Is Harry Potter imax worth it ? (1 Viewer)

[Rick Salt]

Just wondering if anyone has seen this in the 2d imax experience and would it be worth the extra money and fairly substantial driving distance to go see.
Thanks.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I haven't seen in yet, but in my experience, IMAX (even these DMR'ed movies) : 35mm :: 35mm : home video. I will happily spend $12.95 to see it sometime in the coming weeks - there's no real sense of urgency, since it's more or less a given that it'll hang around the aquarium until roughly labor day - even though I could use one of my $3.33 tickets to see it at the local Loews.

 

[Darcy Hunter]

If it is presented using the DMR prosess, then by all means see it in an IMAX theatre. I've see three DMR IMAX releases, SW: Attack of the Clones, The Matrix: Reloaded, and Revolutions, and all three were a jaw dropping experience. The level of detail was so surreal, almost achieving a 3-D like sensation, not to mention the incredible sound. By far the best theatrical presentations I have ever witnessed. On the other hand, if these are simply 35mm presentations on an IMAX screen, I'd say your better off seeing it in a good stadium style theatre. I've heard quite negative comments regarding the projection of regular 35mm films onto IMAX sized screens.

 

[Don Solosan]

Then you should see something actually shot on 70mm; it makes the DMR processed movies look weak by comparison!

Harry Potter uses the DRM process.

Rick: If you have a local theater with a large screen and good audio, the experience is pretty similar. If you don't have any big houses where you are (and are really crazy about HP), then I'd recommend seeing it in IMAX.

 

[Darcy Hunter]

Sadly, that will probably never happen. The last major 70mm release I can remember was Titanic, back in 1997, and that "roadshow" version never even came to my city. When I was a wee lad, I remember the odd 70mm presentation showing up at one of our local theatres (sadly, long since closed down), but I was too young to really appreciate the experience. One such presentation was Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (1982), which the papers and theatre proudly advertised as being "PRESENTED IN 70MM!!"

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well, Titanic wasn't shot in 70mm either; I think the last native-70mm (non-IMAX) film to get much of a release was Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet. Which was, needless to say, bee-yoo-tee-ful.

 

[Rick Salt]

Thanks guys. Yes, near me i do have a theater with large screens and theater seating but the sound system is seriously lacking in the bass department. Maybe i will just wait for the dvd, like i do with most films.

 

[Adam.Heckman]

Saw it this weekend. Never saw a theatrical release in IMAX. It blew me away. Really. Sound is great. Picture is wonderul (pay attention to the film grain, it switches for effect in one or two parts).
They implement the bass shakers well too.
BTW, before the IMAX my girlfriend also drug me to the regular release.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Is the film presented in the correct aspect ratio of 2.35:1 in IMAX? Or is the extra Super35 image opened up a bit?

 

[clayton b]

They show it in the OAR.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Groovy; thanks!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I went to the premiere at Radio City Music Hall, and also saw it on opening night at the huge Astor Plaza on Times Square. The IMAX presentation blew those away. It was brighter, sharper and had a totally different, highly directional sound mix.

It's definitely worth the extra bucks to see (and hear) the IMAX version.

 

[Don Solosan]

Not a release blown up to 70mm, but something shot in the format. Before the Matrix movies, the IMAX theater I went to showed trailers from some Disney thing, Return of the Black Stallion or something like that. It was shot in 70mm and the difference between that and Matrix processed for 70mm was huge.