20 (or so) movies you need to see on the big screen
From the early days of Cinemascope to Dune: Part Two, filmmakers have wowed us with spectacles that are best experienced in a proper theatrical setting
Film Features Rise
There are artists who work on such a large scale that seeing their art in person for the first time can completely change your impression of a piece, no matter how many times you’ve seen it before in reproduction. Some filmmakers are like that too. Take Denis Villeneuve, for instance, who is currently wowing theatrical audiences with the massive scope of Dune: Part Two. He’s just one of a handful of directors, including Stanley Kubrick, James Cameron, and Christopher Nolan, with big ideas and even bigger executions of them. If you’ve only seen their films on a TV screen, you’re missing out on a unique sensation. They may not have a say in how their films are viewed once they’re out in the wild, but their artistic intent is clear—they were meant to be seen on the largest screen possible in a theater with ideal viewing conditions (minimal stray light, a proper projection system, and state-of-the-art sound, for starters).
You could make the argument that this is the intent behind most movies that aren’t produced specifically for streaming, digital on demand, or, in increasingly rare instances, direct to disc. And while that’s true enough—your favorite film may indeed look better on a big screen—the films we’re singling out here are the ones that lose something vital in the transition from theaters to home viewing. Whether it’s a matter of spectacular scenery, fine detail, or full immersion, seeing them for the first time in the right setting can fundamentally change your relationship to them. You can still watch any of them on a TV screen, a laptop, or even a phone, of course. In some cases, that may be the only way to see them. But if the opportunity ever arises, we recommend treating yourself to what’s sure to be a revelatory experience.
23 Comments
converse to the understandable focus on maximalism and spectacle in these choices, sometimes the more intimate or slow the movie, the better it plays for me on the big screen. i won’t go full “phones bad” here, but my attention span isn’t what it used to be and adulthood pulls one’s attention in a million directions. so taking in some Kelly Reichardt or Andrei Tartovsky with no ability to disengage can really turn those movies into one-of-a-kind experiences. i will say Ran hit a lot better in cinemas for the same reason; it does have some really big scenes, but there’s a lot of up-close human drama at play.same goes for runtime; i’m just not watching The Irishman in one sitting otherwise. another point for Ran.
I’m generally of the view that any movie that’s photographed at all well is improved by the big screen- you get to appreciate how it’s put together more. There’s a shot in The Fog of Adrienne Barbeau’s character going down a steep-as-fuck staircase to the lighthouse where she works, and on the small screen it’s impressive enough, but in the theater it’s vertigo-inducing.Horror in general benefits from a theater screen (and a crowd), too.
I’m actually old enough to (just about) remember when movies had intermissions , to give you a chance to buy an icecream, stretch your legs, go to the bathroom etc .I know it was a holdover from actual theatre performances ( as in …plays) but it was pretty cool .
I won’t deny that 2001 is a stark and beautiful movie that engages in big ideas about the future of mankind, but I just cannot watch it without falling asleep at some point. It just drags so much, especially in the early scenes of David Bowman plodding about the space station.
But what I wish the film devoted more time to is whether the monolith on the moon was deliberately buried.
Oh man, this whole list is going to be rage-inducing for the tons of people here who hate going to movies.
Counterpoint: a good movie works just as well on a small screen.
And I like going to the cinema.
The small screen works but there’s a certain bonus to a theatrical experience. There’s nothing quite like seeing Texas Chainsaw Massacre in a theater full of people who are trying not to freak the fuck out
I once had the experience of finding out Titanic isn’t a good movie by seeing it on TV, after having enjoyed it in the cinema years before.
Evidently cinema screens can act like giant rose-tinted glasses for me at least. If your movie is any good then I should still be able to enjoy it on TV.
There’s also the fact that you’ve grown older in the meantime and maybe learned that a tragedy that killed over 1500 real people shouldn’t be reduced to the love story of two fictional ones. Which was the same problem of the terrible Pearl Harbor movie, but nobody thought that was good.
Maybe, though it was only a few years between cinema and TV viewings. I just chalked it up to it looking spectacular enough in the cinema that I didn’t notice the hokey script so much. On TV it really sticks out like a sore thumb.
That feels like saying “good music won’t sound bad if played way quietly;” sure, there’s plenty of work where that holds true, but I wouldn’t knock something for failing to pull me in Sunday afternoon on tnt.
Of course good music is still good at any volume. Unless you’re saying if it’s too quiet, or the screen too small, you can’t hear/see the details. How small is your TV? And even most phone screens are HD resolution, capable of excellent color reproduction and detailed visuals despite their small size. Seeing most of the details shouldn’t be a problem. Not to mention you won’t see all the details on a cinema screen anyway because you can’t pause and focus on them.
And if a movie doesn’t grab you when you were hoping it would, then it’s reasonable to say it’s a bad movie.
a real “I tried to read the book on a jostling, crowded bus but couldn’t pay attention; 0/10 book” take right here. and french fries suck because they don’t travel well. /s
I’m of the opinion that both Avatar movies require either a theatrical viewing or a home theater setup that costs as much as renting out every room in a chain theater for at least 2 days of private showings at 3d Imax price + food.
At home, I found that even with a 3D TV and, full surround setup w/ proper lighting, the film was a total bore to the point of being groan-worthy. I didn’t see Avatar 2 in theaters but having seen it at home, I have no regrets there. Kinda hard to care for any characters when they’re all just ‘The worst”.Fury Road still was a great experience with my home theater setup. Same with Dredd.
I’d agree with Gravity, both Dunes, and maybe Blade Runner 2049.
The others… nah. With Nolan, I’d maybe go for Inception and Dunkirk but thats it.
I’d honestly put the Speed Racer movie at least half of this list.
couldn’t agree more with this list. Space Odyssey is the one i keep an eye out for so i can take my unitiated friends with me to the cinema every time it comes back around. perhaps i’d add one Bergman to this list just for the beauty of the black-and-white visuals, but honestly this is a solid, 100% accurate list.
I think it is sad that (at least according to my student niece and nephew) that university film societies seem to have died in general. When I was an undergrad in the late 1980s/early 1990s, we had these societies that you could join that showed classic movies in those big lecture halls for intro classes that could hold 500 students. I saw 2001, Lawrence of Arabia, and many other classics that way.
A special citation to the opening shot in “Star Wars” (1977):And I REFUSE to refer to it as “A New Hope” – that wasn’t added until after “The Empire Strikes Back”, when Lucas decided to make a whole series of films under the “Star Wars” umbrella and needed something to keep that first film distinct.
wow what an iconoclast
I got to see RAN in the theater in high school. I may have dozed off a time or two. I was watching 2001 in a college dorm room sometime around 1990-91 and my friends were bitching about the movie being letterboxed. I jumped down from the loft and put my hands on the screen on either end of the spaceship and yelled at them about how stupid pan and scan is compared to letterboxing. I kinda knew then I was more of a movie fan than my friends.
If ‘ it’s a bit hollow , but looks great’ stuff like Blade Runner 2049 or the Avatars get a pass , then Tron Legacy deserves a mention . The plot is pamphlet thin , and except for Michael Sheen’s Bowie like Zeus and Jeff Bridges (who is both chewing scenery AND reinventing Tron’s Kevin Flynn as a Digital The Dude) its no one’s best performance( .But my god! does it look amazing! Especially on a big screen . And it’s one of those movies where 3D isn’t a gimmick , it really works so well here . Add in Daft Punk’s score , and you have something that really is worth watching in a cinema.I watch a lot of movies in VR using a cinema app , that can recreate seeing them in a movie theatre , and Tron Legacy is probably my most watched film that way.
I agree with every one of these with the possible exception of Moulin Rouge. Don’t get me wrong, I really love that film. But, while bright and detailed and extravagant, I feel like it has worked just fine on the big screen, on my flat screen, or on stage. It is as much about the sound as the images and does not feel like it screams for a movie theater like the others.Something like Blade Runner 2049 is the exact opposite for me. It absolutely demands as big a screen as you can find, and is more about the visuals than anything else.
Another AI assisted listicle credited to Cindy White. We could make a listicle of these listicles.