I can only comment that Robot Monster is one of the worst movies I have
ever seen in my life, even worse than Reptilicus or Plan Nine from Outer
Space.  Worse than Ganjasaurus Rex and all the Santo movies put together.
So consequently I find it questionable that the 3D effect could compensate
for the inherent deficiencies of the film.

Widescreen and color ARE gimmicks, but people figured out ways to help
them tell the story.  In the case of 3-D I am not sure that's really been
the case yet.   But the vast majority of films that employ widescreen and
color formats don't take advantage of them to help tell the story,
unfortunately.

I have never seen any movie in 3D, or any part of the real world for that
matter.  But I would pay someone actual money to NOT have to see many
films, and some of them are in 3D.

Any more additions anyone?

Likewise, 3D is still
limited by its technology at this point.  You still have to wear
glasses (and I believe you always will)

On Nov 3, 12:28 pm, "Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch"

team8martinl... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Any more additions anyone?

Here are some great (and some "good") movies from the "golden age" of
3D that I'm partial to.  All of them are what I consider to be
particularly well-photographed films:

HOUSE OF WAX, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, SANGAREE, THE CHARGE AT
FEATHER RIVER, THE MAZE, SECOND CHANCE, INFERNO, FLIGHT TO TANGIER,
THE GLASS WEB, HONDO, CEASE FIRE, MONEY FROM HOME, MISS SADIE
THOMPSON, THE FRENCH LINE, JIVARO, TAZA SON OF COCHISE, CREATURE FROM
THE BLACK LAGOON, DANGEROUS MISSION, PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE,
GORILLA AT LARGE and THE DIAMOND.

The problem is, you're asking a loaded question-- while there are
quite a few people on this list who went to one or both of the 3D
Expos in Los Angeles, most people haven't seen the above titles
presented properly and can't assess them fairly.

J. Theakston

but 3D takes an extra amount of
study and understanding of concepts in order to master it.

Likewise, 3D is still
limited by its technology at this point.  You still have to wear
glasses (and I believe you always will)

The new lenticular 3D TV displays don't require glasses.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:55:39 +0100, Neil Midkiff wrote:

Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:02:18 +0100, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch <team8martinland at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
That's what puzzles me: Is there _any_ movie from the last couple
of years or even film history that's _great_ as a movie and
happens to be in stereoscopic 3D

Dial M for Murder.

Granted, maybe that's the one... ;-D

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Kiss Me, Kate -- maybe not a
"great" film but certainly a very very good one, and one which uses 3D
very effectively without a lot of gimmicks.

-Neil Midkiff

Thanks for the input Neil.

To summarize so far:


*** FEATURE PRESENTATION ***

"List of stereoscopic (aka 3D) movies that are good movies regardless..."

- Dial M for Murder
- Coraline
- Kiss Me, Kate

*** THE END ***


Any more additions anyone?