I know the topic of 3-D has been addressed at length in these forums. But, I thought this link on Eberts' Blog really summarized all of the concerns I have with 3-D in general. Not only do I detest paying the extra $4 bones, but usually leave the theater feeling like my brain has taken a spin in the Microwave. This might be why:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
Now read what Walter Murch says about 3D:

Hello Roger,

I read your review of "Green Hornet" and though I haven't seen the film, I agree with your comments about 3D.

The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a huge Imax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.

I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.

Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.

And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.

So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?

All best wishes,

Walter Murch

Murch also mentions 'Brechtian.' Whom I think Trey alluded to in the "Serenity" commentary.

Grownups work on Wall Street. Grownups use colorful, if foul, language. Waiting for the one permissible F-bomb takes me right out of a movie. If Stone and Cast waited 23 years to tell this story, why waste theirs and our time hamstringing it with a PG-13 rating?

Shia Lebouf is one thing. A PG-13 rating to pump up the gate or make the characters more palatable is sad.

And I've listened to Stone's Commentary on the first Wall Street twice. So, you could say I'm a fan.

After listening to all the DIF commentaries (and the one Geekza with Trey Stokes), it's pretty obvious the gang knows what makes a good commentary track. Insight, Humor, scene-specific remarks, and analysis. I wondered which artists everyone liked to listen to. That is: Directors, writers, personalities, critics, et al that make for entertaining and informative listens.
I mention ratethatcommentary.com because it has led me to many great tracks in the past. I've discovered some great tracks by critics, such as Roger Ebert and leonard Maltin, as well as controversial directors like Oliver Stone.

So, are there voices you will listen to, regardless of the material?

I've found that even films like 'Jason goes to hell' and 'License to Drive' can be a riot when recalled by the creators in a fun, self-deprecating fashion.

my fave 5 include (Directors): 1) joe dante, 2) Frank Darabont, 3) Stone, 4) Michael mann, 5) Ron Howard
( Critics and ): 1) Ebert, 2) Leonard maltin
(Writers): 1) William Goldman 2) Chuck Pahalniuk 3)James Ellroy
(Personalities) 1) Weird Al Yankovic, 2) Kevin Smith (I know,he's a "director"), and any of the show runners from the Simpsons.