Movie critic Roger Ebert is waging a one-man war against the latest Hollywood love affair – and no, this has nothing to do with Sandra Bullock.

It’s Tinseltown’s newfound obsession with 3D that has the esteemed author and culture commentator up in arms. “3D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension,” Ebert writes in a new essay for Newsweek. “Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience.”

Ever since James Cameron’s blue man adventure Avatar blew away the competition and became the highest grossing movie of all time, studios have been clamouring to release 3D projects, which have so far included Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans a 3-D flick. There has been talk of 3D Ghostbusters and Gremlins, a 3D Mad Max, a 3D Life of Pi and even 3D porn. But as much as moviegoers appear to love the gimmick, Ebert has already had enough.

“It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets,” Ebert says. The essay goes on to list nine solid reasons why 3D is a bad idea, including that it’s a distraction, the picture is dimmer than in 2D and, most damningly, that 3D isn’t appropriate for serious films.

“I’m not opposed to 3-D as an option,” Ebert argues. “I’m opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy… Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market.”

Ebert’s argument flies in the face of recent comments by the legendary Martin Scorsese who recently suggested that non-action fare would indeed make good 3D viewing. Scorses said, “Why couldn’t a film like Precious be in 3D? It should be.”