The more films I watch in this new Digital 3-D process, the less interested I find myself in watching films “throw” things at the audience- that’s so old school. Taking that into account, it’s not hard to see why Roger Ebert dislikes the trend towards 3-D so much.
Sorry Roger, but this time, I think 3-D is here to stay. But how to judge its’ use now? 3-D is the only redemption of “Journey to the Center of the Earth,” even when it used it to just “throw” things at the audience. “My Bloody Valentine” was more successful overall, although for a splatter flick, not enough was “thrown” our way (look, there are always exceptions). But live action is its’ own beast- my focus for now will be on animation.
At the next Oscars, you can bet that most- if not all- of the nominees for Best Animated Feature will be films shot in 3-D (though don’t count out Miyazaki’s “Ponyo” and Disney’s “The Princess and the Frog”). But does that mean you judge them just on their technical use of 3-D? I’ve seen four animated films this year- all of which were in 3-D (last year’s “Bolt” makes six overall, including my initial Digital 3-D experience being the reissue of “The Nightmare Before Christmas”). Not surprisingly, I came away from “Up 3-D”- seen two days after screening the 2-D version- feeling that Pixar had raised the bar for everyone else. Hey, it’s in their nature.
Admittedly, there’s a lot of subtlety in their use of 3-D, but that’s what makes the process really pop during the more adventure-laden sequences in the film. 3-D adds visual depth to the film collectively, and- more importantly- emotional depth to the action sequences (especially when they’re Carl and co. are getting away from Muntz’s lair), making the film a more immersive cinematic experience, allowing us to get up close with the characters in a way that some 2-D films can’t.
It doesn’t always work, and it wouldn’t. Live action will still be a realm primarily for 2-D films- there’s no need for films like “Slumdog Millionaire” or “Angels & Demons” or “I Love You, Man” to go 3-D. Fantasy is still the ideal genre for such cinematic tricks (and horror can’t certainly use some livening up, ’cause Sam Raimi can’t direct them all).
In the end, however, what makes “Up” work- as it did with “Bolt” and “Nightmare Before Christmas” before it- as it does with any film really, is the story. That’s why “Battle for Terra,” though beautifully animated with a marvelous use of 3-D, is otherwise pretty forgettable. That’s why “Monsters vs. Aliens” was simply an entertaining funhouse of laughs, hardly a budding classic in the same way Dreamworks’ “Shrek” and “Kung Fu Panda” might become. “Nightmare” director Henry Selick’s “Coraline” faired beautifully, with his latest film benefiting from the depth that can be achieved with 3-D. But like “Up,” Selick also had a pretty great story that doesn’t need an extra dimension to win over audiences. The way 3-D makes films like “Up” and “Coraline” come to life even more is simply icing on an already tasty cake.
Brian Skutle
www.sonic-cinema.com
Reviews on 3-D Movies:
“Up”
“Battle for Terra”
“Monsters vs. Aliens”
“Coraline”
“My Bloody Valentine”
“Bolt”
“Journey to the Center of the Earth”
“Beowulf”
“Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas”
