many would disagree.

Did I miss what you did there? Your examples completely contradict your opening statement. (They are cool examples though!)

How about Independence Day, Armageddon, and The Rock.

This might be a stupid question, but if you hate it, why did you watch it twice?

Gotchya.

Yeah, I've revisited movies I didn't like just to give them a second chance. I usually do it only if there was at least something about the film that effected me somehow. If I just plain hated a movie, I won't watch it again.

That said, I have watched Requiem' about 5 times (The first time I watched it, I actually watched it twice in a row). To me it just seems like it's a film I didn't think someone would watch more than once if they didn't like it. Probably just how depressing it is.

Haha. Of all the movies mentioned here, Citizen Kane would be one of [technically] easiest to convert to 3D. Think of all the shots, which seem prime for 3D (the entry through the glass window, shots of Xanadu, the fireplace, the long-lense-seperately-filmed split shots, the board meetings).

I think that we should just do a remake. Who's the 'modern' Charles Kane / Hearst?

Yea, but to do it would be like peeing on the bible ... in church.

Yea. My young, hip, cool friends love it. But anyone who's dealt with heroin (themselves or friends) know that the movie is pretentious and full of shite. I was told that Requeim for a Dream is like the Reefer Madness of heroin. I usually snap back and tell them that it wasn't a movie about heroin, but about addiction. But I have to admit that's a weak defense - the movie's main drug of choice is heroin.

Fucking genius, engaging, drama with a perfectly timed orchestration? Yea. Narratively and stylistically truthful to the reality of the drug? Apparently not (though I'm too inexperienced to know).

im curious as to what was so full of shite in RFAD? ive been around a few of hardcore drug users and seen many documentaries. RFAD didnt seem that far of base to me. other than maybe the mom towards he end. i will say i love the movie, even though it is horribly depressing and i felt disgusting after watching it.

The movies I used would all have natural action that would come off the screen, so none of the "3D" would have to be "Made UP", it would all be natural 3D.

OK, I think I'm following you ... and I'll agree. 3D is much more effective when, like music or sound effects, it is subtle, not shoved down your throat (or, in this case, your eyes). In other words, a film lush with detail (such as the jungles of Jurassic Park) works more "naturally" than most 3D movies where the action is specifically and forcefully aimed at the camera/viewer's eye.


IMO, the movies you picked are great candidates, but some of the examples were slightly contradictory.

The Human Centipede