Biggest 3-D Blunders

I saw this on opening night at the theatre, before the bad buzz engulfed this massive pile of shit. Having been dazzled by Avatar, I was still a 3-D fan at this point... But oh man, the conversion was HORRIBLE. It was disjointed and rushed, and it honestly hurt my eyes. The brightness levels were also a huge problem. Even Warner Brothers know how much the 3-D sucked, because apparently they did further work on the conversion for its home video release. I haven't seen said Blu-ray 3-D, but I don't intend to. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

3-D Rating: 1/10

This movie was not filmed for viewers wearing sunglasses in dark cinemas. Many fight scenes take place in claustrophobic caves or in dusty, smoky areas. Movies originally planned for 3-D will bear the dark glasses factor in mind and light scenes accordingly, but the filmmakers here did not. But that's really the least of their problems. I have never seen such a sickening display of 3-D on my home video set-up. It did not look like genuine 3-D; it looked like a few cardboard cut-outs at different levels of depth. I couldn't bear to watch past the first couple of minutes.

3-D Rating: 3/10

I loved Thor, it was one of my favourite blockbusters of the 2011 summer season. But I saw it in 3-D, and I kept wishing I had sought out a 2-D session. The extra-dimensional effects were terrible. The depth was terrible, there were no worthwhile pop-out effects, and it mostly looked like 2-D at different levels. I refused to buy this movie on 3-D Blu-ray, even though I own a 3-D television.

3-D Rating: 3/10

While seeing this movie on the big screen, I consistently removed my 3-D glasses, to see if the image was blurry. It often wasn't. I often kept searching for 3-D imagery with glasses on, but it was flat and ineffective. This was filmed in 3-D, but you wouldn't know it. Even 3-D conversions look better than this. When this movie was playing, I'd cinema-check sessions, both 2-D and 3-D... I could never tell the difference.

3-D Rating: 3/10

On some television sets, you can press a 3-D conversion button, and the television will haphazardly convert anything you want into 3-D. It's not as good as the real thing, but it's a fun novelty. I, Robot in 3-D is basically that random novelty. Instead of a meticulous conversion, three or four technicians spent a few months putting the movie through an automated conversion machine. No time was spent rotoscoping, or negotiating depth... it was automatic. Bollocks.

3-D Rating: 3/10

Sometimes the film looks good in 3-D. A few shots here and there look effective. But for the most part, the 3-D here is awful. It evoked memories of Clash of the Titans. Things look flat, some shots are really badly-handled and look puzzling, and there's a bit of shaky-cam throughout, sometimes at night, making the images impossible to follow. I wish I saw this in 2-D.

3-D Rating: 4/10

First of all, I have not seen the full thing in 3-D. However, I did see the trailer in 3-D a number of times, and I've read reports of people who hated the extra dimension. From what I saw in the trailer, the rotoscoping is dreadful, and the 3-D makes the special effects look even more obvious and like a video game. I hated this movie and will never watch it again, so I'll never experience the full movie in 3-D. Thank Christ.

3-D Rating: 4/10

While I have not seen the full movie in 3-D, I did watch large chunks of it while cinema-checking at work. I was not impressed. And neither were the patrons. When the film opened at work, we had one daily 2-D session and four 3-D sessions. The 2-D session kept selling out, and the 3-D sessions received dire attendance. A couple weeks later, we were showing three 2-D sessions a day, and no 3-D.
The problem with 3-D for this movie is simple: there's a lot of shaky-cam and dimly-lit scenes. At times it's impossible to follow things without getting a headache.

3-D Rating: 5/10