Paul Verhoeven Film Restrospective - Wat Zien Ik (Business Is Business)

Starship Troopers was on TV the other night, which I hadn't seen in years, but as I was too tired to watch it I thought I'd hunt down my DVD. While searching, I realised that although I had many other films by the director, Paul Verhoeven, on DVD, I hadn't seen any of them in years, or not at all in the case of his early stuff. As a result, I've decided to watch them all, in chronological order, starting with his early low budget dutch movies, through his big budget Hollywood blockbusters such as Robocop and Total Recall, past the disastrous erotic drama that is Showgirls to his return to Holland for Black Book. Wish me luck.

Paul Verhoeven is a dutch director who is not known for being subtle. Rather than suggest something, he likes to go full on and show it. Sometimes this works for the better (the violence in Robocop, the infamous flash scene in Basic Instinct) sometimes it doesn't (all of Showgirls).

Seeing as his first film, Wat Zien Ik (aka Business Is Business or Diary Of A Hooker) from 1971 is a dutch comedy about prostitution in Amsterdam's famous Red Light District, I am not expecting subtlety to be on the menu. Not sure what I am expecting, to be honest, but I doubt I will like this one anywhere near as much as I love some of his latter films. I am surprised that at the time of my DVD's release in 2002, it “remained the fourth most popular Dutch film of all time”, as the notes inform me.

Having now seen the film, I think it was better than I expected, but not a film I'm in any rush to see again. Although it was a comedy, it was played a lot more straight than I imagined it would be. From the trailer that came on the DVD, it looked like it was going to be quite silly, but it wasn't, which was a good thing. It was more of a light hearted drama than an out and out comedy, and it was quite sweet in places. Unfortunately it was also quite episodic so it never felt like it was telling a story so much as showing a number of incidents that occur in the main character's career.

Despite the amount of gratuitous nudity in his later films, there was a surprising lack of it in this. Although the film was about a prostitute in Amsterdam's red light district, all of the scenes with her clients were less about them just having sex, and more about the various role plays that her clients make her do. One was a naughty schoolboy, one wanted her to pretend to be a surgeon and one wanted her and her friend to cover themselvein feathers and pretend to be chickens.

The cinematographer on this film was Jan De Bont, who did all of Paul Verhoeven's early films and later went on to direct Speed and Twister.

IMDB gives this film 5.9, which is about right. It's not a bad film and hasn't dated as badly as a lot of the films from the 70's do, but I'd only recommend it to people if they are Paul Verhoeven fans and are interested in his early work. Anyone else, skip it.

Fight Club

Fight Club is a 1999 movie starring Brad Pitt (Se7en), Edward Norton (The Incredible Hulk) and Helena Bonham Carter (Howard's End). It is based on the book of the same name by Chuck Palahniuk and was directed by David Fincher (Se7en, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, The Social Network).

Edward Norton meets Tyler Durden on a plane. Together they make soap and form a Fight Club that we cannot talk about.


How in the hell does one write a brief synopsis of this movie without giving anything away? I try and keep these reviews spoiler free, giving only the barest of plot details in the description as I hate it when every nuance of the story is given away before the film starts, but to do so with Fight Club is impossible. You just cannot summarise all of the themes, story threads and ideas presented in this film without embarking on a long discussion. I will try though.

Fight Club is a film about Anarchy, and it is a wonderfully entertaining one at that. Most of us are happy to just live out our lives, letting everything pass us by, taking everything for granted and not taking much interest in what is going on around us. The characters in the film try to inject some anarchy into everyone's lives so that they can appreciate what they have and try to do something about what they don't have. The most obvious example of this in the film is that of the human sacrifices (not what it sounds like). As scary as it must be to be one of those human sacrifices, their lives are greatly improved as a result. These human sacrifices remind me considerably of the victims in the Saw franchise, although far less horrific. They go through something scary, but their lives are a lot richer as a result.

When this film first came out, it was a big flop. I personally wasn't that interested in seeing it as it looked like a version of those Jean-Claude Van Damme movies, such as AWOL, where he stands around fighting someone for 2 hours. That can be blamed on bad marketing as it's as far removed from those films as it's possible to get. Instead of 2 hours of mindless violence and non-stop fighting, we get get 2 hours of ideas, some of which are extremely funny, some are extremely horrific.

It also opened on the same day as The Sixth Sense which turned out to be one of the most successful movies ever made, so anything opening against that didn't stand a chance. It did share something in common with the Sixth Sense that I can't reveal here without ruining your enjoyment of either movie, but it does force you to re-watch both films again, and as a result, little things that you didn't notice first time suddenly jump out at you and make perfect sense in the context of the final film. However much you liked the film the first time you see it, you will like it even more on second viewing, and each subsequent viewing improves on the last.

It's partly because of this re-watchability that the film managed to find it's audience on DVD and since finding that audience, the film has developed a huge cult following and is one of those rare films that can change the life of the viewer. The importance of this film on society cannot be too greatly understated. The first rule of Fight Club has been parodied so many times in programs in everything from Spaced to Dancing With The Stars. As for the second rule...

The character of Tyler Durden has become legendary, and rightly so, with Brad Pitt bringing him to life so perfectly that it's impossible to imagine anyone else in the role. Edward Norton fully deserves his tag as one of the best actors of his generation after seeing him in this film, and Helena Bonham Carter as Marla Singer finally breaks off the shackles of all the period dramas from her early career in a part so deliciously juicy and refreshing, it's hard to picture her in a corset ever again.

Fight Club shares something in common with the first Spiderman movie, in that they are the only 2 films that I have seen at the cinema 3 times (I was a student so had a lot of free time, had a cinema pass so didn't need to pay and got talked into going a 3rd time by a girl in both cases, so good excuses). I have also seen it numerous times on DVD and enjoy it more each time I see it.

The reason I wanted to watch it again this time though was because I had just recently finished reading the book. In turning the Fight Club book into a film, the makers did the exact opposite to the makers of I Am Legend. Anyone who has just read the book and not seen the film would have told you it's unfilmable. They would have to change things significantly in order to adapt it to the screen. Anyone who's read the book and seen the film will be surprised at just how faithful it is. Everything from the book has made it to the screen, from the excellent narration, the cancer groups, the soap making, the fight clubs and that ending. The book is deliberately disjointed, broken down into the key scenes without going into what happens between then, but the film fills these gaps and expands on the ideas and themes presented. How this film was not even nominated for an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay is beyond me especially in a year where The Cider House Rules won.

IMDB

I Am Legend (2007)

I Am Legend is a 2007 Horror, Thriller, Drama starring Will Smith and his dog. After a virus has wiped out mankind, turning them into creatures of the night, Robert Neville (Smith) is the last man alive, trying to find a cure while all alone in New York.

I Am Legend is based on an amazing book by Richard Matheson, who also wrote some classic scares such as The Night Stalker, Trilogy Of Terror, Steven Spielberg's Duel and some excellent episodes of The Twilight Zone including Nightmare at 20,000 feet and Button Button (which was recently turned into the film, The Box). He also wrote one of the scariest haunted house movies ever made called The Legend Of Hell House. I Am Legend is a book that is so cinematic, it is perfect for a really good film version as long as you stay reasonably faithful to the original story.

So, in the immortal words of William Hurt in A History Of Violence, How do you fuck that up?

Well, the first thing you do is hire Oscar winning screenwriter hack Akiva Goldsman to completely ignore everything that made the book great and write something far less interesting instead. How the hell this man ever won an Oscar is beyond me. He's the guy who wrote some of the worst Hollywood blockbusters of the past 15 years, including Lost In Space and the famously bad franchise killer, Batman And Robin. The film he managed to beat The Lord Of The Rings into winning an Oscar for was A Beautiful Mind, where he ignored any attempts to tell the true story of John Nash, and instead gave us an ill-conceived thriller that mistakenly confuses schizophrenia with multiple personality disorder where most of the films characters don't even exist.

The main aspect of the I Am Legend book they have completely ignored is that of the creatures the infected humans turn into. In the book, they are most definitely vampires. The book goes into great depth explaining the scientific reasons behind every aspect of vampirism and Neville sees it as his duty to hunt down and kill them. In the film, the creatures are poorly CGI'd creatures named Dark Seekers that all look identical but are still allergic to sunlight. This does beg a few questions. Namely, how can a virus effect your physical appearance in such a way that you are the same height and build as everyone else, wear the same clothes, and can open your mouth so jaw droppingly wide? The CGI is so bad that every time one of these creatures moves, you just wish the film makers used proper make up and actors. They aren't Vampires in the film, probably because they made it before Vampires became cool again. There's no motivation or explanation for the creatures, they just are, and making them all appear identical may have saved a few bucks in the budget but causes us to distance ourselves from them emotionally. One is given more screentime than the others, but we are never sure if he's the one we are looking at.

It isn't all bad though. Will Smith gives a great performance as someone close to insanity, and there are some decent scares and a touching scene with his dog, but any good moments are soon forgotten by an horrendous ending.

The ending is the part of the film where they really fuck it up. Originally, the film makers shot this ending but the test audiences didn't like it much, so they filmed a new ending that was even worse. It's difficult to explain without going into any spoilers, but Robert Neville may have found a cure but makes a decision so ridiculously self-sacrificing that Cracked.com wrote this article ripping it to shreds. If you've seen the film, go to that link and read it. It explains all that's wrong with the ending far better than I ever can.

The end of the book explains the title I Am Legend so perfectly that it makes you want to review what you have just read from a different perspective. The film on the other hand, suddenly realises that the title makes no sense with their re-written ending that they had to include a sudden voice-over to cover themselves.

Now, my review seems to be bashing the film mainly because it isn't the same as the book, but when I saw the film for the first time, I hadn't read the book, but I still hated the film. There are just so many bad film-making decisions and moments of bad writing that you just can't get past. One I just noticed after watching again was that he's got 2 running machines upstairs in his house, one for him, one for his dog. Have you ever tried lifting a running machine? They are pretty heavy. Seeing as he's the last man alive, how the hell did he manage to get it in his house, never mind dragging them up those stairs?

After 2 failed attempts to turn I Am Legend into a good film in the 60's and 70's, we waited over 35 years for Hollywood to have another go, and they still failed. Hopefully, in their next attempt in 20 years time, we might have more luck.

IMDB currently gives I Am Legend a rather generous 7.1 but I'd have to give it a far lower score of 5. There's some good stuff in there and some of the visuals are impressive, but as a film in it's own right it's only OK. As an adaptation of a classic book, it's a disaster.

Gremlins

Gremlins is a 1984 family movie starring Zack Galligan and Phoebe Cates and is directed by Joe Dante.

Trouble arrives in the small American town of Kingston Falls after Billy is given a Mogwai as a pet. Despite being told to keep it away from water and not to feed it after midnight, both of these things happen, resulting in a group of Gremlins taking over the town, causing mischief and mayhem.

There are 2 types of people in this world. Those who love  Gremlins, and those who haven't seen it yet. Seriously, is there anyone out there who doesn't love this film? It's a modern Christmas Holiday classic, like Die Hard. Not really about Christmas, but set during that holiday so you have an excuse to watch it every year.

Despite that last sentence, I hadn't seen this film for years, but as I caught a glimpse of it on TV the other night, I knew I had to hunt down my DVD so I could watch it again, and I am glad I did. There are so many great, classic moments in this film, and so many in-jokes hidden away in the background. My favourite moment is when the dad is at an inventors conference. In the space of about 3 seconds, we have Robbie The Robot from Forbidden Planet making a cameo, while Steven Spielberg drives by in a buggy, and the time machine from The Time Machine mysteriously disappearing in the background.

Other great moments include when all of the gremlins are in the cinema watching Snow White, and the infamous Death By Microwave scene. When the film came out in America, they had to create a new rating for it, the PG13, as it was too violent for young kids, but it's target audience would be unable to see it if they went for the higher rating of an R.

Gizmo himself is one of the cutest creatures ever committed to film. Usually, I hate deliberately cute things in films but I make an exception for Gizmo as he's just so cool and adorable. Just look at him. Who doesn't want a Gizmo of their own? Howie Mandel's voice work for Gizmo is great too, squeaking out "Bright Light" every so often. The person who came up with a Gizmo Furby toy was a genius.

Both Gizmo and the gremlins are bought to life using some incredible puppet work. If ever they were to do a remake or another sequel, and I really hope they don't unless the original director did it, then they would probably use CGI to bring them to life. Whether or not CGI would work nearly as well as puppets is debatable, but personally I don't think CGI gremlins will have the same charm that the puppets do. Having said that, in this day and age, will puppets be as convincing as they were back in the 80's?

The film isn't perfect though. It takes half an hour to really get going, and some of the characters just disappear completely. Judge Reinhold is a major part of those first 30 minutes, but once the gremlins appear, he disappears and is never mentioned again. Deleted scenes have him hiding in the bank. The first cut of the film lasted 2 hours and 40 minutes, so a lot had to be trimmed before release. It's a shame my DVD didn't include those lost scenes.

Zack Galligan is good as Billy, but there is a reason the actor has disappeared into obscurity as he can be quite bland. He did make some great films during the early 80's though. Waxwork and it's sequel are really enjoyable horror movies and definitely worth a watch. And the film he made after Gremlins, Nothing Lasts Forever is one of the weirdest movies I have ever seen. Worth checking out.

Phoebe Cates, however, is as stunning and adorable as always. Did anyone not have a crush on her when they were young? She was going to be a huge star, but then married Kevin Kline and retired to look after their kids. A great loss to cinema. Phoebe Cates contributes one of the films strangest and most famous moments, when she explains why she doesn't like Christmas. It's a moment so strange that it's brilliantly spoofed in the sequel.

The film's director, Joe Dante, is one of my favourite directors of all time. His movies are always great fun. His first horror movie, Piranha was one of the better Jaws rip offs and is a classic film in it's own right, recently spawning a 3D remake. The Howling, along with An American Werewolf In London, reinvented the Werewolf movie with some jaw dropping special effects and some surprising laughs. Innerspace made a star out of Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan and is one of the most inventive and enjoyable summer blockbuster ever made. He was also the man responsible for one of the all time great kids TV programs, Eerie Indiana. It's a shame that he's only made a handful of films since the 90's, and his most recent, The Hole, was a great family horror movie that failed to find a big audience. While writing this, I've just noticed that his film, Explorers, is on TV in an hour, so I may have to watch that.

IMDB currently gives Gremlins 7.1, but I am going to have to give it a far higher 9. The only reason I am not giving it a 10 is because Gremlins II, The New Batch is even better.

Wrong Turn 3 - Left For Dead

As the name suggests, Wrong Turn 3 is the sequel to Wrong Turn and Wrong Turn 2:Dead End. The series is about a severely deformed family of cross-bred cannibals who lay traps for anyone who happens to be walking through the woods.

Part 1 had Eliza Dushku from Buffy and some other up and coming stars from good TV shows being chased. It was quite fun but not great.

Part 2 had a cast of unknowns and Henry Rollins being chased but was instantly forgettable.

Part 3 is about a small group of murderous inmates, chained together as their armoured bus is attacked. Trapped in the woods with a shit load of money they just happen to find, they are more interesting in making it out with the bags of cash than making it out alive. It doesn't star anyone you've heard of as the cast is mostly made up of British TV actors pretending to be American, in a Bulgarian woods standing in for the USA.

As anyone who knows me knows, I love a good horror film. I even enjoy the crap ones sometimes as long as they are entertaining and imaginative. Even though this film is awful, with moments of logic that defy explanation, I still found it quite enjoyable. The acting was awful, the direction was lame, the special effects were cheap and the direction was laughable, yet it was still quite fun.

The script itself was laughable. One of the inmates was an undercover US Marshall, but nothing is made of this fact, so what was the point? The dialog was horrendous, with this classic sample from the beginning of the film.

Topless girl sunbathing by a river is joined by her boyfriend.
Girl: "Alex thinks I'm a slut. Do you think I'm a slut?"
Boy: "Yes, but that is what I love about you."
Girl: "I thought you loved my tits".
Second later, a spear impales said tit along with his hand, perfectly summing up the quality of the film you are about to watch.

I'm not going to waste any more time talking about this film as it doesn't really deserve my time. I will say this though. Don't spend even a penny on this rubbish, but if there is nothing else on and you enjoy rubbish horror movies, then you can do a lot worse than spending one and a half hours in the company of this film. If you do have something more interesting and important to do, such as tidying up your sock drawer, then do that instead.

IMDB gives this film a generous 4.4 out of 10. That is all you need to know.

Tron:Legacy

Tron:Legacy is the sequel to the 1982 movie, Tron. It stars Jeff Bridges, reprising his roll as Kevin Flynn from the original, but also plays Clu 2.0, Flynn's avatar. It also stars Garrett Hedlund as his son, Sam Flynn, Olivia Wilde from TV's House, and Michael Sheen playing a fictional character for a change.

20 years after his father's disappearance, Sam Flynn finds himself in the trapped in the computerised world that his father created.

Tron:Legacy was the 2nd mystery film organised by SeeFilmFirst as part of their Online Bloggers event, held at The Empire Cinema in Leicester Square. Standing outside the cinema that Saturday morning, it became obvious to anyone who had not already guessed that Tron:Legacy would be one of the films as the cinema was already covered with giant marquees in preparation for it's world premiere the following day.

The day itself consisted of 2 Q&A sessions, one on setting up a film website of your own (Creating an online audience), and the other on piracy. I managed to ask what I thought was the best question of the day during the online audience Q&A, "Considering that 2 recent films which had attracted a huge online following, Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim, both under performed at the box office, how much does the online audience represent the real world audience". As the event was filmed, you may see their response online soon. If I find it, I will post it.

The director of Tron:Legacy was there to introduce the film, which was cool. Presumably he'd flown over for the main premier the following evening. As for the film itself, I'm not sure if I was disappointed with Tron:Legacy, or whether it just failed to exceed my limited expectations. As my earlier post concluded, I wasn't a fan of the original, so was hoping that the sequel would be better. In some ways it was. The special Effects were amazing, but in this digital age, nothing we haven't seen before in multiple computer games. Avatar had entirely computer generated landscapes and neon effects. Beowulf had photo real CGI characters, whilst Benjamin Button and X-Men 3 had de-aged characters, yet all managed to do them better.

Let's talk about the de-aged Jeff Bridges. When he first appears, he's wearing a helmet so you can't see his face. The sole reason for this ridiculous helmet seems purely so that he can take it off and reveal himself to be a young Jeff Bridges, shocking the audience into wowing at a special effect that they've already seen in the trailer and at the start of the film. At first, the de-aged Jeff Bridges is amazing, that is until he starts to move. Once he does, he looks like a computerised Jeff Bridges that they've recreated for a computer game. If you've seen the trailer, you will already know what to expect. There is something about how his mouth moves that doesn't look real, and it moves a lot. Even when he isn't talking, his mouth moves is some strange way as if to emphasize that they know how to create CGI mouths, which they don't. He also suffers from that scary dead eye look that blighted The Polar Express. However, that fault had been fixed in both Beowulf and A Christmas Carol and they are both a year or 2 old, so why did they fail to fix it in this? It's taken them 3 years to make this film, but it seems that they have spent so much time patting themselves on the back at being able to create a young Jeff Bridges, no one bothered to point out to them that it looked crap. You could use the excuse that the young Jeff Bridges actually plays Clu 2.0, which is the old Kevin Flynn's avatar, therefore has a reason to look like a computer effect. However, in some flashback scenes, Clu 2.0 interacts with the young Flynn, and they both look like bad CGI effects.

During these flashback scenes, we see the Tron character, played by a de-aged Bruce Boxleitner but he also looks like a bad computer effect. Later in the film (Spoiler alert) the original Tron character appears, but he is wearing a helmet. This has the effect of making you fail to associate the character with the one from the first film, but also makes you think they were saving money on special effects. Seeing as Bruce Boxleitner appears in the film, and has been de-aged to play Tron in the flashback scenes, surely they could have had him take his helmet off once. Also, seeing as he is wearing a helmet throughout, how did Jeff Bridges know that it was Tron?

The older Jeff Bridges character is strange too. He doesn't seem like the same character from the first film. Less care-free and rebellious, but that is understandable as the character has gone through a lot in the last 20 years. To show that it is the same character, they have him occasionally spout clichéd hippie phrases such as "Far out man," to remind you that he is the same person. This is strange as the Flynn character from the first film never seemed to be much of a hippie at all and never said anything like that.

Olivia Wilde is great in the film, but she is great in everything she is in. In real life, she is married to an Italian Prince, meaning she is in reality a princess. She's been turning up in a lot of films lately when she isn't filming House. She also had a small role in , turning the day into a bit of an Olivia Wilde double bill. She is slowly turning into a huge star and will also soon be seen in John Favreau's new film. Talking of which, and forgive the digression, at the start of the day, we were shown a load of film trailers. The last one was for the new John Favreau film that Olivia Wilde is in. Great trailer. Daniel Craig is a cowboy in the wild west, where he is taken prisoner by Harrison Ford. So far, a great looking western with a great cast. Then aliens attack. The audience were already excited by this. Then the name of the film appears. "Cowboys And Aliens." The audience applauded. Seriously, who doesn't want to see James Bond and Indiana Jones in a film called Cowboys And Aliens. Anyone?

Anyway, back to Tron. The storyline was OK and less confusing that the original, but I still didn't understand bits of it and even now couldn't explain what actually happened, hence the brief synopsis earlier. What was Quorra the last of? How, in a digital world, did Flynn manage to get hold of a whole roast pig for their dinner, and why did they then only eat the vegetables? Did Flynn deliberately design the interior of his house after seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey? If anyone has the answers to these questions, please post them below.

As for the 3D, I was expecting it to be the next revolution in the technology as they made a big thing about having to set up the 4 digital projectors during our lunch break. Seeing the Tronised Walt Disney logo at the beginning, it looked like it might very well do so. The film itself starts in 2D and doesn't turn 3D until they enter the digital world, and there is a warning at the start of the film so you know to expect this. Maybe it's because I wasn't right at the back, or maybe because I had 2 heads partially obscuring the bottom of the screen, but when the 3D did arrive, it was hardly noticeable. I think I would have enjoyed the 2D version just as much, maybe even better as it probably wouldn't have given me a headache. Another question I have is why do cinemas always put the screen so low, so there are always heads obscuring it. I was aching my next as I couldn't relax in my seat as I kept straining to see over the heads in front. They were only in my way and they had to stretch to see over the heads in front of them. I felt sorry for the people behind me.

All in all, a big disappointment. Not completely awful as the film is quite fun, but not too great. I can't compare it to the current IMDB score as no-one else has seen it yet, but I'd give it a 6.6, better than the first one, but still not too great.

When you do see the film, let me know what you think in the comments. Do you agree or disagree? I want to know.

3D films. A few thoughts.

Before I review Tron:Legacy, I wanted to post about 3D films in general. I recently watched both Saw 7 and Megamind in 3D, and found them to be complete opposite experiences. I'm not a big fan of 3D in general. Either it takes you out of the movie experience as you find yourself noticing the 3D and thinking "Wow", or you don't notice it, making the 3D pointless. I am finding myself preferring to see the film in 2D rather than pay the extra money.

Saw 3D had some of the worst 3D I've ever seen. It's not so much that the 3D was poorly done, it was more that it was non-existent. I couldn't spot any 3D effects, even when things were flying out towards me and had to take my glasses off to prove the film was 3D as the screen still appeared blurry. At one point, I thought my glasses must have been faulty, but watching Jackass 3D later in the day proved they were working fine. The film itself was the worst of the series, and the 3D only helped in it's crapness.

Both Jackass and Megamind had amazing 3D. Maybe it was because I wasn't so near the front but the 3D was stunning for both films. It's become a cliche when talking about 3D, but it added so much depth to the film which enhanced the visual experience greatly. Watching the films in 2D would have been just as enjoyable as it is all down to the storytelling skills involved (Storytelling skills in Jackass? Well, you know what I mean), but the 3D in both films just added an extra layer to an enjoyable movie.

The strange thing that I don't understand is this. Megamind had truly great 3D, yet the film was also available in 2D. Saw 3D on the other hand, had truly awful 3D, yet you could only watch the 3D version. I have found this is becoming an annoying trend recently. I read reviews slating the 3D in Clash Of The Titans, saying how it was badly transferred and ruined the movie. Because of this, I only wanted to watch the 2D version. However, the 2D version wasn't being shown anywhere. I had no choice but to watch the poorly converted 3D version. As a result, I've still not seen the film. The Last Airbender was also only available in a poorly converted 3D version, but I didn't watch that as it was supposed to be crap.

My question is this. Why do the studios think people want to pay extra to have their movie ruined. It seems they see 3D as a way to charge an extra 2 or 3 quid per ticket. If they can spend a few thousand quid converting the film, that money will translate into millions of extra revenue. However, if people watch these poorly converted 3D films, it will put them off watching the good ones. Because of that, 3D has a real danger of becoming a fad.

What are your views on 3D? Please post them in the comments so that I know people have found my blog and are reading it.