The Hobbit

The Hobbit was shot in 3D 48 frames-per-second. This frame rate is twice the speed of the usual, and the resolution is crystal clear. This works extraordinarily well for the battle scenes, such as the flashbacks of the battles of Moria. However, this high-speed frame rate seems unnatural for the slow rolling hills of the Shire. The images of the Hobbit hills are super clear, but the effect seems almost wasted on this beautiful- but- mundane scenes. Martin Freeman's acting is superb and thoroughly convincing. Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf, and we see a little bit more of the wizard's fighting skills.   The Dwarves are portrayed well and, although you may have difficulty remembering who's who because of the sheer amount of them, their distinct costumes and beards mean that no two look too alike. The film makes excellent use of analeptic flashbacks, and a huge amount of lore is presented to the audience. Jackson has an excellent production designers working for him, and Revendell was a particularly beautiful set. There a re many fast-paced, action packed action sequences filled with wargs. Radagast the brown, a wizard dedicated to the protection of nature, is skillfully portrayed by Sylvester McCoy. This veteran actor adds much talent to the film, and there is one beautiful scene involving a hedgehog named Sebastion. This character does not disappoint. The Goblin King, played by Barry Humphries is disgusting and vile. He rules a subterrainean kingdom of Goblins, which is altogether difficult from Moria in The Fellowship of the ring. In this underground lair, there are many camera ducks, swerves and dives, and the effect is beautiful. One of the most important scenes in the film involves a meeting between Bilbo and Gollum (Andy Serkis). Gollum is both funny and terrifying, and Serkis has once again shown his talent. Some have argued that not enough ground is covered in the film, but it filled to the brim with exciting chases, terrific battles and astoundingly good acting. This movie is a starter, and leaves you hungry for more.

Hopping mad

MEGAN MCEVOY-WARR, Environmental journalist. I remember the first time I heard of animal testing in the cosmetics industry. It was nine years ago. “Legally Blonde 2” was released and Elle was campaigning to ban the unnecessary practice. Ever since then, I’ve researched the actual tests carried out, watched videos and have made the effort to buy cruelty free cosmetics. Little did I realise that even though the finished products were not tested on animals, the raw ingredients were. During the past decade, governments did ban animal testing. A great success (or so everyone thought). The era of REACH (the registration evaluation and authorization of chemicals) came looming in from the EU. REACH now states that all chemicals will be screened, evaluated and tested for their safety. Many of these tests will be on animals.  Lush’s attitude on the matter is "the best way of seeing if something is safe or not is for it to have had a long history of safe use". This is how Lush works. unfortunately REACH is changing this and not for the better. Take Lush's bath ballistics for example; their two main ingredients are sodium bicarbonate and citric acid. Two well established safe chemicals that people use every day, yet REACH somehow feels it necessary to test them on animals? Lush is well known for it's cruelty free cosmetics and campaigns. In 2006, they  sent all the cards to the relevant MEPs, along with a letter and a little bag of chocolate-covered raisins with a Lush tag reading "45,000,000 animals are sh**ting themselves over REACH". This in-your-face approach worked as dozens of MEPs wrote back, saying that they would vote for REACH legislation only if they use safe and effective non-animal tests. Animal tests for cosmetics are not specifically required by law: to market a product a company must demonstrate its safety, but this can be done by using approved non-animal tests and combinations of existing ingredients that have already been established as safe for human use. One of the obvious ones would be using ingredients that a have long history of safe use. Secondly, companies can use non-animal tests where new data need to be generated. There have been over forty non-animal tests that have been validated for use, that are more relevant to people and cheaper to carry out. Advanced skin tests are available, that use human reconstructed skin, and are far more effective than that of the outdated animal tests. These include EPISKIN and EpiDerm. It doesn’t make sense not to avail of these modern, cruelty free tests when the current tests are so barbaric. The current methods can include skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or dripped into the eyes of rabbits. Lush’s embodied ethics is one reason that they stand out as a company and it’s one of the many reasons that I love working for such a company that use their stores as a means to communicate a whole range of issues which wouldn't be possible without the involvement and engagement of customers. Our bags state our beliefs as a store, one of which is that “the customer is always right” so I hope that you do the right thing and sign our petition to ban all testing on animals for the vain and needless purpose of cosmetic animal testing.  Thank you!

We apologise for our inactivity over the past few months. Our team were all very busy with the upcoming Leaving Cert. Rest assured, The Irish Youth Times will be once again active during the Summer. Thanks for reading - Andrew B.Mckeown, Editor.