Home vs Theater

[Bushman]

I prefer home, but I do enjoy going to the theater as an experience. Sometimes it's fin to grab a couple friends, a jumbo bucket of popcorn, and see something loud and bombastic on a 50ft screen.

 

[belfastboy]

Definitely home, in my PJ's, hit pause when I want, my own damn popcorn and no one sitting behind me talking or unwrapping candies. The one exception is the two or three times a year I see "Live at the Met". You cannot beat watching opera on the big screen. Being able to see the singers faces as well as hear their voices is priceless. Even in the good seats at a live opera I don't get to see the expression on their faces. And the patrons at these showings are impeccable in their behaviour....no talking, no candies being unwrapped and even little to no coughing.

 

[MisterCairo]

If you really think about it, home versus theatre is like apples versus oranges. Watching Star Wars in a theatre. Watching Star Wars on a tv screen. Similar. NOT the same thing.

 

[Edward]

In Bruges was/is wonderful. Funny, sad, beautiful cinematography, great acting, it was a surprising treat.

For me, one of the joys was the discovery of Colin Farrell. I'd previously been unimpressed with him and written him off as a basic pretty-boy, but the depth he showed in this - the drama, the darkness, and even his gift for comic timing - was a revelation. I came to it for Brendan Gleeson, one of my absolute favourite actors and someone whose work I have followed since he played Michael Collins way back in 1990's The Treaty (more historically accurate, and overall better for it, than the Hollywood version, albeit that it also covered a much shorter period), but I enjoyed Farrell in this just as much. I'd enjoy seeing them work together again - they had fantastic chemistry as a double-act.

If you really think about it, home versus theatre is like apples versus oranges. Watching Star Wars in a theatre. Watching Star Wars on a tv screen. Similar. NOT the same thing.

If I'd waited and watched the first two prequels (I have still never seen the third,nor do I have any interest in doing so), I'd still feel I'd had six hours of my life stolen, but I'd at least not have had to pay for the "privilege"....

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Star Wars" was one of the first, if not the first, films I projected -- during its original 1977 release, at a drive-in theatre. To this day seeing it on any screen other than a gigantic outdoor screen is a comedown. There was no finer drive-in picture ever made.

 

[Touchofevil]

For me, one of the joys was the discovery of Colin Farrell. I'd previously been unimpressed with him and written him off as a basic pretty-boy, but the depth he showed in this - the drama, the darkness, and even his gift for comic timing - was a revelation. I came to it for Brendan Gleeson, one of my absolute favourite actors and someone whose work I have followed since he played Michael Collins way back in 1990's The Treaty (more historically accurate, and overall better for it, than the Hollywood version, albeit that it also covered a much shorter period), but I enjoyed Farrell in this just as much. I'd enjoy seeing them work together again - they had fantastic chemistry as a double-act.



If I'd waited and watched the first two prequels (I have still never seen the third,nor do I have any interest in doing so), I'd still feel I'd had six hours of my life stolen, but I'd at least not have had to pay for the "privilege"....

Yes. I too watched it because of Gleeson, but also found that Farrell could act and became a big fan. I enjoyed him in season two of True Detective despite it’s poor reviews.