One of my favourite reviewers has written an interesting article comparing the recent trend of shoehorning 3D into films with the artificial colorisation of old black & white films. I wonder what proportion of audiences know that Alice in Wonderland was not shot in 3D and Burton's involvement was negligible, or that a 3D version of Clash of the Titans wasn't even conceived until Avatar's runaway box-office success. My discussion of both Avatar and Coraline has made it clear that I like 3D, but I enjoy it as a creative tool that increases immersion. The driving force should not be the cinema surcharge (notice how they retain the glasses so they can charge you again and again, irrespective of how many you 3D films you see) and increased revenue for distributors. One has to question supporting greed rather than creativity, not least with the freely available 3D YouTube content I mentioned recently.

Alice is about to hit cinemas and, having seen the tacked-on effects in the 3D trailer, I will certainly be watching this one in 2D. In a stand that makes it clear we won't pay more for an arbitrary extra dimension, I wonder if you will do the same?

Links from the last month:

• flavors.me offers an easy-to-create, elegantly attractive page to tie together your online presence, incorporating sites like LinkedIn, Facebook, Last.fm and Twitter along with blogs and RSS feeds. I've used it for a priyan.meewella.com subdomain, at least until I get round to coding something myself. Naturally consider carefully whether you want to make your facebook status/photos easily available to potential employers, etc.

• Inbox2 has released a desktop application alongside its beta web version, allowing anyone to try out its approach to merging all your email and social networking into a single inbox. I'm trying it out at the moment and while I don't think it will replace the fuller feature-set enjoyed by each of the sites it incorporates, it's not a bad way to check your digital life at a glance first thing in the morning. It also appreciates the distraction caused by social networking sites, so allows you to stop displaying some sources while working.

• Wired's list of must-read comics.

• Cooking in the dishwasher (Anna and I got harassed by a guest for using our dishwasher primarily as a drying rack after handwashing dishes; imagine if we got into this!)

It has to be done all CG because I would not know how to shoot this thing in real.

-Roland Emmerich on adapting Isaac Asimov's Foundation series

Of course you don't. That's because you're a talentless hack who doesn't actually know how to shoot a movie without special effects to bedazzle the viewer and cover it up. His last two films didn't even bother with words in the title, opting instead for numbers to explain when their respective special effects are set (that's 2012 and 10,000 BC for those keeping track). Given that Asimov's work is about simple but thought-provoking ideas and their logical extension, special effects are the least important aspect in adapting it for the screen.

As one of the finest science fiction writers in history, it's a shame to see that I, Robot is apparently the low benchmark being set for film adaptations. Apologists keep trying to suggest that it's a perfectly adequate sci-fi action film which would be fine if they had gone with any other title rather than shoehorning Asimov's name and three laws onto an existing script that bears no resemblance to his story at all, in a vague attempt to engender some sort of geek cred. Robots running haywire and revolting against their human creators is exactly what Asimov didn't write. In this instance Maddox's belligerent ramblings are remarkably accurate too. Sadly the choice of director suggests the Foundation adaptation, which initially excited me, is heading down exactly the same route. The bottom line is that if you haven't read Foundation, please do. But be very wary of the film.

Google's Buzz represents the company's first move into social networking, integrated into Gmail. Most people are describing it as "sort of like Twitter", which is quite accurate. The added convenience is one less account to sign into if you're a Gmail user, but then most people likely to take it up are already invested in Twitter. While I'm unlikely at present to use it directly, the most attractive feature is that it acts as an aggregator importing everything I post to Twitter and share via Google Reader, so that readers can access all that content in one place, whether or not they use either service themselves.

Awards season has snuck up on me this year, so I suddenly find myself adrift with a deluge of big film releases. This post is really a map through the next two months for myself, but  since it'll probably be of use to others, I figured I'd share. The release dates are all for UK general releases, so expect to see some earlier preview screenings and for them generally to arrive sooner in the USA.

Avatar - 17 December 2009
James Cameron's return after a decade is a massively hyped sci-fi spectacle that promises a journey to another world. As a result I intentionally quashed my expectations but rave reviews suggest this is easily the event movie of the year, not least for its groundbreaking 3D visual effects. Whether it will have a lasting impact only time will tell, but for this year it's certainly marked its territory.

Nine – 18 December 2009
I'm not exactly known as a musical lover, but Nine will be the first to draw me in for a while. Though I tend to dislike the approach of a plot that merely aims to tie loosely together a series of musical numbers, the strength of the cast alone — with Daniel Day Lewis and Marion Cotillard at its core — has won me over (though some fantastic burlesque choreography may have helped).

Sherlock Holmes – 26 December 2009
While not gunning for Oscar glory like the others here, Guy Ritchie's brawling take on the world's greatest detective, starring a strangely cast Robert Downey, Jr., finally started to make sense once the trailers emerged. A fun romp through Victorian Britain, and hopefully a return to form for Ritchie (I know some some fans have enjoyed his work in the interim) it is also perhaps more faithful than some realise.

The Road – 4 January 2010
A harrowing post-apocalyptic tale that portrays a broken civilisation in which humanity is left fractured and without morality. Against this backdrop a father travels with his son and tries to instill the strength of self-preservation and the value of humanity in him.

Up In The Air – 15 January 2010
Based upon their follow-up offerings, it seems director Jason Reitman was the more talented one behind Juno as his latest with George Clooney has caused a fair stir, not least for its timely story of a constantly travelling corporate downsizer. Meanwhile writer Diablo Cody penned the universally panned Jennifer's Body, which failed abysmally despite having Megan Fox's body in the titular role.

Brothers – 22 January 2010
Jake Gyllenhaal and Tobey Maguire may not sound like obvious names for this emotionally raw story of a soldier's return and inability to reconnect with his family, but the performances look incredibly powerful with Natalie Portman rounding out the cast. With her husband presumed dead, she turns to his brother for help.

The Lovely Bones – 29 January 2010
Peter Jackson's latest film will seem more familiar to those who knew him before The Lord of the Rings. The film is based on the novel about a teenage girl who was brutally murdered and now watches her family cope in the aftermath, while also coming to terms with her own death.

Precious – 29 January 2010
This is an unrelentingly bleak tale of an obese, illiterate and abused teenage black girl in 1980's Harlem. It is the only film in this list I am not certain I will attempt to see, depending on my mood at the time, since this is clearly not entertaining viewing. Mo'Nique's highly praised performance certainly has my interest. It's based on the novel Push, the name allegedly being changed due to concerns over confusion with the action-thriller of the same name last year (which now seems a non-issue since no one remembers it anyway).

Edge of Darkness – 29 January 2010
For those not yet entirely alienated by Mel Gibson's public behaviour, he plays a homicide detective seeking answers and revenge after the death of his activist daughter. More importantly, it's directed by Martin Campbell, the best Bond director of recent years who helmed both Casino Royale and GoldenEye.

Crazy Heart – 19 February 2010
Those that have seen The Wrestler will feel a certain sense of déjà vu in watching the trailer for this film, which follows a similar story of a washed up professional, in this case a country singer instead of a wrestler, and with Jeff Bridges in the lead instead of Mickey Rourke. Once again, a powerhouse character study from the lead is what carries and dominates the film.

The site has been somewhat neglected in the last couple of months largely because work has been rather hectic in the buzzing litigation dispute resolution department. It's been fun, but exhausting enough that I've been doing little else of particular note (and confidentiality means I can't write about the work here either). I did recently end up taking a last minute day's holiday for sanity maintenance, after realising I hadn't had a day off since June. Hopefully now, with an additional trainee back from secondment, things will settle down slightly going into the new year.

Did you know that BAFTA has its own private cinema hidden away in the heart of Piccadilly? It lies behind a relatively inconspicuous door with BAFTA written above. The inside is decorated with giant sculptures of the organisation's distinctive gold face, and features a bar and restaurant as well as the excellent cinema which is a good size and has one of the nicest screens I've seen in London.

Sarah and I found ourselves there last night at a preview screening of Where The Wild Things Are, courtesy of LOVEFILM. Spike Jonze has achieved something remarkable in his pitch perfect recreation of the tone of Maurice Sendak's beloved children's book. The book itself is something of an enigma, in this country at least, being either adored or entirely unknown depending on to whom you speak.

The Wild Things are a perfect way to explore different parts of Max's psyche and the loving attention to detail is evident from their furry costuming to their humanised expressions. Casting voice talent must have been a strange process, but they all blend in well. Being a Sopranos fan I did find James Gandolfini's distinctive voice as Carol slightly distracting, though he was great choice for the role. The mood is greatly enhanced by the low key but subtly infectious score by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, which I heard several people humming or whistling as we left. The film necessarily expands significantly upon the book but in returning to a childhood classic it's the tone and the sense of wonder that really count, and Jonze nails both. I previously Jonze's mentioned his documentary on the author, and I'm now even more curious to see it.

It's particularly nice to have a children's film designed simply to allow them to explore psychological ideas rather than feeling the need to signpost and spell out every message explicitly. Also, child actor Max Records has one of the coolest names ever.

A while ago when I compiled a list of films you may not be planning to see (but, for reference, probably should), I wasn't entirely sure about including An Education, but a combination of the quality of the trailer, the writer and the calibre of the supporting cast convinced me to highlight it with a poster too. Fortunately it seems I have been vindicated with the film receiving not just rave reviews but its lead actress Carey Mulligan being tipped for an Oscar. Doctor Who fans may recognise her as Sally Sparrow from Blink, one of my favourite episodes (not least because it was written by Stephen Moffat). So consider this a reminder to go see it when it's released at the end of the month.

I am not buying Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 on release. To gamers, that will sound like a pretty bold statement. An outright refusal to buy what is widely expected to be the best game released this year? Surely I jest. But no, Activision has asked me to pass it by. At least I assume that's what they meant when they increased the RRP to £55. In practice that means it will be available for no less than £45 and their argument, insofar as they have deigned to proffer one, is either "it cost us quite a lot to make" or "well, people will pay it anyway". Unfortunately both are true. High end videogame development is expensive but when your game is guaranteed to sell in the millions, recouping costs is of limited concern. And people want this game so they will pay for it. That's how free markets work. My not buying it (until the price drops) won't change anything because others will. The bottom line is this: one day my children will ask why their videogames cost so much and I will have to explain it's because people's convictions don't run quite as deep as their wallets; but at least I can tell them I tried.

Finally, some are commending Spike Jonze's documentary on Maurice Sendak as a more impressive achievement than his adaptation of the author's seminal Where The Wild Things Are.

Following on from the last post, I've been checking out a few other short films. SIGNS is beautiful in its musical simplicity and the everyday familiarity of its isolation. It perfectly captures the human desire — the need — for connection, again something that can be done in 12 minutes better than in 120. As a gamer, particularly intriguing was the Half-Life-inspired What's in the Box?, shot entirely in first-person. Its Half-Life influences are clear, right down to its mute protagonist, but for all its visual flair (its augmented reality HUD in particular) it raises they key problem with an extended first-person excursion in film. By losing your visual connection to the character whose viewpoint you are experiencing, one actually becomes detatched rather than more immersed. Character development is virtually impossible in this disembodied form, and even interaction is problematic. It serves well only as a way to explore an environment (and so work reasonably well here) but this is a perspective that is always better suited to a videogame where the player controls the exploration. When that control is taken away, it feels confined and almost paralysing as we are guided around against our will. By comparison, the visually impressive Half-Life 2 fan-film Escape From City 17 (be sure to check out the HD version) is arguably more immersive from its standard 3rd person viewpoint.

It will come as little surprise that the vast majority of my film collection is rate 15 or 18. While not exactly unexpected — adult-orientated films are wont to include analogous adult content — I am still often perplexed by its apparent family unfriendliness. In fact I own exactly 4 Universal-rated films: Wall-E, Monsters, Inc., Labyrinth and (for personal childhood meaning) Flight of the Navigator. Admittedly there are several child-friendly PG films (as someone who strongly believes in scaring children and allowing them to enjoy the experience, I think many of these could be watched by a child of any age) but the real limiting factor has been the extortionate cost of Disney films. Their cunning DVD (sorry, Disney DVD) ploy was to release each major film for a very limited run so the price never had a chance to drop. Now this has waned but they are still hardly cheap. As such I jumped at Amazon's BOGOF Disney deal to make things a little kid-friendlier. That's my excuse anyway.

Forever's Not So Long is a fantastic short film that I'd prefer not to spoil by summarising. It is, after all, only 13 minutes long. I would humbly suggest you can find a (baker's) dozen minutes in your day to do yourself the favour of watching it. It has the effect I often find with short stories, making me wonder whether many good "full length" products are actually still overlong for their content. One could easily see this being extended into a considerably longer film, and yet when the credits role we have seen absolutely everything that was necessary. It is no less thought provoking for its brevity and anything more would risk detracting from its simple poignancy.

It also makes me very curious to see the 2005 short film that spawned this year's longer cinematic version of 9, a post-apocalyptic animated film directed by ex-WETA animator Shane Acker and produced by Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov. I have heard a few people suggest the less fleshed out original is actually the stronger of the two.

Not much in the way of news. While my flatmate Anna is away I've found myself generally exhausted rather than making particularly good use of the extra space. I'm finding that having someone around in the evenings probably adds some much-needed post-work energy. I've spent a few nights playing Uncharted on the PS3 and swiftly found myself agreeing with the excellent reviews it received. It is easily one of the best exclusive game on the system to date with its cinematic flair, colourful art (a welcome change from the traditional grey and brown palette of most early games in the current generation), likeable scoundral protagonist and a fun if unoriginal storyline that runs somewhere between Indiana Jones and Tomb Raider. With its sequel just weeks away, my hopes are certainly high.

Last night I went with Rav, Angie and Andy to see comedian Ed Byrne performing at the Vaudeville Theatre. Even if you don't recognise the name, you'll probably know him as the likeable long-haired Irish guy from Mock the Week. In terms of fame he's a decidedly mid-level comedian and he knows it, so he plays off it. His observational humour runs the gammut but, having married just over a year ago, wedding commentary was rife. Which, with Andy's wedding preparations just taking off, was hilarious. Much as this may sound like a veiled insult, Ed's set was both better and more consistent than I had expected.

Finally an interesting piece on how the security in Snow Leopard, Apple's latest version of its OSX operating system, is still playing catch-up with Windows Vista.

Most people find it odd to discover that despite my not particularly veiled obsession with film and sizable DVD collection, I have never rented one (as in paid-to-rent, fuzzy library VHS tapes were an exception). Until now, that is, as I have just signed up to a one-month LoveFilm trial and fully intend to continue. So what changed? Well, understanding that requires explaining the reason I avoided rentals to begin with.

I have always said the size of my film collection is deceptive in that, although there clearly has been a significant financial outlay over time, it was nowhere near as much as it appears. This was achieved largely through the (necessary) imposition of strict pricing rules when purchasing DVDs (generally under £5 for a standard film, £8 for special editions, £10 for foreign and rare discs). This meant that in most cases the cost of renting a film more than twice would exceed the cost of buying it to watch forever. If it turned out I didn't really like the film, selling it on (or usually trading in) would tend to result in a "loss" of about the cost of a rental.

What changed is the expansion of rentals into blu-ray and videogames where the margins are significantly higher. A mediocre game may be worth playing, but isn't worth the £40 price tag on release. Unlike DVDs, it's likely to take such a game almost a year to tumble to a more acceptable price and by then its resale/trade-in value is likely to have diminished entirely. Similarly, although I tend to shop around for blu-ray bargains (Cheap Blu-ray Movies being an invaluable resource), it's a more dangerous prospect to buy a film you're less than sure about — though there are exceptions as I recently made £3 by watching the new high-def release of Total Recall and selling it on.

So my LoveFilm list is entirely populated with blu-rays and videogames, and each month I expect to play through a game and check out 3 films that I'm not yet sure about. Even subscription-based rentals services will never replace my need for a film collection (at least until an on-demand streaming HD library is a workable reality) since predicting my film mood in advance is largely impossible. Nevertheless my staunch anti-rental policy has now gone the way of those snowy over-used VHS tapes…

Incidentally the first film I rented was My Blueberry Nights, Hong Kong director Wong Kar Wai's first foray into English language cinema. It received a decidedly lukewarm critical reception which put me off for a while, but his always exceptional use of light and colour makes for gorgeous HD viewing. Despite the uncomfortably stilted dialogue, and perhaps due to lowered expectations, I thoroughly enjoyed it, particularly the mood it effortlessly evoked. Anna was also a fan.

And finally in unrelated (but awesome) news, a Dr Horrible sequel is now official.

There were a few films I ought to have included last time but did not. First up I'd like to urge people to see a beautifully real romantic film called Adam. Quirky but without cliché, what makes it stand out is that the titular Adam has Asperger syndrome. From the trailer I wasn't entirely sure but it's not treated in a 1-dimensional way either: his condition is intriguing, funny, tragic and ultimately handled in way that was factually realistic but also opens that world to a wider audience. Perhaps the best endorsement is that, leaving the cinema at the end, I spoke briefly to a member of audience who has Asperger's and found its protrayal (and terminology, such as neuro-typicals) very accurate. The lack of Hollywood formula means it may not follow the route viewers expect, but the journey is a great, moving one.

Two other films worth a quick mention. French two-part thriller Mesrine centres on a strong performance from Vincent Cassel which implies its description as "the French Scarface" may be deserved. The split into two quite different parts is an interesting choice, the first focusing on the real-life violent criminal Jacques Mesrine's rise to fame, with the second, following a daring courtroom escape that leaves him public enemy number one, delving more into why he did it. The first part, Killer Instinct, is out now. In a totally different vein, the second film is the Spike Jonze adaptation of childhood favourite Where The Wild Things Are. If he can capture the feel of Sendak's work (and the trailer bodes well) it could be an instant classic.

On a more general note, the last post generated a lot of interest from people so I will endeavour to produce those lists on a semi-regular basis if people find them interesting/useful.

For an entirely unplanned weekend, it ended up becoming rather alliteratively full as our title suggests, with two films, two meals out, four friends and a spot of casual world domination. Rav decided that we needed to see Terminator Salvation, a prospect to which I was not wholly averse, while being vocal in my confusion as to why exactly we need another Terminator film. The third, to refresh people's memories, was a largely neutered teen-friendly product with the sole saving grace of its unexpected ending in which, despite the protagonists' best efforts, Judgement Day occurs anyway. This time around we rejoin John Connor in the middle of his near-future war against the machines in what would prove to be an even more unnecessary film than the third. It has virtually no plot to speak of, nor does it advance the overarching mythos or universe. What it does do is throw up a series of amusingly careless gaffes — the apparently recoil-free shotgun which a teenager can fire one-handed with perfect accuracy or the inexplicably redundant glassy touch-screen text-based user-interface in the machines' HQ. Overall the action is competent and the film is perfectly watchable. I'm just not sure what the point was.

Following that, a good curry and a great bottle of Malbec at Indian Moment in Clapham and then back to Rav's for drinks and warmongering in a protracted mission-based session of Risk. I haven't played for many years, but if ever a game were designed for me, this is probably high on the list. I was pleased to see I still haven't lost my ruthless touch. Equally important as martial strategising is the technique of naming any lone soldiers defending remote outposts of the empire. Invaders soon learned to fear the venerable one-man armies of Chuck Norris and Quentin Tarantino. The best defence is a good offence; the second best defence is a good name. Waking late on Sunday we had an early afternoon brunch (I am reliable informed by Maurita that it's still brunch until 4pm, at which point it becomes brinner) at Aquum.

Film #2 was Synecdoche, New York from Charlie Kaufman, his first outing as a director as well as writer. Frankly trying to form an opinion on it after a single viewing is almost an exercise in futility. Rav encapsulated it rather well in his first comment, "the decade was nearly over without a Twelve Monkeys." The difference is that while logic and time are fluid concepts, given free rein Kaufman has produced something overambitious and rather self-indulgent which doesn't necessarily hang together. There is much to enjoy and appreciate within smaller scenes or sections of the film but it will certainly take repeat viewings to decide whether it is less or more than the sum of its parts. It could be art, it could be bad storytelling without another director to make sense of his script. Time will tell.

And lastly, two great t-shirts from Despair Inc., which seems to be branching out from pessimism into general social commentary.