3-Done!

My husband and I took our kids to see “The Green Lantern” this weekend. The film was mediocre, but as I left the theater I found that I did have one strong opinion about it.

Enough of the 3-D already.

The first movie I remember seeing in 3-D was”Dial M for Murder”. Lest you think I’m much older than I claim, I did not see the film when it first came out in 1954. I went to see a revival of it in 1981 when I was a freshman in college. My boyfriend at the time was a big movie buff, and he insisted we see the Alfred Hitchcock classic in all its 3-Dimensional glory. I don’t remember much of the 3-D details, but I do remember a scene where Ray Milland, the evil husband, takes a key from under the stairs and points it straight toward the camera. Oooo. 3-D.

I rank 3-D up there with Smell-o-vision and Sensurround and all the other kitschy gimmicks geared towards moviegoers. These movie “enhancements” are a novelty…for a while. What begins as something fun and unique quickly becomes tired and tedious. If every movie is made (or projected) in 3-D, what makes it special?

I have to admit that when my husband suggested we see “Avatar” in 3-D, I was excited at the prospect. He and my sons had already seen it in 2-D and gushed about what an amazing experience it was. 3-D could only make it better…right?

As someone who is optically challenged, the idea of having to wear glasses on top of my glasses isn’t appealing. I stopped wearing contact lenses years ago, so if I decide to see a 3-D movie it’s double glasses or nothing. It’s hard to concentrate on the film when I ‘m sitting there literally making a spectacle out of myself.

So I sat through “Avatar”, and yes it was spectacular, though the story was a little too “Fern Gully” meets “Dances with Wolves” for me. As for the 3-D…I found it to be a distraction. Rather than immersing myself in the plot and the visual effects, I was constantly adjusting my 3-D glasses, peeping over them to compare the 3-D images with the regular ones. In all, I would have been perfectly happy seeing “Avatar” the old fashioned way (which I finally did when it came out on DVD, watching it on my sad, 1990’s era 2-D television. And it was great!)

It seems like every movie that comes out now is offered in 3-D. I can understand it for action movies like “Thor” and “The Green Hornet”, but “Justin Bieber: Never Say Never”? I think resurrecting Smell-O-Vision would have been a better choice for that one (and if you’re wondering what Justin Bieber smells like, I’m betting he smells like teen spirit.)

Clearly the studios have decided to hop on the 3-D bandwagon for no other reason than to charge more for ticket prices, thus boosting the box office results of their 3-D films. What’s next? “Jane Eyre” in 3-D? I can’t wait to see the definition of Rochester’s mutton chops. How about the upcoming Justin Timberlake/Mila Kunis vehicle, ‘Friends with Benefits”. If the title is suggestive of the film’s plot, you can bet there’d be some interesting scenes that could be enhanced by 3-D. Or maybe the upcoming adaptation of the bestselling novel, “Sarah’s Key”. They could pay homage to “Dial M for Murder” by enhancing all the shots of…well…Sarah’s key.

Getting back to “The Green Lantern”. I was disappointed that the only things that really looked three dimensional in the film were Ryan Reynolds’ pecs and a desk lamp. Everything else on the screen pretty much blended together and it’s safe to say that the film would have been just as mediocre in 2-D.

With theaters charging an additional $2 and up for 3-D films, I think I’ll save my money and stick with the 2-D versions from now on. Except of course for “Jane Eyre”.

I’m a sucker for 3-D mutton chops.