It
would be hard for me to say that I didn’t like Spy Kids 3D: Game
Over, but on the other hand, I would be lying if it called it
enjoyable. Like the other two movies in the franchise, Game Over
has a good concept, and a breezy style of executing. The problem is
that this time, it’s literally, less colorful and
imaginative-looking. While the fact that Game Over is
presented in the three-dimensional format will draw in a wider
spectrum of audiences, the sub-medium acts as a giant distraction to
the film. Producer Elizabeth Avellan and writer/director Robert
Rodriguez obviously felt that for the 3D to be effective, they
needed to have things to pop out of the screen, while making the
characters and their gadgets constantly moving, as a backdrop. They
succeed in doing this, but the rest of the work on the visuals in
careless. The colors used are dark and unappealing, and the special
effects are tacky—all of the onscreen creations are laughable. If
Game Over had been two-dimensional, it would’ve been a bright,
jolly, and perky-looking third entry into the Spy Kids
series. But, in this format, it’s an ugly movie to view. I took my
3D-glasses off during a few scenes, and to be honest, the movie
looked better that way.
At Disneyland, there is a 10 minute long,
three-dimensional short-film, called “Honey I Shrunk The Audience,”
based off of the Honey I Shrunk the Kids movies. I’ve seen it
twice in the last month and a half, and I must say, it’s an amusing
attraction. Before viewing, you are handed a pair of 3D-glasses that
are on the rather expensive side, and you return them after the
show. These, obviously, permit a more advanced experience than cheap
ones, that you can keep, would. The visuals in “Honey I Shrunk the
Audience” are crystal clear and much more pleasing to watch, than
those in Spy Kids 3D. In “Honey” things jump off the screen,
at your face, you undergo a bit of an adrenaline rush. The
experience is much like the actual rides at the theme-park it’s at.
When viewing Game Over, though,
we’re never excited by the visuals. The glasses that we wear when
viewing the three dimensional segments of it, have cardboard frames,
and lenses that are of about the quality of saran-wrap. There was no
reason for this movie to be put into such a format, to enhance
viewing pleasure. Putting it in 3D was just another mindless way of
marketing an unnecessary entry in an already complete series, which
most of the target audience would mistake for a perk. Not to
mention, wearing the uncomfortable glasses for about 70 minutes of
the hour-and-a-half-long running length, is quite annoying. I like
the 3D format when it’s done right. Sadly, Game Over
definitely doesn’t showcase the proper use of it.
The story is neat, though. If you can get
past the terrible appearance of the film, you’ll be able to enjoy
the fun and engaging premise. I can complement writer/director
Rodriguez for caring about the plot and dialogue in all of the
Spy Kids movies, even after three movies, and not just dishing
out screenplays for the sequels willy-nilly. The execution of
Game Over is entirely successful, leaving the 3D aspect of it
all aside. I never thought that attempting to make a movie in
three-dimensions could actually damage the creative process of a
fledging filmmaker, but it has here. If the Spy Kids
franchise goes back to conducting business in 2D, I will be more
than happy when the forth one comes out.
I am a fan of the first two Spy Kids
movies, because they’re original and inventive. Game Over is
too, in its own right, but this is a lot less evident because of the
boggy format that it’s presented in. If audiences needed something
fresh added to the Spy Kids equation, critical scores of the
second film in the series would’ve reflected it. I’m not sure how
your average kid will react to Game Over, but for the sake of
parents’ money, I hope they like it. Maybe my critique is a bit too
harsh, but I’m very, very disappointed by Game Over. The fact
that its two predecessors were so fabulously entertaining makes it
even more of a letdown. While 3D is often promising when used in the
right movie, in the right way—in this one, it’s awful, just awful.
-Danny, Bucket
Reviews