ON STRANGER TIDES- Pirates 4 Review

There's a strong argument, mostly being made by myself, that Pirates of the Caribbean- On Stranger Tides is the sequel we always should have had to the 2003 swashbuckler that started it all. I don't mean that it's the best sequel possible, but that it's following the formula of the Indiana Jones films by bringing back one or two characters from previous instalments and telling a new adventure, rather than going for cod-epic storytelling.

It's not completely without ties to the impenetrable mush of At World's End, as it picks up with Captain Jack Sparrow having seemingly given up on his search for the Fountain of Youth, on which we left him sailing into the sunset. As he arrives in England, it's revealed that an impostor is posing as Jack, with plans to recruit a crew and mount a search for the Fountain themselves. Jack is soon drawn into a race for eternal life, between a Spanish Armada, his old foe Captain Barbossa and the legendary Captain Blackbeard.

It's after watching this latest instalment that I realise I have a strange affinity with the series. The first one is unabashedly enjoyable, but there tends to be more debate on the quality of the two sequels, and with good reason. Heard of "Six Characters in Search of an Author"? The first three Pirates of the Caribbean films serve as "Three Films in Search of a Trilogy", with the convoluted ties to the first film and over-plotted action outright ruining the series for some point.

As for my own affinity, I don't dislike the series as certain other reviewers do. I recognise that At World's End is a load of bullshit, concerned with such contrived devices as "the ninth Piece of Eight" or whatever the hell that film was about, and that Dead Man's Chest didn't so much end as trail the third instalment. But on their own merits, I found things to enjoy in each of those movies. And so I suspect that while the consensus will be against On Stranger Tides, I found more to enjoy here than in the previous sequels.

That said, it still doesn't hold itself very well. It's a good half an hour shorter than the previous instalment, but that still makes it 137 minutes, when there's a much more enjoyable 100 minute film sitting within, waiting for an editor to piece it together. The action takes about 45 minutes to get going, and when it does, there's no real drive or thrust to the plot. My earlier comparison to Indy earlier on works here, as the hunt for the Fountain of Youth resembles the plot of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade at times, but while that film has one group of characters to root for, screenwriters Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio plump for a sprawling cast. Again.

Another of the problems carried over from its immediate predecessors in the series is the lack of a villain. Geoffrey Rush is the best thing in this one, but his Captain Barbossa, so brilliant an antagonist on the first outing, has long since become more of an anti-hero. In this one, he's even a privateer for the English, albeit with ulterior motives. I suppose the de facto antagonist here is Blackbeard, played by an underused Ian McShane. As usual then, it resorts to having the characters argue a lot and double-cross one another.

Rob Marshall replaces Gore Verbinski in the director's chair, but it's Elliot and Rossio who need to be ushered out, because they just never seem to get to the point. For instance, there's a scene in which a character is forced to jump off a cliff, to an uncertain fate. Before that character eventually jumps, we have a refusal, some argument, emotional blackmail, a ridiculously redundant Russian Roulette set-up and a bit of hoodoo, before the character just jumps anyway. And don't get me started on Keith Richards.

They also seem to have no sense of timing, as writers. If you pay attention to the dialogue, you realise that the plot takes place over a fortnight. After a great opening sequence set in London, the progression of time is thus- one scene in daylight, and then an extended setpiece at night. Most of this movie takes place in the dark, which not only makes the sunny Caribbean settings pointless, but also probably makes for great viewing in super-dim 3D. I stuck with 2D, personally, though I concede I was sort of impressed by the 3D in the trailers for the film.

I enjoyed On Stranger Tides enough that I really want to say good things about it, so I shall. Johnny Depp shows no signs of getting bored in the lead role, and if you're not bored of him playing it either, he's still a lot of fun to watch as Captain Jack. Some of the action is a little repetitive, four films in, but there are two really good setpieces at the beginning and at the midpoint. I think I'd personally have opened the film on the latter, which is an excellently constructed scene that establishes the film's take on mermaids. Then again, I'd also have got it done in 100 minutes.

Pirates of the Caribbean- On Stranger Tides marks a partial return to the entertaining form of The Curse of the Black Pearl, but as with latter instalments, it is still slightly discordant. To refer to Pirandello again, it's like Six Subplots in Search of a Movie, because there's not much to the McGuffin that's supposed to actually unite the strands. I found it enjoyable, but it did string out my enjoyment across the laborious running time. For some, it will be a step too far, if your enjoyment has been strung out since the first film, but it's still a step in the right direction. Let's have a change in the writing department next time though.

Pirates of the Caribbean- On Stranger Tides is now showing in 2D and 3D at cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Pirates of the Caribbean- On Stranger Tides, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

WINNIE THE POOH- Review

What's the measure of a film? In recent years, we've seen Ridley Scott's Robin Hood, Roland Emmerich's 2012 and some arsehole's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen over-run by a vast margin, and given how bored I was by each of them, it would be difficult to say that I felt I got my money's worth from those lengthy films. So it's baffling to see the negative reviews of Winnie the Pooh, which runs to 54 minutes long.

Not that the short length of the main feature is the only criticism that certain grumpy bastards are levelling at this return to the Hundred Acre Wood, but it's a criticism that is paradoxical. Winnie the Pooh is not hugely story-driven, nor has it ever been. Indeed, the Disney features usually consist of episodes, which in this case include Eeyore losing his tail and Pooh Bear being unable to get some eats no matter what he tries. And it's pretty much a perfectly pitched film.

It's not a film that invites paragraphs upon paragraphs of deep analysis, but the response to the length seems worth mentioning. At 54 minutes, the film doesn't outstay its welcome- brevity is the soul of wit, and I find myself wishing that other kids' films would be as concise. Take Rio- a film I like, but one which has 20 minutes in the middle where an army of capuchin monkeys come and go, seemingly to bulk out the running time to 95 minutes.

Winnie the Pooh isn't filling a 90 minute quota which, if we're honest, people use less as a barometer of a satisfying length for family films and more as the optimum amount of time to distract their kids. Perhaps it explains Disney's lack of marketing for what's easily going to be the most satisfying film they release this year. There's no false economy in a programme that lasts 73 minutes overall, and it's a weird attitude to have. And even if your tastes are more grown up, this film's certainly more worthy of your money than Your Highness (102 minutes) or Red Riding Hood (100 minutes).

As to the film itself, it's beautifully rendered in the storybook fashion of the older Disney animations, and it either brings back or emulates all of the original vocal performances. In a weird way then, it compares to Scream 4, seeing as how it updates what we know rather than rebooting. Imagine a reboot that was a live action and CG-hybrid, in the vein of that bloody Smurfs movie that's coming out. Wisely, Disney opted for the nostalgic route, with a film that took me back to my childhood like no other in recent memory.

The characters are there as you know and love them. The gloomy and depressed Eeyore comes to the fore on account of his missing tail and Pooh roams from house to house, bugging his friends for honey so he can get a fix and at various points demonstrating his serious addiction issues. Jings, this is sounding like a Mike Leigh film- told you it doesn't invite deep analysis. It's just lovely, really. Older critics have taken issue with the usual divergence from the source material, but personally, I grew up with the cartoons, not the book.

There's no condescending to the material on my part here- Winnie the Pooh is an outright good film. I can't hope to sway more mature audiences to buy tickets if they don't have kids or young relatives, but hell, it looks good and it's the only film in a long time to put a big smile on my face from start to finish. It's good humoured, it's not ticking the same old boxes as every other CG-animation out there, and it's a real nostalgic treat.

Winnie the Pooh is now playing in cinemas nationwide.

Just as Jake and the Neverland Pirates and The Ballad of Nessie bulk out the programme, my brief reviews will bulk out this short review. The Ballad of Nessie, centring around the Loch Ness Monster after she's turfed out of her original home by developers and featuring the vocals of Billy Connolly, is a perfect appetiser for the main attraction.

Poetic and lovely stuff, which, by contrast, Jake and the Neverland Pirates really isn't. Apparently a teaser for a Disney Channel show based around Disney's rendition of Peter Pan, it sells a show that's gonna be unimaginative and just generally cheesy. A damning indictment for an animation aimed at 4 year olds? Yes, because it was followed by TWO perfectly enjoyable animations aimed at 4 year olds...

------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Winnie the Pooh, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

TANGLED- Review

I make no secret of the fact that I heartily enjoyed last year's very traditional Disney outing The Princess and the Frog. I think it's great that John Lasseter is steering the company back towards its roots after Dreamworks and Shrek took up residence in the fairytale movie market. Adding more to the weight of my own anticipation for their new feature Tangled, it's Disney's 50th animated movie, and apparently the second most expensive movie ever made, somehow.

Anyhoo, this $260 million animation (no, really) is essentially the story of Rapunzel, as seen through the lens of the charismatic fugitive Flynn Rider. Flynn is wanted, dead or alive, and he hides out in Rapunzel's tower in order to escape the law. He doesn't count on the long-haired teen being so determined to get out of the tower for a while, and solve the mystery of the floating lanterns that fill the sky every year on her birthday.

Again, I really liked The Princess and the Frog, so this one is going to suffer slightly by comparison. As ever, this is my own opinion on the film, and so you could argue that it's for a much younger audience, my inclusion in which I've long since outgrown. I just don't think that Tangled measures up, especially after the promising reinvigoration seen in Disney's 49th feature. That film has a timeless quality that made it reminiscent of Disney's best. Aside from Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, how many other films made in 1937 would your kids sit through just as happily as if it had been made today?

What Tangled goes for is more in the vein of the modern spin on fairytales, which Dreamworks has conflated to the millionth degree in their Shrek canon. For starters, it's trying to get boys as excited to see it as girls, hence the slightly ambiguous title. This attention to including its audience is probably more to do with the fact that it cost $260 million than any real desire to entertain young boys who are otherwise distracted by their XBoxes. If Cinderella had cost that much, they might have called it The Magic Pumpkin. A $260 million Sleeping Beauty might be The Dragon Witch. A hyper-expensive Bambi might have been Deers Get Shot, Ha Ha Ha Ha. And so on.

In the actual film, there are occasionally points where the all-inclusive approach actually does work. From a studio whose most profitable franchise features pirates, figures renowned for their raping, pillaging and stealing, it's not surprising that they have a roguish criminal like Flynn as a leading man, but slightly more surprising that he's so unlikeable. Audiences are more likely to be entertained by Maximus, a palace steed with more detective skills than any of the humans. This Inspector Horse figure is the best reason to see Tangled, and injects most of the film's humour whenever he appears. Similarly, I enjoyed the caricatured ruffians in the film, voiced by the likes of Ron Perlman, Richard Kiel and Brad Garrett.

I'd also give kudos for the villain, even if she doesn't get a badass Disney villain song in the tradition of her predecessors. Mother Gothel is a character with proper motivations, and when you get the villain right in a Disney fairytale, half the battle is already won. My disappointment at the lack of a good old villainous sing-song extends to the rest of Alan Menken's soundtrack too. Aside from the rather brilliant "I Have A Dream", which simultaneously subverts and conforms with the traditional Disney "here are my objectives" song, it's all very generic and poppy. It could come from any 90s Disney film, and with one particular song, I'm not convinced it wasn't from another film. It's a real comedown after Randy Newman's jazz-themed work on The Princess and the Frog.

From the perspective of a Disney fan who had every reason to really enjoy this one after last year's effort, I was slightly disappointed by Tangled. I can't help but think it might have charmed me more if it were a hand-drawn 2D feature rather than a polished CG piece that's closer to Dreamworks' output than anything else. The CG stuff looks nice and there are some very artful shots in here, but it somehow has less character than hand-drawn animation. That said, the family audience is under-served by January's releases, and this is never less than fun and cheerful. I'm sure those much touted younger audiences will lap it up, and all of my persnickety quibbles aside, I didn't dislike it either.

Tangled is now showing in 3D at cinemas nationwide, and at selected cinemas in 2D.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Tangled, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

TRON: LEGACY- Review

There is actually a sequel to Tron. And it comes almost three decades after the release of the original. We are now in a realm where all things are possible, and there's nothing Grid-like about it. I saw Tron for the first time yesterday evening, right before catching a midnight screening of Tron: Legacy. I may profess myself disappointed by Tron, but believe me, it's got nothing on the sequel as a sheer letdown.

The sequel picks up with Kevin Flynn having taken his company Encom to its peak after the ending of the first film, but then he disappears, leaving his young son Sam behind, all alone. Flash forward two decades and Sam gets a message that suggests his father might still be around, living in the computerised world known as the Grid and working on a breakthrough that could change the course of human history. Sam ventures into the Grid, and finds his father in hiding from his own digital counterpart, Clu, who rules the state with a pixellated iron fist.

At least Tron: Legacy starts how it means to go on, with an on-screen notice about how this 3D presentation features many 2D scenes. It only compounds the dishonesty of the gimmick by playing out this disclaimer only after cinema patrons have forked out extra for the "3D experience", taken their seats and sat through ten to twenty minutes of ads and trailers. The film starts out low, and continues to disappoint, specifically in how it looks in completely the other direction to its predecessor.

Even if Tron isn't that impressive, and looks dated by today's visual standards, prominently on display in this film in particular, there's a prescience about it. Tron was released before the Internet was widely known, but its relation of the inside of a computer to arcade games and social interaction could well be linked to the world wide web. In Tron: Legacy, every single thing is not only understandable in terms of every development in cinema and technology that has happened since, but also identical to them in so many ways.

It even borrows heavily from the first film in the name of in-jokes and references. Lines are repeated, shots are recreated, and it's practically a remake in all things except for the continuing arc of the elder Flynn, played by Jeff Bridges. Bridges plays Flynn very well, although burdened with a suddenly emergent tree-hugger outlook, but even the Dude himself can't manage to salvage Clu from the haze of overhyped de-aging SFX. There's not a single frame where Flynn's ageless doppelganger looks photo-real, even when framed alongside the computer generated vistas of the Grid. For his part though, Bridges does a damn fine job- it's always a pleasure to see him as nature intended.

With regard to other intertextual gubbins, the first half hour plods along with Center City looking an awful lot like Christopher Nolan's Gotham. And we're introduced to Garrett Hedlund's Sam, a protagonist so impossibly vacant that he couldn't be more dull if he were played by Shia LaBeouf. To break the monotony, he dives off buildings and breaks into corporate headquarters- in 2D, mind you- in a number of other scenes reminiscent of The Dark Knight. This also sadly includes how seriously it takes itself, which works less well for lightcycles and electric data frisbees than it does for a masked vigilante fighting mob rule.

Poor Michael Sheen also has very little to work with, and frankly, he's made to look like a twat in his role as Castor, the film's most useless and inexplicable character, who runs a disco for programs on the Grid, for some reason. He enlivens the proceedings in much the same way as Jar Jar Binks enlivened The Phantom Menace, and I'm not exaggerating. Olivia Wilde comes off rather better in her naive warrior woman role as Quorra, making her the most magnetic screen presence by default and a joy to watch whenever she gets to bounce off of Jeff Bridges.

Many negative reviews have said that Tron: Legacy is to Tron as The Matrix Reloaded is to The Matrix. I'm going to go one further, having already invoked Jar Jar. It's funny that Tron came out of a period in Disney's history when they tried to find the next Star Wars, and now years later, this sequel comes close to the drudgery that characterised George Lucas' largely abysmal prequels. It's not as bad as either Episode I or II, but it has all the clunky dialogue, over-reliance on visual effects and general matter-of-fact-ness about it that made those films such a pain.

Tron: Legacy might have decent special effects, but it looks and feels like the moodiest night out you'll ever have, set in a giant orange and blue neon-lit club where nothing really registers as important.  I've been wrong before, but I think Disney may have made a $200 million mistake. It's taking the slot in which Avatar broke the bank in 2009, and it's a similar mish-mash of recent developments that's not even as good as "Dances with Wolves in space". It feels like it goes on for way longer than its two hours, and the script is too incredibly convoluted to forgive or even to follow. Despite occasional and apparently accidental lapses into real entertainment, and great performances from Olivia Wilde and the proper Jeff Bridges, this last hope in a dismal Christmas movie schedule is a massive letdown.

Tron: Legacy is now showing in 2D and 3D, at cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Tron: Legacy, why not share your comments below? If you think the Star Wars prequel comparisons are a tad harsh, come back when you've seen the film and your lexicon of words to describe the sun is suitably expanded...

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

Harry Totters- THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE Review

As something of a regular disclaimer, it's only my opinion here- others are available. As ever, mild spoilers may occur in the process of reviewing, but never so far as to spoil any major plot developments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Physics geek Dave discovers a greater destiny as he becomes The Sorcerer's Apprentice in Disney's latest live-action fantasy film. He's sought after by two sorcerers who were once students of Merlin. Yeah, that Merlin. Balthazar wants to help Dave to defeat Merlin's deadliest enemy, Morgana. His rival, Horvath, wants to unleash her upon the world using a spell called the Rising. As Dave comes to terms with a world he could never have imagined, Balthazar must teach him everything he knows in order to stage a final battle.

The segment of Fantasia that Disney always seems to reference on DVD covers and posters of the film is of Mickey Mouse dressed as a sorcerer, and it's this little bit of back-catalogue iconography that has given way to The Sorcerer's Apprentice. The Fantasia segment was in turn based on a Goethe ballad, but this film resembles neither very much, simply because Nicolas Cage thought it would be a neat idea do a full film based on Mickey Mouse's magic mopping.

Instead it roots around in Arthurian legend. It seems as good a time as any to refer you back to my review of Percy Jackson, and my musings on how fantasy set in America often ends up somewhat crass. This one didn't impress me for starting out in Britain in 740AD before jumping to New York over a millennium later, but at least we don't have Cage reprising his attempt at a British accent from National Treasure: Book of Secrets as an apparent apprentice to Merlin.

Speaking of National Treasure, this one comes from director Jon Turteltaub, and he holds it all together considerably better than he did in that History Channel Indiana Jones knock-off of a franchise. It's a little long, and could have lost a scene referring back to the mop scene in Fantasia. Subsequently it could have been titled as something else entirely. Nevertheless, Turteltaub holds back on the running time and focuses on entertainment value.

Cage, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be having as much fun as you'd expect given how all of this was his idea, almost as if he got bored with the thought before it came into production. He still cuts loose a lot more than in National Treasure, and plays nicely against the terrific Alfred Molina. His Horvath is delightfully nasty and he chews the scenery very enjoyably throughout- while the gold standard is still his turn as Otto Octavius in Spider-Man 2, Molina is always worth watching in these otherwise disposable Hollywood actioners.

Less enjoyable is Jay Baruchel, whose grating nasal voice and face-slapping astonishment at the plot is like an ultra annoying mix of Jerry Lewis and Daniel Radcliffe's Harry Potter, circa 2001. He's likeable enough, sure, but he's there only to ply the stock Hollywood maxim of nerd empowerment. It's taken to extremes here too- take a shot of some alcoholic beverage every time you're told he's a geek. And then there's Toby Kebbell, who I hope will fall back through whatever magic portal he stumbled through to get from small but acclaimed roles in British stuff to this and his minor role in Prince of Persia. He's wasted here as Horvath's sidekick, acted and written as the kind of role Russell Brand would've got two years ago.

In general, the film walks a fine line between enjoyable summer fare and disposable assembly-line blockbuster. The bits removed are certainly visible, as the narrative flows like a dream. Not in a good way, or in the way of Inception, but in the way that scenes cut short and suddenly pick up elsewhere jarringly. I'm sure that'll be great for deleted scenes on the DVD, but it's not desirable in the cinema. Never fear though, this isn't quite the inevitable bad Nicolas Cage film after his recent good run, but let's see if he can fit any more good ones in before National Treasure 3 (one of many films that wouldn't benefit from a D on the end of that title) looms large in multiplexes in two years' time.

It's mostly enjoyable, but without any of the charm of a Harry Potter or a Nanny McPhee. What both of those films have that this doesn't is a sense of wonder. We're repeatedly told how cool all the CGI is, but it never properly feels magical. The Sorcerer's Apprentice may just make you yearn for the days when Disney's particular brand of artificial magic was more spellbinding, but it's a fairly harmless family film that probably offers more to kids than adults.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice is now showing at cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If and when you see The Sorcerer's Apprentice, why not leave a comment on the film and/or my review? Don't worry- I've duly noted that the remaining Harry Potter outings will be a bit heavy-going, so if you're looking for something lighter, this is probably it, really.

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

TOY STORY 3 WEEK- The Edinburgh Premiere

As you'll know by now if you've been reading this week, I saw Toy Story 3 at its UK premiere on June 19th, at the Edinburgh International Film Festival. At the top of the week, I promised a vlog of some description, but as you might have surmised from how I also promised it would be poorly edited and hashed together, I kind of failed.

What I can do instead is blog about my experience in text instead!




The journey to and from Edinburgh was a five-hour trip each way, so upon arriving in the city at 4.30pm, I wasn't at my best. I caught a taxi to the hotel and from there, rushed off to the cinema to get some footage of the red carpet. Typically, I rushed out without my video camera.

The film started at 6pm and was generally rather excellent, as you'll have gathered this week. I also got hold of the first press screening pamphlet thingy of my film reviewing career, which was nice. There was a great introduction from animators Bobby Poedska and Mike Venturini before the film- everyone who works at Pixar seems personable enough that it really is the best workplace in the world.

One thing I haven't mentioned thus far is the traditional Pixar short before the film, this time called Day and Night, not to be confused with an upcoming and ambiguous-looking Tom Cruise film. My favourite of the Pixar shorts is still Presto! from before WALL•E, but this one makes a charming short out of the most simple concept imaginable. I'll say again, it must be the best bloody workplace in the world.

It should once again be reiterated though, seeing the film for the first time with a screenful of kids and their families probably enhanced the experience immeasurably. It's a great film anyway, but the reactions of the target audience were enjoyable too.

Despite what you see in that video though, I didn't see Sean Connery arrive. There were two more screenings starting after the one I saw, so he probably arrived on the red carpet later than I did. I also doubt I'd have been able to stop myself congratulating Henry Jones Sr. for not appearing in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and film geek determination doesn't go well with the kind of security stars of that calibre demand...

Anyway, afterwards I could've recorded some vlog stuff in my hotel room but instead chose to go and watch Macgruber, because it wasn't playing back in Middlesbrough and I had my Unlimited card with me. I reviewed that here, but didn't record much vlog material the following Sunday morning.

Even without the lack of material, my current video camera sucks, so the hotch-potch I was working on to show you today just sucks. Consider this my pledge to get a better camera and work on shooting enough material to give you worthwhile vlogs in the future.

In the meantime, this is the end of Toy Story 3 Week here for The Mad Prophet. Go and see the film when it's finally released in the UK on Monday!

Video courtesy of LondonCitySkies on YouTube, images from EIFF's Flickr stream and Millionaire Playboy.

TOY STORY 3 WEEK- The New Characters

In trilogies, so much of the world-building is done in the first two instalments that it's unusual to see many new characters appear in the third instalment. When you see The Lord of the Rings- The Return of the King, the only new characters with any bearing on the plot are Denethor, steward of Gondor and all-around douche, and Gothmog, who was a gnarly creature effect if anything.

Where Pixar have once again broke the mould is in introducing a wealth of new characters into Toy Story 3. As mentioned in my review at the start of the week, these characters figure nicely in the plot without ever short changing Woody, Buzz, Jessie et al. Spoilers may follow as I cover seven of those new characters.


Lotso Huggin' Bear

Lotso's a fairly beat up old-timer, based on a real-life toy from the 80s and voiced by Ned Beatty. He runs the show at the Sunnyside Daycare Centre, but like most of the toys therein, he's not what he seems and he proves an incredibly effective character when we see his origins.

Ken

With Barbie appearing for the first time in the second film, the third one brings her plastic beau to the screen, and gives him Michael Keaton's voice. The character proves an extraordinarily self-centred scene-stealer and you'll probably forget how awesome it would've been to hear Keaton voicing an unhinged Batman action figure.

Big Baby

This dopey lookin' bastard is one of those baby dolls that blinks its eyes, but his right eyelid was broken off long ago. Now he's something of an enforcer at Sunnyside, and his action figure has gone on tour with director Lee Unkrich to promote the film, arriving in the UK this week.

Bonnie's Toys

These toys belong to Bonnie, a young girl who's dropped off each day at Sunnyside. There's Mr. Pricklepants, a thespian hedgehog voiced by Timothy Dalton, which is just as funny as it sounds. The (male) unicorn is Buttercup and the triceratops is Trixie, who comes from the same range of dinosaur toys as Rex. These are the three I'll mention, but there's one more I'll let you see yourself, whose surprise appearance got one of the biggest laughs of the film.

The Monkey

Watch out for this scary bastard. That's all I'm saying. Jeez.

Toy Story 3 Week concludes tomorrow.

TOY STORY 3 WEEK- Wait, Go Back One...

It occurs to me now, in the middle of Toy Story 3 Week, that I never got around to doing a Toy Story 2 review on this blog. I did the new one on Monday, and there was a review of the first film when it was re-released in 3D in October. Time to plug the gap in my reviews of the series, and in the week's planned posts...

An accident during playtime leaves a demoralised Woody sitting on the shelf as Andy goes off to cowboy camp at the beginning of Toy Story 2. In his owner's absence, he finds himself abducted by Al, a voracious toy collector who's spent years looking for the centrepiece in his Woody's Roundup merchandise collection. As Buzz and co race to rescue him, Woody warms to the idea of becoming a collectable in a museum, to be appreciated by kids for eternity...

Many will know from both previous posts and my willingness to dedicate a whole week to a sequel that I'm a big fan of Toy Story. For me, as with many others my age, it's the foundation stone in my appreciation of films, and it remains my personal second favourite film of all time. Any sequel would have to match pretty lofty expectations, even though I was only nine years old when this one came out.

Pixar have proven equal to that task twice now, and Toy Story 2 is a film that's just as good as the first one. It lacks the sheen of nostalgia that fuels my insane appreciation of the original, but it's just as fine a film. More than anything else, it enhances the story of these characters, bringing forward the notion that toys get broken and lost sometimes as their owners grow up.

That works well when you factor in the antagonist, Al, who's an even bigger geek than Sid was the first time around. He's a tempting prospect for the likes of Jessie the cowgirl, Bullseye the horse and Stinky Pete the prospector, who've spent years and years in storage rather than getting the attention that toys are seen to crave in these films.

We're not going to broach the topic of Jessie too deeply except to say that Pixar is stupid, making stupid toys sing stupid songs that make people cry. Sniffle. But anyway, even academics have come forward to call this a perfect film. This story and these characters continue to garner high praise in the framework of a mere "kids' film". Critics have also bandied around phrases like "the Godfather II of animated movies", but there, I have to disagree.

The Godfather Part II is frequently brought out as shorthand when someone thinks a sequel is particularly good, but Toy Story 2 has what that other trilogy never had. It has heart, and characters you can actually empathise with. I've said before that I never particularly liked the Godfather trilogy, even though it's pretty much perfect on a technical level. Pixar somehow manage to get emotional resonance alongside technical perfection time and time again, and they don't need an excess of three hours to do it. Hell, they only need pixels and some great voice performances!

Toy Story 2 is just as epic as its live-action counterparts, from its nicely misleading opening to the big old traditional chase scene finale. It's bookended by a modern classic and the upcoming conclusion, but it is just as substantial as either of those, and well worth revisiting. I've heard people claim they didn't even know there was a Toy Story 2, so it's definitely worth revisiting. 

Toy Story 3 Week continues tomorrow.

TOY STORY 3 WEEK- Playing Nice

UPDATE: Despite me having discussed the main point of this blog with my friends for months, ever since that 3D re-release of Toy Story back in October last year, I've been pre-empted at the last minute by Kevin Smith and Scott Mosier in this week's Smodcast. Yep, they discussed the Sid thing. Still, I'm a big fan of their films and they've given me hours of free audio entertainment, so we'll call it quits. You win this time, Smith and Mosier!

There's a scene in the trailers for Toy Story 3 where the toys meet the kids of the Sunnyside Daycare Centre and all hell breaks loose. They're damaged, drooled on, smacked around and generally played with in the way that little kids play with toys before they learn to value their possessions.

It's a theme that most will remember better as the main reason to dislike Sid, the kid next door and demented antagonist from Toy Story. This kid, aside from blowing up Combat Carls and attempting to launch Buzz Lightyears into orbit, deconstructs toys and re-assembles them as new and exciting toys, like a baby-headed spider or a duck with arms and legs. Wait, hang on...

 

Why is Sid, arguably the more creative of the two kids in this film, demonised for fucking about with toys? Alright, we know they come to life, and they're our heroes, but Sid's basically an outcast. He's a geek! He's easier to empathise with him than with Andy, to be honest, who plays imaginatively but somehow keeps all his shit in pristine condition for years. How the hell is Slinky Dog not a knotted mess like every other fucking slinky that leaves its box?


OK, so the people are ancillary in these films anyway, but let's be fair to Sid. The consequences of Woody's actions may have scared him off of pulling apart toys and putting them back together, but from there he was probably traumatised enough to move onto doing it to small animals, and then maybe people! Woody made The Human Centipede happen, ladies and gents!

That's obviously not what we see from the small shout-out to Sid in Toy Story 3, a shout-out you need to keep your eyes peeled for, but you can surmise that where he is now is not where he wanted to be in life. The kid seemed destined for a more creative course in life, dammit.

It's reasonable that the younger kids don't play gently with the toys in Toy Story 3, but when you're watching these films, everyone remember Sid Phillips, the true tragic figure of the Toy Story trilogy.

Toy Story 3 Week continues tomorrow.

TOY STORY 3 WEEK- The Spoiler-Free Review

You might not realise it, but it's been a good eleven years since Toy Story 2. Toy Story 3 thus finds an all but grown-up Andy packing his bags for college. His toys have been packed in storage for a good while, and many of their number have been thrown away or passed on. Woody the cowboy looks set to be taken along to college, and so Buzz Lightyear and the rest of the toys donate themselves to the Sunnyside Daycare Centre, Woody trying to keep the gang together all the way.

To say much more would be to rob you of the experience of letting the film unfold before you. If you're any kind of fan of this series, then Toy Story 3 should be the film that takes you back to your youth more than any other in 2010. Director Lee Unkrich and writer Michael Arndt have found a perfect balance in treating the characters we know and love in new and original ways while still bringing in scores of new characters, and never short changing any of them.

Let's take a moment to compare that to another recent animated sequel. It almost feels like picking on Shrek Forever After when its most relevant competitor is a Pixar film (especially this Pixar film), but just look at what went into that. There's been a Shrek film every three years, like clockwork, since 2001. In the time Dreamworks took to make one really good film, two fairly average sequels and an absolute stinker in the middle, Pixar lovingly crafted just one sequel to one of their most beloved properties and made it damn near perfect.

The story hits some of the same beats as we've seen before, but as I've said, the joy of Toy Story 3 is how differently its all brought forward. We get the now regular Buzz malfunction, but it makes for a great comic relief aside as the second act action ploughs forward. The crisis of ownership from the second film comes to the fore in a big way here, but while the earlier plot turns dealt with the idea of immortality, this one's dealing very much in the realm of Dante's Inferno. For toys.

And d'you know which of the characters should be singled out here? Mr. Potato Head. Pixar make it look so effortless that it might have been planned all along, but it's quite important that one point that the respective parts of the Potato Heads move independently of their brown plastic shells. It's a tremendously creative sequence in the middle of a tremendously creative film, and one that uses such body horror quite liberally, for a change.

More than expected, they're playing with horror conventions in this one. Certain new characters could be downright nightmare fuel for younger viewers, but there's always that level of subversion that keeps the proceedings warm and funny. It is a nice touch for older viewers though, who perhaps even more than before can be as engrossed in the action as their younger companions and offspring.

The studio has come into a reputation for tear-jerking since Toy Story 2, liberally tugging at heartstrings in the likes of WALL•E and Up, and with Toy Story 3, there's no exceptions. I've heard various people admit to crying their hearts out at various points in the film, so if you know and like these characters, there's no telling where the film will get you. It would be a spoiler to tell you where it got me, but there's not a lot of shame in admitting that it did get me.

It may seem odd to some who've heard the advance buzz that I haven't mentioned Michael Keaton's performance as a Ken doll. His great vocal work complements a scene-stealing character excellently, but what also distinguishes Pixar as the best studio around is how they get real talents to do voices rather than big names. Stars as high-profile as Tom Hanks are practically invisible here. Hanks is excellent of course, as are Tim Allen, Ned Beatty, Timothy Dalton and the rest, but they're also subtle.

The only use you have for 3D glasses in this one is to hide the tears, a use that might have served you while watching Up last year as well. But all quibbling about the technology aside, it really didn't seem like this was in 3D at all. That's not to say that I forgot I was watching a 3D film, but that it seemed to make no difference. Naturally, I'm really looking forward to seeing Toy Story 3 in 2D, where the richly rendered visuals won't be impeded by a pair of plastic specs.

Don't doubt it for a second- Toy Story 3 is the must-see family film of the year. Hell, it eclipses most action films for thrills and spills, so if you don't have young ones in your immediate family circle, go and see it with some of your friends instead. But most of all, it preserves the same sense of humour and compelling storytelling that made its predecessors so great, capping off the story of some of the best-loved characters of an entire generation. Without a bit of hyperbole, I feel sorry for you if you're not going to see this one.

Toy Story 3 opens in cinemas, showing in 2D and 3D, on July 19th. Toy Story 3 Week continues tomorrow.

TOY STORY 3 WEEK- Introduction...

Welcome to Toy Story 3 Week on The Mad Prophet. Later in the week I'm hoping to bring you a somewhat uneven and hastily edited vlog on the business of my trip to see the film at the Edinburgh International Film Festival last month, but it seems only right that the first order of business is my review of the film.

Yeah, there's been one of these things from me up on Den of Geek for a while now, written up in double-quick time at the hotel the morning after I saw the film. I'd like to think this one has the benefit of hindsight, although I'll still be discussing the film with next to no spoilers. There'll probably a spoiler-ish review after the film has been released next week.

OK, so it is another week before the film's proper UK release (FINALLY), but with nothing new out this week that I haven't already covered and The Karate Kid and Inception to cover next week, makes sense to do this themed week now.


Enjoy!

The Most I'll Ever Pay To See One Film...

Frequent readers of this blog (the appeal to improve your quality of life is ongoing) will know that I'm fairly buzzed about one film this summer. It continues the legacy of characters very near and dear to me. This third instalment is sure to be the film that everyone of all ages wants to see this summer.


NOT THAT! This!

Yep, Toy Story 3 is coming. In the UK, it's coming a month later than America and several other territories get it. It's funny how Disney then use this film in the summer's anti-piracy ads in cinemas, as it seems likely to be the most pirated film of the year. The platform releasing will see to that. But hey, Disney usually screws the UK over a bit on these things.

The main thing is, I'm getting around that in the way only an obsessive fan can- I'm going to see the film at the Edinburgh International Film Festival's 3D gala screening on June 19th. It's still one day after America gets it, but better that than one month.

On the down side, with accomodation and travel in addition to the ticket cost, this is going to set me back about £100. As a student who hasn't been able to find a proper job for the summer, that's only cheap if you say it quickly. Onehundredquid.

So you'd better believe that for that amount of money, I'm going to be covering Toy Story 3 for all it's worth on this blog and wherever else will allow me to ramble on about it.

Just so you know.

Adventures in Babyshitting

Douglas Adams famously posited the number 42 as the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything. Regrettably, there's nothing so profound in the two films the 42nd Mad Prophet review post covers. Instead, we have two fairly lamentable family films, with the downright awesome Jackie Chan having another jab at the English language market in The Spy Next Door and Seth Green being embraced by a gorilla in Old Dogs. As something of a regular disclaimer, it's only my opinion here- others are available. As ever, mild spoilers may occur in the process of reviewing, but never so far as to spoil any major plot developments.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Although you'd never know it from the advertising, there's more of a story to Old Dogs than just Seth Green serenading a gorilla after it grabs him and cradles him like a baby. Robin Williams and John Travolta play two life-long friends, Dan and Charlie, who are about to enter into a huge sports-marketing deal with some Japanese businessmen. A chance meeting with an old flame of Dan's throws up the surprise revelation that he once fathered two twins, Zach and Emily. With their political activist mother about to spend two weeks in jail, the impractical bachelors have to babysit the twins, learning about family along the way. Yes, I actually gagged typing that last bit.

Even though it's the hackneyed family-centric hi-jinks that Disney's live-action arm is known for when there isn't a Pirates of the Caribbean film on screens, it's baffling to think this came out of the House of Mouse. Besides being homophobic, xenophobic, ageist and generally not funny, it's about a corporate back-and-forth! You know, for kids! There is little that approaches any recognisable level of entertainment value, with the exception of that Green-gorilla gag, which you've seen a million times if you've seen any trailers or posters, and a nice cameo from Justin Long. He plays a creepy and intense Scoutmaster, and I'm not really doing him justice to describe it that way. He provides welcome titters in the wasteland that is Old Dogs, and acquits himself fairly well.

The rest of the cast? Well, they can do better. The most galling thing is that they all know they can do better. Robin Williams was in Good Will Hunting and Jumanji, exhibiting a great versatility for different target audiences- here he's spray-tanned to the extent that he's mistaken for an Asian guy. Matt Dillon was one of the better parts of the racial tensions potboiler Crash- here he's the less funny foil to Long's psychotic outdoors man. John Travolta... no, fuck him. I'm not a fan, and he's one of the only actors working who I genuinely think needs to stop. The last halfway passable performance he gave was voicing the title character in Bolt, not to mention the fact that he's largely to blame for Battlefield Earth. So between this and From Paris With Love, fuck John Travolta!

Put simply, Old Dogs is garbage. Director Walt Becker seems to be daring reviewers to make the obvious "get it put down" pun with the title, but as I'm showing more ingenuity than anyone in that film, here is a short list of other bits of dog rhetoric that can be attributed this film.

1. It's less fun than rabies.
2. It leaves the taste of balls in your mouth.
3. An old, blind, deaf specimen that's loping around cinemas pissing on the carpet and smiling dopily at the audience as it does.

And I could go on. But this is not worth your time, not worth your money, barely even worth its existence. It doesn't quite count as one of the five 2010 films worse than Valentine's Day that would have me stop going to the cinema, but it comes very damn close.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elsewhere, Jackie Chan once again capably demonstrates why he's the best action/comedy star in the world in The Spy Next Door, a demonstration that in no part has anything to do with the lamentable script. But here's the story anyway- Chan plays special agent Bob Ho, who retires from his life of international espionage in order to try and build a normal life with his neigbour and girlfriend, Gillian. As is par for the course in these films, she has three children- Farren, Ian and Nora- who don't like Bob much. Bob's left holding the kids while Gillian's away, but Ian's inadvertent download of a deadly computer program puts all of them in danger.

Have you noticed how, when Jackie Chan is surrounded by dumb Americans in a film, he usually inflicts hilarious violence upon them and gets on with whatever he's doing? Doesn't happen in real life, as evidenced by the utter fail on show from this film's actors, writers and director. But besides all of this, Chan is excellent. He's Jackie fucking Chan, of course he's excellent. Chan has much better comic timing than he seems to be given credit for, and one of the films I'd really love to see in my lifetime would be a Jackie Chan silent comedy. He already has the right sensibilities for it in all of his work, and Hollywood would finally learn how to utilise that talent. In the meantime, my head movies aren't real, and we just have to make do with The Spy Next Door.

Now, I've never hit a kid. I suspect utterly drubbing the work of a child actor would have a similarly upsetting effect if said child read said drubbing, but my word, this film has the worst child actors I can remember seeing in a film. Emo girl is whiny, adorable kid is adorable, and nerdy kid is nebbish until Bob transforms him into... the Fonz? When the hell was this script written?! I'd assumed sometime after the success of The Pacifier, to which this film owes a debt that the Vin Diesel film really didn't warrant. The adult cast don't fare any better than the kids, particularly Katherine Boecher and Lazytown creator Magnús Scheving, who both adopt Russian accents that are sub-Ensign Chekov. Also, Billy Ray Cyrus and George Lopez are in need of a firm kick. Yknow, just for being Billy Ray Cyrus and George Lopez. Chan outshines every single one of them, and very much makes the whole thing worthwhile.

God love Jackie Chan, he keeps making bad films whenever he forays into the English language these days. That makes his part in The Spy Next Door all the more exceptional, drawing laughs out of a mirthless script like blood from a stone. At 55 years old, he's still at the top of his game in the martial-arts stakes, and he really gets comedy too. His next is a remake of The Karate Kid, starring Will Smith's kid. I can but dream of a Jackie Chan silent comedy, because it's the kind of thing that would just complete my life. In the meantime, don't go and see this one unless you're a big fan of Chan or your kids want to know how not to act.
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Old Dogs, may God have mercy on your soul. But if you're similarly enthused by Jackie Chan even in spite of his utter misuse by Hollywood, why not share your comments below? If you wanna know what's next up, I imagine it'll be a much-delayed review of Green Zone in the run-up to the anticipated tantric explosion that'll come after I see Kick-Ass on Friday.

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

Missing Muchness

Avatar has been sitting atop the UK box office since its release on December 18th, dazzling people with its stunning 3D vistas and comparatively negligible story. On the eve of its almost certain triumph at the Academy Awards, a similar competitor has burst onto UK screens, Tim Burton's Disney's Alice in Wonderland by Disney. After arguments between Disney and UK cinema chains getting film fans worried about whether or not the film would ever arrive on these shores, this should really take down Avatar this weekend. If it doesn't, that film needs slaying with a fucking vorpal sword or something, but onwards!

As something of a regular disclaimer, it's only my opinion here- others are available. As ever, mild spoilers may occur in the process of reviewing, but never so far as to spoil any major plot developments.

--------------------------------------------------------------

As with Disney's A Christmas Carol, Disney's Alice in Wonderland covers ground that the House of Mouse have been to before, but they've enlisted Tim Burton to "re-imagine" the story. There've been hits and misses with that strategy in the past, and the story of this one veers wildly between the two. Alice Kingsley has been plagued by dreams of talking animals and a magical world all of her young life, and while escaping from a dreary but insistent suitor, she stumbles down a rabbit hole and lands in that very same world. But far from Carroll's curiouser and curiouser little girl, observing the absurdities of this fantasy land, Burton's Alice is The Chosen One of Wonderland (Underland?), and is sent on a quest to retrieve a magic sword from the tyrannical Red Queen.

Did this story need a Narnia vibe? It almost certainly didn't, and it has to be said from the start of the review that this decision hobbles the third act entirely. Although the action towards the end is surprisingly well directed by Burton, who's come a long way since the slightly shonky fight scenes in 1989's Batman, it all feels unnecessary in a story that's supposed to be about a dark and whimsical place rather than prophecies and battles. Similarly out of place is the gender empowerment angle on Alice, who ends up wielding a vorpal sword, donning armour and riding a Bandersnatch into battle. Given how it's about the adventure, I doubt Carroll would've minded too much if it had to be "Alec in Wonderland", but Mia Wasikowska can't really be faulted for her winsome and arresting performance.

Another general failure of the film is the depth in which the Mad Hatter's madness is explored. A similar exploration of Depp's Willy Wonka was the most laboured part of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, although the Hatter's reminiscences are mercifully sparse. In that slightly over-hyped role, Johnny Depp is as competent as he always is, but there's really nothing new there. He's good in almost everything, but I maintain that his best performances were as Ed Wood and as J.M. Barrie in Finding Neverland, and those were relatively normal roles- the wackiness is starting to wear now. As for the other fixture of Burton's films, Helena Bonham Carter plays Miranda Richardson playing the Red Queen, with the actual casting presumably down to Richardson having already done that role. She chews the scenery with aplomb and remains an entertaining villain throughout.

The rest of the rather sterling cast is somewhat obscured by the three leads and by the visuals, much like the early Harry Potter films. Anne Hathaway gives a floaty and fey performance as the White Queen, looking and sounding as if she stepped right out of a fairytale and thus being perfect in the role. Matt Lucas makes a decent comic relief showing as Tweedles dum and dee, looking particularly surreal in CGI fleshy-potato mode. But then Alan Rickman, Stephen Fry, Frances de la Tour, Christopher Lee, Michael Sheen, Lindsay Duncan, Crispin Glover and Timothy Spall are all lost in the frantic chaos of this unofficial sequel. If anything, that flaw is the closest the film gets to the oddities of its source material- there is so much to take in that it probably warrants repeated viewings to fully appreciate everything.

And there is a fair amount to appreciate. Despite the fact that if you've seen one gnarled tree by Tim Burton, you've seen them all, there's a great visual sensibility at work, if not a unique one. The art direction and wardrobe work as a whole is just astounding, even if the CGI isn't totally convincing if we take Avatar as the new benchmark for computer-generated worlds and creatures (especially in 3D). It also gambols along at an entertaining pace, with the right combination of laughs, thrills and spills to engage most audiences. It taps into that mainstream of oddball that Burton has cultivated over the course of his career, thankfully looking and feeling closer to The Nightmare Before Christmas than to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. At the same time, Disney's guiding hand is felt in the battle-oriented radicalisation of the monomyth, and so this still veers close to his studio-mandated Batman.

And once again, I'm saving the 3D rant for the end. I saw it in 3D just to catch a glimpse of the new Doctor Who trailer on a big screen- I am nothing if not an unscrupulous fanboy. I saw it in full knowledge of the fact that it was shot in 2D and then "upgraded", even though the intention was always to release it in 3D. And it really shows. If the 3D in Avatar didn't work, with Cameron painstakingly syncing up the background with the foreground to immerse the audience, it certainly doesn't work here. This is typified by the scenery being out of focus in several scenes, in a technical sight that's only in films, not real life- the real world doesn't slide out of focus when you're looking at someone in front of you. Immediately, you're distanced rather than immersed in the film, and Burton's colourful Underland also suffers as a result of the 30% colour-loss that troubles 3D. There's more eye-popping going on in the film itself, courtesy of a sword-happy Dormouse voiced by Barbara Windsor. Hollywood can shove the money-grubbing technology up their rabbit hole.
Alice in Wonderland is an oddly droopy continuation of Lewis Carroll's tale, ignoring the fact that Carroll wrote a sequel himself. There's always the feeling of a "missing muchness", as the Mad Hatter puts it to Alice. In its darker moments, Burton's work really shines through, but the entire third act could have been much improved by the omission of a destiny angle on the heroine. It feels somewhat like Disney has stunted the potential of Burton's interpretation, but this remains a fun and visually astounding romp that families can enjoy immensely. That said, you should definitely go and see it in 2D if you go at all, or else wait for the DVD release in 13 weeks' time (go Odeon!) Oh, and it lost a whole mark out of five for me when Depp started breakdancing. Urgh. As a whole though, it's flawed, but a rather frabjous effort.

--------------------------------------------------------------
If you go and see Alice in Wonderland in the next few weeks- and I'm sure you will, this thing is going to be huge- then why not share your comments on the film and on my review below?

Next up: awards speak, probably. The Oscars go out on Sunday night/Monday morning. As for reviews, there's a fair few films in cinemas this week that I haven't covered- Legion, The Crazies, Crazy Heart and Ondine.

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

Alice in... Where? (UPDATE)

Time has shown that Tim Burton's "reimaginings" can often pan out as inferior versions. For every Batman, there's a Planet of the Apes. For every Sleepy Hollow, there's a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. In terms of disappointment though, at least it can be said that all of those films made it into cinemas in the UK.

But today, The Guardian is reporting that the three biggest cinema chains in the UK- Odeon, Cineworld and Vue- may actually boycott Burton's latest, a 3D reimagining of Alice in Wonderland, after Disney shortened the wait for the film's DVD release to just 12 weeks after its cinema release on March 5th. This is part of a scheme by Disney to make the turnaround from cinema to home video faster, which is obviously not good for cinemas that sometimes struggle to make a profit in an industry where DVDs don't come out too long after their initial release and piracy is rife.

Personally, I can't see this boycott occurring. Yeah, it's not just a news piece- I'm still whacking you with my views. Alice in Wonderland is projected to make £40m at the UK box office. Moreover, it's one of the most anticipated films of the year, playing in that most steadfast of cinematic gimmicks, 3D. One of the two sides will back down, or else everyone will lose out.

Both sides are pressing their point to make more money out of the film, and so neither are likely to let it rest at a point where they both lose out. Apparently a similar truncation of Up's run was planned so that Disney could release that film on DVD and blu-ray before Christmas, and was stopped when the chains threw their dummies out of their prams by threatening to boycott A Christmas Carol.

However, the one thing these three films have in common is that they're all in Disney Digital 3D, and that exhibits only how the technology has a single advantage- profit for studios and cinemas. With Avatar continuing to rake in money- now in its eighth week atop the UK box office and having surpassed Mamma Mia! as the highest grossing film in UK box office history- studios have been falling over themselves to release things in 3D, and the cinemas are happy to enable them.

I've got no problem with anything that gets more people into the cinema, but there must come a stage when audiences realise the sole benefit of 3D isn't helping them one bit. It's not immersive- it's expensive. The irony of the technology's renaissance is that it's now making its way into homes, with Sky promising a 3D channel later this year, and so the cinema needs ever more annoying gimmicks to draw people away from home entertainment.

This to me is the equivalent of DVDs having a "dickheads' commentary"- the recreation of a night at the cinema in the UK with an audio track of chavs talking, texting and generally being twatty overlaid on the film. It just won't happen. The only reason the chains have kicked up a stink about this is because it's in 3D. If Disney wanted to release The Princess and the Frog on DVD next month, I bet there wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem.

Whether or not Alice in Wonderland succeeds or fails as an entertaining film, with Johnny Depp looking like Madonna and the distinct vibes of Narnia-style action in the trailer, is being overshadowed by how successful it will be financially, and no one can tell me that makes 3D the way forward for film.

UPDATE: Told you so. Alice in Wonderland is released on March 5th, and on DVD 13 weeks later. Stick it to 'em, Odeon- make them wait another week.

An interesting addendum though- Disney have said they want to release the film before the World Cup. Surely for the majority of people in the UK who aren't arsed about England's chances (yes, the majority- those TV ratings don't even encompass a third of the population, usually), DVD releases would serve as effective counter-programming. I have my doubts about Burton's Wonderland, but I'm sure I'd much rather be watching that than a bunch of over-paid and occasionally promiscuous morons kicking a ball around and getting knocked out in the quarter final stages.