Honestly, I'm not a big 3D fan. I've only ever seen Tron in 3D and hated it. I felt that it got in the way so I never went to see a movie in 3D again. 3D probably works better for cartoons than it does real actors.
When I see 3D, I prefer things that occur in the negative parallax (i.e. shit that comes out at you). The problem with positive parallax (i.e. "behind" the screen) is that I already perceive that depth based on what I'm seeing. One of the strongest examples that I remember was when I was watching Tron Legacy in 3D. Now, to note, sometimes, I can't really tell what's in 3D, so I'll remove my glasses to see what's blurry. Blurry items are being presented in 3D because the item being presented in 3D's position is offset between the images that are presented to each eye. So, it's not really blurry but more like we're seeing double. Anyway, during the train scene in Tron Legacy, I remember removing my glasses, and noticing that the only thing in 3D was the railing on the train as the actors (Jeff Bridges and what's-his-face) were right at the front of the screen.
The best use of 3D that I can ever recall is when I was seeing some movie in 3D, and the very short Real 3D promo trailer came on before the movie. It had some weird, robotic bouncing ball thing that popped out of the screen. I watched it practically come out right at me, and it was awesome. Another great example is
IMAX Under the Sea. Whenever I show someone this video, I just say "wait for the cod fish!" That thing swims right out at you, and it's
awesometacular.
EDIT:
Honestly, the worst part about in-the-home 3D is the prevalence of active stereoscopy. Most people probably don't want to shell out $20-40 per pair of glasses just to have friends come over once every few months to see a 3D movie. Fact of the matter is, 3D is expensive. The movies cost more (the best deal I've ever seen on a 3D movie is about $13) and the glasses aren't cheap. Both of my TVs use passive stereoscopy, which is similar to the technology used in movie theaters. The only difference is that passive 3D TV use half of the lines of resolution per eye, which means you only get 1920x540 per eye. Movie theaters use two separate projectors -- one for each eye. The biggest benefit is that the glasses are far, far cheaper -- in fact, you can just take home the glasses that you get from the theater! I wear prescription glasses, and I actually bring my
LG clip-on 3D glasses to the theater when I see 3D movies.
Also, you can easily use L+L and R+R glasses to play split-screen multi-player games in a full-screen manner. Just tell your TV that you're viewing a top-bottom broadcast, and you're good to go. LG actually marketed this as a technology called
Dual Play, and I believe it was Black Ops 2 that had an actual Dual Play mode in it. Dual Play mode didn't do much for the actual gameplay, but it did adjust the game menus to work properly. Unfortunately, only LG and Vizio (Vizio actually licensed LG's technology for it) sell passive 3D TVs, and neither seem that interested in it anymore. If I remember correctly, Vizio's latest high-end TVs announced at CES don't even have 3D anymore.