According to the omni-knowing Wikipedia, “A 3-D (three-dimensional) film is a motion picture that enhances the illusion of depth perception”. The bigger question facing film-makers and the film industry is, “does it enhance the actual film or viewing experience?” It is being debated whether there are actually any worthy 3D movies out there… Has Hollywood got carried away with a gimmick?

To 3D

One positive point put forward by Richard Gelfond of IMAX Corp., is that “visionaries like Tim Burton, James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis all have 3D projects under way. With that talent at the helm, it is certain to reset the benchmark for 3D film experiences“. You could even say that Cameron help push the technology forward in it’s current wave with his own-specification Reality Camera system, developed in 2003 in order to film ‘Ghosts of the Abyss’.

With these creative minds realizing that the filming process should be use to enhance the storytelling, and not simply slapped on to try and pick up a current trend, there is promise for the quality of 3D films being made. In that regard, we are seeing some smart uses of 3D, also including a number of documentaries and nature adventures where 3D does add to the effect of some staggering scenes.

Do moviegoers want 3D movies? The figures would suggest so: back when ‘The Polar Express’ was released as IMAX’s first full-length, animated 3-D feature, the 3-D version earned about 14 times as much per screen as the 2D version. This was a few years ago, and certainly encouraged a number of directors to experiment further with the medium; fast forward to last year and we saw some pretty epic releases in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ and ‘How to Train Your Dragon’. Figures may be dipping in 2011, in regards to the percentage of box office total that is received through the 3D version of the film, but that small dip is only after several years of decent increase, and partly due to the wider selection of 3D movies around.

Not To 3D

Not every movie works in 3D. Hollywood is treading a thin line this time around, and needs to avoid the similar recent record industry fad that ‘every song needs an auto-tuned T-Pain vocal’, which became so ridiculous it lost all credibility, and crashed and burned in a short time frame. Converting old classics to 3D just for the sake of it has hurt the reputation pretty badly of late (‘Jaws 3D’, anyone?). Rather refreshingly, Tim Burton isn’t shooting ‘Dark Shadows’ in 3D, which is a great thing to hear. It can be argued that such movies need a crisp, darker tone to them, and there would be little artistic advantage to use it in those cases.

The medium has been getting a lot of stick this year, from the quip of “Is there a way for Woody Allen to be neurotic in an added dimension?“, to the sudden decline of favor from Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg. Has Hollywood already overcooked it?

2.5D?

Ultimately, I think, and hope, there should be an equal balance of 3D and non-3D movies, and a distinction that you can like or dislike any of them for reasons other than the format. Studios don’t have to make everything in that medium, and reviewers don’t have to absolutely and automatically detest anything made in it. It is about using the technology as another tool in a wide arsenal, similar to the way that talented directors may use CGI and digital conversion on some projects. Using it to add to the overall cinematic experience is a way that the technology can survive and remain special for the movie-goer, rather than an all-out assault from the big studios and ultimate audience over-saturation.

by Lee Jarvis.

It starts, of course, with the movie itself: wonderfully written and directed, with a haunting yet moving score to accompany the great action and suspense.  Even when the first feedback was trickling in from sources close to the production, before any trailer was complete, there were raves about the dark story and the actors bringing it to life (everyone from Christian Bale, to Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart).  And the early reviews were dead on:  every major actor in this picture is worthy of recognition.  They add complexity to the story, as well as to their characters’ development within that framework.  I feel I can watch this film again and again, if only to see each actor so skillfully inhabit their role, wondering in the back of my mind what’s not being said – the stories behind the stories.  Take the Joker, for instance, who proclaims himself an agent of chaos, and yet so meticulously plans his schemes he’s almost like a deranged mathematician.  Ledger plays both sides so well, and so believably, that one can’t help but sit back and marvel at the odd duality of this character, the way he can be almost two distinct psychotics in one.

People like to point to the death of Ledger as the main reason to the film’s success, but that is merely simplifying the issue.  Rather, his passing is one of the cogs in a greater machine.  Critics were already raving about his performance prior to his death; they will talk about it for months to come.  And yes, there are some out there who will see the film only to watch the last performance of a young actor.  But there are so many more who will be pulled in for the other reasons mentioned above. 

Look at the overwhelmingly positive collection of reviews.  It is so rare to see critics getting behind a summer comic book movie, usually because they are so lean on story or character development.  Not so in this case: out of 247 reviews on www.rottentomatoes.com, only 14 are negative.  Read those reviews, and they’re less analytical assessments of the film, and more excited examinations of why the film is so good. 

The best part is, the film actually manages to live up to the intense hype.  What you read in the reviews is the same thing you hear from the average filmgoer; you can feel a breathless kind of enjoyment, can see a “there are so many reasons this film was good I can’t even pick one” gleam in the eye. 

Which, in the end, might be the best explanation for why this film continues to do so well: seeing it once (or twice) is simply not enough.

**Note:  I have to say, I’ll be amazed if the film passes “Titanic” for the domestic box office record. Think about it this way: let’s say at best that “The Dark Knight” grosses approximately $18 million tomorrow and another $12 million on Sunday (at BEST!!!)…  that would put the total box office at just under the $400 million mark.  That would mean that the film would have to earn another $200 million just to tie “Titanic”‘s record.  To put it in perspective, that’s almost the entire domestic box office take of ‘Batman Begins’!  It’s a staggering figure when you think of it on those terms.

The one silver lining in all of this is that ‘The Dark Knight’ is on pace to reach the $400 million mark within 20 days (maybe 25)– obliterating the old record of 43 days set by ‘Shrek 2′.