Best BluRay 3D Releases

New to the world of BluRay 3D? Come here to see what the best disks to get are!

Worst BluRay 3D Releases

If you're new to BluRay 3D there are disks you want to avoid at all costs. If you see a movie here it's best to avoid.

MIA BluRay 3D

These movies were made with 3D in mind but are not available to buy on BluRay 3D.

Transformers: Age of Extinction

Paramount sets date for BluRay 3D!

Studio Report Card

Which studios are producing the best BluRay 3D's in the market? We look at them here!

Thursday, March 15, 2018

"Justice League" on BluRay 3D: The Way it SHOULD Have Been in Theaters!

I picked up "Justice League" on BluRay 3D a couple days ago.  This isn't a movie I really wanted to own in 3D.  Not only is the movie pretty terrible regardless how much you like the characters, but I saw the movie in 3D on a Cinemark XD screen and was pretty unimpressed with what I saw.  The 3D was inconsistent, mostly flat, and rarely engaging.  It was probably inevitable that this wasn't going to be a great (or even good) 3D experience.  The movies long and troubled history resulted in the film having two directors, with two completely different styles and shooting methods.  It was one of the few times when director Joss Whedon (NOT Zach Snyder) was so unimpressed with the 3D conversion of the film as a whole, that he asked IMAX not to bother showing it in three dimensions.

So, coupled with the fact that the movie wasn't enjoyable, I was surprised to find myself buying the BluRay 3D.  I find myself doing that for a lot of movies I don't care for though, just to throw the format a few bucks (and to complete the DC Extended Universe collection...whatever that's worth at this point).  When I got home I ultimately did end up watching the movie again, and ten minutes in I was stunned and shocked: This was a COMPLTELY different 3D conversion of the film!  What's more, this is what should have been presented in theaters, and (more specifically) the kind of visual experience that would have been right at home in IMAX 3D.  This new 3D conversion is so much better, that it results in a movie that is almost completely different as far as visuals are concerned.  The dialog scenes actually have field depth that makes the images immersive.  The action sequences pop in a way they just didn't in theaters.  The IMAX aspect ratio is kept, giving the picture an epic scope.

Why on Earth wasn't this the version show in theaters?

Look, I know this doesn't make the movie any better, but it does goes to show that if the film had been delayed a little bit, Warner Bros. would have had an excellent 3D theater experience on their hands.  Heck, had they delayed it they might have also had a better movie, but I'll let other videos and articles debate that one.  In the meantime, Warner did good by going back and completely redoing the 3D conversion so that it was actually watchable at home.  They didn't need to do it.  They certainly knew they weren't going to ship a lot of copies.  But they did right by their consumers, and that is easily one of the best things I can report on this site in a long time.  Oh, also, it appears Best Buy and Target are taking the high demand for the 3D disks more seriously this time around, as there were MANY copies of the BluRay 3D on store shelves, so hopefully fans will actually have the chance to buy it this time!

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

IMAX Screws 3D Fans with Release of "A Wrinkle in Time"

It looks like IMAX is not only doubling down on their belief that people don't want to see 3D movies, they are doubling down HARD!  Despite all the advertisements for Disney's upcoming "A Wrinkle in Time" promoting the new family adventure as a 3D experience, IMAX is projecting almost all of their showings in 2D.  What's more, the movie itself is largely going to be 2D only at many theaters, in one of the biggest 3D purges I've seen the format receive yet.  There are so few 3D showings in California, that I first assumed that the release had been cancelled altogether, until I noticed the few random late night 3D screenings at a couple of Cinemarks.  Because of this it should be noted that IMAX is not the only theater who seems to be taking a hard stance against the 3D showings of "A Wrinkle in Time," but I will focus on IMAX because they are still in a perfect position to prove that the format is still viable.

This whole mess started with their belief that people didn't want to see 3D movies anymore, and that they would start showing less of them.  "Blade Runner 2049" was their first experiment with not showing 3D at all.  The experiment did not result in more tickets being sold, and thus 3D screenings returned in limited form with "Thor: Ragnorok."  When "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" became a smashing hit in 3D, I was hoping we could put this silly notion that 2D only screenings were the way of the future, and that movies that people wanted to see would ultimately sell tickets.  But IMAX decided to push their agenda even father and with more passion with "Black Panther," where there were scant few IMAX 3D screenings to be found (and I had to compromise by seeing it on a less-than-ideal screen size).  While the movie wasn't hurt at the box office with the lack of 3D releases, it's not like the 3D screenings were vacant by any means.

They were mostly filled with people who wanted to see the movie, and many of the standard 3D showings were also filled in the first two weeks of the films release.  Now with "A Wrinkle in Time" though IMAX is pushing harder than ever to show that their method is going to work.  As of this writing there are actually no IMAX 3D screenings of the movie anywhere in California that I can find, and I had to search several states in to find theaters that would show it even once a day.  Since the 2D and 3D can be switched very easily on these projectors, I don't understand why IMAX doesn't at least give viewers the option of which version they would like to see.  Maybe the 3D version can be exclusive to the opening week, and further screenings could be in 2D?  But then, when people went to IMAX they rarely complain when the movies are in 3D, and most seem disappointed when the movie isn't in 3D because they expect it at this point.

Since "A Wrinkle in Time" has been described as being a visual powerhouse where the 3D was very much a focus of the filming process, why gimp the picture with 2D?  People have sent me tweets asking what they should do since they want to see the movie in IMAX, but they also want to see it in 3D.  And I have to tell them quite bluntly that this is a situation where you will most likely have to choose which you'd prefer: IMAX or 3D.  In some rare cases you can have both, but whether those options will be real IMAX screens is another matter altogether.  Personally I think places like the Esquire IMAX, the TLC IMAX, and the Spectrum IMAX should be showing the movie in 3D, as those are the biggest screens, thus the 3D works best there.  But hey, if they are going to play this game, I guess I'll go to one of those late night showings at Cinemark, and hope IMAX wakes up and realizes that if they want to sell more tickets, they have to have better movies (which there is some debate whether this one is).

Thursday, March 1, 2018

Midnight's Edge Discusses Lack of 3D Release for "Star Wars: The Last Jedi"

Midnight's Edge and The Digital Bits have uploaded a new video discussing "Star Wars: The Last Jedi."  In the video they discuss the film, their thoughts on it, the highly anticipated UltraHD release (AKA: 4K), and they express their frustration about the lack of a domestic 3D release.  It might not give us any clue as to why Disney completely passed over the 3D here in the states, but there is some speculation, and it's nice to know there's more people out there (other than me) who cares about this big problem with home media.

Monday, February 26, 2018

Should You See "Black Panther" in RealD 3D or IMAX 2D?

The first thing that should be noted is, yes, I am aware that a few IMAX theaters are showing Marvel's "Black Panther" in 3D.  I hunted down an IMAX 3D showing myself so I can confirm it exists.  This is obviously the preferred way to see the movie, but what was disappointing is that despite being formatted for IMAX 3D, very few IMAX screens showed it in the proper format.  The screen I went to wasn't even a real IMAX, but one of those up-converted ones (albeit, one that was bigger than your usual up-converted screen, but still smaller than you'd like).  Now that the movie is in its second weekend the movie is still out on all the IMAX screens, but finding a 3D screening is nearly impossible at this point.  There are still plenty of RealD 3D screenings however (as well as XD 3D for those interested), but the IMAX version DOES have 20% more of the image, so the question is this: Does that 20% difference make it worth giving up the 3D?

Unlike previous entries in this series, the answer is more nuanced than I would have liked.  Truthfully, the 3D is sort of a lukewarm experience.  It's clearly a post-conversion job and one that isn't even very impressive.  That said, there are three scenes where it really pops in a great way: The intro, the car chase, and the climatic battle.  In all these scene the IMAX version opens up to revel more image, and the 3D is given more room to breath as characters are so close to the camera (Editor's note: As much as I loved this movie, some of the close up shots were really weird and not helpful in three dimensions in the slightest).  Without the 3D though, these scenes are slightly less compelling to watch.  On the other, the 20% extra image space also help the scenes, so it's not like I want to toss that aspect out the door either.  It would have been nice if IMAX had just let the movie screen the way it was intended (this is one of the few posters to explicitly advertise IMAX 3D), but I guess what's done is done.

Obviously the best choice would be to see "Black Panther" in IMAX 3D, but with so few screenings of it left (and none of them on the real IMAX's) that isn't really an option.  The 20% extra image is nice, but the 3D makes such an impact in the three scenes it works in that it would be a shame to pass that up as well.  In this case I think I'm going to have to award a tie, as I find neither version to be definitively better than the other.  I would have liked to be able to make a solid recommendation, but in this case you might want to whip out your Sinemia card and see the movie in both formats.  Thankfully, it IS worth seeing twice!  My only beef is that this is a situation where you practically need to if you want to experience the movie fully.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Those Wanting "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" on BluRay 3D Will Have to Import

Disney officially announced the release of "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" on physical media today, and a 3D version was not in the cards (not even as a retailer exclusive).  This is disappointing for a myriad of reasons (and also frustrating when you know that Warner Bros. is releasing "Justice League" in 3D, which didn't have NEARLY as big an audience as 'The Last Jedi' did).  The title will be made available to purchase in Europe with a 3D steelbook, but there is no confirmation that will be region free.  Past experiences have led me to believe that it will, but until I have the disk in my hand I can't confirm that.  I'm sorry to have to report the news (I held off on the on chance there was a retailer exclusive waiting in the wings), but it is apparent even 'Star Wars' can't get Disney to release a 3D version.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Was "Peter Rabbit" Supposed to be a 3D Movie?

So...I saw "Peter Rabbit" today.  I'm not sure what disappoints me more; that sentence or the fact that I actually sort of liked the movie.  I know, I know, I'm probably losing a lot of you right now, but trust me: I have to see a LOT of kids movies each year, and considering this was a modern remake of a book many kids consider to be slow AND came from the studio that gave us "The Emoji Movie" of all things, I think you can admit that even if you don't like it (and there is enough here to dislike for there to be some caution attached with my recommendation), things could have been a lot worse.  That's not what we're here to discuss though (I'll have a full review tomorrow on my other site).  No, what I want to talk about is how while I was watching the movie, I was getting a strong sense that this was supposed to be a 3D movie at one point, yet we ultimately got was a 2D movie.

The questions I have are is this true (and if so...what happened to the 3D version)?  First of all, I need to mention that I combed through lots of pre-release material for this movie in order to see if my theory had any weight to it (which is not something I expected to do for "Peter Rabbit" of all things).  In my search I found no posters (either here or internationally) that advertises the movie in 3D.  There are no commercials saying this will be presented in 3D.  Wikipedia doesn't even give a hint that 3D was in the equation.  So, to make it clear right now: There is NO pre-release proof or interview I could find that suggests a 3D version was planned!  Normally that would be the end of the discussion, but it's not because there is one major source that suggests the 3D version was at the very least planned: The actual movie itself!  There are several moments where objects appear to be 'thrown' at the screen.

A couple scenes involving birds flying (while rapping...again, not a perfect movie) that involve a camera that moves and sways as if the scenery was supposed to surround you.  There are a couple of dance sequences where not only are the rabbits jumping toward the screen, but in two instances they appeared to be hovering.  Heck, many of these moments can be found in the trailer itself (pay attention to the porcupine getting electrocuted).  If that wasn't telling enough, there is a scene late in the movie where two characters are being told the events that happened during the first half of the film.  After hearing the story, the wife laughs and comments "why, that sounds like a 3D adaptation of a popular children's book."  The meta-joke may or may not strike a cord with you personally, but that is an oddly specific description for a movie that ultimately wasn't in 3D.  Also, it should be noted that this and "The Star" are the only Sony Animation movies that are NOT in 3D aside from "Surf's Up" (which was released in 2007)!

The question a lot of people might have now is if this was supposed to have a 3D version...what happened to it?  Answer: I don't know.  The most logical explanation is that the studio made the choice to forgo a 3D release altogether.  Judging by how certain shots are presented and the line of dialog being delivered the way it was, we can (probably) safely assume that this version was cancelled late enough into production that shots and script lines were filmed with it in mind, but early enough so that it wasn't a major focus in the advertising.  Now, does the 2D only version hurt the film?  It's hard to say.  The fact that I noticed some of the shots looked weird is an indicator that those scenes should have been reshot so as to not stand out as much, but I can also see why a studio wouldn't want to pour millions of dollars into commissioning reshoots for "Peter Rabbit."  Unless we hear otherwise, this is just a conspiracy theory though.  In the meantime, if you have kids who want to see, whop out your MoviePass.  It might not be great cinema, but I think most will be surprised at how charming it is at times.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Apparently, Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" is Being Re-released in 3D

I've had to report on so many disappointing stories, that I'm pleasantly surprised when I have good news to share.  "The Room" is a movie that is considered by many to be one of the worst movies ever made.  It is so legendarily bad, that screenings of it are still held in theaters, where people go to scream at the screen, throw spoons, and just have a good time.  It's one of the rare films that even critics consider their negative reviews to be a shining endorsement.  Well, if you enjoy the experience of watching "The Room," apparently you will soon be able to experience it in 3D!  No joke, Tommy himself has confirmed this via a tweet on Twitter...

...which, I have to say, is really pretty cool to hear.  Now, I have no illusions that this is going to be pure 3D.  It's probably not going to be GOOD 3D!  In fact, I imagine Tommy will screw this conversion up so badly, that it will only add to how hilariously awful the whole experience of "The Room" can be.  I not only look forward to seeing Tommy's bare ass on the big screen, I look forward to the butt cheeks not even lining up in the third dimension.  I imagine the football looking like it is going to fly off the screen before it jerk back into place when someone catches it.  The possibilities are endless, and (like the movie itself) I expect it to be terrible in the most fun, organic way possible!