Jonathan Melville: 3D or not 3D, that’s the Dredd question

Published on 04/10/2012 14:37

I finally gave in to the hype this week and went to my local multiplex to watch Dredd, a film I’d avoided on principle because the only way to see it was in 3D.

I dislike 3D for a number of reasons. Firstly, there’s the fact that I have to effectively wear sunglasses to watch a film in the dark.

I was always told not to wear sunglasses indoors, so this already seems like a bad idea. Added to this is the fact that the screen instantly has some of its light filtered out, meaning I’m watching a lesser version than the 2D film.

There’s also the cost issue, with 3D adding another couple of pounds to the price of the ticket, plus a fee for the specs if you don’t have your own with you. Paying more to watch less of a film doesn’t sound like a good deal to me.

Even if I accept that’s the price, there’s the 3D effect itself, which in most films I’ve seen adds precisely nothing to the experience.

The occasional spear or rock may be waved in my general direction, but that doesn’t improve a bad script.

Avatar was the film we were told would revolutionise 3D, but I found the story bland and the characters uninteresting. The 3D didn’t help.

As for Dredd, I’m happy to admit I loved it; a good old-fashioned action romp that was true to the character from the comics and which everyone should go and watch.

The 3D didn’t distract me as much as normal but perhaps that’s because I was enjoying myself too much.

Sadly, it looks like I’ll have to buy the Blu-ray to see it the way I wanted to in the first place.

For more film comment visit www.reelscotland.com