When Avatar 3D overcame Titanic in the overall box office race to the top, and it went on to make more money than the Gross National Product of many countries, Hollywood got excited and started to wonder how every movie they'll ever make again will do better in 3D.

That probably explains why Clash of the Titans got the 11th hour phone call to be converted into Clash of the Titans 3D. The results were less than stellar, causing many critics to comment not about the movie and its storyline and acting, but rather the bad job of converting the movie to 3D.

While I really enjoyed Avatar in 3D, I'm not all that excited about seeing more movies in 3D. The visual achievements in that movie made wearing those glasses bearable, but I remember walking out of the theater with quite a headache and more than a little eyestrain that hung around for a few hours.

Make no mistake, using 3D for Avatar was a gimmick, but it was a gimmick that worked because the people behind it took the time to apply the necessary skills to make it a success. First and foremost, it was intended to be a 3D movie from the beginning; no conversion after the fact.

But all that hasn't kept Hollywood from jumping on the 3D bandwagon. The movie studios and movie theaters alike are excited, mainly because 3D movies command an upcharge for the pleasure of making you wear those (hopefully clean) glasses.

But famed movie critic Roger Ebert isn't so excited.

In an article for Newsweek, he outlines nine reasons why he hates 3D movies. He starts off by asking if 3D is really necessary to convey dimension in a movie and goes on from there to make some very good and simple arguments about why 3D isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Click the Read link below to read the full article.

What Do You Think? Is it 3D or Nothing, or Anything But 3D?

Leave your comments below!