3d is just a tool, it takes some practice to learn how to use it right, and the first few attempts are always going to be abit clumsy. eventually things will get better i think, directors will learn when to be bold and when to be subtle, and the tech will improve. once it becomes standard curriculum in film schools, then we will see some interesting shit. remember that it took a while for anyone to take color films seriously too.
as to the movie, it's a bummer, i hoped it would be good, and i still kind of like night. i think he really tries. unbreakable was my favorite of his, the village was ok, signs was exceptionally well made even though it was fundamentally flawed (i'd like to blame mel gibson for that, but who knows), never saw the happening, and i actually really liked lady in the water, even if he did cast himself as jesus and attempt to insult all his critics (the critic was by far the best character though, so ha). if he wants to pick up his career, i think he'd best go back to his roots and give us some suspense, because above all else, the man knows how to create atmosphere and tension.
i've been thinking about it though, and to some extent, i suspect that the biggest problem is that this was just an unnecessary film. the story has allready been told well and beautifully, so what is to be gained from telling it again with actors instead of drawings? it has to be a fairly condensed version of the story at that, so why do it (other than the obviou$ of cour$e)? a better approach i think would have been to tell a new story within the same continuity, either a sequel with the characters having a new adventure (perhaps tying up a loose plot thread or two) or to do a prequel with a previous avatar.
but then again, i haven't seen the movie, so that is all purely theoretical.