Dear Mulitplexes, shape-up or ship out!

[Paul MacLean]

I just got home from a screening of Poltergeist at a nearby AMC Cinema.

The film was great -- fantastic really, and it holds-up incredibly well after 40 (!) years. And it is a testament to how phenomenal a movie Poltergeist is that I was able to enjoy it, considering the surpassingly awful presentation.

I paid $15 to see this movie, and for that price, with digital projection, I was expecting 4K quality.

But this movie looked like crap. The projection was dim, making it impossible to see details in the darker areas of some scenes -- not helpful for a movie with lots of low-key lighting and dramatic shadows.

I don't know what kind of projection lens they used, but there were also chromatic anomalies. And this can't have been 4K, because it looked pretty soft -- not "out-of-focus", but soft, like an old, lower-rez transfer. I also honestly wonder if there was fog or soot or something on either the lens or projection booth window. What I saw actually resembled the quality of those lousy rear-projection HDTV they used to sell in the mid-2000s.

I own Poltergeist on Blu-ray, but I wanted to see it on the big screen again, and as it was just released on UHD disc, I assumed they would be screening the new transfer. I guess not. Or maybe they did but you couldn't tell because they used a cheap lens and dying projection bulb.

On top of that the sound was lousy too, and the levels were unbelievably low -- so low in fact you could barely understand the parapsychologists in that scene where they whisper to each other.

Whatever the reason, I can's see spending this kind of money for such an unacceptable presentation. I wanted to complain, but who do I complain to? The 20-something non-binary pothead with blue hair at the concession stand?

Seeing as theaters took a hit during the lockdown, you'd think cinema owners would be working overtime to improve the movie-going experience. But based on what I saw tonight, it looks more like they've given-up and are just waiting for the business to die (and if it's going to be run like this, it deserves to).

Personally, in the future, I plan to just stay home with my 62" screen.

[AndyDursin]

I would contact the chain and at the worst they should give you a refund -- or passes to something else (maybe that next showing of POLTERGEIST!

THIS nightmare experience you had Paul is exactly the reason why I am not someone who's "all in" on "the theatrical experience" needing to continue, or at least having an emotional attachment to it. I hadn't seen POLTERGEIST theatrically (too young the first time) so I was interested in going to this also, but I saw the kind of screen my local multiplex was using for it and I canceled my booked ticket...it was the smallest venue they had, and I guessed the screen I have here in my living room with the UHD I just reviewed is superior to what they were going to throw up there. At the premium ticket price they were going to charge on top of it.

These are all reasons why attendance has been on a decline over the years, even before the pandemic which has only enhanced the migration of audiences away from the big screen. Theaters have been complacent for years, haven't innovated at all, and I don't think the pandemic renovations my local theater -- which I assume some of these venues have undergone -- have done are going to change things either.

I mean, even in these larger auditoriums, the post-COVID seating reconfigurations has made it so there are less people in any given venue, AND they are seated in such a way you can't even see rows in front of OR in back of you. I guess this is what the "focus groups" have told them -- but if I want to watch a movie on a couch with "privacy" in mind, I want to do that at home...not in a theater trying to simulate the experience.

[Monterey Jack]

When I saw Poltergeist on the big screen in late 2020 (when theaters were hurting for ANYTHING to show), it looked and sounded great, as did all of the retro screenings I attended that fall (A Nightmare On Elm St., The Spy Who Loved Me, Pulp Fiction). Now that theaters are up and running full-speed again, the quality has slacked off for screenings of classic movies. The first 40th anniversary screening of The Thing this past June was reportedly so bad (even cropped to 1.85:1! ) that it caused John Carpenter and Mick Garris to openly grouse about it on social media, which shamed Fathom Events into downloading a 4K DHP for the second showing which I attended, which thankfully looked and sounded terrific. If you're gonna half-ass the projection and sound on a classic movie, why should fans go out when they can just screen them at home in 4K quality? There's an upcoming "Mob Mondays" screening of The Untouchables I would love to see (as I've never seen it in a theater), but the recent UHD had such a superb transfer that it'd be kind of heartbreaking to see it projected poorly.

[AndyDursin]

The real shame is that the 4K restoration on POLTERGEIST is fabulous. Should've just bought the UHD Paul

[Paul MacLean]

I've tried to approximate how it looked.

This is more or less how it compared to the original Blu-ray...




Basically it was like watching the movie while wearing sunglasses.

[Monterey Jack]

Maybe they forgot to take the 3D lens off...?

[Paul MacLean]

Maybe they forgot to take the 3D lens off...?

I wonder!

Honestly, I'm not that up on 3-D projection. Do the lenses "fog" the image?

[Monterey Jack]

Honestly, I'm not that up on 3-D projection. Do the lenses "fog" the image?

If the 3D lens is left on, and they project a 2D movie, it makes the image look dim and washed-out.

[AndyDursin]

Geez, my 3-D showing of JAWS looked more like the top image than the bottom one!

Could be the wrong lens or just an old projector that needs a new bulb...my money's on the latter because my theater's screens looked like that until it was recently renovated. At least the screen is bright.