Glasses of the Future?: A Review of Bolt and 3-D

A little over a month ago, I posted at the Vault my thoughts on the future of 3-D film making, writing that I believed that the technology has a viable future in cinema. This weekend, I had the good fortune to find friends who would indulge me in my request to not only see the new Disney animated feature Bolt, but to see it in a three-dimensional screening as well. The film, which was the first at Disney to be produced under Pixar-head John Lasseter, follows the saga of titular hero Bolt, a dog who is unaware that his "super powers" are the result of television special effects, a fact he discovers as he journeys cross-country to find his owner, Penny. The movie is also the first of several using the 3-D process to be released by animation companies over the next few years. While my experience revealed that the use of 3-D is by no means flawless, I saw hope for the technique.

To start with, the perennial glasses provided by 3-D company RealD are a step up from the bulky contraption I used the last time I saw a film of this nature. They were as lightweight and as comfortable as everyday sunglasses, resting easily on the head and causing no problems during the film. As for the screening itself, I found myself agreeing with the test audiences of the 3-D Journey to the Center of the Earth mentioned in an article in The Guardian in my last post. Those viewers complained that too many cuts made them unable to appreciate the depth of the images created by watching a film in three-dimensions. My impression of the action sequences of Bolt was that they were distracting because of their blurriness; before the picture could settle and my eyes could reestablish the 3-D effect, there would be a cut to another shot. Since the opening ten minutes of the canine movie was a lengthy chase scene, I worried that the quality of 3-D was not what I had hoped. Later parts in the film, though, proved my doubts wrong. Quieter, more contemplative scenes that allowed for long camera holds showed how powerful the depth of field of 3-D could be. At one point, Bolt and his friends sit in a hilly meadow, and I felt like the grassy plains really did extend into the distance. Another powerful moment contained Bolt clambering through a burning building. The three-dimensional effect of iron beams resting askew on top of each other provided a perilous jungle environment that looked real enough for a person to clamber over. These instances lead me to believe that the technique of 3-D will definitely have a place in cinema in the future.

What do other bloggers think of 3-D and Bolt? Karen Dahlstrom of Big Picture Big Sound was mesmerized by it, writing that the technique was "appropriate and seamless." She also gives the interesting observation that since it renders the animation on a more realistic scale, it might be "too harrowing for young children." Bruce Handy at The New York Times is more of the opinion that Hollywood is going through another fad, making comparisions to the earlier three-dimensional boom of the 1950s. He makes great use of news articles from that era to show the relative rise and fall of the technology during its first foray into mainstream cinema. Finally Sherwin Loh of The Straits Times thinks the movie is a definite step up from the usual gimmicky affairs associated with 3-D, as Disney focused more on enveloping viewers in the environment than in making them duck from flying objects. The bottom line, however, is that it will take more than one successful application of the process in a film to prove that 3-D is here to stay. With several such movies slated for release next year, we will have to wait to render a more thorough analysis.