It may sound like Nicole Kidman, but we all know the emotion that unites audiences in movie theaters. However, when I went to see “Interstellar” when it was re-released, I was struck by a new feeling. When I took my seat in front of the IMAX screen at AMC Lincoln Square, I was honestly shocked to see a 10-year-old movie being shown on a Friday at 2:45 p.m. It was an incredibly large theater with dramatic bank seating. Manhattan’s only true IMAX theater was packed.
This was the second weekend kickoff for the movie. (It grossed $4.6 million on 165 screens last weekend.) And that we, the audience, are already deeply united in our desire to relive “Interstellar” even before the movie begins. I noticed that. Of course, there were some people who had never seen it before. But this was essentially a revival of Christopher Nolan’s 2014 mind-bending film about space odyssey, climate change, and a metaphysical father-daughter encounter. And as I stared into that giant square screen, I experienced the sacred cinematic trinity of curiosity, discovery, and excitement.
To be honest, I was never a big fan of “Interstellar.” I’ve seen it twice now, but I haven’t seen it yet. This is a very strange blockbuster. It’s created in a spectacular, almost cosmic manner, perfected in the lavishness of filmmaking wizardry (all of which is greatly enhanced by IMAX). It zigzagged along for two hours and 49 minutes, as if Nolan was making it up along the way. Of course, it all comes together in the end, but it’s still the same “Wow!” part. And woo woo. Although the script was written by Nolan and his brother and co-creator Jonathan Nolan, Interstellar feels like a collaboration between Stephen Hawking and M. Night Shyamalan.
I was moved and fascinated by the moment, balked at others, but never bought it outright. Sorry, but there’s something fundamental about the making of the “phantom” sci-fi movie that gave 2001: A Space Odyssey its fetishistic influence, from organ chords to biplanar wormholes to themes of human rebirth. There is a contradiction. But my point here is not to get angry. That said, even though I was disappointed, I was really happy to be able to watch Interstellar on the big screen again. It felt like an adventure back in time (even if it was just 10 years). And I was thrilled to discover that quite a few others felt the same way.
So I ask this: If a film that is far from Nolan’s masterpiece in my opinion can have this kind of redux-like success, what other films are ripe for a theatrical re-release? I realize that Nolan is probably the kind of filmmaker that studios would want to throw flowers at, but there aren’t many filmmakers like him. No one expects a re-released movie to make a lot of money.
But I think this is a moment where carefully chosen re-releases can engage audiences and serve a higher purpose. When you go to the theater to see a movie that isn’t currently playing, it’s almost by definition a passion for movies. And it’s the passion for cinema that audiences need to be reminded of. Megaplex as recovery housing? Why not? It’s been done before. But maybe you should consider doing it with renewed energy and programming savvy. First of all, we will introduce 12 movies that you should see again in theaters with an audience. In other words, would you want to pay $17 to see either of these movies or Morbius & Kraven: Spider-Villain Squad?
“Gladiator” (2000). Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator II” is a less flashy but notable sequel, proving that the “Gladiator” movie audience is alive and well. So why not revive the original version, with Russell Crowe portraying the definitive charisma of non-toxic masculinity?
Pulp Fiction (1994). The film remains Quentin Tarantino’s finest work, and we long to see him on the big screen again, where he can reprise his role as a mythical explosion of danger and joy.
“Gravity” (2013). It’s simpler than Interstellar and three times as much as the movie. When you see this film in theaters, you almost identify with its starry grandeur and anti-gravity pacing, not to mention Sandra Bullock’s superlative performance as an astronaut unleashed into space.
“Fight Club” (1999). All the young people who voted for Trump? The angry, insular culture that supported them could be said to be characterized for the first time by this film. How wonderful it would be to relive David Fincher’s wild fables from within the audience’s tribe.
Ghost (1990). It’s all about love, death, pottery, the excitement of the paranormal, and a collective appreciation for Demi Moore, who brought back her romantic heyday with ‘The Substance.’ And Patrick Swayze had quite a bit of power. It’s time to return to unchained melody.
“Casino Royale” (2006). Now that Daniel Craig has left Bondville, it will help James Bond fans relive perhaps the best 007 movie of all time. In my opinion, Craig Bond movies have become franchise-like overnight, but this actor’s first jump into the role is a standalone marvel of storytelling majesty.
“Bridesmaids” (2011). Nothing craves an audience more than comedy. And Kristen Wiig and Paul Feig’s raucous romantic satire about a female friendship placed under the hot gaze of marriage and class warfare is that kind of infectious laugh riot.
“Cocktail” (1988). Yes, I’m serious. For 40 years, the words “Tom Cruise” and “movie audience” have been two sides of the same coin. I could name 20 better Cruise movies, but the glory of Cocktail is its borderline 80s innocence, its borderline corrupt shamelessness. Will this deep, cheesy nostalgia hold true for a new generation? Let’s find out.
“Blade” (1998). The seduction of style-driven vampire hunter Blade is at its peak right now, and excitement is building over watching certain comic book movies made before the Marvel revolution. In the title role, Wesley Snipes takes command as only he can.
“LA Confidential” (1997). When Curtis Hanson’s labyrinthine Los Angeles noir was released, few people had heard of Guy Pearce or Russell Crowe. Getting to know them like old friends only adds to the enjoyment of this brilliant dark thriller, the kind of film that was once Hollywood’s bread and butter and now seems Tolstoy-like. However, it still manages to grab the audience.
“Zoolander” (2001). This re-released film is envisioned as a “Rocky Horror Show” for the age of Instagram narcissism. This Ben Stiller fashionista farce has quite a cult following, and they should be in it, but potential “Zoo” newcomers should be in it as well.
“Basic Instinct” (1992). Remember Sex in the Movie Theater? Even in 1992, this movie had some sort of guilty pleasure. That’s part of what this notoriously sordid thriller is about. That means unshackling yourself from responsibility and giving to your inner beast. It’s time for Sharon Stone to once again remind us all what it means to be a movie star.
