Just because a movies says 3-D does not mean better

I went to the movies a couple of weeks ago to see the 3-D version of Final Destination and I must say it was very horrible. Even though I already knew the predictability of the movie because there were 3 other editions, I figured this one would be even better for the simple fact it was in 3-D. I thought that making this type of horror movie 3-D was brilliant. Boy was I wrong, after the movie I was highly dissapointed due to the fact not only did it have horrible acting and the scenes were too predictable. However, the most dissapointing part of it was that the 3-D version was not effective as I thought it would have. I remember when I was child and the many trips I took to the 3-D IMAX theater. I remember watching a movie in 3-D it literally felt like you were in the movie and everything looked as if you could touch it because it was right in front of your face. Well, Final Destination seemed nothing like that, it did not pop out at you that Im pretty sure the audience would have anticipated it to. This made me realize 3-D does not always effectively enhance a movie. If I could have changed anything about Final Destination besides better actors and the predictability, I would have changed the 3-D visual effects and made it way more effective then just the characters just simply popping out of the screen. I would have made the 3-D effects literally jump out, full force in your face that it makes you jump back. The point of 3-D is to immerse the audience into the film and make them feel apart of the screen. This is what was mostly lacking in the movie Final Destination, the fact that it was not nearly immersive as it could have been.