Search results

The lack of sex or nudity in many mainstream movies today has made it that some audience members now reject any sex or nudity in a movie.

Yeah, I'm always griping about needlessly long run times on modern movies but this one works for those and other reasons. It's probably the best movie I've seen this year and Nolan's best movie outside of Dunkirk.

Forget $300 million- I would have been surprised if Oppenheimer made $3 million. OK, not really $3 million but I expected Nolan's usual quality movie and I also expected it to be financial disaster. I don't see much of a comparison between Dunkirk and Oppenheimer because Dunkirk had airplanes...

I've said it before but the only thing that the studios are going to take away from Barbie is that people want to see movies based on toys. Then they'll somehow be surprised when they all tank.

He's directed three features in the last decade (Flowers will make it four) and The Wolf Of Wall Street and Silence are excellent. Pretty much any director in history would kill to make movies as good as those two.

I'm sure that's correct and I bet there is no chance that Warners will do it after Nolan went to Universal for Oppenheimer. That being said, the theaters will get Oppenheimer back on IMAX screens again as soon as possible.

Translation: We bought off Sony and Gran Turismo for a couple of weeks but Warners won't move Blue Beetle so as soon they tank, we promise to get Oppenheimer back on IMAX screens.

Yeah, IMAX Oppenheimer MIGHT be an exception but I always go in the theater 15 to 20 minutes after the "start" time and that way, I only see two trailers at most.

I really doubt that because it would be too easy for the theaters to 'cheat' the studios by doing exactly what you're suggesting. My guess is that the vast majority of premium screens will play Blue Beetle the minimum length that they have to (and to much smaller audiences) and then Oppenheimer...

I expected Oppenheimer to be good but I didn't think it would be as good as it was. The cast was great, the direction was top notch and the music & editing helped make a movie that's basically three hours of talking into something exciting. Since it came out in July, I hope that this movie isn't...

If that's the case, they must be shipping in IMAX employees or long-time employees of the theater chains who used to run film prints. That's the only way they could get multiple projectionists at each location (no one is going to work 14 or 15 hour days every day for weeks in a row) and who'd...

Do you know that they (or any theater) have an actual projectionist? I imagine it's, at best, someone that they gave a 30 minute tutorial to last week rather than someone who ever actually ran film prints before. I'd even bet that more 70mm theaters ended up playing the digital version yesterday...

When a theater adds a show, they one away from another movie. In the case of Oppenheimer in 70mm, they can't really add shows because there's only one IMAX screen and only one print. In theory, they could add a very late show (like 1:30 or 2 AM) but I doubt that's going to happen.

$23.75

At two different Regals in suburban Philadelphia, tickets are $23 for IMAX laser and the IMAX 70mm is $23.75. The closest AMC with IMAX is $17 for a matinee and $21 at night.

That's become a common thing at the art houses around me since Covid. The first one that I remember was No Time To Die where Bond had the biggest theater and the smaller movie(s) shared a smaller room. If it helps keeps the lights on at smaller theaters, it's a good thing but it's a bummer that...

Yeah, I'll probably pay triple that to see it in IMAX and I live in the suburbs.

Tell that to Bridget Fonda and Robert DeNiro in Jackie Brown. Now that one is basically a joke and they're mostly clothed but they still have sex.

Agreed. That being said, I think Paramount are a bunch of fools for setting themselves up to only have one week of IMAX for Mission: Impossible.

I'd love to be wrong but I just don't think that this movie has much of a financial chance. I'd also say that I think the movie looks like it will be fantastic so money be damned.

According to a TV spot, Oppenheimer is rated R. I'm all for wasting tens of millions of dollars of a corporation but an R rated "summer" movie that costs $200 million? That's just a mean thing to do to Universal.

As long as they've got a crane and a flatbed truck, they'd be good to go. :laugh:

I've not done anything close to an A/B comparison but the laser IMAX presentations that I've seen have been VERY impressive.

Not surprisingly, the one theater with a 70mm projector even remotely near me is playing this. I don't know if happens at every theater but I find it funny that my local theater has a gigantic projector sitting in their projection booth and only use it every few years.

I'm quite excited to see this movie but how in the hell does Universal plan to make money with it? This movie is clearly tremendously expensive and the marketing budget is already gigantic but when the average audience member watches a movie that is three hours of "just" talking and a couple of...

It's also the advance poster. Or close to it.

^I saw that on Nope over the weekend and not in an IMAX theater. Oddly, it was shown after the Nicole Kidman AMC commercial and right before the movie.

The man takes risks with his movies and with his fashions. :D

Krumholtz?! That dude was so great on a couple of David Simon TV shows so I'm happy to see him get some high profile movie work.

Good. :)