30 of 38 people found the following review helpful
It's just too bad.,
In this latest installment of the Spy Kids franchise, it's painfully obvious that the decline shown in Spy Kids 2 is moving along faster than a mom unplugging your Xbox game. Where the original was fun, goofy and life affirming, Spy Kids 3-D is over-blown and lacking in any feeling and consistency.
Oh, the actors are having a blast, but it just doesn't translate to the audience. The only great moment was Elijah Wood's cameo as "The Guy". The most painful part was watching Stallone on screen at the same time as four different characters. Not even Ricardo Montalban acting in his best earnest grandparent mode could bring the movie to any heights.
And the 3-D? They used the old technology of red in one eye and blue in the other which causes the film's colors to be muted and the film to darken inappropriately. Oh, I'm sure that kids will get a blast putting on and taking off their glasses when the film tells them, but when you have polarization technology to achieve the same effect without the headache, why use such an antiquated format? Game over is right.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 15, 2010 6:57:33 PM PDT
Matthew Magnuson says:
Polarized glasses don't work on TVs, only on theater screens. I also wouldn't consider it "new technology" since it's been around since 1936. Anaglyph (the red/cyan) glasses have been around since 1853, so I guess it would be considered the "old technology" but at that time it was only used for photography, as film hadn't been invented for another 35 years. Either way, the first 3D craze back in the 1950s used mostly polarized glasses.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›