An original detractor of the technology, Ebert doesn’t say that it ruins the film, he just found it completely unnecessary.
Note: This entire movie is dark, gloomy and filled with shadows. So it should be. That makes it particularly inappropriate for the additional dimness of 3-D. There are a few shots that benefit from 3-D (I like the unfolding of the little magical globe) but none that require it. Avoid the surcharge and see the film in proper 2-D with brighter colour.
As a devout follower of the Cult of Ebert, I’ll heed the man’s word. [Chicago Sun Times]
Lord Lavell
Saturday, July 16, 2011 at 11:40 AMI personally liked the 3D, atleast it was done well unlike the blurry low frame rate effects in thor and transformers 3. Maybe not the best use of 3D but definately the best implementiation.
Jordan
Saturday, July 16, 2011 at 11:39 PMTransformers 3 is one of few movies that has actually been done well in 3D, as over 70% was actually filmed in 3D rather than having it tacked on in post production like an afterthought.
Kyle_Katarn
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 9:02 AMSaw it in 3D… well not really, because you can’t see a f**king thing it’s so black. Ended up watching most of it with the glasses off.
Next time I’m seeing it properly.
Chris
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 12:04 PMI saw it in 3D and loved it. The review was nothing more than a grab at publicity.
I had no issue seeing all scenes and I loved it.
Key parts of the story were cut and the scope of the battle was hobbled by the limited imagination of the production but still I loved it. I will see it again in 3D or 2D both will be great.
James
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 5:39 PMyeah i usually hate 3d but this was really well done. especially at imax.
also saw transformers in 3d at hoyts and that sucked.
mbryant
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 8:43 PMRight, because Roger fucking Ebert really needs publicity.
Chris
Monday, July 18, 2011 at 10:02 AMThe guy has to make his name somehow. Personally he is a nobody to me and his review just reduced him to even less than that.
Mind you what do you expect from Australias media these days. All a crock of shit anyway with it’s biased reporting and sensationalism.
Allan
Monday, July 18, 2011 at 2:45 PM“Make his name somehow”? “He’s a nobody to me”? “Australian media”? Are you normally this ignorant, or just on the internet?
FWIW, Roger Ebert is one of the longest standing, most respected film critics in the world. He’s been a critic of 3D technology since it’s inception, and always for the same reason. The current technology employed to display 3D films on screens inherently dim the picture (for a reason I can’t remember; Ebert actually wrote an article on it – maybe try looking it up)?
Heath
Monday, July 18, 2011 at 3:03 PMHe’s American. If you don’t know his name you probably aren’t the right person to give any sort of review on a movie.
blueshoe
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 12:15 PMI booked tickets about a month in advance. All goldclass was showing it in 3d.
I hate 3d so had to settle for general viewing.
I watched pt1 in goldclass and it was really good
I hate all these movies going for 3d screenings. Give us more 2d!!!! the 3d novelty has worn off! go home!
adrian
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 11:30 PMI actually thought it was good in 3D, better than other movies with intentional, cheesy effects just to wow viewers. Those effects got old quickly, but watching HP7P2 in 3D was just a non obtrusive experience.
Cameron
Monday, July 18, 2011 at 8:25 AMUrrgghhh are they STILL pushing this 3D crap on us? They need to make a way so the same cinema can show 3D and 2D so those who actually want to watch it in 3D can (both of you), and everyone else can just enjoy the film.
Joshua
Monday, July 18, 2011 at 11:09 AMI agree with this. I saw the midnight screening Vmax and 3D and it detracted from it. Was an amazing movie none the less, but not worth the surcharge for 3D