Alice in 3D Land

I watched Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland last night at the Imax in Bradford. I have to admit to being very behind when it comes to the latest 3D revolution, but maybe that's because the last one was so under whelming.

I went to an Imax in London years ago with my parents. Back then they were still handing out those awful cardboard glasses that you had to hold on with one hand during the film to stop them sliding off - and it wasn't even a film! We watched a series of still photos of historical New York. Many were taken from the top of sky scrapers and cranes so of course the 3D effect helped you feel the height a little bit more but it was all pretty dull.

Now suddenly this year everyone's been talking about Avatar and then it goes and wins a ton of oscars and I'm wondering if there's something I've missed. So I went to see Alice with an open mind yesterday.
The downsides first - of course it's more expensive, £9 at the Media Museum although the ticket seller was quick to tell me that most Imax's are £13 per full price adult. Still, you don't have to go to an Imax to see a 3D film. You do still have to wear the glasses though if you do go to an Imax, I soon discovered, but at least these days they're proper plastic ones and mine almost fitted well enough that I forgot I had them on.

The upsides - the film, of course had been made for 3D viewing and there were some great touches, if a little obviously laid on, like the March Hare's habit of throwing china right at you through the screen (actually made me flinch :). A number of times you watched Alice being chased from front on so that she was also running through the screen at you. Her fall through the rabit hole was pretty dramatic and any flying scene in 3D is always worth it's weight in extra entrance fees.
For those who've never experienced 3D, when you put the glasses on it's a little like you're suddenly watching a stage performance. Due to the added depth of the picture the action flows forward into the room as well as backwards behind the characters and there's less of a boundary between you and the picture. This definitely helps you to lose yourself in the action and adds to that suspension of disbelief feeling that we're all looking for when we go to see a film. I did find though, during the busiest action scenes that I actually got a bit dizzy and lost the thread a little, but maybe that's just me.

If you're expecting anything more dramatic and revolutionary than this though you'll be disappointed. It's good, but it's not all that. It adds to the general all round experience, as someone pointed out a bit like surround sound which we now take completely for granted; but are we going to simply expect it in future in the same way that we expect surround sound as an experience enhancer which we've got used to very quickly. Watching a film in 2D just won't cut it anymore, a bit like watching black and white when you're used to colour. I think it's quite likely that there'll be a generation of children who will grow up complaining that "2D is boring".

So does this mean that every film will have to include flying objects, chase scenes and heights, because one thing 3D can't do is enhance the plot? What about your ordinary romantic comedies, sure they don't need 3D but if everyone's doing it..? My question is, will the language of film, the way we read the screen change in order to allow for making the best of 3D? How about a film shot totally from a character's point of view? This isn't a new idea idea but it could work so much better in 3D. Maybe this time the revolution is really here. I just hope it means you can get your own glasses that actually fit!

The Lovely Bones

I went to see this last Saturday. I don't often go to the cinema by myself but this was one occasion when I did and I think it was probably for the best. You also don't often get reviews of films that focus on the rating the film has been given, it's not usually very interesting but I think it's quite poignant in this case.

The Lovely Bones is rated 12A but I would strongly advise against letting your 12 year old or younger child see it, it's really quite disturbing. The plot follows the fictional - but obviously inspired by true stories - account of the last few days in the life of 1970s teenager Susie Salmon and then her abduction and murder by a neighbourhood serial killer, played creepily well by Stanley Tucci. However, Susie doesn't pass away never to be heard of again, she spends the next few years in the "In between" watching her family grieve and move on, and watching her killer as he prepares to strike again.

It's directed by Peter Jackson and there are some great sweeping fantasy landscapes in Susie's new world and beautiful special effects but that's where the Lord of The Rings comparisons end. Despite the fact that this is a fantasy film about a haunting it's incredibly real and totally chilling. Perhaps more so because it's a 12A and your expectations are innocent, you know you won't actually witness any violence but its what you don't see but know is going to happen that is so stomach churning.
With disarming honesty, Susie tells you in the first scene that she was raped and murdered in December 1973 and more disarmingly lets you join her as she follows her killer towards her death, and stay with her up until the final moments which seem to pass achingly slowly as you try your best not to shout out "run!" in the middle of the cinema. This would have been less upsetting had it been a reconstruction of a real life event, because of course no one can ever reconstruct those last few moments, you're forced to watch played out what is normally left to the imagination and watch the fear grow inside the victim as they realise their time is running out.

Jackson plays off the upsetting reality of the film against slightly confusing out of sequence wanderings in the epic and stunningly painted spirit world which comfortingly suits the childlike Susie better than the harsh world she's left behind. Look out for a change of scene for Mark Whalberg as Susie's dad. Rachel Weisz looks stunning as her mother, and Susan Sarandon is ageing disgracefully as her grandmother, if slightly wasted in a small role.

I haven't read the book on which this film is based so I'm sure there's things I'm missing here but a lot of the time the film seems to be making a comment on how life has changed since 1973, as Susie says "This was in the days before missing children used to appear on milk cartons" and on how careless we seemed then about our childrens' safety.
This film is well acted - Saoirse Ronan, the beautiful lead steals your heart from the first line - and very colourful - not least the funky 70s clothing, at times it's cute but don't be fooled it's bone chilling. I can't remember ever feeling as scared in the cinema as I did in parts of this. The final sad conclusion regarding Susie's remains reminds you just what you're dealing with here, 12A rating or not.