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.
Roger Ebert does not like the new 3D wave in Hollywood. I have reservations about it too, which are pretty much the same as what Ebert discusses in his essay.
I watched Avatar for the first time last night, in 2D of course. Very impressive visually, and I'm bet it was quite the show in 3D. But can you see them doing a movie of Hamlet in 3D? As Ebert says, "I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life." Time will tell.
As for Avatar, I enjoyed the "blue raver kitties," as a certain figure prominent in the furry world once called them. (Although for all the well-deserved critiques of the screenplay for Titanic, I thought it was a much better movie.) Or, as one wag at Hollywood Elsewhere called Avatar, it's a 450-million dollar furry movie! Yay!