If you saw it in 70 mm in a cinema(which could show it - they're rare these days) - what was your impression of it? Was it worthwhile? I'm not so sure - as the film is mostly set in one location - and I think whilst the cinematography is stunning - it would have still looked great in digital. Were the extra scenes worthwhile?
shareSucked.
shareSaw it at a multiplex, the only 70mm presentation in 50 miles.
Screen was a postage stamp.
I saw Star Wars, Close Encounters, Alien, Aliens all in genuine 70mm as a kid, sometimes on a 40 by 80 foot screen. They were unforgettable.
Other than an extra-wide screen and the extra footage, I really noticed no quality difference.
And I was looking pretty hard.
I wrote a pretty in-depth review of the 70mm Roadshow. In fact, it's up on in70mm.
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2016/opinion/index.htm
Should be the first review.
Long story short, my only qualm was that the screen was 1.85:1 aspect ratio, which doesn't have quite enough real estate for an Ultra Panavision (2.76:1) aspect ratio. But at least I could see all the little details. I could immediately tell the difference between digital (the First Look stuff before the movie) and film (70mm).
When I went to see Dunkirk in 70mm, same theater, the screen was much bigger. (My guess is that Star Wars hogged all of Quentin's screens.) Granted, Dunkirk is 2.20:1 aspect ratio in 5-perf/70mm.
The picture and sound for both were stunning. Both films had breathtaking cinematography. Ennio's Oscar was much deserved. Brilliant, top-shelf acting all across the board.