The one movie I saw at the Bridge "IMAX" was certainly not an IMAX movie. Worse, it was a Panavision aspect ratio film, which does not take advantage of the height of an IMAX screen nearly as much as a more common Widescreen aspect ratio film would. So, I was disappointed.

And being very family with the 3 (at that time, 4) big screen theaters in L.A., I called shenanigans on an "IMAX" screen being smaller than any of these ... and I tried to base that estimate on the actual screen size rather than the relatively narrow size of the projected image.



In any event, I recommend not falling for gimmicks like IMAX or 3-D. Just see the movie. If you can make it to The Village or The Dome or The Chinese, do that. But gimmicks are lame.

Like domes. Dome screens are (and I mean this honestly though it is just my opinion) lame.

I guess Domes were considered a gimmick in their day. As was the widescreen format in general.

In the past, oh, 20 years or so, most movies have reverted to a more naturalistic aspect ratio of 1.85:1. This more closely imitates a normal range of vision.

Panavision films in 2.35:1 are much less common today. But since they represent a field of vision that is beyond natural, I think it's only fitting they be projected on screens having a wrap-around effect. I think the curved screens of Domes are perfect for really wide films, and projecting them on flat screens does not have the intended effect.


All a matter of preference. I used to love sitting in the first row of the Cinerama Dome (or the old Egyptian before AFI converted it) so that the film would literally wrap behind my head and fill my entire field of vision ... even if I glanced sideways.

Go ahead. I dare you not to tear up at this one....

Well, I love a challenge:

Viewing Pixar Movie Kills 10-Year-Old Girl
Only thing keeping girl alive was unfulfilled desire to see movie, so why did parents let girl see movie? They should have scheduled the screening for 2084.


Though seriously, it is a very nice story.

The mark of a good review is that it does not spoil the ending.

You know what, I misread your post (which makes my response nonsensical).

Where you said "I dare you not to tear up at this one...." I read "I dare you to tear up this one..." In other words I thought you essentially said "I bet you can't crap on this story."

That's the challenge I was taking up.

Came to this thread to post this very link. DAMN YOU PIXAR!! Made me cry in my own store.

So did you tear up (even just a bit) or not?

Can I put money on that? I'm not frequently a betting woman, but...

Alex does not cry.