Reger Ebert's dead right: 3-D just sucks (insert your own funny noun here)

In case anyone's wondering, I'm well aware that there really is nothing that Roger Ebert - and much, much less me - can do to stop the extremely profitable plague that is 3-D, but the world is still just a little better place because he keeps trying.

In what I have to assume is the most recent issue of Newsweek, the estimable film critic for the Chicago Sun Times outlines extremely rational and convincing reasons why 3-D just sucks so hard (though he doesn't put it quite that way, of course.) It's very well worth reading his entire piece, which you can do here, but I've taken the liberty of reprinting his lead, which just about nails things very economically:

3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

He pretty much states his entire case there, but it's still worth reading his full explanation. I'd just like to mention the two aspects of 3-D that just drive me batty, even more than the fact that it arbitrarily costs more (and more, just wait.)

The main point, which Ebert elaborates on, is that 3-D is indeed just an imagination slaughterer. Movies are meant to take you away, if only for a little while, from whatever is upsetting in your actual life. You, or at least I, can dive completely into the world unveiled in front of you, and further create it in your mind as a fully fleshed-out universe. Given that, why in the world would you want a computer to artificially do this for you? It just robs you of much of the moviegoing experience, so in my mind, it should cost less, not more, to watch. 'Nuff said.

A second point that Ebert addresses and I agree with wholeheartedly is that 3-D movies are indeed more than a bit "dim," especially the animated ones. The perfect case in point is "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs," just about the very last animated movie I'll ever see in 3-D for this reason. I watched it in 3-D first, and while it was very funny and still entertaining, it appeared to be filled with giant scoops of gray ice cream and beige pizza. Who wants that? Fully aware that it makes the first viewing a waste of money, I went back a week later and watched the movie in glorious 2-D, and the colors really just exploded off the screen. It was just a much more enjoyable experience. For that reason, I'm through with 3-D animation from anyone working now except for Henry Selick, who proved with "Coraline" that he knows how to use it to genuinely enhance the experience.

Ebert offered a technical reason for this a**-awful phenomenon:

Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are "intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination."

Why in the world would you pay MORE for that? OK, enough about that. Definitely take the time to read Ebert's essay, and I'll leave you with a very funny mashup of "Seinfeld" that reimagines George's life as a seriously dramatic Hollywood movie. Just about perfect. Peace out.

I didn't think it was possible, but yes, there is a limit to what I consider "free speech"

I know this is supposed to be about movies, and has for the last few days or so, but I run things around here, and something I read in the paper (which everyone should do, dammit!) this morning just set me off, so I'm afraid you'll have to bear with me.

Up until this morning, I really thought I indeed had no limits for what I would consider "free speech." I've not once been offended by anything I've seen in a movie. Now, mind you, there certainly have been some sickening things in the early movies of John Waters, but they were still far too silly to be anything I'd ever consider "offensive."

But of course, one of the chief glories of living in a truly free country is that people are free to do just about anything they want and, sometimes unfortunately, to most often put that to film.

Why am I getting into all of this? Because I almost vomited up my Cheerios (no product placement intended) this morning when I read what our Supreme Court has now said it's OK to do in this country, as long as you have the good sense (according to them, mind you) to film yourself.

The specific case, which I don't have the name of in front of me, springs from a man in Mississippi who was reportedly making "educational" movies about dog fighting. Let that sink in for a second before I get into the roots of all this, which are, believe it or not, even weirder.

In the mid-'90s, President Clinton wisely signed into law a ban on making so-called "crush" movies. I feel extremely dirty just writing this, so I'll get through it as quickly as possible. There are apparently people in this weird world of ours who get off on watching women crush mice or other small creatures with their feet, usually while wearing stiletto heels.

That we live in a world in which such a law is needed in the first place is almost as disheartening as the fact that yesterday, by a rather amazing vote of 8-1, the Supreme Court says this has to be allowed as a matter of FREE SPEECH. Like I said, the specific case involved the dog-fighting videos, which if anything is even more repulsive, but this madness all originates from the apparent RIGHT to watch small animals die for your pleasure.

Now that I've laid all that out, I'm not sure what else to say except that it just makes me completely sick that hurting animals in any way could ever be construed as anything even approaching free speech.

And thus endeth anything remotely serious here today, I promise. And just to keep the subject away from movies for a bit longer, it's a pretty epicly good day in TV news out there, with two shows I adore announcing their return and an official date for when we'll finally get to see "Mad Men."

It starts for me with the announcement of a second season of NBC's "Parenthood," which will be coming this fall. I don't know yet if it will be a full 22-episode run, but frankly, I've gotten to the point where I enjoy shows more in the 13-episode cable-style run anyway.

And if you're not watching "Parenthood," I can only say you're missing out on what TV can be when it really tries to produce a smart, sexy and funny drama (I refuse to use the word dramedy) for adults. With a cast led by Lauren Graham, Peter Krause and Dax Shepard, it indeed deals with the issues of "Parenthood," including having a child with autism (or some version of it) and finding you had a child that you weren't told about until you were in your 30s and he's about 5 years old (or so, I have no idea how old kids actually are, never having had one to deal with myself), and it does so in a universally entertaining way that even I can relate to.

You'll have plenty of chances now to catch this show created by "Friday Night Lights" mastermind Jason Katims, and I can only urge anyone who happens to stop by here today to do so on Tuesday nights.

Even better than that, and given the fickle but brilliant mind of Larry David just as unlikely, it's also been announced that "Curb Your Enthusiasm" will return for its eighth season beginning in 2011.

I was a little disappointed by the "Seinfeld" anti-reunion that took place last season, but even weak "Curb" is still funnier than just about anything else on television. And now that David Simon's "Treme" and the third season of "True Blood" have me indentured to HBO for the next six months or so, I'll probably just stick around now long enough to welcome back the delightfully cynical Mr. David, who should finally reunite with TV wife Cheryl Hines unless, which is just as likely, he once again manages to screw things up.

And in the best possible relief to the summer TV doldrums, AMC has announced that "Mad Men" will return for its fourth season beginning July 25 at 10 p.m., meaning we won't have to wait as long as we did last year.

I think I'm far from alone in thinking that the show has gotten better season by season, and the end of season three, with Don Draper and his chosen few breaking off to create a new firm as Bertie is breaking away from him, was just perfection. Bring on some more, already.

And even better is that shortly after the return of "Mad Men," AMC will be premiering something called "Rubicon" which sounds like exactly the kind of political thriller I dig.

The show, which will premiere with back-to-back episodes on Aug. 1 from 8-10 p.m., is about a NYC-based government intelligence agency where "nothing is what it seems" (of course.) I'm not making that sound at all appealing, I know, but I've read more about this show that makes me think it will be a real winner.

OK, I suppose this should be at least a tad about movies, so I'll close with this DVD-only clip from "Crazy Heart," easily one of my favorite movies of 2009. In the clip, Bad Blake (very worthy Oscar winner Jeff Bridges) meets his son, who in the actual movie only brushes him off over the phone. Enjoy, and have a perfectly passable Wednesday. Peace out.

Did "Pushing Daisies" really almost take down "30 Rock" at the Emmys?

You know, I didn't tune in for Sunday's Emmys except for in snippets, but for a reason any TV awards show should appreciate: There was simply much better TV on at the time.

On "Mad Men," that smooth cat getting his foot caught off by a John Deere was the most action the show has ever had, and of course very funny, but I thought all the stuff with poor Sally was even better. And for fans of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," I have it on good authority (from a friend who has seen the first three episodes) that the Loretta Black (Vivica A. Fox) cancer story line will take a turn by episode three that will shock and possibly offend even the most jaded Larry David fans, of which you can certainly count me one. I'll be there, especially since that's also when the "Seinfeld" folks begin their "Curb" run.

But perhaps I should have tuned in for at least a bit of the Emmys, because it somehow turned out to be a banner night for the late and much lamented (at least in this corner) "Pushing Daisies." The show somehow took home four awards, the biggest of which was easily Kristin Chenoweth's win for supporting actress in a comedy.

Now, I know a lot of folks just can't stand her cheery act, but it fit the spirit of the show perfectly (which may tell a lot about why it got canceled after just 22 episodes and two vexingly incomplete seasons), but I loved her Olive, especially how she played off of Chi McBride's Emerson Cod.

And though I'm sure a "Family Guy"-style resurrection is out of the question, it's certainly worth noting that with four Emmys (granted, three were in the creative arts realm handed out before Sunday night), "Pushing Daisies" finished only one behind "30 Rock," which I just assumed would take home its allotted double-digit assortment of trophies (granted, I tune in for every new episode of that one too, I'm just saying, it is kinda funny.)

I would say R.I.P. "Pushing Daisies," but with all these signs of life after death (Bryan Fuller is developing a comic book and even dreaming beyond all reason of some kind of movie) I just can't help but keep a little hope alive.

The only other thing I really would have liked to have seen was the visit from host Neil Patrick Harris' Dr. Horrible. It didn't come in a big production number, as hinted at by EW's Michael Ausiello, but this bit also featuring Nathan Fillion's Captain Hammer is still pretty funny. And I've been telling my bosses for years that the Internet is just a fad, but no one listens to me either. Peace out.

A final Christmas present from Ledger and Gilliam?

"I'm Peggy Olson and I want to smoke some marijuana."

Last night marked the second time this season (the second episode was kinda a dud) that "Mad Men" managed to air episodes that rank easily among the show's best. From Peggy getting high to Sally reading "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" to grandpa (easily my favorite moment of season three so far), last night's episode was just a visual feast.

And yet, I couldn't help but be left with this thought afterward: What exactly happened on last night's episode? Now, I know everyone went to a great Kentucky Derby party hosted by Roger and his new wife (I won't soon forget the vision of John Slattery in black face), but what of consequence really happened last night?

I know the plots develop slowly on "Mad Men," and believe me, I love the show for that, and if - in an odd way like "Seinfeld" - it really is a show about nothing, I'll gladly continue to get hoodwinked week after week. But that just struck me last night, and I felt like sharing it. 'Nuff said.

The only real news I have this morning is that Heath Ledger's final movie, director Terry Gilliam's "The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus," is apparently finally going to get a U.S. release date, and possibly one wide enough to play in my little corner of the world before the end of this year.

Sony Pictures Classics is set to release the flick, which brought in Colin Farrell, Jude Law and Johnny Depp to complete Ledger's part after his death, on Christmas day, so I can only say huzzah to that.

Given how crowded Dec. 25 is likely to be, that probably actually means I won't get to see this until mid-January, so here's hoping for some good buzz that makes that possible. I know Gilliam's movies are sometimes unwatchable ("Tideland," anyone?), but the few reviews I've seen of this one say it's a really weird winner, which sounds just about perfect to me. Anyways, that's all I've got today. Peace out.

Laika to live on and hopefully deliver lots more 3-D animated fun

Actually, before I get into any of that, it's that time of year, so there are a lot of TV "bubble" reports out there. The most surprising name I found on more than one of them was "Chuck," a show I just assumed was safe.

I just jumped on the "Chuck" bandwagon at the beginning of this second season, but now I'm thoroughly hooked. Sure, it gets a little old when every week Chuck "flashes" on a new Fulcrum agent he just happens to encounter, but the show is still easily the best mix of sly humor and action on TV right now.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, creator Josh Schwartz and company are now in the process of pitching a "game-changer" episode for this year's finale that will set up a third season (and hopefully more.) Stay tuned to this, fellow "Chuck" fans ...

And for those of you who still pay for HBO, there's much better news out there this morning for "Seinfeld" fans, of which you can certainly count me as one. The four principal stars - Jerry Seinfeld, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jason Alexander and Michael Richards - will be featured in a multiple-episode story arc on HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm" this fall. That show, of course, was created by "Seinfeld" co-mastermind Larry David, who is starring in Woody Allen's upcoming summer flick, "Whatever Works."

In their honor, here's probably my favorite "Seinfeld" clip of all, featuring a deliriously funny cameo by Phillip Baker Hall as library inspector Bookman. Enjoy, and try not to laugh so loud you disturb your co-workers.



But here today it's all about the future of the animation house Laika, which before the success of "Coraline" was in fairly serious danger. Before seeing that Henry Selick flick, a thoroughly enchanting ode to the imagination, I had no idea that the studio was about to (or perhaps did) declare bankruptcy.

Now, however, with "Coraline" already having hauled in $62 million at the U.S. box office and still running fairly strong, the company has restructured its executives and is moving ahead with a very full slate of flicks. Travis Knight, son of Nike founder and Laika backer Phil Knight (yes, nepotism can be nice), will now take over as president and CEO of the animation house.

So, what does that mean for us viewers? Well, Laika is reportedly now moving ahead with an ambitious slate of no less than nine flicks, including these:

"Here Be Monsters": This appears to be a rather complicated but also hopefully delightfully twisted tale by Alan Snow about a young man who lives with his grandfather in the tunnels under the English city of Ratbridge until he's forced into action to save his fellow underlings from the Cheese Guild. Or, at least that's what I can gather from 30 seconds of Googling.

"The Wall and the Wing": Based on the bestseller by Laura Ruby and set in a future New York City, it's about a girl who can't fly in a world where most everyone else can. She can, however, turn herself invisible, and gets led into a life of crime and other chicanery. Or, once again, that's what I think it's about.

And finally, "Paranorman," based on an original idea by "Coraline" head of story Chris Butler. No matter what these actually turn out to be about, it's just nice to hear some good economic news for once, especially when it's hopefully combined with a nice slate of slightly off-kilter and visually engaging animation.

The "Watchmen" get seriously cheesy

From the exact opposite end of the animation scale qualitywise but still extremely funny comes this "Watchmen" spoof that surfaced today. I'm not sure who made it, but it jumps on the premise of what would happen if our heroes were to live on as a Saturday morning cartoon crew. It's all pretty priceless, but especially Rohrschach declaring "I'm nutty!" and pining for a kiss. Enjoy, and by all means go see "Watchmen" this weekend, which I'm going to do (in IMAX!) Saturday afternoon. Peace out.