I'm surprised nobody's done a review on this yet. Anyway ...

I saw my first 3D movie last night (not counting Resident Evil: Afterlife, which I saw in 2D), and I have to say, it was good times.

First, about the 3D. I've been hearing generally awful things about 3D (aside from Avatar and Pixar films) since they started up again. One such complaint is the gimmicky things-coming-at-the-screen thing, something that was very prevalent in Resident Evil. It ruined RE for me only slightly less than terrible script. So, needless to say, I was a little hesitant when I got to the theatre and found out that both showings of The Green Hornet were in 3D. But it turns out, it was pretty damn good.

Yes, if you watch in 2D because you don't have a 3D TV (or your theatre doesn't show 3D versions), you're going to notice one or two shit-coming-at-the-screen moments, and a lot of scenes where the camera starts from behind a chair or desk to give you that extra sense of depth, but it doesn't ruin the film. Actually, I think those odd camera angles would seem more of a stylistic approach had I watched it at home not knowing that I should have been wearing special glasses and watching it on a TV that costs twice as much as what I bought my current one for four years ago.

Then there's the issue of eye strain/headaches that is such a common complaint about 3D – it was instantaneous. However, by the end of the second trailer, I'd gotten used to focusing my attention where the filmmaker wants it (a trick to avoiding the strain which I never would have know about were it not for slashdot), and by the time the opening credits started, I was fine.

Now, the movie:

Bad, bad, bad reviews, everywhere I've looked (although, I haven't watched Reviews on the Run in a long while, and I'm willing to bet that Victor and Scott gave it a good one). In fact, it got a 0 and a 1.5 on two of the local TV stations. Bad acting, terrible script, forgettable dialogue, unrealistic. Needless to say, my dad wasn't looking forward to it as much as I was. But all in all, it was a good movie.

Sure, James Franco's appearance felt shoehorned in (was he up for the lead and lost out to Seth Rogen, or something?), but it wasn't anywhere near as bad as those reviews said it was. For one thing, Rogen and Jay Chou have great chemistry – you look forward to their next scene together. And while there's the occasional scene where the dialogue lags, it didn't affect my enjoyment of the film overall.

"Oh, it's not realistic." But, seriously, is Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone running around with an AK-47 for an entire two hour action flick and never having to reload until the obligatory, "You're out of ammo," "So are you," scene any better than a car with three gatling guns and a crapload of missiles and no room for an engine? No. Suspension of disbelief, and it makes it fun.

Honestly, though, I think my biggest problem with the movie was Cameron Diaz. She had no chemistry with anyone she shared a scene with. And really, if my dad walks out of a movie starring a beautiful woman and he doesn't mention her, you know there was something wrong there.

But, in the end, it was a great movie. Rogen and Chou were good together, Rogen and Edward James Olmos were good together, most of the jokes were hits, the action was fun, and "Kato vision" was nifty. So, if you're looking to spend some money on a 3D movie, and/or you'd like a good buddy action movie, I'd recommend this.

Four out of five, I suppose I'd say.