3-D Report: June

3-D movies can be done well and they can be done badly. Unfortunately, people have seen too many movies with the bad kind of 3-D and thus think that they hate the format when in fact they really don't know it. I am compiling a report of the quality of 3-D for every month. Some of the movies could still be in theaters so you could consider seeing them based on this, or watch these if you have a 3-D player when they arrive on DVD. Or at least read this years later when 3-D home viewing is easier to come by. Still, the biggest reason I write this is that I hope readers who have seen the movies in 3-D will know how that movies' 3-D compares to other movies' 3-D. Then there might be less of a negative view towards what is in truth a great new invention. Before reading this some people willlikely think "I hate 3-D because the glasses darken the image so much." Sometimes this is the case but I will tell you if it is. Now, obviously, if you watch the movie in 3-D and take off your glasses in the middle you will notice how much brighter the screen is. THAT DOES NOTE MEAN THE 2-D IS THAT BRIGHT--a well-made movie will lighten the 3-D version with the expectation it will be darkened by wearing glasses. It sounds simple but you would be surprised how many people think that a 3-D version viewed without glasses is the same as an out-of-focus 2-D one. The movies are presented in chronological order.

Green Lantern

Overall, the visuals in Green Lantern are amazing. This could have so easily seen stupid or reused old tricks, but instead this comic book epic is brought to screen with an enthralling look that is neither disconnected the real world nor underwhelming. Also, the cinematography uses a broad color spectrum, unlike, say, The Green Hornet which gave everything a green tone and passed it off as "artistic." However, Director Martin Campbell has been making movies for a while and thus has some difficulty adapting to a 3-D format. The movie is converted (a good thing, since Campbell's style is not meant for bulky 3-D cameras), but as is often the case with the process the images are occasionally out-of-focus. Furthermore, Campbell is unable to maximize the 3-D opportunities--as a result the movie is simply in 3-D and does not use the format to enhance the story-telling or action-sequences beyond giving it an extra dimension.

One might think that the 3-D makes the movie be a few shades darker, but that is in fact the actual color scheme--the 3-D version has been adequately lightened.

Cars 2

CGI-animated movies do not use a camera and thus can be designed for 3-D much easier. As a result, they are usually the best looking 3-D.

Cars 2 is at the top-end of the spectrum for 3-D movies, but for an animated one is relatively unimpressive. The 3-D is focused and the colors are right, but the film uses few angles that would maximize the use of the format.

Also, Pixar (the studio behind Cars) makes sure not to ever use 3-D as a gimmick. The result is that it never interrupts the story and serves only as a subtle improvement to the viewing experience. The downside is that there is far less evidence for why you paid extra for a 3-D ticket.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Michael Bay is famous for giving us amazing, explosion-filled, mind-blowing action films. The third episode in Transformers, however, was the first time the director used 3-D, a technique he had been hesitant to do. Bay made the daring choice to shoot most of Dark of the Moon with 3-D cameras rather than converting. The cameras often yield better results, but are so cumbersome it seemed unlikely to work with Bay's constantly moving camera style, and furthermore has poor compatibility with IMAX.

Amazingly, Bay manages to make visually the best live-action 3-D film of all time other than Avatar. The details are amazing, the backgrounds are digitally blurred, the lighting is perfect, and the added dimension gives a whole new sense of scale the mayhem. Even more impressive, Bay shot the thing for under $200 million: A feat that recent 2-D pictures like Prince of Persia and Iron Man 2 could not accomplish even with shorter running times. The movie itself is not quite as incredible, but there are no complaints about the visuals.

Oddly, there were only two 3-D releases in June, so this concludes this month's list. As a final note I will mention that there are reports that many theaters are projecting 3-D films wrong (such as by using a dimmer bulb) which makes the image darker. Sure, some 3-D films are actually darker than their 2-D counterparts, but it is often worth considering that your local theater is playing it wrong and its not the fault of the actual movie. It could be worse trying out your next 3-D experience at another theater as an experiment.