Rant: 3D Film Reviewers

Hi. Jace's letting me ghost-write to this blog, even though it's clearly called "Jace's Rants and Raves." I am not Jace. I am a guy with my own blog that Jace is crazy enough to attach his name to. He's a nice guy. When I told him I wasn't sure if this rant was appropriate for my own blog, he just gave me access to his and said, "Rant away!" Anyway, my blog is about 3D movies. Specifically, I talk about the artistic potential of 3D in film, or how the act of being in 3D (or similar technologies, such as HFR) affects the movie going experience.

Here's why I'm ranting: I know my blog isn't up to the potential that it could be. I want to know all the many ways that 3D is important to storytelling. The problem is I don't see anybody else even attempting to do something like that. I look at film reviews (e.g. this one) and all they ever lend to interpreting the 3D in a film is one short paragraph, rarely more than 3 sentences long.

Let me do a hypothetical review of the 3D in Batman: Arkham City. In fact, I'll do a review of one scene in particular: the cut-scene before the confrontation with Mr. Freeze. In case you haven't played that game, I'll describe the scene I'm talking about quick. Also consider this sentence your official spoiler warning.

Early in the game, Batman is poisoned. The majority of the game follows batman's attempts to obtain an antidote that will allow him to survive his poisoning. Mr. Freeze is supposed to know how to build an antidote, but is trying to use that fact to leverage Batman into rescuing his wife. To do that, Mr. Freeze dramatically holds the antidote in front of Batman, with his hand and the antidote extending outside the screen in the 3D version of that cut-scene, after witch he shatters it by squeezing the vial.

Here's how I would review the 3D in that scene: The overarching theme of the game is death. You're meant to feel like the ability to avoid death is just outside Batman's capability. The 3D in this scene is utilized well to effect that emotion. The vial in the scene is held within the reach of the game's player. By all means he should be able to touch it, and is invited to try. My first time through the game I did try, only to have the vial shatter just before I could grab it. My second time through the game I was a bit quicker on the gun, and my fingers slid right through the vial before it shattered. Both instances communicated the message clearly to me. You can try again and again to avoid death, but ultimately that destiny is an inevitability. The message hits strong, and adds an emotional layer to the game not present in the 2D version. As such, I wholly suggest playing the game in 3D wherever 3D access is available.

That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. And that's only a review of one sequence that lasts less than a minute! Imagine how many metaphors, how much emotional impact, or how much visually altering imagery could be described if people were willing to read more into the 3D in an entire film! Yet, film reviewers today limit their discussion to something like, "The 3D effects in The Life of Pi are not really effects at all, in my opinion. They are part of the movie." No discussion, nothing to be able to understand why the 3D is good, and if that would be something to your tastes.

I guess that's what's upsetting me: how empty 3D film reviews are. They give me nothing to go on to understand whether the 3D version is worth spending the money on. They provide no service to anybody but the fans of 2D films. And I can't understand why any film reviewer worth their pay would be satisfied releasing such empty commentary.

</rant>