There are three types of 3D films for the cinema:Theme parks are probably one of the only places where I think 3D is acceptable, never understood the fad of shoehorning 3D into theatrical releases and glad that it's died out.
1. 3D used by an auteur who understands storytelling through composition, where the idea of depth to an image is used to contextualize the shot as part of the story experience. Examples include Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder, Scorsese's Hugo, and Lee's Life of Pi. And, of course, Avatar (Cameron is masterful at knowing where to place the camera).
2. 3D used to capture the gimmicky nature of it for the pure fun of it, often using pop-out effects as silly moments to purposely break the 4th wall. Examples include House of Wax, Creature from the Black Lagoon, and the majority of the 50s/80s 3D films. The theme park attractions fall under this category.
3. 3D used as pointless add on to sell more expensive tickets. Most of the modern 3D films fall under this category, especially over the last 4-5 years as the majority of 3D movies are conversions not designed to use 3D photography. When I went to see Captain Marvel they screwed up by having our 2D showing accidentally show the movie in 3D. They resolved this by giving us all 3D glasses and not charging us for the extra ticket price, but from an aesthetic storytelling standpoint the 3D did nothing to improve the movie. It was pointless, because the movie was never designed to incorporate 3D into how it decided to tell its story.
Unfortunately, the auteurs have mostly moved on, and unlike the 50s and 80s there isn't a demand for the gimmicky 3D experience for a feature film these days, so we are left with the pointless 3D of category #3 at the cinemas.