captures the excitement of the sport well and genuinely makes you invested in something that you likely had no prior knowledge of.

Whip It’s original setting is simply fun to explore. You won’t have seen anything like it before but this unfamiliarity doesn’t prevent it from being a brilliant setting for a light hearted comedic journey of self-discovery. The great performances and vibrancy of its backdrop are ample reason to overcome the fact that it’s a movie about glamorous roller skaters and just enjoy it.

Brazen political outspokenness can act as a perfect illustration of polarity between peoples viewpoints, and The Believer deals with two polar opposite groups and questions: Is it always respectable when an individual exercises the right of free speech? Or can the First Amendment of the United States Constitution assist in the spread of hate? Nothing is more prolific in the spread of hate than Nazism, their extreme manifestation of their ideology led to insurmountable tragedy. The holocaust and their other atrocities make it near impossible to believe that they ever managed to garner support, and in some cases still continue to. The Believer explores Neo-Nazis through lead character Daniel Balint (Ryan Gosling). He is articulately hateful and eagerly spreads his fiercely Anti-Semitic doctrine. Not contempt with being a simple Jew baiting skin head he seeks to execute his beliefs through the political system. He attends a meeting of fascists and after hijacking the meeting to deliver a Jew hating tirade he gets the attention of meeting leaders Curtis Zampf (Billy Zane) and Lina Moebius  (Theresa Russell). Impressed by his intelligence and seeing radicalism as a potential necessity they ask what he would do to achieve his aims. He suggests killing Ilio Manzetti (Henry Bean) a high profile Jewish investment banker. They are not supportive of his advocating of murder but clearly not enough, as they invite him to their country home. Lina sees an intelligence and potential in him that could benefit their proposed fascist political party.

The roots of his hatred for Judaism are an intriguing revelation that propels his character from completely unlikeable and unjustified to intriguing. He is himself an Orthodox Jew. His radical viewpoints originated during his childhood and not from his turning on his faith. His differing interpretations of the Binding of Isaac are seen as blasphemous by his teacher and he eventually denounces his faith. The relationship between Nazi ideology and Judaism is one of intense polarity and Daniels existence within both circles gives him a unique viewpoint and even more individualistic breed of hatred, one that makes him a superior to his meathead friends who seem to hate Jews ‘just cause’. He falls in line with their violence but is more aware of why exactly they are his enemy than they are. Preaching to his comrades facts that he learnt during his youth, they are completely unaware of his close ties to the Jewish people and he is careful to not expose himself due to fears for his safety and credibility.

His Neo-Nazi group comes face to face with Judaism following their arrest for harassing and assaulting a Jewish Deli owner. The judge, seeing their complete lack of respect for the Jewish people, sentences them to sensitivity training. Where they are made to interact and hear stories from holocaust survivors. The meat heads are completely dismissive and amused by the stories with one of them even denying the holocaust. The scene is brilliantly tense with great performances from the older actors. Daniel’s followers lose every shred of likeability that they never even had to lose. Daniel is hardly likeable himself though, he approaches the situation with his usual breed of hate and intellect, pressing questions upon his ‘enemies’ and questioning their morality. The story of a man whose son was murdered in front of him by a Nazi Solider enrages Daniel and he demands to know why the man stood by and did nothing, calling him weak. The survivors say that if he were in the same position that he would have also done nothing. This questioning of his strength and understanding of how he acts towards his enemy causes him to leave the meeting. It stays with him, and throughout the remainder of the film we periodically see glimpses of Daniel imagining himself as the Jewish man and as the Nazi solider. This works as a summation of him firstly realising that he probably does not know how he would act and secondly showing his conflicting thoughts between his heritage and his political viewpoint.

He gradually gets deeper into the world of Neo-Nazism with him and his friends meeting other skin heads. These new faces actions are far more serious than roughing up a few people on the street. Meeting bomb makers and is even taught to shoot, and as a result meets Drake (Glenn Fitzgerald) who is equal to Daniel in his extremeness and intensity. As his connections increase so do his actions. He is an accomplice in a raid of a Synagogue and he is part of an assassination attempt on Manzetti with Drake. On both occasions his connections to the Jewish faith cause reluctance and his once unfaltering hatred begins to waver. He condemns his comrades for vandalising the synagogue and tearing a sacred scroll, being in there awakens some form of nostalgia for his faith and seeing the skin heads mistreatment of sacred items begins to alert him to his erroneous ways. He doesn’t act on these urges as you would expect and they don’t start him of a path of repentance. He still stands by as the others plant a bomb but he steals the scroll and a tallit shawl and leaves. He has some form of new interest in his past faith and even wears the shawl under his clothing. This leads to another visual illustration of his conflicting ideology as he shouts Jewish prayer phrases while Nazi Saluting. The shawl is noticed by Drake and contributes to the failure of the assassination plot.

He never truly reverts back to his faith and he never truly abandons Neo-Nazism. He does however dwell in both with each subtracting from each other. His history with them both is mirrored through his relationship with Moebius’ daughter Carla (Summer Phoenix). After seeing each other numerous times see discovers his stolen scrolls and that he can read and speak Hebrew, requesting that he teach her. She is his opposite coming from right wing extremism and slowly converting to Judaism. Her interests become far deeper than curiosity with her wanting to participate in Jewish rituals. It’s a plot point that while interesting is quite predictable and an obvious attempt at deepening the story by showing a similar character arc in reverse. The whole romance subplot seems unnecessary and feels like it is only present as another device to show his internal conflict.

The Believer is one of Ryan Gosling’s earliest film performances and is often seen as his breakthrough role, it’s great to see that he was talented from the beginning. His portrayal of Daniel Balint is the whole film. The world of Neo-Nazism is more of less unexplored by cinema and there are few examples of skinhead characters. The most famous example is of course American History X but this predates The Believer by only 3 years and had not yet become the modern classic that it is now known as. That film dealt with a completely converted Neo-Nazi who had abandoned his extremist views and was trying to leave it behind. While The Believer deals with similar themes he never truly repents. So Gosling had pretty much no guidance or reference in creating this character. The basis for the story was also likely no help for Gosling. The story was based off of Daniel Burros a Jewish American who was revealed to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan. While Burros was a member of a Nazi group he was never associated with skinheads. Therefore Gosling had to create this character rather than rely on imitation. He brings a vicious intelligence and unsure morality that makes the character development fascinating. The rest of the performances are generally low key with no other characters getting extensive screen time, they are their mainly to react to Balint. Most of Daniel’s soul searching happens in solitude with few character confrontations. Gosling is so good that everyone else is sadly forgettable, everyone’s favourite character actor Garret Dillahunt makes an appearance as one of Daniel’s meat headed droogs but no one else exactly went on to superstardom. It lacks multiple fantastic indie actors that a film like this usually pertains, but it has one major one in the shape of indie darling Gosling.

It never quite escapes its indie film feel, its clearly low budget and this affects parts of the film that could easily have benefitted from more substantial funds. The score is incredible overbearing at times with ridiculous sounding female wailings that are borderline orgasmic, it really subtracts from the serious tone especially when dealing with subjects like the holocaust. The ending also seems needlessly ambiguous and has the feel of being written by someone who was aspiring for things greater than the indie film scene.

It’s still a great example of indie cinema with a fantastic character lead story of self-conflict and downfall. It’s rightly seen as Gosling’s film with his core power house performance being reason enough alone to watch this tense indie flick.

Watching Academy Award nominated films removed from award seasons isn’t the most ideal situation. The films have been built up to ridiculous levels over 3 or so months and that kind of overexposure can really alter a person’s opinion before they actually sit down and watch the films. Trying to purge all of this from my mind I finally got around to watching the Coen Brothers’ True Grit, and since the film didn’t win jack shit this wasn’t too hard.

True Grit is an adaption of Charles Portis’ 1968 novel, which shares the same title, and not a remake of the 1969 original which featured John Wayne at its helm. It follows young 14 year old Mattie Ross (played by an equally young 14 year old Hailee Steinfeld) as she hires U.S. Marshal Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn ( Jeff Bridges) to help her seek vengeance on her father’s murderer Tom Chaney ( Josh Brolin). Also on his trail is LaBoeuf ( Matt Damon) a Texas Ranger, who has been endlessly and unsuccessfully pursuing him for crimes he committed in Texas State.

The western genre has always been a favourite of mine and Joel and Ethan Coen apparently share this passion. This isn’t their first foray into the American West. No Country for Old Men is a modern western of sorts, the setting and character types are all reminiscent of the American Frontier. You’ve got your sheriff and you’ve got your outlaws, Anton Chigurh is as fearsome as any murderous sharpshooter. But train robberies and cattle raids became narcotics trading. It’s a great application and subversion of an old historical context as well as its previous portrayals in cinema and media. The Western is one of the longest established genres in film, but it sort of died out. There are tons and tons of them from the first half of the 20 century and many classics were also being released in the 1960s, but from then on there isn’t much really. It has undergone many facelifts that try to revolutionise the long standing genre. For example Sam Peckinpah’s 1969 film The Wild Bunch is notable for dealing with the end of West due to approaching modernisation. It’s portrayal of the west focussed on the brutal violence and was met with controversy. Arguably the most famous revisionist western is the 1992 film Unforgiven. It shares many similar themes with The Wild Bunch, both chronicle aging outlaws against a fading American West while also focusing on the violence and brutality that was always conspicuously absent in the genre. A genre that was once full of rugged masculine heroes fighting for good was reduced to a decrepit old man on a murderous rampage. Unforgiven’s impact can mostly be credited to its actor and director Clint Eastwood, he returned to genre that made him and exposed its savage core.

It’s impossible for the genre to return to the all smiles/out to good of the early western films. Cowboys in bright colours that fought only because it was right to is a dead notion, survival was tough. We all know what it looks like when you shoot someone and we all know what type of person it takes to do that. True Grit isn’t a throwback despite being closely linked to an old western staple. It’s well aware that audience expectations have been flipped, and it doesn’t shy away from turning on the bleak overtones. Our heroes encounter raw unpleasantness many times, they nonchalantly deal with dead bodies and life out on the plains just looks like it sucks. You don’t get your typical western desert plains and picturesque sunsets with True Grit; the characters instead ride through bitterly cold snowy landscapes. Sleeping under the stars has some degree of romance too it, but this film makes it look the absolute worst. Our heroes really aren’t heroes at all; they’re all out for their own selfish reasons. Mattie’s reason is morally just but she still selfishly goes against everyone’s advice and wishes to seek revenge. Rooster just wants to get paid and LaBoeuf wants the glory of bringing in Tom Chaney for himself. They don’t form unbreakable bonds with each other and their perceived differences and dislikes of one another are always factors. They function together simply to get what they want and there is no ounce of enjoyment in it for any of them.

Rooster Cogburn is the antipodal western hero. He’s a mess with questionable hygiene and a reliance on alcohol. He lives at the back of a Chinese-goods store and his competence at his job is constantly in question. Mattie Ross first observes him at a trial investigating how righteous his shooting of certain criminals was. His unflinching ruthlessness with his weapons is the trait that attracts Mattie to hire him. Jeff Bridges portrayal of Cogburn is another top class performance to add to his resume. He previously won an Academy Award for playing a drunken southern idiot in Crazy Heart and here he is again playing a completely distinct drunken southern idiot. He is a complete manic fool, he clearly knows what he is doing but his faltering sobriety is always an obstacle. He is truly fearsome when armed and his callousness is terrifying given his crazed and inebriated mental state. However, aspects of him are entirely loveable, but he switches to cold hearted on a dime to deal with the horrors of the west.

I guess all the Oscar hype was right surrounding Hailee Steinfeld, it’s a frightfully strong debut performance that she’ll likely find hard to escape. Her portrayal of Mattie Ross is more bold, intelligent and strong willed than someone twice her age (both character and actor). Her commanding mannerism are shockingly believable, they could have easily been laughable considering the age of the character but the way Steinfeld carries herself dispels all questioning. She’s naïve but it’s clear that her headstrong intelligence will always be a vital ability in her keeping herself safe. Matt Damon’s LaBoeuf mainly serves as opposition for Cogburn, they begin as allies but a rivalry develops due to LaBoeuf’s questioning of Cogburn’s prowess as a U.S. Marshall as well as his ability with a firearm. Their feud is a great distraction from the more serious disputes in the film.

These distractions from severity are a common occurrence resulting in True Grit being surprisingly funny. The humour acts as a way of lightening the otherwise bleak and violent overtones. Rooster’s drunken antics aren’t the only source of comedy, with many supporting characters only being present only as a means of humour. If it weren’t for the realistic violence and the foreboding and ominous tones the film would likely be great for children, with Mattie Ross being a great role model for young girls as well as a more general feminist icon within a genre that has next to none.

True Grit is further proof that the Coen Brothers know how to line up a shot, but high praise must also be given to the films cinematographer Roger Deakins. Parts of the film are harrowingly beautiful, portraying the bleak and violent subtext perfectly in visual form. It’s a fine example of a film in the revisionist western category; it doesn’t push the genre forward as its predecessors did but it’s an awe inspiring mix of varying tones that make you pray for the rebirth of cinema focused upon the American west.

Norse mythology + space + superheroes. You can decide if you want to see Thor based on that sentence alone. And had it been summarised to me in this manner before I saw it I’d have been a hell of a lot more excited. I knew just about zilch about Thor, presuming he was just your standard superhero who takes his persona from an obsession with Vikings. But no the guy IS Thor, the hammer wielding thunder god. Worshipped by the Vikings as a deity, but this must be grounded to the crazy reality of the Marvel Universe, so he is not a God. Thor is just a guy from Asgard one of the nine realms, and when I say just a guy I mean he’s the Son of Odin, with great powers and possessing a legendary weapon. But in a world of iron men and hulks that are quite incredible Thor isn’t special. He’s just another badass superhero. Only worshipped by the Vikings because they were primitive enough to be wowed by his powers.

In the dusk lit desert of New Mexico is scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), her assistant Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) and older scientist Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard). They are sat in a van at their monitors and are waiting for something. The something isn’t punctual and they’re out of place for it too. The heavens erupt in dazzling light and they make pursuit into a holy-shit-this-is-more-dangerous-than-they-thought energy storm. Then they hit someone, there is no way someone could be wondering around the desert this late at night right? How did this man get here and who is he? Of course you know, but this is still an effective cold opening. From the plains of New Mexico we are seized out of this world with the prologue. Who could forget 970 AD? The year Odin lead Asgard’s warriors to war with the Frost Giants of Jotunheim. Wait what about New Mexico? Things get real crazy real fast and you better adjust accordingly, crazy nouns are thrown from all directions of warriors and ancient instruments of power, Caskets of Ancient Winters are captured and men with beards fuck up frost giants.

In the 21^st century of their realm Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is set to take the throne of Asgard from his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins). The grand ceremony is interrupted by the Frost Giants who attempt to retrieve the Casket and resume a war from over a millennium ago. Thor understandably is pissed and wants to meet this gesture of war head on. Against Odin’s wishes he travels to Jotunheim to face the Frost Giants. His loyal followers Sif (Jaimie Alexander), Volstagg (Ray Stevenson), Fandral (Joshua Dallas) Hogun (Tadanobu Asano) and his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) go with him. They confront Laufey (Colm Feore), who was defeated by Odin at the original battle, and a battle ensues. They are narrowly saved by Odin after being quickly overwhelmed. Furious at Thor’s action he strips him of his powers and banishes him to earth throwing his hammer after him.

Somewhere during the prologue I decided this film was pretty fucking metal. The battle between the warriors and the mystical frost giants is something straight from heavy metal sleeve art. It made me want to go and listen to The Sword immediately. Earth seems to be the most banal of the Nine Realms, Jotunheim’s barren ice sculptures and Asgard’s techno Viking aesthetic are stunning. The film is visually masterful and a great justification of CGI. The realms are of a High Fantasy that I would never have expected from a Marvel property, more akin to Dungeons and Dragons than it is X-Men. They’re fantastically realised worlds, full of technology equal parts magic and sci-fi. Heimdall’s (Idris Elba) magical trans-dimensional space travel machine is insane (it’s still the Bifrost Bridge but it’s steam punked up like a motherfucker). The characters appearances are madnesss yet totally buyable because everything else madness to. Every scene that happens in Asgard is complete melodrama, magical warriors roar at one another in exaggerated discourse. Tremendous effort has gone into crafting a place only seen for a quarter of the running time, but it had to be. Thor has to seem completely out of his element when awakening on earth, and the viewer makes the shift in perspective alongside him. New Mexico might seem a foreign land to some but after the acid wave of Asgard it becomes a complete antithesis.   

With the setting being changed to somewhere significantly less exciting you better pray that the characters are strong enough to maintain interest. Thankfully they are. Thor’s confusion at earth is played off of at length; it’s a great enabler of humour with Thor appearing as a rambling drunk to the average human. The action takes a back seat for a while as earth’s supporting characters are introduced. Jane Foster is an intelligent and determined scientist, she’s surprised by her discovery but is eager to believe that it’s as fantastical as it appears, she’s amongst something she’s been looking for and despite its toll on her life’s work she wants to see it through to wherever it will take her. Fresh off of her Oscar win for Black Swan the roles offered to Natalie Portman are likely going to change. She always surprises me with her acting choices picking dramatic film as often as comedies. Portman is a very natural actress, seeming talented even when not getting a real chance to. Outside of a little comic relief and a romance plot she doesn’t get much to do. The romance itself seems a little thrown together. Jane’s interest in Thor seems to be based on his physical stature and mysterious origins. All the talk of love and waiting for each other in the third act is hard to buy due to the limited screen time the two get together. Especially since this supposedly intelligent scientist fell for what easily could have been a crazed homeless person. Thor is charming, brash and reckless. Hemsworth juggles the melodramatic fantasy babble and the oddball comedy seamlessly; his character appears as the same individual despite the two varying styles. Kat Dennings is a delight as the adorably ditzy Darcy and Sif and the Warriors Three appear more outlandish than even Thor does.

Anthony Hopkins and Tom Hiddleston are perfect for the overly dramatic nature of Asgard as Odin and Loki. The plot developments dealing with Asgard’s monarchy veer towards Shakespearian. Appropriate considering director Kenneth Branagh is known for directing and starring in several Shakespeare adaptions (including an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of Henry V). Transitioning from Shakespeare to super Vikings is a little strange and bringing some Shakespearian influence is basis to be sectioned. Not all of the direction is to my taste. Outside of Asgard there are some bizarre choices with a disturbing amount of slanted camera angles.   

The Marvel Universe comes together for its ultimate cross over venture next year in The Avengers. All the major characters are being established with their own films including Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. Captain America: The First Avenger is set for a summer release. Because of this I feared that it would become a feature length advert for the 2012 film. To an extent this is true with several set ups and loose ends left to be resolved in the future film. Jeremy Renner makes a brief appearance as Hawkeye and the after credits stinger sets up Thor’s main villain’s (saying who it is would be a spoiler) role in The Avengers. You’ll be on board with the whole Avengers idea when it’s over, a 150 million dollar advert will do that.

The mammoth budget really lets everything run wild, with intense action sequences and fantastical visual landscapes. The pacing takes a dive upon Thor’s banishment but it’s even more fun to see it ramping back up. It’s nice to see something that’s just crazy and fun, a hero that never stops and thinks and doesn’t encourage you to either. Bring on The Avengers.

The line between genius and mental case is seemingly incredibly thin, and the work of Wes Anderson is undeniable a strong exhibit A to any in depth study of this correlation. He is one of the strongest arguments for Auteur theory; his body of work is unlike anything else produced or being produced. The guy is clearly bat shit and fiercely creative but just how much genius his work contains is never clear to me. The Royal Tenenbaums is a fantastic construct, its writing, its tone; its bizarre characters. They all make some form of masterpiece, but I never really found it engaging it just exists in its own world and getting invested in it seems impossible. Rushmore is similar but only has one unrealistic character, but this characters difference to the world he inhabits is the films key strength. It shows what Anderson can do, it’s always going to be strange but his ability to make fantastic films is never in question (regardless of how enjoyable they are).

I made sure I was prepared to wade waist deep into weird and finally watched the majority of his filmography, and I think (“think” as you can never be entirely sure with Wes Anderson) that The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou was my favourite. I thought Rushmore was unbeatable I loved the application of weird Andersoness to some form of a real environment, and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou could not be farther from those themes.

Usual Wes Anderson suspects are back with Bill Murray, Owen Wilson and Anjelica Huston all taking major roles. Continuing his tradition of paying homage to the increasingly obscure, Anderson takes his inspiration for this film from Jacques-Yves Cousteau a French scientist of many roles whose passion was the ocean. Anderson originally made reference to him in Rushmore. But Cousteau serves as the basis of main character Steve Zissou ( Bill Murray) an eccentric oceanographer and documentarian film maker. The film opens with the premiere of Zissou’s latest film which documents the death of his long-time partner and friend Esteban ( Seymour Cassel), who was eaten by a Jaguar Shark. From here on the film becomes an off-beat comedy with elements of Moby Dick. He leaves the premiere with the promise that he will document his killing of the shark, which he will hunt down with Team Zissou aboard his ship the Belafonte. Before departing he is approached by Ned Plimpton ( Owen Wilson) a slow and mild mannered pilot who claims to be Zissou’s son. He is quickly invited along with Zissou wanting to bond with his newly found son.

We get our first glimpses into the crazy world of Zissou with him introducing his boat in a documentary style. Whether this is part of his actual documentary is never clear. A fantastic long take sequence shows the films great set design. The camera pans seamlessly around a large set showing the intersection of Belafonte as Zissou introduces every room and its purpose. The direction shamelessly reveals its tricks all adding to the unique tone of the film.

Zissou is apparently Richie Rich rich, and is known worldwide. The narrative never goes out of its way to make this explicit it just presents Zissou’s world as its own form of reality. Ned talks about being a member of the Zissou Society, presumably a fan club. Ned should be our protagonist in this crazy world but he is unfazed by it. It’s all plausible to him as he has prior knowledge of it that the viewer never gets. The unexplained and unpredictable nature of this world makes viewing it incredibly interesting. You can view it entirely form your own perspective rather than that of a characters.               

Filling out the primary cast are characters Jane Winslett-Richardson (Cate Blanchett) a reporter seeking a story with Zissou, and Klaus Daimler (Willem Dafoe) second in command and a long time Zissou loyalist.

The off-beat tone is always at full volume with the film being more about it strangeness than the overall story. We see normal story beats played out in entirely different ways. Zissou has troubles with his wife Eleanor (Anjelica Huston), and a sort of unenthusiastic love triangle forms between Jane, Ned and Himself. But none of his problems are resolved in the way you’d expect. Great moments see him clash with pirates and steal from rival Alistair Hennessey (Jeff Goldblum) base. Everything rightly revolves around the films eccentric titular character.

Praise for Bill Murray risks verging on pastiche. The guy is loved and has a plethora of classic roles. He still rarely leaves his comedic habitat but his work with Anderson definitely shows a different side to his acting talents. In classics Ghostbusters and Groundhog Day he plays dry, witty and not-a-adjective-that-expresses-to-a-large-enough-extent sarcastic. In every serious scene his characters enter he has a witty retort for it. He is far from a believable human and is almost self-aware within those films’ narratives. But his portrayal of Steve Zissou is painfully human, full of character flaws and self-loathing. Peter Venkman was invulnerable and disgustingly self-confident. Zissou has no charm and is slowly being turned on by everyone around him. His crumbling character is fascinating; his selfishness leads to wildly unpredictable actions as well as random (perhaps accidental) heroism. Willem Dafoe’s Klaus is also endearing, his intense jealousy and loyalty is acting out adorably, with Dafoe winning the award for most eccentric in a film with a ridiculous amount of nominees. Cate Blanchett plays an odd love interest; she is intelligent and wise but not an altogether normal character. She is rarely seen not chewing gum and is heavily pregnant a trait I don’t think I have ever seen in someone intended as a desirable character.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou is one of the best films if judged solely on its aesthetic elements. This is a strength that Anderson never disappoints with. It makes fantastic use of its colour palette, costume design and set decoration to create a visual look that is as brazen as it is unique. The Team Zissou uniform of an orange hat and blue clothes has to me one of the greatest looks ever; even wackier is their slim fit diving suits. The use of colour is signature Wes Anderson, under water scenes are filled with bright tropical colours and the pirate scene is filmed entirely in a blue haze. It mixes inauthentic and fake stylistic choices with its more traditional ‘realist’ aspects. Using stop animation to show fantastical sea life, likely because real sea life would appear mundane in comparison to the films aesthetic. It also features many Anderson mainstays such as his use of Futura typeface and music from the 1960s/70s.

The music is simply brilliant, the simple original score contrasts with its use of licensed rock music. The image of Zissou walking the length of his ship as David Bowie’s “Life on Mars” plays couldn’t be more perfect, as well as Zissou’s maniac act of heroism set to The Stooges “Search and Destroy”. The majority of the soundtrack consists of original acoustic covers of David Bowie songs sung in Portuguese. These are composed and performed by Seu Jorge, who also portrays Team Zissou member Pelé dos Santos. They add to the overflowing uniqueness as well as give more flavour and originality to Anderson’s sometimes predictable soundtrack choices (all his soundtracks films consist of 1960s/70s rock music).

Every eccentricity constructs something that I never even knew I wanted to see. It’s foregoes straightforwardness in every aspect resulting in a freshness most films cannot compare to. It’s not in any way accessible to anyone really but it has many creative elements that make its incredibly obscure subject matter interesting. Prepare for its weirdness but embrace its originality.

Indecision is a destructive trait in any area, and is often deadly in film. All Good Things really can’t decide what it wants to be, odd considering it’s based on true events and proudly states this at the bookends of the film. But its indecisiveness unintentionally runs parallel with the indecision of its story and characters.

The story is directly based on Robert Durst a wealthy son of a New York real estate mogul. He witnessed his mother’s death at a young age and predictably was never the same. He was eventually arrested and tried for murder in 2003 and is suspected to be involved in other unsolved crimes linked to the Durst family. He is portrayed in the film by Ryan Gosling but the character name is changed to David Marks (all other characters based off of real people also have their names changed). Early in the film we see him rebel against his upper class roots. He marries a girl from a humble working class background, Katie McCarthy (Kirsten Dunst), they move to the country together and seemingly live their happiest days together. They set up a health food store naming it “All Good Things”. But the shop and their whole life style is being funded by David’s dad Sanford Marks (Frank Langella) who is constantly trying to encourage David to come and work for the family business, which he eventually does.

In enters the indecision, he chooses the job based on feelings of obligation rather than need or want. His wife didn’t want him to do it, and he has ultimately doomed their happiness. But impending doom is weaved into the narrative before even their fairy-tale like time in the country. Marks is shown mumbling to himself incoherently, and it’s established early on that he was present for his mother’s suicide. The film utilises a framing device to show this, it flashes back from David at his trial to the events that lead him there, with Gosling looking surprisingly convincing in old man makeup. His dark past and questionable psyche makes his romance with Katie tragic, she is initially blissfully unaware but her realisation changes her character for the worst.

Dunst portrays her as the epitome of sweetness. She is completely sincere and hides nothing, she is initially intrigued by his unique differences but eventually becomes aware of just how deep they go and what they are rooted in. He never talks about himself to her and she marries him without ever knowing about his mother or his personal demons. She is at last enlightened by David’s long-time friend Deborah Lehrman (Lily Rabe). Who breaks the information in an overly sunny and blasé fashion, when seeing Marks’ other female friends his choice of Katie as a wife seems far more puzzling. His mysterious past slowly breaks free of its repression following the revelation that Katie is pregnant, finally showing his rage tinted colours and requesting with no real reasons that they shouldn’t become parents. Indecision again with Katie being torn over whether to proceed with an abortion. Adding to the already incredibly dark tone, with a work obsessed David regrettably absent. The sweet and hope filled girl she once was dies, another victim of his scarred mental state.

The first two thirds of the film revolve almost solely around the tragic romance of David and Katie. They clash over her decision to pursue a medical career. It constantly builds and builds with the viewer painfully aware that this cannot end well. His long hidden dark emotions emerge often because of their dying relationship. His worst actions are left ambiguous, remaining off-screen; we are only shown Katie’s true terror at their aftermath. Their relationship is truly interesting and you really fear for her as well as sympathise with David because of his demons. This makes the sudden shift the film takes all the more worse. The shift links into the seeming indecision that the film has. For the first hour it chronicles a tragic romance, but from then on every aspect of it shifts. The narrative techniques, the time period, characters, everything. It turns into a far less compelling film, becoming a poor crime mystery genre film that sees David go on the run. Now, I’ll avoid spoilers as best I can but I have to write about this part of the film because it’s a significant chunk of the narrative and not a twist ending. Marks’ is suspected of various things and decides to flee to Texas, where he is seen in a costume far less convincing than his old man one but deliberately so. He meets Melvin Bump (played by will-always-be-the-library-detective-from-Seinfeld, Philip Baker Hall) and shit goes down.

The films indecisiveness is painfully apparent in its concluding third. It’s debatable that the awkward shift is unavoidable due to the true basis of its story. But All Good Things doesn’t seem to have any problems taking liberties with aspects of the story other than this. Who did what and why within the criminal acts in question are played around with endlessly. They have never been proved in real life but the film isn’t hesitant in pointing the finger at those it believes committed them. It changes and fabricates what it needs to in order to make the story more compelling, but this doesn’t prevent the incredible drop off in quality in the films closing chapters. Which are a little stupid and mostly uninteresting, the dark tone inexplicably lightens given the subject matter and it arrives at its feature length running time not at a stride but crawling on bloody stumps.

It’s not due to lack of talent that the film concludes as lacklustre. I hadn’t heard of director Andrew Jarecki before but his previous work (Capturing the Friedmans) was nominated for the Academy Award for Documentary Feature. His direction is simply fine; with rare shots verging on fantastic (particularly the shot of Marks’ sitting at his desk as a building is constructed behind him). Ryan Gosling is one of the best young actors working today but he never really gets to show it. He gets the frustrated and demon filled side of David Marks’ down but never gets to embody an all the way snapped version of him, with the director instead opting for ambiguity. Dunst is fine as the sugar sweet Katie but her downfall is never really more than a few depressed expressions. The mystery was never solved in reality and the film decisions to incriminate its characters are far too predictable, it throws some red herrings into the mix but they’re not overly effective. It just can’t decide if it wants to be a romantic drama or a crime mystery. 

The troubled and tragic romance of David and Katie Marks is a compelling plot point, it promises a thrilling pay off that just never materialises. It has similarities to another Ryan Gosling drama/romance film: Blue Valentine, and if anything All Good Things made me realise how good that film actually is in comparison. It’s two thirds a decent film but the conclusions commit a greater crime than any committed by its characters.

The mental health of comedic characters tends to be deliberately enigmatic. You have your man child Adam Sandler like characters whose motivations and characteristic can only be rooted in some form of psychological trauma. These problems are frequently absent from the narrative. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, who really wants to see the years of psychological treatment and shrink visits these characters likely had to endure due to their fucked up mental state? (I bet the scene were Happy Gilmore cried about how his father never hugged him when he was a child never even crossed the script writers mind). But can it ever be funny? Can you ever really laugh at a deeply troubled, suicidal individual? Well It’s Kind of a Funny Story tries to answer that question, and the answer seems to be: Well kind of… 

Amongst the new breed of comedy films (as it is slowly being pried from the vice grip of Judd Apatow) no man has achieved greater success in the loveable-but-mentally-challenged character archetype than Zack Galifianakis. His good intentioned airhead characters have brought him great success in his collaborations with director Todd Phillips, The Hangover and Due Date, and with the almost guaranteed juggernaut release of The Hangover: Part II thundering towards us he is definitely sticking around for a while. But along with his quick fire mainstream success is bound to come the dreaded typecast labels. He plays his one character well, but we have all seen what happens when an actor fails to mix it up (Jack Black anyone?). When first hearing that Galifianakis is playing an actual mental patient it can seem like the perfect fit, you know he pretty much does this in all his films and his unkempt appearance certainly helps some to. But when you really think about it you realise that this could get pretty damn insensitive. But no, this role is the exact one he needed to finally show his range.

It’s unfair to the rest of It’s Kind of a Funny Story’s cast that Galifianakis has hitherto received all the glory, and not just because his role is a supporting one. The whole cast are great and all act as perfect illustrators of the films indie-leanings. It starts with a bridge, and we see 16 year old Craig Gilner (Keir Gilchrist) taking a suicidal climb up Brooklyn Bridge. He falls despite his families pleas and it’s revealed as another of his troubled dreams. He takes himself to the hospital hoping for a quick fix for his problems and in doing so involuntarily commits himself to 3 North, a metal health facility in the same hospital. Due to renovations to the teen facility patients of all ages are all in together. He is initially reluctant following his introduction to the more extreme patients, but quickly forms a friendship with older patient Bobby (Zack Galifianakis). His reluctance to stay is also linked to the embarrassment he will feel if his friends find out. Particularly his best friend Aaron (Thomas Mann), who’s girlfriend Nia (Zoë Kravitz) has been the subject of an intense crush on Craig’s part. He eventually confesses his situation to Nia, which apparently increases her mystical perceptions of him, resulting in him becoming a talking point of his school and twice as enticing to Nia.

His psychological problems originate from his academic pressures; he attends the highly prestigious Executive Pre-Professional High School in New York. Adding to the anguishes of his day to day school life is his Dad’s constant urgencies for him to apply to an even more prestigious summer school. While he doesn’t resent his Dad, he is aware that his constant interference and attempts to influence his career paths is a key contributor to his frequent shifting mental states. It’s a hope filled look at mental health, less about the stereotypical brooding and more about the proactive attempts at recovery, with the characters accepting their problems and moving forward without looking to blame what is responsible. Other characters problems are shown in the same light; even the most extreme mental illnesses are shown in a sincere an un-mocking manner. Schizophrenia is shown as an illness like any other. The source of Bobby’s battles with depression are never truly revealed, he claims he is at the facility on vacation. We get only glimpses into his true life, with his unsympathetic wife making a brief appearance. His relationship with Craig is as varied as his moods, at times he serves as a guardian to him. He looks out for him and gives him guidance; he clearly sees himself in Craig and wants to divert him from ending up as he has. But for the most part the two of them are equals, in spite of their age difference; they look out for each other whenever possible.

Craig’s brief but transformative stay at 3 North doesn’t leave his love life untouched. He meets Noelle (Emma Roberts) a girl of his age that is there due to self-mutilation. She takes notice of him after observing his kind actions towards Bobby. They arrange a meet and bond over their similarities, both of them finally finding someone their own age that truly understands exactly what they are going through. Their relationship is built with only minimal screen time, with the film even jokingly skipping over Craig’s emotion spilling speech when their feelings become clear. Their interest in one another is entirely believable, despite it appearing to be based solely on their comparable ages in a ward of adults. They are seeing each other at their worst from the get go and they embrace each others flaws, it’s a relationship in its infancy that is barely fleshed out but you really feel the two will last.

The film central performances are brilliant and Zack Galifianakis deserves all the praise he gets. He plays an unbalanced man, verging from playful and optimistic to distant and rage filled. His comedic talents are still present and are just as effective but weigh in more equally with the rest of his acting talents. Keir Gilchrist’s performance changes appropriately as his characters journey progresses. Beginning as a reluctant figure whose problems are clearly beneath the surface, and ending as a more rounded person with a clear grip on his troubles.

The style of the film is befittingly schizophrenic. Its straightforward narrative is peppered with stylised cutaways that seem to act as an insight to Craig’s imagination. It shows characters as he wants to see them and not as they are. A simple music class at 3 north becomes a glitzy glam rock performance of Queen and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure”, which serves as a goofy grin inducing scene. The film is narrated by Craig who interjects information and controls certain scenes, such as skipping through a speech that makes him look sappy. His new love of creating art also becomes an important visual aspect of the film. All the elements retain the blatant indie film vibe; the focus on understated comedy derived from its character studies is delightfully indie. It’s funny in a cute and harmless way. Its indieness includes the music, which is provided by Canada’s Broken Social Scene who are just about as indie as you can get. Some licensed music is also present with songs from The Damned and Queen. 

It’s Kind of a Funny Story treats the difficulty of its subject matter with the care and respect that it requires. It illustrates the funny aspects of it without any malice. When it’s dark, it’s really dark but this is a frank and uplifting exploration of mental illness that provides a new perspective alongside its heart-warming comedy. 

Science Fiction has its droves of devotees, but it has become such a broad term that Sci-Fi fans continue to do what they do best and moan up a storm about its current state. Inception had elements of it, and the Star Trek reboot was packed with it. But many of these somewhat Sci-Fi films cater more for the mainstream than the people with Silent Running posters on their walls. Their plots are based around fantastical technology over its theoretical possible counterpart. Then in 2009 we got Moon, a reclamation of the Sci-Fi genre by one of its biggest devotees: Duncan Jones. Well we all think he’s a devotee but in truth he became the Science Fiction Messiah so quickly that we’re still learning about him. I’m one of the legions of people that can easily wax poetic about Moon. Explorations of solace, morality and identity amidst a rich Sci-Fi background fronted by Sam Rockwell and scored by Clint Mansell, it was mind blowing. Even its film poster is one of my all-time favourites. Blatant homages and use of genre tropes made it an instant modern Sci-Fi classic. With its story revolving around the mining of Helium-3 it possessed scientific accuracies that even NASA had to admit were impressive (the film was screened for NASA at their request). All eyes were on Jones following one of the strongest directorial debuts in recent years, he reeked of potential and now had a budget big enough to show it.

Source Code is a testament to the broadness of the Science Fiction tag, while Jones had originally been at the forefront of those seeking a return to storytelling based in the technological potential of the human race, Source Code exists comfortably as a more fantastical narrative. The technology that drives the plot could never happen; it exists merely as a way to explain and ground something that is often a mystical occurrence. Brief techno babble explanations are given to allow more time for action. It’s not a natural progression from Moon but Jones maintains his Sci-Fi crown for the time being, saved by the wide criteria of his favourite genre. Source Code is a thriller film, it dedicates little time to what powers it and instead opts for a popcorn action feel.

Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) opens his eyes to find himself on a Chicago train. He has no memory of what brought him there. The beautiful stranger opposite him however seems to know him, but not as the person that he thinks he is. She is Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan) who is apparently a friend of his, but why is she calling him Sean and why does the ID in his wallet say Sean Fentress? You don’t want to know these answers before watching the film so you might want to stop reading. I’m not going to spoil any major plot points but knowing nothing at all will certainly help your enjoyment. Colter is meant to know nothing and unravelling the plot along with him must be the best way to approach the film. This is unfortunately a luxury that the current state of film trailers deprived me of.

Overwhelming confusion and disorientation leads him to the trains’ toilet, and a reluctant stare into the mirror confirms his fears. He isn’t Captain Colter Stevens. The man looking back at him is Sean Fentress, who is visually represented as a different actor in reflections to achieve this effect. The Gyllenhaal-less reflection only makes his state of mind more fucked and before we can speculate if he’s insane or not he’s dead as an explosion rips through the train killing everyone aboard. Yet he now finds himself suspended in his familiar army attire in an unfamiliar chamber. He is now himself but this mental health shattering morning continues when Captain Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) appears on a screen and demands to know who destroyed the train. Finally granted a reprieve by proving he knows nothing, this poor man is made privy to exactly what the fuck is going on with extensive exposition. He is inside Source Code a program that allows a participant to exist within the last eight minutes of a person’s life. Entrants maintain their free will, and can move freely and take actions that the original possessor of the memories didn’t do. Colter just experienced the last eight minutes of Sean Fentress’ life. A passenger who was killed on a train bombing that morning. The attack was the first in series of proposed attacks in Chicago with the attackers responsible promising to make their next suckers nuclear. Colter must go back into the Source Code and locate the bomber so the following attacks can be prevented. He remains unsure but is quickly convinced to serve his country and retries the Source Code. Several repetitions of Fentress’ final minutes are seen with Colter’s growing familiarity of it becoming a vital part of his arsenal.

Source Code finds time to explore themes of human relationships and the concepts of strangers in spite of its rapid pacing. The rapidity doesn’t even phase its romance subplot; Colter has intercepted a budding relationship between Sean and Christina, with him seemingly awakening in the middle of one of their many flirtatious conversations on their daily commute. Christina has been waiting for him to make his move, mistaking Colter’s weird behaviour for a new found spontaneity in Sean. All the groundwork has been done, enabling Colter to come in and sweep her straight off of her feet. Colter can see it and seeing her openly forward interest in him his own interests change suite, setting himself the task of saving her and everyone aboard the train by ignoring insistences that he can’t change the past. It’s a unique romance, from Christina’s perspective it’s completely just. She has all the pretext. Colter develops his romantic interest through a series of eight minute sequences with her memory being reset every time. He must have the perfect eight minutes to get what he wants. You can argue that he’s taking advantage of her, negating to tell her that he isn’t the man she originally fell for; this could’ve destroyed the romance plot thread if it weren’t for Gyllenhaal’s abundance of charm.

Jake Gyllenhaal is much more of a drawing force for Source Code than Duncan Jones is, and he rightly gets to play leading man. His performance seems a result of a collaboration with Jones rather than of following instructions. An approach similar to how he worked with Sam Rockwell in Moon. Jones lets the film be actor lead rather than an auteur piece. The direction is brilliant but the character is as Jake Gyllenhaal as any of his other performances, semi-serious and light hearted. With such a high concept anything else would be unwise, in a reality with no consequences why would you have any fear of, or a regard for public perception? Humanity bleeds into his character during emotional revelations that break down any concerns over his number of dimensions. Developing from maniac confusion to gleeful exploitation his character is a joy to watch. Ridiculously gorgeous Michelle Monaghan is another highlight with her repeated flirtations never failing to be sweet and Vera Farmiga adds an unavoidable ethical element with her torn loyalties.

Jones has created a more modern Sci-Fi film rather than following the themes established in his revivalist debut. This change in focus may not be a necessarily conscious one as Source Code wasn’t penned by him unlike Moon, it was written by newcomer Ben Ripley. While it’s a great script you have to think that Jones is producing other people’s scripts as a way of further proving himself. He got to show what he can do with a substantial budget but not with one of his own scripts and when that project happens it’s going to be exciting. He’s a great director of actors and his traits can now be identified as his body of work increases, including a strange auteur identifier involving Chesney Hawkes and beautiful uses of freeze frame. Source Codes presentation is pretty seamless, with only mild and unimportant niggles residing in an ending that would’ve benefited from a better sense of ambiguity and an incredibly mixed musical score: which shouts loudly in your face to remind you you’re in an action film.

Jones moves onwards on his quest to make interesting Science Fiction films. A quest that he has so far achieved in both Indie and big budget studio contexts, considering he’s a newcomer in both areas that’s impressive. His second feature is a form of intelligent filmmaking that’s worth reliving again and again. 

With my music habits of late being much as they always are, I had to mix something up. I haven’t exactly had a musical reawakening; I have however rediscovered my affinity for Pink Floyd’s “The Great Gig in the Sky” due to the magnificence of the shuffle function. But rediscovery isn’t the recurring theme in what I’m my audible entertainment lately, It’s more like a further discovery of things I’ve already discovered and listening to bands that I like mostly by proxy. Those bands that you like one song or album by but before you got the chance to check out any more of their material you’re onto something else (or maybe you weren’t even compelled to explore). For me there are tonnes of these bands, everything I have heard by The Replacements has been pretty great but my iPod for the longest time only had one album (Let it Be) and one song (Bastards of Young). They’ve been great to delve into, and I can finally tick them off of my musical to do list, but they’re not the band that has become the stars of my current phase of discovery within the discovered.

I’ve been getting into Dinosaur Jr. J Mascis’ unique breed of lead guitar infused Alternative Rock. He may be grumpy and a little strange but he’s a brilliant musician and Dinosaur Jr. is his baby. The original line up reformed a few years ago but I know so little about them that I don’t really understand what the absences of bassist Lou Barlow and drummer Murph really changed. Every Dinosaur Jr. song I’ve ever heard has that same distinctive distorted guitar led sound. Sounding at times punky and at others indie. They easily have one of the most recognisable sounds of any band and I’ve been a semi-fan for a while now. After reading an article about just how weird J Mascis actually is I gave their 1994 album Without a Sound a spin. Yes mainly because Track 1 is one of their biggest hits “Feel the Pain” (since I’m one of those dirty casual fans).

1994 was the beginning of the dying years of Grunge music, being the year that saw the death of Kurt Cobain. Dinosaur Jr. are associated with the Grunge scene but the similarities are far from clear with this album. Their sound on Without a Sound is worlds apart from the down trodden sludge of Alice in Chains. Their 90s music is full of far more upbeat optimism than what the grunge scene generally represents, and Without a Sound is a definite testament to this difference. This is their most commercially successful album and it’s unsurprisingly the most commercial sounding, it has a reputation for being disliked by critics and fans alike but I’d still recommend it as a good starting point for the band. Peoples general familiarity with “Feel the Pain” being one reason but it’s a strong example of Dinosaur Jr’s sound in a more accessible package. The songs are slower and Mascis’ guitar work doesn’t have as much flare as their other albums. But their intricacies are intact and songs “Mind Glow” and “Over Your Shoulder” are as good as anything they’ve put out. I’d be surprised if it remained your favourite album after further exploring their back catalogue though. After I’d re-familiarised myself with a Dinosaur Jr-lite album I went to the unadulterated real thing with You’re Living All Over Me from 1987.

You’re Living Over Me clears up any confusion as to why they have ties to the Grunge scene. The guitar sound and use of distortion are so close to the early 90s that this album must have been in the collection of several scruffy heroin addicts. The songs are raw and intricately structured, forming powerful hybrids. Their experimental mentality provides copious shredding, but closing track “Poledo” is this mentality at its breaking point. “Revolution 9” was utter shite when it first came out so why countless bands continue making collages of random noise with studio trickery just seems overly stupid, it’s a joyless listen despite beginning with a cool ukulele introduction by Lou Barlow who also lays down vocals. Random noise plays a major role in the album, the distortion and feedback that they are best known for is allowed to breath, with the appropriately titles “Sludgefest” ending after being overcome by the raw power of distortion. But not before it kicks back into another of Mascis’ note ladened flourishes. This albums guitar work is sublime “Raisans” has one of the best guitar solos I’ve ever heard, literally coming from out of the left (stereo) field, and transforming a straight forward rocker into anticipatory subtext for something that is far more memorable due to its explosive ferocity.

Lou Barlow’s bass sound works as a fantastic contrast to Mascis’ frantic guitar, its clarity and rich grooves work perfectly with Murph’s thumping percussion. The bass doesn’t have to strain to hold its own, even when alongside the show stealing guitar work it remains an integral part of sound. Managing to lay basis for the lead but not get buried by it. The band packs a lot of its punch with the drums which elevates note less nonsense with its pounding groundwork. They come together to make a perfect Power-Trio every chord and kick drum feels essential, crafting a brilliant album that is like The Stooges – Raw Power made for the 1980s. When “Kracked” crescendos it’s hard to believe that it’s by that band with that golf cart video, it contains not a shred of the majesty found on Without a Sound, and its good enough both to make me wonder why I was stupid enough to be contempt with the 1994 album, as well as make me realise that while they share similarities they’re not even in the same league, and I instantly forgive myself because there is no way I ever could have known what awaited me.

I realised that I was committing an act that I hate in other people, people who list a clichéd or overplayed song by my favourite bands as their favourite. Iron Maiden ‘fans’ who like “The Trooper” so much that they skip track over “Revelations”. I can’t help that feel if they could get over their self-imposed blindness that an insane amount of superior music awaits them. It’s the remnants of the radio single, which is thankfully in its dying days. Buy an album for the one song you know and are so focussed on a sole track that the remainder of the album is dismissed as filler. Like what you like but don’t forget that every track has the potential to resonant as deeply as the one that originally attracted you. Don’t dismiss “When the Levee Breaks” because it doesn’t sound like “Stairway to Heaven”. You owe it to yourself as much as you owe it to the band, my distaste for people focussing on bands staples doesn’t stem from me thinking that they’re mainstream conformist assholes (which can’t help but be a part of it because who likes predictability?), it comes from the sense that they’re needlessly depriving themselves. You like Paranoid? Then Master of Reality should blow your mind, why not find out? There’s no reason to not listen to something that’s made by people who’ve already made stuff you love. I was doing this exactly with Dinosaur Jr. but I thankfully broke free all because I encountered the sort album that you wish you could come across every day. We all do it since time is always limited, but instead of listening to the old standbys listen to something different. Pursue your curiosities and impose your own musical revolution. Does every band you kind of like possess the potential to become a favourite? All you have to do is listen.    

For some reason every comedian has to act and Louis C.K. has been beckoned to do his duty. He is a recent discovery of mine. Following his sheer unavoidability on every website I frequent I just had to check him out, and I guess I’ll join the ranks and say that he’s funny. His in depth discussions of his self-proclaimed sad existence is brutally honest. He maintains my interest despite basing his humour in things that I have zero relatability with, such as the struggles of marriage and parenthood. He proclaims his love for his daughters in between taboo shattering statements and dissections of vulgarities. So when he was called up to serve for comedy and country and donned his acting hat he stuck to what he knows and created FX show Louie.

This isn’t his first foray into the world of the half hour comedy; he previously created, wrote and starred in HBO series Lucky Louie (which I am currently in the process of checking out). It was cancelled after one season for debatable reasons. He played a character who was incredibly similar to himself, but who was a blue collar worker rather than a comic. In Louie he is playing a fictionalised version of himself. He’s a comic, he’s called Louis C.K., he has two daughters, he’s divorced, he’s a sad clown with a sad existence, it’s just him.

You may think that we’ve all seen this show before. A comic living in New York starring as a fictionalised version of himself with footage of his stand-up act intercut between footage of his day to day life. Yeah Seinfeld, and at first you might see some Curb Your Enthusiasm in there to, a down on his luck guy constantly landing himself in socially awkward situations. Neither of these assumptions discouraged me at all, I love both of those shows, but Louie is in excellent company and when such comparisons are unavoidable it makes you a little wary.

But Louie quickly breaks free with a wash of much sought originality. The first episodes introduces a sketch show like format, we have 2 stories that are linked only by the fact that Louie the character is in them both. The first sees him assisting on his daughters school trip, the bus breaks down in Harlem providing one of the funniest race related jokes when Louie instructs the black kids to sit in the windows. Then we are away, and watch Louie on an excruciatingly unsuccessful date. Amongst this there is comedy. Every episode features numerous vignettes, with two main stories that have stand up footage spliced into them. Certain episodes have an overarching theme, these being the best in the season. C.K’s dealings with faith through the contexts of glory holes and his catholic school upbringing are fantastic and surprisingly poignant.

It’s bold enough to try anything, setting jokes up for half an episode for brief pay offs. These pay offs aren’t exclusively comedic either. One episode sees Louis follow a kid who threatened him home to confront his parents, a stealthy pursuit sequence with no dialog or humour lasts for several minutes and the comedic confrontation it promises never comes and we instead get a fantastic scene of C.K talking with the father about where their lives have differed. But you don’t feel ripped off. For a comedy show to just not be funny for an episode is sort of ridiculous but its boldness is key to its appeal. Rare poignancy adds a human element that is often absent from comedy. They mainly go for straight laughs that can work as escapism. But Louie tries to be deeper than that, the emotional moments remind me of those found in Futurama, their misplacement providing a distinct effect.

Louie is the only character that appears in every episode and recurring characters are sparse. Single mother Pamela (Pamela Adlon) shows up to talk about kids and to be badly hit on by Louie, his brother Robbie (Robert Kelly) appears to proposition bizarre sex and Dr. Ben (Ricky Gervais) is a wildly inappropriate joker in scenes that sees C.K. gets to show off his best straight man acting. Gervais steals the show for his two appearances, never before have I seen unorthodox proctology committed so cheekily (or at all).    

I guess it’s a slice of life of a sometimes ordinary (eat ice cream on your coach until you pass out), sometimes extraordinary (Mom’s a lesbian) life. It covers almost every topic; from past regrets, to gay perspectives on the word faggot. You don’t know what it’s going to deal with next.

It’s incredibly personal feel is in no doubt caused by Louis C.K’s complete control over the show in every aspect. With him even taking directorial and editorial roles. The budget for each episode is modest, with the Pilot episode being produced for a reported budget of $200,000 for FX. FX has been slowly becoming a power house of TV series. With great series Sons of Anarchy, Justified and Damages under their banner, which are easily as good as anything from mega giants HBO. C.K probably wishes he was still on a HBO run show from an economic standpoint but his current FX gig seems eager enough to let him do what he wants providing it’s on budget. These freedoms allow him to cycle through anything he damn well wants so he can see what works. This is likely why the whole show is so disjointed. I hope the next series maintains this experimental feel, and seeing as he is overly eager to show just how little semblance his real life has it makes no sense that his show would suddenly gain it. Oh yeah the show got renewed and he finally caught a break, I can’t wait to see what he will continue to produce.

It’s a funny look at a vast amount of different things, the conventional to the unconventional, predictable to unpredictable and another adjective to another adjective. It ignores the traditional half hour comedy format to create something fiercely original that can make a half hour seem painfully short.  

The filmography of David Fincher is downright strange if you look at it long enough. Sort of when you look at a common word closer than usual and it freaks you out. He’s made modern day classics such as Fight Club and Seven, but sitting right next to them is Alien 3 and the Oscar baiting The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (13 Nominations, 3 Wins). I like both movies just fine, but it kind of blows my mind that this revolutionary director could have made an inoffensive humble film about a man who ages backwards, on top of the third instalment in the Alien series (which I do like more than most). Regardless of how ground-breaking his films are they are all pretty damn solid. But there was one that insinuated being an even bigger black sheep than the rest. Fincher’s 2002 film Panic Room.

For a long time this was the only David Fincher film that I had never seen, and for an even longer time I had no idea that he had directed it. When I was 11 or 12 I have a random memory of sitting in the back of my Dad’s car when a blockbuster advert came on the radio plugging the new DVD releases. One of these was Panic Room, I don’t remember anything that was said about the film other than a brief plot outline and actors names that meant nothing (they probably said “thrilling” too much also), but for some reason this memory has stuck with me. My memory tends to work like that with me having recollections of some of the most mundane things. This distinctive memory has always given me a heightened interest in the film. I didn’t beg my parents for it or anything, and it wasn’t constantly at the forefront of my mind but I definitely maintained a curiosity about it.

Not until my interest in film increased did I finally see it. It wasn’t until I saw Zodiac that I took notice of exactly who David Fincher was, I had seen Fight Club and Seven, feeling like I knew what points they were trying to make under the surface. But I never considered them being made by the same person, the whole concept of an Auteur never really crossed my mind until I was maybe 15 and discovered Martin Scorsese. So here I was looking at Fincher’s filmography and there was Panic Room, and again I didn’t rush to watch it. Mainly because I had never actually heard a good thing about it and my only knowledge on it was based on some half recalled mundane occurrence. Then I saw The Social Network and that being as good as its dialog is fast I delved into all things David Fincher once again and finally watched it.

It’s a thriller through and through, even resembling an indie film with b-movie leanings. Strange when considering it had as reported budget of 48 Million Dollars. There are definitely minimalist elements which give the film an interesting style when viewed solely as a David Fincher film. It is set almost entirely in the same New York Residence, with only the film’s opening and ending showing different locations. Fight Club went just about everywhere, with Tyler Durden’s jet setting ways being a major part of the plot. This has 1 major location where 99% of the story takes place. You almost get the impression that Fincher wanted a break after Fight Club and chose a project where he could stay in the same place for a few months (as Fight Club precedes Panic room in his Filmography). Fincher gets to show his directorial talents in a completely new way. Just how can you make a film visually interesting when the same interiors are in almost every shot? He easily answers this. He mixes several styles giving the film a unique edge. Impossible camera movements, that can only be digital, see it flying through walls, floors and objects, anything really, physical space is treated as a non-obstacle. The long take that follows the criminal’s ascent up the exterior of the building from the interior is a fantastic watch. Mixed with this style is a more standard directorial approach that captures the criminal’s intense relationship with one another, and finally realist footage from the houses security system viewed from within the panic room.

Oh yeah, the panic room. While seeing past my directorial love affair with David Fincher is hard this film actually does have a story. Recent divorcee Meg Altman (Jodie Foster) and her young daughter Sarah (Kristen Stewart) have just moved into a big ass New York residence. Prior to this a scene sees them being shown around and told about the previous owner, a paranoid millionaire. His paranoia resulted in him installing a panic room (actually called safe rooms but that doesn’t make for a catchy title). On their first night in their new residence a trio of criminals break in. They are: grandson of the previous owner Junior (Jared Leto), a security company employee Burnham (Forest Whitaker), and unpredictable third party Raoul (Dwight Yoakam). This three are there to steal an ever changing amount of money (due to Junior’s ever changing honesty) from the panic room. They of course discover the sleeping Altman’s and decide to continue regardless, but they alert the two who run to safety and lock themselves in the panic room. They want what’s in that room and construct various attempts to expel them from the room. The remainder of the film sees a cat and mouse like story between the girls and the criminals, with the sides changing on occasion.

The story isn’t amazingly original but it has enough twists and turns to maintain interest. It initially appears to run the risk of viewers feeling frustrated at the actions the characters are taking, but it is refreshing to see characters that aren’t flawed by their own stupidity. They act how you would expect them to in these extraordinary situations. They aren’t the stupid victims that you would find in a generic slasher film, they act with a form of intelligence on both sides of the moral spectrum. This is aided by the films strong acting talents. Foster exhibits both a distraught mother and a quick thinking survivalist ultimately handing in a solid performance. You genuinely believe that a middle aged mother is a worthy opponent for an armed criminal. Her on screen daughter Kristen Stewart plays the exact level of fear and boldness that the story requires, it’s in line with her age rather than her being inexplicable wise beyond her year as many child actors are. The criminals crumbling unity is rightfully shown as inevitable. Leto embodies pure greed, Yoakam pure psychosis and Whitaker pure reluctance but need. Their mistrust makes their ability to be felled and overcome believable.

Despite my history with the film I never really expected it to be up to much, so my expectations were unaffected by my long standing curiosity in it. I went in neutral and was surprised.  It’s your standard Hollywood thriller film brought above average by its brilliant direction, nowhere near his finest work but possessing that undeniable touch of quality that every David Fincher film seems to have.