Is it me or is Roger Ebert just getting more awesome in his old age? First there was that heartbreaking/life-affirming Esquire article, now there's this: a point-by-point breakdown of why 3-D movies totally blow in Newsweek. The elderly Chicago Sun Times critic is finally living up to that kinda forced tough-as-nails image he was cultivating for a while (dude's kinda a soft touch - just two weeks ago he called Death at a Funeral the "best comedy since The Hangover"). In the first paragraph Ebert sums up his argument:

3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

I say "Amen." Though I don't jibe with all of Ebert's movie reviews (he also said A Christmas Carol was "an exhilarating visual experience that proves for the third time Robert Zemeckis is one of the few directors who knows what he's doing with 3-D," which really calls everything into question), I'm glad somebody's leading the crusade against my least favorite current movie trend.

Avatar? More like Avatarded, amiright!
  • "Avatar? More like Avatarded, amiright!"