Is IMAX worth paying the extra for over a good, big normal screen, or is it distracting?
The film is Transformers 2, in case you wish to snort derisorily and try to recommend something you've seen and think is better.
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:37, archived)
I sat on the front row of the IMAX for Star Trek and it was a very peculiar experience.
I would recommend watching it from the middle.
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:38, archived)
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:39, archived)
Mid to back is clearly the best seating area, the superiour acoustics in combination with not having to strain your neck for the length of the film makes it a far more enjoyable experience.
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:42, archived)
it would still be the front.
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 13:31, archived)
B. It's not as good as the first one, and I got confused as to which were the good robots and which were the bad ones. Megan Fox though provides two very very good reasons to see the film.
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:38, archived)
I mentioned it a bit further down the page. I've never seen an IMAX film.
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:39, archived)
I saw 300 on IMAX in the front row, spent 2 hours looking up actors' noses
and the parallax makes it look like they have HUGE chins. Sit near the back.
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:39, archived)
Because I saw The Dark Knight in IMAX, and the difference wasn't overly astounding.
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:39, archived)
sitting near the front gives you motion sickness
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:41, archived)
now that was vomit-inducing
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:43, archived)
the opening scene of the helecopter was like being in an aircraft simulator
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:44, archived)
pay out you tight tosser
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:44, archived)
Not at any of my 3 houses, anyway ;)
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:45, archived)
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:51, archived)
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:51, archived)
go on, give me another one. i bet the answer is "chips"
(, Thu 2 Jul 2009, 12:54, archived)