In a while it is being shown on the big screen here in Melbourne. It's a restored print and i'm sure it will look great.
I'm not sure if it's worth seeing, since I already own it on DVD (Off TV, but still).
Is this a film that looks great on the big screen. I haven't seen it for a while and am not quite sure.
Yeah, it's stunning and it was a worn out copy (slightly tinted) I saw.
___________
Look upon me! I'll show you the life of the mind!
I'll go one better -- almost ALL movies should be seen on the big screen!
And by "big-screen", I mean W I D E S C R E E N .......
BikeBill: I'll go even one better than you: I'd say that any movie that was intended to be seen on the big screen should be seen on the big screen. That's in contrast to my position on, for example, made-for-television movies, which I wouldn't have a problem with seeing on a television screen since they were only ever meant to be seen that way. (Of course seeing a made-for-television movie on the big screen would be nice, but such an experience would be almost always unreasonable to seek out, and almost always impossible to find.)
I do have to take issue, though, with your remark "And by 'big-screen", I mean W I D E S C R E E N". I'm actually not exactly sure what you meant by that remark, but it seems to reflect a confusion about what the term "wide screen" means. The word "big" refers, obviously, to the size of movie screens, but the word "wide" refers to their shape. Specifically, "wide" designates any aspect ratio (width-to-height ratio) greater than the sound-era "Academy ratio" of 1.37:1 or the classic IMAX ratio of 1.44:1. That would include such notables as the moribund European medium-widescreen ratio of 1.66:1; the high-definition-television-based medium-widescreen ratio of 1.78:1; the classic American medium-widescreen ratio of 1.85:1; the 70mm widescreen ratio of 2.20:1; the standard "scope" ratio of 2.35:1; and the Ultra Panavision ratio of 2.76:1. Generally, any time you see a movie on the big screen--that is to say, in a movie theater--you'll be seeing the movie at its full intended width: it's rare for a movie theater to cut off the left or right sides of the image. What movie theaters are more often guilty of is chopping off the top and bottom of the intended image, creating a spurious wideness; you do not want to see a movie presented that way, since it'll wreck the director's intended visual compositions, as well as sometimes robbing you of important visual information. Common sins of less-than-conscientious movie theaters include showing 1.37:1 films (which includes virtually all films from the late twenties through the mid fifties) chopped down to 1.85:1; showing 1.66:1 films (which are mostly European) chopped down to 1.85:1; and showing 2.35:1 films chopped down to a spurious wideness of around 2.6:1 or 2.7:1.
The main point is that movies should be seen at the width they were meant to be seen at. You don't want to see them wider than intended, because in almost every case that can only be achieved by chopping off some of the top and/or bottom of the intended image.
I guess I'm one of the few that saw it in it's initial theatrical release; as such, it was on a big screen in one of the old huge theaters before the multiplexes became the norm. And it was great. You get a real feel for the scenery and country where the train passes through. About ten years ago, I finally purchased a projector, so now I could see movies as they were seen originally, and all I needed was a cheap surround system (when you get caught up in the movie, the sound just seems to be appropriate anyway). so yes, it will make a difference seeing it on a big screen. And today, it's 2015, so you can pick up a DVD resolution projector for less than $300, so everyone who can afford a TV can have a big screen, all you need is s big white wall.
share