3D. Sometimes it's a bit shit.

If the third dimension becomes ubiquitous, then I'm going to have to stop going to the cinema altogether.

Let's be honest here- to many films, 3D adds little more than a headache, mild seasickness, and hordes of people in the cinema complaining that their specs make them look like Buddy Holly/Woody Allen/a twat. It's often just another shiny distraction hiding the entire lack of plot, the terrible acting, or the shoddy direction. In this sense, it's right up there with that well known cinematic tool often employed in teen horror films: girls getting naked.

Above- Alice. Thankfully not naked.

It's a trick. And as such, it can entertain. I enjoyed watching things fly at me during A Nightmare Before Christmas 3D and otherwise awful horror My Bloody Valentine. In Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland, however, the occasional 3D rocking horse fly blurring it's way across the screen felt like an annoying misuse of the technology. Here you want to focus on the beautiful CGI scenery and the quirky ticks of the actors but you're finding it hard to see them past the fuzzy blobs lurching out of the screen towards you.

In fact, the majority of the film is 3D-light, the technology barely registering when you lift your glasses. Then every now and then it's as though the director suddenly remembers he's supposed to be using this new stuff, and so he lobs a hedgehog croquet ball at your face. It's horrible. It's distracting. It's tacky. If this is the future of cinema, I don't want it.

That's not to say that done with subtlety, 3D technology can't add something to a film. Avatar, for all that it was arse-numbingly long and mostly like watching someone else play a computer game (which, in essence, you were), had moments that were truly immersive thanks to the depth of the images on the screen. Coraline, too, had a surreal acid-trip feel to it thanks to the use of 3D alongside the animation.

I suppose the difference is that in the hands of a director actively committed to using this new tool, 3D isn't horrible. Tim Burton comes off like a guy who was told "use this so we can sell more tickets" and went with it, begrudgingly. He doesn't seem happy.

What about the film? Well, you can see it in 2D and it will be beautiful, surreal, disturbing and familiar all at once. Mia Wasikowska is a perhaps slightly flat, but dazed and dreamy Alice. Johnny Depp is Johnny Depp, just in a different outfit. Helena Bonham-Carter is doing and out-and-out impression of Blackadder's Queenie. It's a Tim Burton film- you already know what you're getting.

That said, there are some genuinely funny moments in this which set it apart from the likes of (the slightly disappointing) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The story takes familiar elements of the books but gives them more of a root in teenage Alice's real life, and the choice she is being forced to make between doing what is expected of her, or what she wants. It makes the story feel more substantial, and ultimately this is what made me like it.

Oh, that and the amazing costumes. I would like to own everything Alice wore in Wonderland, please.

Micmacs

I've just got back from seeing Jean-Pierre Jeunet's Micmacs and I wanted to post whilst it was fresh in my mind. It's bloody freezing in my flat though, so this may be short as my fingers are seizing up as I type!


I really enjoyed Micmacs. The film has suffered slightly at the hands of critics by not being Amelie, which seems more than a little unfair. No, it's not bittersweet and there's no adorable girl discovering life and love and making you feel all teary. It's the story of a bitter man getting even with the people who ruined his life and cost him his home, twice. For all that the premise sounds like a bit of a downer, it's actually a lovely, lighthearted caper film with all the beautiful cinematography and quirky asides that you would expect from a Jeunet film, interspersed with some real belly laughs and Ocean's 11 style cons, although with less smug Hollywood faces and more homelessness (yes, I wish I'd made a better film reference there too, but what can I say, I liked Ocean's 11).

Dany Boon has run afoul of British critics who say his humour doesn't translate when they're being generous and labelling him "bland" (in The Guardian review) when they're not. Actually I found him charming as the likeable Bazil whose misfortunes at the hands of two rival arms dealers guide the plot. Admittedly, he's not as hilarious as some of the supporting cast (especially Jeunet fave Dominique Pinon) but in a film like this with an ensemble cast I think that actually works in the film's favour.


The expected asides (here mostly fuelled by the bullet in Bazil's head which threatens to kill him under stress, so he asks himself curious questions as a distraction) don't feel like Jeunet imitating his own work, which can be the case when a director establishes such an obvious signature. One thing to watch out for in Micmacs are the billboards that you see advertising the film itself, with images that match the scene they appear in. Subtle, but a brilliant piece of meta fiction, if you like that sort of thing.

The plot is light enough, although the topical, arms dealer angle adds some weight, and the themes of finding a family and a place in the world, and how the little guy who protests against big corporations can pack a powerful punch (aided by social networking on the internet, of course) gave me the warm fuzzies, I must admit. As a literary nerd, I loved the references to Rimbaud, too. All in all, I'd recommend it as a popcorn comedy with added directorial panache.