Roger Ebert Home

If Jackass is in 3-D, will only jackasses watch 3-D?

As "Jackass 3-D" splats into theaters, Frank Paiva and I, over at MSN Movies, debate such urgent questions as: "Are we done with the 3-D yet?"; "What does 3-D add to or subtract from the cinematic experience?"; "Is the technology itself any good?"; and, "What's the best use for it? Science-fiction spectaculars? Art films? Porn? Amusement park rides?"

Here's part of my take:

I think 3-D is simply another incarnation of the much-hyped "Angle" feature on DVDs. You know -- it's still there on your remote. It was the feature that was supposed to allow You, the User, to select alternate angles within a scene (assuming the filmmakers had provided the footage). Your invocation of Megan Fox's cleavage and Jake Gyllenhaal's chest hairs is right on the money. The most commercially viable use for 3-D (and for "Angle" and for the Internet) is porn.

Latest blog posts

Latest reviews

The Secrets She Keeps
In the Earth
Jakob's Wife
Monday
We Broke Up
Hope

Comments

comments powered by Disqus