Films you'd love to see on the big screen...

I've never seen a previously released film at the cinema, so my answer is any.

Seriously? If so, then ditto.
Of course I wouldn't want to see all films released.
I would choose many of my DVD collection and some more.

Some important ones:

VERTIGO; REAR WINDOW; MANHUNTER; HEAT; STALKER; SOLARIS; 2001; TOUCH OF EVIL; CHINATOWN; ROSEMARY'S BABY; BLOW OUT; CARRIE; PROFONDO ROSSO; RAN; ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST; POINT BLANK; THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER...

... and others.

The only previously released screening I ever went to is for the Star Wars trilogy in 1997 and THE WIZARD OF OZ in 1998. Almost went to a double billing of GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL in 2010, but couldn't make it.

Harmsway wrote:

With the demise of film prints, I've somewhat lost interest in seeing films on the big screen. Digital projection just doesn't do it for me.

Exactly how I feel, to the point where I don't even keep an eye on cinema listings anymore. I know that if an old film is playing, it's likely just the equivalent of watching the Blu Ray, but on a slightly bigger screen. That's not film to me.

Lazenby. wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

With the demise of film prints, I've somewhat lost interest in seeing films on the big screen. Digital projection just doesn't do it for me.

Exactly how I feel, to the point where I don't even keep an eye on cinema listings anymore. I know that if an old film is playing, it's likely just the equivalent of watching the Blu Ray, but on a slightly bigger screen. That's not film to me.

It isn't just that the format is different and lacks richness, the quality is actually nearly identical when comparing a 1080p blu-ray and a 2k digital projection. Theatrical in Britain is an absolute ghetto now, although at least you can access film prints if you have the capacity to run them.

Didn't know the quality of theaters in Britain were low. I can understand not going at all if 2k was my only option. Luckily I live near a theater with 4k and there are two that still run film prints.

Out of the loop with this kind of stuff, but what's the quality like of showings at my local BFI Imax in Waterloo? Is it 2k or 4k?

Lazenby. wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

With the demise of film prints, I've somewhat lost interest in seeing films on the big screen. Digital projection just doesn't do it for me.

Exactly how I feel, to the point where I don't even keep an eye on cinema listings anymore. I know that if an old film is playing, it's likely just the equivalent of watching the Blu Ray, but on a slightly bigger screen. That's not film to me.

It's generally not even close. (Though I will say that the recent IMAX re-release of RAIDERS did seem rather film-like, despite being a digital print.)

I haven't seen everything I want to see, but I feel quite lucky to have caught film prints of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and VERTIGO.

Python wrote:

Didn't know the quality of theaters in Britain were low.

I don't go to the flicks very often any more, but the last two times I went (THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and THE BOURNE LEGACY) I was desperately underwhelmed by the quality of the image. May just have been the venue, though (and/or the way those films were shot - I don't know whether or not they were shot digitally, but I presume they were, indeed I presume nearly everything is shot that way these days, but they sure didn't feel as cinematic as Batman and Bourne outings used to feel).

Still, it does seem to me that the magic of cinema visits is pretty much gone now and a lot of the blame for that lies with digital projection. "Blu-ray on a bigger screen" doesn't trump Blu-ray at home, especially when one factors in all the expense and annoyances of a cinema trip.

On a more positive note, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE at the National Film Theatre in 1996 was one of my best ever cinema experiences. Man, does that flick look fantastic on the big screen.

Loomis wrote:

May just have been the venue, though (and/or the way those films were shot - I don't know whether or not they were shot digitally, but I presume they were, indeed I presume nearly everything is shot that way these days, but they sure didn't feel as cinematic as Batman and Bourne outings used to feel).

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES doesn't have a particularly stunning visual style, so that might account for your lukewarm response to the look of it, but it was actually shot on film (as Nolan proudly proclaims in the end credits).

Loomis wrote:

Still, it does seem to me that the magic of cinema visits is pretty much gone now and a lot of the blame for that lies with digital projection. "Blu-ray on a bigger screen" doesn't trump Blu-ray at home, especially when one factors in all the expense and annoyances of a cinema trip.

Agreed.

There's something to be said for sheer size, though. When I saw the SKYFALL trailer, with all its visual razzle-dazzle, play out on an IMAX screen, I was blown away.

Harmsway wrote:

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES doesn't have a particularly stunning visual style, so that might account for your lukewarm response to the look of it, but it was actually shot on film (as Nolan proudly proclaims in the end credits).

There's a message about it in the end credits? What does it say? "We are pleased to inform you that this film was shot on good old-fashioned celluloid"? :)

Harmsway wrote:

When I saw the SKYFALL trailer, with all its visual razzle-dazzle, play out on an IMAX screen, I was blown away.

I've yet to see any feature film on an IMAX screen, although I've seen other stuff at an IMAX venue, two decades ago now (short films featuring things like Niagara Falls and astronauts in space). Hopefully I'll see SKYFALL that way.

Loomis wrote:

There's a message about it in the end credits? What does it say? "We are pleased to inform you that this film was shot on good old-fashioned celluloid"? :)

"This motion picture was shot and finished on film," I think.

Loomis wrote:

Hopefully I'll see SKYFALL that way.

It really looked stunning. I saw THE DARK KNIGHT and THE DARK KNIGHT RISES in IMAX, and they were pretty impressive, but going by the trailer, SKYFALL looked even better, thanks to the rich colors and stunning clarity of Deakins' cinematography.

The usual sacrifice of image quality when going from a lesser format to IMAX is at least modulated somewhat on SKYFALL. In order to avoid cutting off visual information on the sides of frame, they are opening up the top and bottom of the frame (stuff you won't see in the theater) to make the film work for 1.9:1 IMAX ratio instead of the 2.35 of the film proper. Kind of like the digital equivalent of Super35, as Deakins shot with spherical lenses.

On paper, the idea of a movie captured in 2.8K but finished at 4K sounds like a formula for mediocrity, but Deakins seems very very happy with most of it. Even the Imax ver

trevanian wrote:

The usual sacrifice of image quality when going from a lesser format to IMAX is at least modulated somewhat on SKYFALL. In order to avoid cutting off visual information on the sides of frame, they are opening up the top and bottom of the frame (stuff you won't see in the theater) to make the film work for 1.9:1 IMAX ratio instead of the 2.35 of the film proper. Kind of like the digital equivalent of Super35, as Deakins shot with spherical lenses.

Why would they cut off visual information on the sides of the frame for IMAX?It was my understanding that when non-IMAX films were shown on an IMAX screen, they simply broadcast it at its correct ratio, matching the width of the negative with the width of the screen, and allowing negative space on the screen above and below the negative (this is how RAIDERS was shown, at least).

Is Deakins referring to LIEMAX, which uses a smaller screen and nevertheless labels it IMAX? (See the picture below:)

Largo's Shark wrote:

Out of the loop with this kind of stuff, but what's the quality like of showings at my local BFI Imax in Waterloo? Is it 2k or 4k?

I just checked the website and they project in 35mm and 70mm. Not surprising since it's the largest screen in the country, and it's run by the BFI.

Bristol had an IMAX cinema, but they closed it down once IMAX stopped focusing so much on documentary film. That's right, as soon as the fucking format had any sort of commercial viability, they decided to close the cinema.