3-d Tagged Articles at Cinematical

By Brad McHargue

Am I the only who thinks 3-D horror films are a waste of time and money?

While some films may lend themselves to the technology (such as Burst, which is about exploding humans), the effect is usually lost on me. In the end, it almost seems like a distraction to prevent the audience from realizing your story is formulaic and conventional. The effect is lost once the film hits DVD, and although Blu Ray technology can emulate 3-D quite well, the overall impact is diminished considerably.

Given the recent spate of horror films being filmed in 3-D, it comes as no surprise that the Saw franchise will venture into the third dimension with 2010's Saw VII. Shock reports that the seventh installment in the seemingly never-ending franchise will feature a longer production time and be more expensive ... due to the conversion to 3-D.

Read more at Horror Squad!

It may not be the future of film as some herald it, but it doesn't take a psychic to realize that 3-D, gimmick it may still seem, is here to say. Two unrelated news items today coalesced together into a dawning realization, is an Academy Awards category for Best 3-D Film inevitable? But before the examination of such a hypothetical category, let's take a look at the news that inspired this post.

The Final Destination wins the international Hollywood box office.
According to Screen Daily, The Final Destination took in $17.3mil on its opening weekend run around the globe. Considering how poorly received the newest entry in the death-claims-all franchise was critically, that may seem like a surprise, but the mere presence of eye wear is the chief explanation for the successful haul. Russia alone accounted for roughly half of the weekend total, and according to the same report, half of Russia's contributions were driven by the extra premium charged for the third dimension.

What's that mean? Well for one, more crappy horror movies are going to go the 3-D route from now on. This trend was already on the rise, but studios will not ignore a win at the domestic and international box offices. And for two, more 3-D films of all genres will be on the rise. Clearly The Final Destination is not the sole catalyst for this gimmick renaissance, but it is the latest check box in a long column of studio wins.

The Hole wins the inaugural Persol 3-D Award for the Best 3-D Stereoscopic Film of the Year at the Venice International Film Festival.

At theaters, 3D is all the rage, boosting box office receipts and giving moviegoers something to talk about -- if not always to love. The year began with generally positive reactions by horror fans to My Bloody Valentine 3D and continued as young fans enjoyed Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience, and families lined up for Monsters vs. Aliens 3D. Can that enthusiasm spread beyond theaters? Can the 3D experience be enjoyed equally well at home?

When he reviewed My Bloody Valentine 3D, our own William Goss felt it was "cheesy, corny, gimmicky, gory fun -- if only in its 3-D theatrical presentation." He questioned whether it would translate at all in 2-D or on DVD. The movie hit DVD and Blu-ray on Tuesday, and our friend Peter Hall at Horror's Not Dead took the movie for a spin. He found the experience seriously wanting: "Watching [My Bloody Valentine 3D] on Blu-ray is akin to trying to watch a movie after staring into the sun before getting donkey punched with an ugly green paint can." He points to a message board thread at High Def Digest that says the "the technology to do Real D (the non red-blue glasses variety) at home does not exist." So all that's available is the "dreadful red-blue" type of "3D" experience for home viewers -- you know, the same type that made us want to claw our eyes out while trying to watch 3D movies in the 80s.

I tried watching the old school 3D at home with Friday the 13th Part 3 on DVD and lasted about 15 minutes. Awful!! Have you seen any recent 3D titles at home? Do they provide a decent experience, or are they a complete waste of time and money?

Like an out-of-control freight train barreling down a hill, more 3-D movies are coming, whether we want them or not. Hollywood studios have placed their bets, theater owners are feeling the pressure to upgrade, and moviegoers are being pummeled with the idea that 3-D is the greatest thing since, well, the last time the studios tried to shove 3-D down our throats, in the long ago, musty, medieval decade known as "the 80s."

That being the case, perhaps we should bow to the inevitable and consider which upcoming movies should be in 3-D, and which ones would be a total wash with an extra-dimensional viewing experience. Amy Pascal of Sony Pictures Entertainment told Forbes Magazine that Spider-Man 4 "could be" shot in 3-D. She and fellow exec Michael Lynton think most animated movies will be in 3-D, and believe James Cameron's Avatar "could change the world," in Pascal's words. (Which we've heard before.) She continued, "I don't know that it will ever be the way you see dramas, but I can't say anymore that it won't be."

Announced 3-D releases for 2010 include: Beauty and the Beast, Alice in Wonderland, Piranha 3D, Toy Story 3, Step Up 3D, and Rapunzel. To allow for development and pre-production time, let's put our thinking caps and consider the future. For example, Spider-Man 4 is slated for release in May 2011. What other live-action pictures planned for 2011 would benefit from 3-D? How about Thor? What if he could hurl his hammer at you in 3-D? Or The First Avenger: Captain America? How about making Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part II extra special -- in 3-D? Why not The Hobbit? Maybe some flicks scheduled for late 2010 could make the switch. Green Lantern in 3-D, anyone?

Which ones should be in 3-D?

Twelve years ago, they said it couldn't be done. When James Cameron's Titanic got pushed back from a planned summer 1997 release date to the late fall, on top of multiple reports that the budget was the biggest ever, it was commonly thought that the film would never make its money back, that it would break the studios involved, and that Cameron's career was finished.

Cameron returned to the director's chair for Avatar, his long-awaited 3-D science fiction drama, due in December, and it looks like it will be a watershed movie. An upbeat article on 3-D in Time Magazine casually mentions that the budget has exceeded $300 million, which would make it the most expensive movie ever made. [* Time has now updated the article; see below.] No less an authority than Steven Spielberg "predicts it will be the biggest 3-D live-action film ever," which sounds great, until you realize that very few 3-D live-action films have been made recently. Box Office Mojo lists Spy Kids 3D: Game Over as the top-grossing live-action 3-D release in the US ($111 million) with Journey to the Center of the Earth close behind ($107 million). Avatar will have to do much better to have a prayer of making back its budget.

The biggest concern is that fewer theaters than anticipated have been converted to digital. In the Time Magazine article, Jeffrey Katzenberg of Dreamworks Animation "predicts that more than 2,000 theaters will be 3-D-ready by this week," just in time for the release of his studio's Monsters vs. Aliens on March 27.

What are your impressions of the new, improved 3-D? Did you see My Bloody Valentine or Coraline in 3-D? Will you seek out Monsters vs. Aliens in 3-D -- and pay a premium price -- or settle for 2-D? Will Avatar make or break 3-D?

* UPDATE: Thanks to commenter Eric for pointing out that Time has updated their article, which now adds at the end: "The original version of this story misstated the cost of the film Avatar as being in excess of $300 million. The correct figure is in excess of $200 million."

For a while there it looked like we might actually (eventually) get a movie called House of Re-Animator from director Stuart Gordon. But, as is often the case, nifty ideas often get replaced by more pressing issues, and so it's not a huge shock to learn that instead of another sequel, it might just be remake time. And these guys better not eff around, because Re-Animator is one of my top ten horror flicks of all time. Yes, seriously.

According to the Rotten dude at Shock, producer Ray Haboush is looking to work with longtime horror guy Brian Yuzna, who's got a whole lot of experience with the Re-Animator franchise. Info-wise, that's all we have so far, so don't bother asking about the potential involvement of Stuart Gordon or Jeffrey Combs (oooh, or Barbara Crampton, who is STILL a doll). More details as they become available, and hey: At least we know it won't be some PG-13 baby-scare affair. At least it freaking better not be.

Given Yuzna's involvement, it seems likely that this remake will stick closer to the original film ... or maybe the producers will go back to the H.P. Lovecraft source material and dig up something fresh. Oh, and here's a shocker: Early word is that the Re-Animator re-do will arrive in 3-D fashion. Didn't see that coming.

You may not know the name Brenna Lee Roth, but you definitely know some of her movies. Let's see here ... Frat House Massacre, Fist of the Vampire, The Horror Convention Massacre. Nah, I'm kidding. You never saw those flicks. But if you saw movies like Spider-Man 3, Zack & Miri, and Adventureland, then you may have spotted Brenna if you didn't blink since she's "uncredited" in all three.

But there's certainly nothing wrong with working in the B-horror department, especially when it puts you in close proximity to producers Michael Bay and Brad Fuller. Meetings with those gentlemen can lead to big gigs and even more publicity, as evident by this interview at MarketSaw.com, and here's what Ms. Roth told the 3-D-addicted blogger Jim Dorey: "I am in talks with the producer of The Birds (remake) and he said he wanted to do it 3D ... Yes Clooney and Watts both attached so far."

So while the casting news isn't exactly brand-new, this might be the first time I've heard The Birds remake mentioned as a possible 3-D experience. Does this heighten or lessen your disdain for the project? Does it add a slight "camp" factor to a remake of a really excellent horror film? And most important of all: Will spilling these beans help or hurt Brenna Roth's chances of getting a speaking part in the movie?

I've seen a lot of film critics take swipes at Leonard Maltin for the mini-capsule reviews that are found in his annual reference book. But that's pretty stupid, considering that Mr. Maltin has a team of editors who write those, plus the book is not about deep and insightful film criticism. It's a reference guide for people who want quick info, and it's a damn good one, too. Beyond that, it'd be pretty hard to quantify the excellent work Maltin has done as a film analyst over the years.

So I say all that so that you don't think I'm being rude here: Maltin's quote regaring Coraline is "The Best Movie I've Ever Seen in 3-D!," which is the sort of blurb that publicists would kill for. But under a little more scrutiny ... what is Maltin actually saying? That this film is better than Amityville 3, Comin' at Ya!, Friday the 13th Part 3, Jaws 3, The Man Who Wasn't There, Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn, My Bloody Valentine, Parasite, Scar, Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone, Spy Kids 3, Starchaser: The Legend of Orin, and Treasure of the Four Crowns ... and I'm not even including all the schlock from the mid'-'50s!

House of Wax (1953) and Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) are the closest I could come to quality, but I guess "The Best Movie I've Ever Seen in 3-D since 1954!" is a bit too wordy for the Coraline posters. Maltin is probably including stuff like Beowulf and The Polar Express, but to me it's not a 3-D movie unless it was made specifically (if not solely) for 3-D exhibition. But feel free to argue that point or remind me of some 3-D flicks I forgot to mention. That's what the comments section is for.

Lastly, I still haven't seen Coraline. I know, I suck.

As of February 4, My Bloody Valentine 3-D grossed nearly $46 million domestically at the box office, according to Box Office Mojo. Some theaters did show the movie in old-fashioned two dimensions, but at least half the screenings were surely 3-D. So let's say -- $25 million in 3-D ticket sales. That's at least 2.5 million people seeing the movie, right? (According to Engadget HD, it's even more than that.)

That means at least 2.5 million pairs of 3-D glasses were handed out to audiences. These are not your mother's 3-D glasses; they're not like the ones you got for the Super Bowl ads, flimsy cardboard with red-and-blue cellophane. When you watch My Bloody Valentine or Bolt or Coraline in 3-D, you're given relatively sturdy plastic glasses that remind me of cheap sunglasses.

So what happens to those millions of pairs of plastic glasses after each screening of a 3-D movie? Do we throw them away, recycle them, or keep them for another movie? Imagine how much space 3 million pairs of glasses would take up in a landfill, all for one 3-D movie. At a time when our society is paying more attention to environmental sustainability and green initiatives, you'd think we'd have heard some outcry about the waste.

I think I scared the living crap out of the UPS man when I swung the door open, so enthusiastic was I to get my gore-lovin' paws on the new Friday the 13th DVDs he brought me. Some cinephiles have deep and unshakable affections for Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, and Gone with the Wind (all fine films, I guess), but if you want to drown me in a pool of comfy nostalgia, all you need to do is toss Halloween or Friday the 13th into the DVD player. And then just leave the room. Oooh, could you get me a soda please?

I haven't even began diving into the three DVDs (you can get your own copies on Tuesday, these ones are mine), but I thought it might be fun to offer a quick breakdown and then scuttle back to my DVD player. So here you go:

Friday the 13th "Uncut" Deluxe Edition -- Precisely the same as the UK edition, which basically means that the demises of Annie and Marcie are a bit nastier. The (rather solid) audio commentary is also a snag from the R2 DVD, but the rest of the goodies look to be allllllll new: A reunion panel from a recent horror convention, a nifty batch of fresh interviews, the original theatrical trailer, and a rather, uh, goofy short film called "Tales from Camp Blood - Part 1."

Friday the 13th Part 2 Deluxe Edition -- No commentary to speak of (apparently director Steve Miner refuses to talk about this franchise) and no extra gore gushings (darnit!), three decent featurettes (on conventions, Jasons, and Peter Bracke's excellent book), and the original theatrical trailer. And "Tales from Camp Blood - Part 2."