New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Kim Hollis: It's about what expected JP3D to make, really. It's a good family outing and people that were kids when the film was out may have kids of their own to take to theaters. As many have mentioned, it's easy marketing for the next film in the franchise. I'm impressed that people keep on going to these re-releases.

Max Braden: That's $18 million more than I would have expected considering that even though I now remember seeing ads, I'd completely forgotten that it was being released this weekend. Like many similar polished re-releases, I'm glad it was done and is available to see, but I never get around to seeing them. Jurassic Park especially should be one I go see, because its dinosaur herd effects are still superior to most anything else made since it was released decades ago. As far as the studio goes, is $18 million+ enough to justify the 3D and re-release treatment? It seems like it should cover the expense, so doing so without any loss doesn't seem like a bad idea, especially if it sells more DVDs to new 3D tv sets.

Kim Hollis: What movie, if any, do you think is deserving of the 3D treatment (that hasn't had it already)?

Brett Ballard-Beach: Top of my head, just stream of consciousness here... Lawrence of Arabia (when the tiny speck of TE Lawrence gets closer and closer and then CLOSER!), Sin City (it's already 95% artificial already!); Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (particularly for the insane village square orgy towards the end), What Dreams May Come (a film I hate, but you would feel like you're inside the painting landscapes) and in memoriam of Roger Ebert, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Hopefully, he and Gene are verbally fistfighting somewhere out in the ether.

Matthew Huntley: Some movies that jump to mind are Independence Day; Superman: The Movie; and Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Edwin Davies: None. Not a single film that was shot in 2D should be converted because that wasn't the way they were meant to be seen and it harms the clarity of the original image. It's bad enough audiences are being conned into spending extra money on films shot in 3D, but it's sacrilege for studios to go back and say, "Well, sure, it's a masterpiece, no doubt, but wouldn't it be better viewed with light loss and a pounding headache?"

Max Braden: Even with new 3D movies I tend to choose the 2D option when it's available, because I find the glasses mute some of the color, and fast action and narrow depth of field shots don't work in 3D, so I'm not eager to redo many movies in that format. But one that immediately springs to mind is The Abyss (has this been done already?). I want to see that water snake come out of the screen.

Kim Hollis: I can't really think of any, either. I honestly prefer to watch movies in 2D (other than stuff like Avatar) because the glasses are irritating and generally it's just harder to see what's going on in my opinion. And if it's IMAX, the sound is muddy, too. I might just choose Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (the '70s version) because it's so colorful and crazy. Then again, I don't want to give anyone any ideas.

David Mumpower: Screw all of you snooty people with your uppity cinematic justifications! I want John McClane jumping out of Nakatomi Plaza in three dimensions, dammit! Looking through my Ultraviolet library, some other titles I would enjoy getting 3D releases are House of Flying Daggers, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, GoldenEye, Moulin Rouge!, The Matrix, The Mask of Zorro, Happy Feet, Minority Report, North by Northwest, Transformers (the first one/only good one), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Amelie, Mr. and Mrs. Smith and (most importantly) Ghostbusters.

Continued:       1       2