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.

Colin Firth in designer glasses, Sean Bean in a skirt.

I just got back from seeing Percy Jackson, and A Single Man, and despite the fact that tomorrow promises a hellish tube journey (via Tottenham Court Road, with large bulky luggage, on a Saturday. Kill me now.) I just have to post about them both.

I started with A Single Man, which I keep wanting to call both A Serious Man after the Coen's latest film which I never got to see, and A Simple Man, my favourite Lynyrd Skynyrd track. Anyway, I was surprised by how unsurprised I was. Tom Ford's debut is exactly what you'd expect. One third of the film is like watching a perfume advert. A man floating naked underwater. A slow motion owl. Whimpering music. Another third is film student experimenting with his new-found saturation control. Oooh, look how when he's engaged and enjoying life the colour fades back in! I get the symbolism. Stop beating me over the head with it already.



The final third of A Single Man is, however, quite brilliant. Colin Firth is compelling, heartbreaking and hilarious all at once and sometimes all at the same time. When he gets down to just telling the story, Tom Ford does it quite beautifully. If he could drop all the other bullshit (or at least trim it down a bit. I mean, I'm all for beautiful, artistic cinematography provided it doesn't make my arse go to sleep) it would have been perfect. The fact that it is unfalteringly stylish goes without saying, of course.

Now, Percy Jackson and the Lightening Thief has been touted as the new Harry Potter, as has every film starring a teenage boy for the last ten years or so. It isn't. For starters, the writing is dire. The lines are clunky, none of the actors seem particularly sure if this is a drama, a comedy, an action or an outright farce and it doesn't come together particularly well. The support from the likes of Uma Thurman and Pierce Brosnan are cringe-makingly camp, and that's before we get to the glam rock Hades played by Steve Coogan. Yes, Steve Coogan. See now why no one knew whether they should be taking this thing seriously when they were making it?


It's a bit of a shame, as the central premise has some legs. The kids are all half gods, and they end up spending a fair amount of time doing the legwork for their parents whose hands are politically tied. Or sort of. We see the kids of Athena, Poseidon, Hermes, Aphrodite, Ares... I'm curious to see the kids of Dionysus. I bet they're a real riot. The three kid leads (probably all in their twenties, but that's Hollywood) are pretty solid, and do their best with a somewhat confusing, and occasionally strangely paced film that fails to build any real tension whilst spending rather a lot of time on throwaway gags. Some weird product placement (BUY AN IPOD NOW!) and an ending that goes a bit Honey I Shrunk the Kids rounds off this lengthy but not wholly unenjoyable affair.

The trailers were amazing though. That dragon thing looks great. I like cute dragons. Plus something with The Rock as a tooth fairy in ice hockey gear? So dreadful it might be brilliant. Or just dreadful.

The good, the bad, and the gory...

Struggling to find a film you can watch with a hangover in between all the Nazis, biopics and faux-documentaries? Wondering what to see at the cinema now that awards season is in full swing? Let me help with a quick run down of the no-brains-required options of the week... (minor spoilers follow)

Covering the comedy angle with a neat little film that manages to be both predictable and entertaining is Role Models, doing the better-late-than-never coming-of-age story with a wonderfully deadpan Paul Rudd (Knocked Up) and a nicely reigned in Seann William Scott (American Pie, Road Trip). Both leads are on form, and the pace cracks along nicely leaving no time for fidgeting around wondering where the next joke is coming from. It's really the kids in this film that make it so unexpectedly brilliant, though. Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Superbad) is both lovable and ridiculous as a friendless role-playing nerd and Bobb'e J. Thompson had me in hysterics as a foul-mouthed ten year old. A pretty obvious plot (kids are impossible to relate to, but in the end they bond with their mentors and teach them a little something about life blah blah schmaltzy blah) is done with the minimum of puke-inducing chick-flick moments, and the comedy always comes first. The scenes with the seriously unhinged, ex-drug addict volunteer coordinator (Jane Lynch) are sometimes more awkward than funny, but this is a minor quibble in an otherwise very enjoyable film. Besides, hearing a ten year old saying "cock block" will never not be funny.

Also funny in an unintentional way was My Bloody Valentine 3D, which had me creased up over a lengthy and completely unnecessary scene of full frontal female nudity. On the whole, though, this film was pretty satisfying, with the usual amount of suspense, who-dunnit, and slasher gore vastly improved by the impressive use of the 3D gimmick. Gore flies in your face, shotguns are pointed into the audience, and pickaxes are waved under your nose. It's pretty cool. Jensen Ackles is passable in the lead role, although I felt the film would have been improved by more nudity on his part. Something for the ladies, please, makers of slasher films! That said, I also enjoyed the fact that the mysterious masked killer took a few beatings during the course of the film, most of them dished out by Jaime King as Ackles' ex Sarah, who manages to beat the mass murderer off with a shovel, a lamp, and a frozen leg of what may have been lamb. It's nice when women in horror films aren't just there to get naked, scream, and then get killed. That said, the plot twists aren't particularly impressive and any scene which doesn't involve someone getting killed seemed tedious and strained, and full of balls about the importance of mining to the community. But you don't go for the social commentary. You go for the scene where someone's eyeball flies towards your face on the business end of a pickax.

Last, and definitely least, there's Underworld: Rise of the Lycans. If, like me, you have pushed the first two Underworld films so far to the back of your mind that you can only recall vague images of Kate Beckinsale in an improbable outfit and some convoluted stuff about a guy named Corvinus then fear not, for this sequel is, in fact, a prequel and could stand alone, plot-wise. Mostly. It opens with some hurried exposition and then tries really hard to fill the next couple of hours with about enough plot for twenty minutes. Oops. Basically, there's a really weird sex scene over a cliff edge (I really want to make a safe sex joke but I wont), Bill Nighy overacts, and then the werewolves rise. That's pretty much it. The ending relies too heavily on a final showdown between Bill Nighy's vampire king Viktor and Micheal Sheen's (frighteningly buff, more frightening than James McAvoy in Wanted... more frightening than Gary Rhodes!) lycan Lucian which is doomed to fail, tension-wise, because this is a prequel and both these characters appear in the original films! In fact, since we already know what the outcome of the film will be (we have been told that the lycans rise and that Sonja (Rhona Mitra) dies during the plot of Underworld) it would have been nice to spend a little bit more on how we got here. Think the recent Star Wars prequels, or Titanic, for example. Why did Viktor let first-of-his-kind Lucian live? Why train the boy to fight to protect your clan then make him a blacksmith? How on earth did vampire princess Sonja end up falling in love with a lycan slave boy in the first place when her race supposedly despises his? This could have been so much better, and would have given the ending, when Sonja meets her inevitable doom, a sense of tragedy that was sorely lacking. Instead I just wondered at how Lucian managed to get all that tight leather on and off so quickly. I suspect with a liberal application of baby powder. Also, since when did Michael Sheen become such a shrimp (bite off the head, leave the body)?

I have no intention of seeing Bride Wars. Even I'm not that brave.