Search results

(LOL, Nolan's repeating of the question is a bit douchey, no?) His point is valid, but even he seems to acknowledge how elitist it is: How many theaters projecting film today actually do it properly so that the advantages Nolan touts are appreciable? Overall, very, very few. Digital is...

I think the debate about spoilers is long established and unchanging: Spielberg hates them; Lucas doesn't care. I hate them; others don't. Among the many different responses I want to preserve when I enjoy a story is the possibility of surprise. YMMV. The only question nowadays is what...

As I read here and elsewhere, people's problems with Damon are two: 1) His surprise cameo took people out of the movie. "Hey, Matt Damon! It's f*cking Matt Damon! (It's f*cking Matt Damon.) I didn't know he was in this! Did you know he was in this? Me neither! Wait, which planet are we on...

I presume since a moderator has checked in but not given us any house rules about spoilers, I guess it's up to us to decide for ourselves. I don't think I'll listen to Lucas when it comes to gauging audience pleasure (as opposed to grosses). Seriously? (Also, significant changes were made...

The LA theaters Nolan checked are top-of-the-line movie showpieces that pride themselves on their meticulous attention to every aspect of a film's presentation. (I can't speak to the third theater he mentions in NYC. Maybe someone else can?) Nolan needs to drop in to a suburban multiplex and...

This is a big-budget blockbuster by an A-list "auteur" director spackled with Oscar-winning actors. If anything was out of focus, I should think it was on purpose. FWIW, I also recall some odd focus choices. But totally assumed it was intentional. ("Auteur" and all that.)

It was a grainfest at the 70mm IMAX in Sacramento as well. Something is up with that theater.

I remember when I heard it was a Spielberg project, I thought "Oh, god, another amazing expensive sci-fi movie that insults us with a shoe-horned family reunion story as the key to everything." Then I was relieved when I heard Nolan was taking over.

Although I didn't like the movie, if one is going to see it, one should definitely see it on as large a screen as possible. I have a feeling that a lot of the film's flaws will loom larger on home viewing because you're not drenched in awe by the huge spacy vastness of it all.

Yes. :)

I think this is right, so the squarish portions were 1.44, and the widescreen portions should have been 2.39. (They were 1.85 at the IMAX where I saw it (Esquire Sacramento).) So I presume that non-IMAX showings will be all 2.39. ETA, from the official Interstellar site: INTERSTELLAR was...

I did. I saw it at a true IMAX as well, and though the size was impressive and often immersive, the blacks lacked and the grain was a pain. And I still don't understand why the AR was 1.85 instead of 2.38. At an IMAX!

Seconding the recommendation for the new Cosmos. Tyson is no Sagan, but the effects and production values are amazing. Not a fan otherwise of Seth McFarlane, but will always be grateful that he made this happen. See it.

Thanks.

;)

The New Yorker critic explicitly mentioned the sound mix problems in the opening paragraph of his review, so it is indeed a problem nationwide. One measure I use personally for speculative sci-fi movies is The Eyeroll Count: How many times I roll my eyes at the implausible narrative/scientific...

The aspect ratio at my IMAX (Esquire Sacramento) was definitely NOT 2.39 during the non-IMAX AR (1.44) portions. Why would that be? I definitely had the feeling that the image was crowded (though Nolan is not know for his compositional panache), and the image was quite grainy as well. Is it...

What a huge disappointment. So much conceptual stupidity, incredible plot points, clogged dialogue, sketchy characterization, idiotic physics (and metaphysics) and almost nothing lyrical or wondrous. Btw, I saw this at a true IMAX, and the aspect ratio was mostly 1.85, with "big" scenes in...