The Cove centres on activist, Ric OBarry, and his undercover operation into the stoppage of dolphin hunts in Japan. A former world dolphin trainer, O’ Barry was moved to save the dolphins after having trained 5 dolphins for the tv show Flipper. Realizing that capturing and training these dolphins was wrong, Ric has maintained a determined stance on Japan’s self proclaimed age old tradition of killing and eating dolphins. Filmed in a guerrila style, undercover op- doco, The Cove is instantly dubious the minute O’ Barry begins describing the surveillance placed on him in Taiji, and the strong presence of cops following the team as they attempt to uncover the truth behind the dolphin hunts. To be fair, it is not the issue at hand which is most irritating, but the charisma and overbearingness of Ric O’ Barry. In fact, the term “eco-terrorist” may be used to describe such people involved in The Cove, because the hypocrisy and self righteousness overshadows all of the main points in the film.

Over emotional music and scenes of a baby dolphin bleeding in the water may invoke feelings of anger, or even tears, but are dolphins really held higher than other animals we eat on a daily basis? The most obvious question arising from this movie would be: “is killing whales not the same as killing cows or chickens?” In fact in most arguments involving animal cruelty, it seems most people are vastly ignorant about where their food comes from, or where it has been sourced from. In this case however, it seems hugely controversial that The Cove can produce such an invasive film with a deeply personal agenda, when there are similar issues relating to animal cruelty in our own backyards.

This does not withstand the fact that animal cruelty, no matter what species, is wrong. Sure, there may be the same scientific tests regarding the safety level of eating dolphin, but then again there are also the warnings of eating deep sea fish such as tuna, which contain higher levels of mercury. The simple fact is, The Cove is made in such a way which makes the viewer question how exactly dolphin killing is different to farmed animals, and how important tradition is versus the endangerment of a species.

It is a well known fact the sea is an important part of Japanese culture, and fishing is an age old tradition which extends through generations. While overfishing does not account for the fact that the world’s fish population is slowly diminishing, the procedures and measures with which dolphins are killed must also be taken into account when analyzing just how bad the dolphin killing really is in Japan. Ric O’ Barry has made clear his refusal to back down on the matter, but the reports of skewed editing and provocation of locals for the film only serve to highlight just how much of The Cove you can take with a grain of salt.

Vegetarians can argue that this take of the film only indicates a meat lovers’ self denial- rather an open minded approach should be taken when viewing films like these, and also the key fact that there is a strong emotional and seemingly guilt ridden attachment to the issue which O’Barry will probably never let go.

Yeah, yeah, I know, this is a movie review blog…and here I am talking about a TV series. I absolutely have to blog about this though – because it is as epic as any movie!! Well…as epic as any movie I have seen recently anyway (and easily more epic than Iron Man 2….*shudder*). I don’t think I’ve ever been this excited about seeing a tv series come to an end before. It’s sad…but then again at least the producers and writers know when to quit!

There has been so much hype around its series finale though, because it is going to be huge.

Huge as in….2.5 hours huge.

Huge as in….we will get answers to what happens to the characters! What happens to smokey! What happens to the alternate timeline! And what happens to the island!!!

Of course, there are way too many questions for the writers to answer them all…..I mean just view this hilarious song for a start:

Yeah, I thought it was genius too. If you haven’t kept up with Lost however, you may not get many of the jokes made in that clip. Which is sad for you, coz you are missing out!

For those that haven’t kept up with Lost for the past 6 seasons, here’s a short video to recap (it is confusing!):

Lost season 1-6 in recap in 108 seconds:

…..though Hurley gives an even more hilarious recap of what has happened back in season 5 – all in 48 seconds!

See, here’s the thing about Lost. You either like the show…or you don’t. And if you don’t, I suggest you probably stop reading now because the rest of this post will just be me, viewing the show in retrospect and admiring just how clever and revolutionary it has been! Hell, Daniel Dae-Kim said it himself - “I don’t think you can talk about television in the 21st century without talking about Lost”. It really has been that influential, whether you like it or not!

This show started way back when I was 14, and I used to watch it avidly every week. The concept was different and the storytelling style plus the characters combined to form a rather compelling new drama series which left a cliffhanger every week – something which I really enjoy about how the show is presented.

I have to admit I did get a bit complacent for a while, and skipped a few episodes here and there during Seasons 2 and 3 – when thiings started to get really wacky and weird. And seemingly, a bunch of other people got bored of the concept as well because ratings dropped and pretty soon, the most talked about show was not cool anymore – it was simply too silly and nonsensical, plus TOO MANY FLASHBACKS. “They’re still on that damn island?! What the hell is that smoke monster?! And why is Jack so annoying?!” All these questions I asked myself while I was watching the first few episodes. I soon realized however, that to watch Lost is to either commit, or forget about it altogether.

Because really, you can’t watch Lost unless you watch at least 2 episodes back to back…preferably 4.

My friend lent me seasons 1-4 a few months ago for me to catch up on everything as I had fallen way behind in my watching of every episode, and then we had a huge Lost season 5 marathon in 1.5 days. It was epic. But it also made me realize just how amazing this show is, and how much it has contributed to pop culture and tv in the past few years alone. You really gotta hand it to the writers on this one – they really know how to create a few great characters, open up some very interesting story arcs and tie them all up further down the track.

On that same note, I also have to admit, I was spectacularly disappointed with Season 5’s opening episode. It really seemed to me like the writers were just pulling answers out of thin air – making up shit as they went along, trying to scramble to answer at least some of the more important, pressing questions such as what exactly the smoke monster was and why the characters were brought to the island. The two Lockes…the rather placid Ben Linus…the random temple dudes…the annoying stares between Kate, Jack and Sawyer…plus an alternate timeline now?! When is the craziness going to end?! Things did pick up though, and I think it really has gotten to the point where you just wonder whatever happens next!

I’m actually rather surprised how well the writers have managed to pull off the whole time travel and destiny thing with the show. On the outset, the concept seems so realistic and so natural – and yet, there’s just so much crazy stuff going on it’s extremely admirable that it is not unintentionally funny or off putting. The show makes use of so many fantastical elements and deus ex machinas, its incredibly fascinating how much thought and care has been put into the formation of the world and everything that has happened so far. I suppose in that respect, it really does separate the fans and non fans into two distinct groups. I mean really, it is the people who can suspend their disbelief for a while that Lost is aimed at. It entertains and yet there is also something deeper in its portrayal of its characters – I just love how the show is so unpredictable, and how it really makes people think about the how and why the characters are acting the way they are.

Just look at Lostpedia. You could spend literally hours on that site reading all the little details that have contributed to the overall story arc. And that is just the beginning! Lost fans are a different story altogether, and while I don’t consider myself a Lost junkie, I do love the show for what it is, and I absolutely can’t wait to find out what happens at the end!

Will Kate die?! Will the timelines ever meet up! (I would seriously laugh if it was all in Hurley’s head!) Will Jack be stuck on the island for the rest of his life?! Will they all die?! Will they all die on the island and so die in the alternate timeline too?! Will smokey find its way off the island?! What happened to Richard?! Why does the island heal people!? What’s up with pregnancy/island?! I’m sure there’s a lot more but I can’t really think of them right now – brain will explode.

I will probably most definitely review the finale after it airs – I have after all seen every episode so far and am extremely curious as to how things pan out. I seriously cannot wait for Sunday though – it’ll be epic!

ANSWERS!! I NEED ANSWERS!!!!!

I have to review Clash of the Titans and Kick-Ass, hopefully I will get at least one of those up by tomorrow night. I’ve just been busy with life and everything else and its just been a hectic couple of weeks….but I’ll definitely get on to this soon

Bear with me!

So apart from visiting Gnomesville today (which was pretty awesome in itself!), I also sat through THREE movies in a row….like a movie marathon but BETTER. Funny thing is, I am actually going to a movie marathon on Sunday for the Easter holiday special thing…and the people I am going with somehow thought

1. Clash of the Titans
2. The Dark Knight and
3. Sherlock Holmes

was a completely better marathon than:

1. Kick Ass
2. Green Zone
3. The Wolfman

I MEAN SERIOUSLY. DOES MARATHON TWO NOT SOUND BETTER TO EVERYONE?! *sigh* First off….who hasn’t seen The Dark Knight (kind of overrated too imo), Sherlock Holmes was piss poor BORING and Clash of the Titans…..well I can already tell it’ll be CRAP by its movie poster and trailer, and how it is marketed in 3D. Ugh.

ANYWAY.

Tonight, the movie marathon was pretty good…..because we saw:

1. Whiteout
2. Cube
3. From Dusk til Dawn

Pretty awesome series of movies right there…..but OH GOD. WHITEOUT. WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH THIS FILM?!

Seriously, can anyone actually tell me what this is about because we all had NO EFFING IDEA by the end of the movie. Not only is the dialogue and scenes horribly written, the acting is so bad it’s laughable. In fact…it was so bad I am writing this right now to remind me to write a review about it later on. Honestly, if you’re bored and you want an entertaining Z-grade film to watch……SEE WHITEOUT. You won’t be disappointed.

Cube was also pretty interesting……..it’s like Saw but older and there are no serial killers….but there are traps and they are stuck in a series of cubes. Pretty cool movie – definitely want to see the other two!

From Dusk til Dawn was a whole other story…I had seen it before years ago but rewatched it again tonight and it was pretty fucking hilarious. Like, the first half hour you kind of get the feeling it’ll go off on a Natural Born Killers tangent where everyone will just DIE but then vampires suddenly appear out of NOWHERE and all the funny breaks loose. God I love Tarantino. And Robert Rodriguez. ;D I actually cannot wait til Machete comes out now….because seeing Danny Trejo in that movie just totally reminded me of Machete and how awesome it’ll be.

The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, released in 2009, is directed by Niels Arden Oplev and is entirely in Swedish. While there are talks of a Hollywood english remake (no surprises there), the Swedish movie has proven to be a hit success, drawing thousands to its release around the world. Several highlights do distinguish the movie from previous crime thrillers, however the overlong sequences, clichés and glossed over details make the entire movie quite tiresome to watch.

In a relatively derivative start to the film, investigative journalist Michael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) is hired to uncover the whereabouts of Henrik Vanger’s (Sven-Bertil Taube) great niece, Harriet (Ewa Fröling).  Through a turn of events, professional hacker, Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) manages to uncover more evidence through her skills, and forming a rather odd team they both race to discover just what happened to Harriet and who was responsible for her disappearance.

While the pairing of Lisbeth and Michael forms a dynamic but formulaic feature of the classic detective/investigative drama, it is the little details in The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo that really holds this film back. One of the most obvious and outstanding ones is the fact that Lisbeth, and seemingly all the other people in the film use Apple MACs. There’s really nothing wrong with macs at all, but in this film the product placement is so clear and so absurd that it is at times extremely hard to get fully immersed into the story when you can see Lisbeth “hacking” Blomkvist’s own macbook using generic and completely implausible code. In fact, the film makes hacking look so EASY, it seems all you need to know to be a professional hacker is to type in “access Blomkivsts’ laptop” into a generic linux-esque program, and voila! – she is now freely able to surf the contents of said laptop. Well done, Lisbeth.

Not only this, the use of iPhoto to alter the contrast and brightness of the photos key in uncovering the mystery of Harriet’s disappearance really brings this film down into a whole new level of amateurishness. This was certainly not the professional and crafty duo portrayed in Larsson’s novel! Perhaps it is just the aversion to Apple products in general that makes the film so hard to understand how exactly they came about the conclusion of the events. In this way, it is probably just as well the novels work and describe what happens so much better than in the movie!

The ease at which they seem to come together in deciphering the case is a huge let down in terms of audience participation as well. In a rather convoluted mish mash string of events, the pacing of their discoveries alongside the total ease at which they find significant points relating to the case really draws the movie out unnecessarily. Tiring ever so fast, it is any wonder people can even be bothered attempting to figure out what actually happened! Michael Nyqvist is thoroughly disinteresting as Blomkvist, and gives a rather dire and uninspired portrayal contrastive against the wonderfully acted Lisbeth.

Despite the poor pacing and attention to detail, one of the revelations of the movie is without a doubt the lead actress, Noomi Rapace. If attaining all the facial piercings for the role isn’t enough to show how committed she is to the series, her acting as a strong hardcore, angsty woman translates to the screen with a tenacity that seems to attract all attention on her disregarding the woeful script. While the character does call for generic emo/hardcore subgenre-esque clothes, hair and customary black makeup and pants, Rapace seems to have a knack for portraying the strength and determination of Lisbeth, which really works well against the grain of the other typical archetypes in the movie.

In a rape scene that is disturbing as well as added shock value, Rapace pulls off the scene extremely well, particularly exemplifying the emotion and helplessness in her situation. It is in fact, Rapace in particular that saves this movie from total disaster – too bad the script wasn’t any better in portraying the strength of Larsson’s work!

For cinematic lovers of crime drama and thrillers, Girl with a Dragon Tattoo is a must watch – if only because it is based on one of the best crime trilogies in literary fiction, and it does contain a strong female protagonist which is often hard to come by. Despite these features however, the screenplay and lack of chemistry between Blomkvist and Lisbeth really brings the film down, and it is definitely the little details that prevent audiences from fully suspending their disbelief for two hours. For a film in its genre, it is no doubt one that compared to other crime thrillers such as Tell No One, a critically accalaimed French film by Guillaume Canet. Girl with a Dragon Tattoo isn’t a total disaster – just one which could do with several major improvements. With the next two films in the series wrapping up post production, it is any wonder if the interest will be there to continue watching, or to just go back to reading the books!

So, can anyone see anything wrong with this cover?

What’s that?

EVERYTHING is wrong with this cover?

FIRST OF ALL. Why does Kristen Stewart always have that really disguted ‘ugh Im too good for anyone’ look on her face. CAN ANYONE ANSWER ME THIS because every SINGLE TIME I see a promo picture for Twilight related merch, I always see her face and think ’she needs a happy pill!’

Also, why does Edward Cullen look so disdainful and emo? I don’t know if its the really generic stereotypes being forced onto the actors here, but the facial expressions on this DVD cover seems to sum it all up in one image: even the actors ar disgusted at how disgustingly foul Twilight is.

Even Taylor Lautner’s fail attempt at ‘glowering’ doesn’t really cut through the layers of disgustingness.

ANYWAY. Enough of Twilight.

I saw Girl with a Dragon Tattoo last week, and while I did enjoy the female lead……..it really didn’t live up to the reviews I read about it! I’ll post my full review sometime later this week, but yeah….kind of disappointed actually.

Also, I saw Pi on Sunday, and I have to say it is a really amazing film. Pretty much reinforced my belief Darren Aronofsky is a-ma-zing. Can’t wait for Black Swan now!

For a movie that is focussed on a whole lot of political affairs, it is the genius quick cutting of one scene to another, combined with the archival and documentary style footage that keeps interest until the end; underscoring just how radical and new age Milk’s vision and influence was back in the 70’s.  The screenplay is so well crafted, and the editing so seamless, it not only brings to light how the perception of homosexuality has changed over the past few decades, but also emphasizes the utilization of the many different types of old and new media in the script thanks to the impressively stylised directing style employed by Gus Van Sent.

In an era in which homosexuals were treated as sub-human, watching Milk is inherently thought provoking in observing how gay rights have evolved to present day. Instigating a massive gay rights movement in the heart of San Francisco, Harvey Milk clearly brought the issue and the gays into the public eye with the hopes of everyone being seen as equal human beings with equal rights. Similarly, the film Milk was released in concurrence to California’s 2008 referendum on gay marriage, otherwise known as Prop 8. The message of hope, unity and equality is heard audibly through this film’s tightly written screenplay and cast of A-grade actors, undoubtedly inspiring many voters to think over the tremendous decision of allowing gays to officially get married. Milk’s relevancy to today’s politics is powerful in showing the determination of Harvey and his team – in a script grounded by documentary like archival footage, it is inspirational in delivering the message of fighting for what you believe in. Although it is sometimes dragged down by a milieu of over the top dramatization and excessive use of footage, the actors make the most of the wonderfully inspired script, which in turn highlights the importance of Milk’s actions at the time.

Although in typical biopic style fashion a narrator is used in the form of Milk recording his own will before his assassination, the combinations of brilliant directing, scriptwriting and editing makes for a powerful political film. Milk’s various relationships portrayed in the film also make up the bulk of the film’s grounding, particularly between lover, Scott Smith. Through the tumultuous political affairs of his activism, then his political career within the Californian government, the focus on his life as a homosexual man is reiterated on all angles – from his sexual encounters to the berating and death threats he receives from anonymous hate mongers.

Sean Penn is utterly convincing as Harvey Milk, and it is undoubtedly the strength of his performance that allows audiences to take the issue and the events portrayed in both a light hearted but thoughtful way. His speeches to the crowds are often powerful and passionate, his debate with his opposition persuasive. Indeed, Penn’s portrayal of Milk just may be one of his career bests, his portrayal of a gay man compelling and not at all awkward. The chemistry between Penn and James Franco, who plays his lover/ex Scott Smith is also emphatic in celebrating the joy and partnership between the two individuals. Their relationship is key in focussing on the affects of politics on Milk, as well as the consequences and downfalls he went through to achieve his dream of equality. It is certainly admirable in seeing just how much passion he had for his vision, especially since almost every relationship he had ended in disaster because of it.

The use of archival and dated footage is also another aspect of Milk that brings the drama and events back to reality. The cross cutting between the drama played out between Milk and his allies and enemies, alongside the TV reports and extra footage of the real life events is telling in portraying the massive cultural change occurring in the 70’s, as well as the brutality of living as a gay person in that time. Although there is not a lot of female representation in the movie asides from Milk’s assistant Anne Kronenberg (Alison Pill), the ramifications of his actions serves to exemplify how important the gay rights movement is now than ever before.

Almost 40 years down the track and gay rights still seem to be at the losing end of the spectrum, despite the efforts of gay icon Harvey Milk. If the ending of the film is anything to go by, it is without a doubt an issue entrenched in everyday lives, and everyday times. The sacrifices Milk made for the purpose of the movement is simply thought provoking when one looks at how much he has done politically. While the movement still seems to have a while to go yet, Gus Van Sent has done a spectacular job at  recreating Milk’s life and vision on screen – delivering a powerful message of hope and peace in the process.

In the 38 days that is portrayed, or the two and a half hour long run time (!), an immense amount of anticipation, intense violence and lonely desert visuals highlight the complexities, consequences and the effects of war, particularly on the soldiers and their relationships with their peers and families back home. The focus on one man’s journey at his station in Iraq is particularly affecting in portraying how detached the majority of people are to the violence and life and death situations in Iraq, which really helps to emphasize the realities of war in a confronting and brutal way.

Opening with a powerful quote taken from war journalist Chris Hedges book ‘War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning’, the line: “The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug,” is something that is consistently referenced throughout the movie through the experiences of chief bomb tech William James (Jeremy Renner). It is through his eyes that the how and why are explained of the various tactics and reasoning used by men in the front line in Iraq, which altogether underscores the enormous amount of stress, consequences and appeals of working in the military in a location as unstable as Iraq.

In a shaky, handheld cam style, The Hurt Locker starts off with a memorable opening scene with Guy Pearce portraying Sergeant Thompson as the team leader in detonating bombs in Iraq. After a fatal explosion in an attempt to detonate an IED, Sergeant William James is brought in to replace him, and thus the documentation of his various encounters in Iraq as a bomb detonator begins.

In a confronting and often nauseating journey through the life of a military officer in Iraq, the masterful work with the zooms, focuses and cross cutting arguably is the chief reason why this movie is so powerful in delivering the emotion and tension depicted in each scene. It is not the cinematography alone however, but the combination of fantastic directing style, resourceful use of sound effects to relay the action and suspense experienced in the battlefield, and editing of the clips from different angles and focus that brings the audience into the reality of war and the experience at being at the brink of life and death every day.

The outcomes of this film serves only to highlight the overall purpose of portraying the experiences of William James – that is to question the reasons for the violence and destruction in Iraq, and to empathize with the soldiers who have to deal with the life and death situations on a daily basis. Despite this, the opening quote is extremely poignant in grounding the film and providing a backdrop for the sequence of events, which altogether clarifies just why and how soldiers can maintain the lifestyle that is portrayed.

At times, the movie is very drawn out, particularly with the sniper scene in the desert, though this is often overshadowed by the extremely creative use of camera angles to emphasize the extreme isolation and danger in the open desert. It is without a doubt the skill of Bigelow however, that drives this film to a powerful and affecting climax.

The last half an hour or so are an intense rollercoaster ride of emotion, action, suspense, boredom…you have to wonder how these men and women cope with the after effects of being in a combat situation like Iraq for a months on end. It is the quality of the acting and the capture of each soldier’s emotions on screen that cements this movie as one of the most powerfully thought provoking movies in recent years focussing on the war in Iraq and its effects on society and the soldiers themselves.

While the ending leaves a lot open to imagination and possibilities, the film achieves the main aim in perceiving and underlining Hedge’s quote. The fact that war can be seen as a drug, and adrenaline can become an addiction is important to note when viewing this movie, for it is not just the want of being a hero for James, but the want to experience that rush of teetering on the edge of death in every scenario. Questionable, right?!

The Hurt Locker is an overall compelling movie centering around the exploits of what exactly is happening in Iraq, and it is undoubtedly the use of various camera angles, conventions and sound effects that makes this movie as powerful as it is. Bigelow has made a war movie which not only captures the attention and scrutiny of critics and viewers alike, she has also brought the realities of war straight out of Iraq into the comfort of a theatre – undoubtedly provoking many to think about their current stance on the war and the consequences of the hostilities on families and soldiers.

After winning 6 Oscars this year for its cinematic brilliance, it is not hard to see why this movie has been so well praised. If only for its open ending and alternate interpretations of James’ actions during his time in the bomb squad does the message of the movie ring clear: violence is bloody and war is a cycle which will never end, but the sad truth remains that people like James will continue to be needed and utilized in questionable tactics such as America’s invasion of Iraq.

It is not surprising then, that Tim Burton’s reimagined version of Alice in Wonderland has attracted so much hype and attention – if only because it both enhances certain aspects of Carroll’s story, all the while providing a mainstream alternative to Disney’s classic animation from 1951 (which I’m sure, everyone has seen). Not only this, but the fact that the film is in 3D further highlights how far entertainment mediums have come since the first issue of Alice in Wonderland, which is only indicative of the 3D revolution currently taking place.

The immense hype behind 3D movies since the massive returns from Avatar have raised some serious questions about the future and content of cinema however: does style really matter over substance? How immersive does a movie have to be before an audience completely ignores the plot and focuses on how the detailed graphics are? These questions are further underscored by Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, which sees a number of ups and downs throughout which really makes watching it a hit and miss affair.

While Burton’s Alice seemingly attempts to make the most of all the weird and wacky characters from the original story, the overall 3D effects combined with the overwhelmingly CGI setting makes for a very detached and almost vicarious experience behind the annoyingly tiresome 3D glasses. Sure, the movie shouldn’t be considered ‘badly made’ by any means. The actors are top class, the score suits the theme perfectly, and the effects are highly detailed and at times, wonderfully ethereal like. So then what makes this movie such a chore to watch?

The story by and large isn’t all that different to other renditions of the original story. It begins with Alice (Mia Wasikowska) going to a garden party (which is in fact her engagement party), after it is explained she has had the same dream of falling down a rabbit hole since she was a child. After the rather repulsive Lord Ascot (Tim Pigott-Smith) proposes to her in front of the entire party, Alice runs off to follow a white rabbit, where she eventually falls down a hole near a hollow tree. What follows is a story infused with the classic imagery and characterization that Caroll made so popular, including particular focus on the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) & co., an oraculum and their aspirations to take down the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter).

While the script does seem to attempt to inject some sort of humour and satire at times throughout the movie, the characters are most of the time, simply one-dimensional caricature portrayals of Carroll’s work. Perhaps it’s the 3D gimmickry, or the bland acting skills of Mia Wasikowska and surprisingly, Johnny Depp. Either way, the effects seem so tacked on and so tiresome, it really makes for some exhausting viewing. It’s hard to judge a movie however, when it is marketed and based almost entirely around the 3D platform. It may just be matter of opinion or preference, but in this case, the 3D and CGI effects just don’t do the film justice in any way.

One particular scene that comes to mind is when Alice is falling down the rabbit hole. The 3D effects utilized in this sequence was so underwhelming and underdone it really was like viewing a blur of 3D objects with no real detail, thus making the mystery and curiosity of the strange objects trivial and seemingly unimportant. Although Alice in Wonderland was always portrayed as an entirely whimsical fantasy, it could be argued in Burton’s version, the focus is all on the 3D that there really isn’t any attention to the WHY and HOW of the objects floating in the rabbit hole. Which really sets the viewer up for even more disappointment further into the film.

There are a few highlights to the movie however. Helena Bonham Carter is arguably the most entertaining character in Burton’s Alice, giving a biting and extremely sardonic depiction of the Red Queen. The backgrounds and settings are rendered quite well , while the use of the smoke from the blue caterpillar is used very effectively in bringing a sense of mysteriousness to the events taking place.

Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter is unfortunately quite disappointing next to Helena Bonham Carter, and you have to wonder if he was making Pirates 4 while shooting this because it often became quite hard to tell the distinction! At times the accent and mannerisms almost highlighted how much Depp has taken from Jack Sparrow and combined it with his portrayal of the Hatter, which made for some confusing and derivative viewing. His bizarre jig at the end of the movie just says it all really – though it does emphasize the fact Burton didn’t take the film too seriously (which for the most time is a good thing) the highly confusing scene was so out of place it was actually quite hard to understand the whole point of it all!

The script was not all that stellar either, and although it does contain and stay true to many of the references in Caroll’s original version, there seems to be something lacking throughout that makes Alice 3D so bland and so boring. It’s a hard thing to pin down, but the overall lacklustre performances, over the top CGI and tiresome 3D really brings about the movies’ downfall.

Alice 3D is simply one of those movies which you can enjoy at the cinema, and be entertained by. It’s not bad, it’s not amazing, it’s just…OK. Certainly not Burton’s best work by any means, and if you thought Corpse Bride was disappointing, well wait until you see this movie! The advent of 3D blockbuster movies really is worrying though, and the entertainment value vs. the quality of the plot and acting will no doubt continue for years to come.

The fact that people have been complaining over Zoe Saldana’s oscar “snub” this year over her portryal of Neytiri in Avatar really just highlights the transitional stage of 2D to 3D movies, and the difficulty in judging the differences acting wise and quality wise. The immense amount of money to be made from the 3D revolution has clearly spurred an increase in the amount of 3D movies produced, and while the gimmick has been around for a fair while now, we can now all thank James Cameron for making 3D popular again.

Although there has been an incredible amount of talk and marketing surrounding the release of Alice in Wonderland 3D since…well…months ago now, it is fair to say the hype is simply unwarranted and overrated. True, the details in the imagery are well done (most of the time anyway). The immersiveness of the 3D certainly helps to bring the audiences into the story and into the character’s experiences themselves. These features do not detract from the bland and uninspired character portrayals and script however, and it is for this reason and the plain and siple fact that 3D is still in its premature, annoyingly trivial stage, that Alice in Wonderland 3D , for all its hype and marketing, spectacularly disappoints.

It is without a doubt Gatlif’s heritage that has inspired him to produce such a film – he has after all already made more than ten movies focused on the Romanian Gypsy culture, and his resolve to underscore the reality of the gypsies together with his own descent has altogether empowered his filmmaking and motive for exposing the gypsy life and history. His determination to unveil the racial and social prejudice that occurred both in the past and today serves to emphasize the frightening reality Korkoro emanates on screen: it claims to be based on true events, which further highlights the extraordinary conflict the gypsies faced during the war, as well as the contradictions within the government and the people in society at the time. Korkoro really does seem to embody everything the gypsy culture stands for however, from the beat infused background music and the beautiful natural setting down to the actions of the characters and the tragic and often inevitable turn of events in the film.

In a memorable opening scene, barbed wire of a gypsy camp in France moves along to a poignant piano solo, and then cuts to the lively action and travelling of a gypsy clan in a leafy forest. Claude (Mathias La Liberté), an adorable young boy begins following the clan, and soon they take him under their wing and begin calling him Chorchoro (or pauper). They travel into France for the grape harvest, and it is then they realize there are new laws that forbid them to be nomadic.

However, they find some friends with Ms. Lundi (Marie-Josée Croze), the local schoolteacher, and Theodore (Marc Lavoine), the town mayor, in which both attempt to gently persuade the gypsies to assimilate with the rest of the town. This is seemingly made impossible by their way of life though, as is emphasized through their different culture, language and rituals.

Theodore adopts Claude when he realizes he is an orphan, and Miss Lundi tries to get the gypsy children to attend the school (where in a hilarious exchange, is asked to pay for the kids’ education by the adult gypsies). These attempts to bring the gypsies into normal civilization are in vain despite Miss Lundi and Theodore’s efforts, and soon the gypsy clan find themselves imprisoned in a cramped and barbaric gypsy camp.

Theodore signs over his house to them so they can be released, and so they are set “free”, for a while at least. Heritage or culture can never be erased however, and it is only inevitable that the gypsies’ stay in regular society is short lived before they attempt to escape into the wilderness, and back into their nomadic way of life.

Gatlif portrays the different sides of regular civilization and the gypsy culture extremely well in Korkoro, and it is his portrayal of both sides of the issue that significantly emphasizes the plight of the gypsies in that time. The racial prejudice is not only confronting and thought provoking, the treatment of the gypsies is often vicious, and altogether inhumane. The distinctions between the gypsy culture and regular society is also often made, effectively emphasizing how hard it is to persude someone to drop their heritage and start over entirely as a new being in modern society.

While the gypsies are often seen praying to their God and chanting and praying, their way of life infinitely sets them apart from the rest of society. In one scene, one of the gypsies is bitten by a horse, which results in them dressing the wound with cow dung and one egg. In another, a town official visits them where they pull out one sole wooden chair for him to sit on, and bring out one glass in which they pour him some water. The stark contrast between the official and the rest of the gypsies are evident in signifying just how different the two cultures are, and how hard it is to change the gypsies’ way of life when there is so much history and culture behind the people.

The background music makes up an important part in emphasizing the action and embedded culture of the gypsies, with everything beating in tune from the clack of the horses hooves to the patter of running feet, to the banging of pots and pans, to the squeaky movement of the wheels on the carts. The synchronization of the cacophony of their movements really brings together the gypsies and their relationship with the earth and nature, and really highlights their nomadic way of life. The grooves are so infectious in fact that you can almost imagine you’re there with them, tapping your feet along to Taloche’s impressive violin skills.

That said, Taloche (James Thiérrée) completely steals the show as a gypsy desperately attempting to cling on to his way of life and his origin. Every single scene he is in just emphasizes how much of the gypsy culture was ingrained in him, and his persistence at staying true to himself and his heritage is what really set him apart from the rest of his family.

Although there are various implications that comes with persuading the gypsies to ditch their way of life in favour of modern day technology and vocations, the distinct contrasts made in Korkoro resolutely highlight the pros and cons of modernity imposing on the gypsy culture. At times it seems almost impossible for there to ever be a true conciliation between modern society and the gypsies, for their culture is one that is incredibly hard to erase. In a dilemma similar to the plight of the Aboriginals in Australia, it is an issue which raises a series of questions concerning civility and culture, the contradictions of laws, and the meaning of freedom.

While there is certainly room for more character development in Korkoro, especially the relationship between Claude and Taloche, and Miss Lundi and Theodore, the film thoroughly achieves what it sets out to do: that is, to recreate the story of one gypsy family and their various encounters (good and bad) with modernity and war in France. The setting of the gypsy’s pursuits for freedom in a country entangled in war only suggests the trivilaity of it all, and ironically poses the question we have all asked for centuries: can’t we all just get along?