why i hate 3-D

Before I start, yes.  I saw Avatar.  The 3-D rocked the ceiling off, I know.

Generally speaking, however, I hate 3-D.  I have seen Up, Clash of the Titans, and Alice in Wonderland in the past year.  With the gross exception of Avatar, each one could have done without, and my pocket could have used the extra change.  Hence my number one reason:

1. Too. Freaking. Expensive!  Two of the aforementioned films I saw in Tahiti, and movies in Tahiti are already ridiculously expensive (about 840 francs for a matinee only, which is about 10 US dollars).  3-D costs 1400 francs.  Roughly $16.  Seriously?
2. It gives me a head ache.  I know, I sound like an old man but one can only take too many things flying at you arbitrarily.
3. Have you been hearing about the germs being spread through re-usable glasses lately?
4. For those that wear glasses on a daily basis – how fun is it to wear two pairs of glasses at once?  I normally sport contacts but sometimes I choose glasses for style or off-days.  I went to a 3-D movie with some friends on one such day.  Yeah.  Way comfortable.
5. It distorts the color.
6. It’s extremely distracting.  Why listen to what the characters are saying when I can look at the giant moon rock floating towards me!
7. Limited genres.  Citizen Kane in 3-D? I think not.
8. Except (of course) films such as Avatar – it’s extremely unnecessary, and detracts from the film experience.

Is this the new frontier?  It certainly seems like it.  As I stated earlier, I think it distracts from the creation.  Take Alice.  I saw this in French, and had a really difficult time understanding – there are too many words like “curiouser” and “Mad Hatter” for complete comprehension for someone with a limited vocabulary.  But I wanted to see it anyway despite some negative reviews.  (I’m always gung-ho for anything Tim Burton).  Unfortunately, I had an unpleasant experience.  I do not think Alice was a bad movie (though my opinion is seriously handicapped).  I do think and know, however, that i didn’t find what I was looking for: to be immersed in the world of Burton.  The 3-D was too distracting.  If 3-D prevents total escape then really.  What’s it doing here?  I never thought I would say I was more excited to see a movie on DVD than in the theater.

Again.  Avatar was the shiz.  But that was James Cameron’s plan from the beginning.  He is a brilliant cinematographer and everything was carefully planned according to his ideas using 3-D technology.  When it’s forced on movies as a last-minute decision they are motivated by box-office results only.  It works, to be sure.  But it’s terribly sad.  When the next Avatar comes along, I’ll check out the 3-D.  But forgive me if I prefer Toy Story 3 in 2-D.

The Blind Side (2009)

Folks, I finally saw The Blind Side. To cut to the chase, I enjoyed it. I really did. But it’s not my favorite movie. 6/10 possibly. I even watched it twice. So here’s the quick facts.

LIKE:

• They used real-life coaches. Although I’m terribly under-educated on the goings-on of college football, my mom kept me informed so that was fun.
• Sandra Bullock was, indeed, good in the role of Leigh Anne Tuohy. She knows how to chew someone out.
• Quinton Aaron as Michael Oher was (surprisingly) pretty good.
• All of his rugby striped shirts. Especially the only that looked like Gryffindor.
• It gave me that warm fuzzy feeling. The world had a beautiful pink Mary Richards bow around it. (Don’t worry if you don’t get it).
• It was fast-paced, funny moments, moving story, kept my attention etc.

DISLIKE:

• It’s a freaking Hallmark movie. I can’t believe people are buying into its simplistic and superficial plot. Do you honestly believe that the ENTIRE Tuohy family just welcomed Michael in with open arms including a teenage DAUGHTER? And no one was even pissed that Michael nearly killed their son in a car accident? Who taught him to drive anyway?
• To go along with being too simplistic, they could have delved into soooo many interesting facets of Michael’s story including his challenges and struggles, his character growth, his background, how he dealt with becoming a charity project… etc.
• Instead, Michael is pushed to a supporting character IN HIS OWN STORY! The movie tells us about what a saint Leigh Anne is, how wonderfully Christian Leigh Anne is, how kind and charitable she was to save this poor good-for-nothing black boy and teach him to be something out of the goodness of her heart. Wtf.
• I’m sorry, but, it was pretty racist too.
• This may seem paradoxical, since I did say that Sandra Bullock was good but I honestly thought she was over-the-top. The whole don’t-mess-with-sexy-mommy attitude taken so far that a gang of young, fit black kids are actually scared? Not buying it. She’s bossy. To everyone.

If we’re talking sports movies, give me Hoosiers or Remember the Titans any day. But on the whole it was enjoyable. (Sure, what I dislike outweighs what I like, but there is something to be said for enjoyability). It may have been a little too perfect, but I liked it. I have my issues with it, but I would recommend it to someone.

Is it anywhere NEAR Oscar material? Heck no! Not everyone may have liked Julie & Julia, but I honestly find it to be a far superior movie to Blind Side – and Meryl Streep SHOULD have won. (I can honestly say that with NO reservations now). I mean, it wasn’t even like they were nominating her just because she’s elite and she’s “Meryl Streep.” She was good in that role, just watch footage of the real Julia Child and you’ll see what I mean. Count your blessing Sandra, that America loves you so much.

Ten years down the road? People will look back at this and say “What WAS the Academy thinking!” You heard it here first.