3D is a gigantic soup. Five years after the technology seriously entered the market, it remains only a single scene in one Hollywood movie that justifies 3D aesthetic and tells the wise: the solitary tear suspended in "Gravity".
But that 3D has had an impact today is not just a matter of technical conditions but illustrates how monopolized and centralized power in the global film world. This alone makes the cinema conversion could be performed, although it hurts many great films tells the language almost as much as the transition to sound film once did.
The seventh installation in the X-Men series is a perfect example: a ridiculously lavish diorama where screenwriter burned on the altar of technology. A scene from the two-hour movie touches that make the trouble with interesting 3D glasses - a charming scoundrel who mutant pups around in a room filled with floating debris and picks gun bullets to the strains of soft 70s rock.
Which is hardly enough to excuse the worn grip used to be able to reboot this more tired superhero saga: time travel. Moreover, just as logical as the film's title.
After a certain pleasure at not having to "decide" (where the mutants look like glam rockers with super powers) and follow Wolverine into a 1973 complete with the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon and period features slip story soon back in an uninspired trot. Top Actors delivers bombastic dialogue on autopilot and the action scenes idles. We've seen this all before, but better. So when the movie ends with a lay up finished for at least five new X-Men clones I could not care less.
That was not the point? Would not give my money next time to the big companies? That's probably why they used 3D and therefore they cut down the films until they met minimal resistance in the boardrooms and could sell just as well in New York, Moscow, Mumbai and Stockholm?
I have a humble proposal for them. A technique that is much less expensive than 3D and additionally, historical and global proven. It's called storytelling.