What It’s Like to Watch a Movie in ScreenX (And If It’s Worth It)

by

What if your movie played on three screens at once?

If you’ve ever watched a movie in a ScreenX theater, you’ve had that unique experience and probably now understand the immersive nature of cinema-going. If not, it’s definitely worth trying out at least once to discover how this format can enhance your overall cinematic experience.

What Is ScreenX?

ScreenX represents a fairly recent innovation in cinema, primarily designed to offer a more engrossing and expansive viewing experience by projecting the film beyond the traditional screen boundaries.

As a passionate movie enthusiast, I can’t help but be thrilled by cinematic experiences that push the boundaries of traditional viewing. One such innovation is the immersive setup with expansive, double-sided, 270-degree screens. In this setting, the action on the main screen extends beyond to the left and right walls of my theater, creating an all-encompassing spectacle that truly brings the film to life!

ScreenX movies are either prepared for the format during filming (in production) or adjusted later during post-production. This process typically involves using three cameras. Afterward, editors work on color grading and mastering the finished copies that eventually play in cinemas.

As a cinephile, I must confess that ScreenX movies aren’t filmed completely using this format. Instead, it’s utilized strategically during pivotal scenes like intense action sequences or breathtaking landscape shots – moments where the additional dimension really enhances the visual impact.

Initially, ScreenX gained popularity through movies in South Korea; however, major Hollywood studios have been incorporating this option into their mainstream films lately. Notable theaters like Regal, Cinemark, Marcus Theatres, B&B Theatres, and Cineplex are now offering ScreenX viewing experiences to cinema-goers.

What Is ScreenX?

What the ScreenX Film Experience Is Like

Over the weekend, I had my inaugural ScreenX encounter at the brand-new CinemaWest Beach Cities theater in El Segundo, California, as I watched Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning. It was an immersive and captivating experience!

Frankly, I can’t think of a more suitable film for ScreenX than “Mission: Impossible”. The series consistently delivers breathtaking action sequences that constantly redefine the boundaries with daring stunts. From nail-biting countdowns to avoid an explosion, heart-stopping submarine escapes, to jaw-dropping aerial acrobatics, these action scenes promise an exhilarating journey.

With ScreenX enhancing the cinema experience, it seems as if you’re immersed deeply within the action itself. Properly employed, this innovation can undoubtedly intensify the thrill as unexpected elements appear from the film’s periphery, areas previously unseen.

In awe, I must say that ScreenX doesn’t merely impress; it captivates in moments when it showcases the breathtaking expanse of nature’s grandeur, as seen frequently in The Final Reckoning. Though the left and right screens primarily fill my peripheral vision, there were instances when my curiosity was piqued, compelling me to glance aside and delve deeper into the sights unfolding beyond my immediate view.

Besides the Mission: Impossible movie, we also experienced ScreenX in some trailers, such as the one for Jurassic World Rebirth. The ScreenX technology was put to excellent use in these previews, and let me tell you, nothing compares to a massive dinosaur tail swishing across your entire visual field.

Mission: Impossible – Final Reckoning ScreenX Teaser

Filmmakers appear to have found that ScreenX is most effective when it’s used infrequently, rather than being a requirement for every film. For movies dominated by dialogue, other methods might be more suitable for immersing the audience.

In the film “Mission: Impossible,” there are instances when certain elements may seem slightly disconcerting. For example, the side screens indicate significant events upcoming, which might not be ideal for horror movies. However, after getting accustomed to this aspect, it doesn’t disrupt the overall viewing experience.

Is It Worth the Price?

It’s true that viewing a film at a ScreenX theater will cost you a bit extra, but the question remains: Is it worth the additional expense?

ScreenX isn’t essential for every movie, but it’s particularly effective for films featuring intense action sequences or those with a strong emphasis on visuals. If you happen to know in advance that you’ll be watching such a film, you may want to consider giving ScreenX a shot.

People who love immersing themselves in high-quality movie sound systems or are fascinated by the latest technology might find it worthwhile to try it out. It adds another layer of experience to the film and provided this viewer with extra enjoyment. However, if you’re not usually drawn to additional features, it may be an unnecessary addition for you. In that case, a standard screening could suffice.

In this situation, I’m glad I opted for ScreenX. However, it’s not a decision I’d make for every movie offered in this format.

What Films Are Showing This Year in ScreenX?

Currently showing: “Mission: Impossible – Final Reckoning” in the ScreenX format, and “Jurassic World: Reborn” will be arriving soon.

This year, an extra 2025 movies set to play in ScreenX theaters include titles such as “Dog Man”, “Captain America: Brave New World”, “Exorcism Chronicles: The Beginning”, “Mickey 17”, “Snow White”, a “Minecraft Movie”, “Sinners”, “Thunderbolts*”, “How to Train Your Dragon”, “The Fantastic Four: First Steps”, “The Bad Guys 2” and “Predator: Badlands”.

(*Note: I assume ‘Thunderbolts’ is a typo or an abbreviation, as it doesn’t seem to be a recognized title. If it refers to “Thor: Love and Thunder”, it would be more appropriate to write it as such.)

2000s Movies That Got Bad Reviews That Are Actually Good

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

Title Analysis: Mission Impossible 2 (M:I-2)

Initially released, M:I-2 was met with mixed reviews, receiving a Rotten Tomatoes score of 57. Following the success of Face/Off, director John Woo delved into another operatic thriller, this time featuring a valiant government agent confronting his malevolent counterpart. The film incorporates a recurring discourse on the myth of Bellerophon and Chimera, symbolizing a powerful virus and its antidote, emphasizing the interdependence of heroes and villains in a dance that never ends.

Similar to Face/Off’s characters Sean Archer and Castor Troy, M:I-2’s protagonists share the ability to don each other’s visages, creating an illusion that they are sworn enemies. Over time, opinions on M:I-2 have varied greatly, with some deeming it a timeless ’90s classic, while others criticize it as a laughable misstep in the Mission: Impossible franchise. Despite being perceived as the weakest installment, in any other series, M:I-2 would be considered a solid, mid-tier film.

Ocean’s Twelve (2004)

Title Rating: 55 (Rotten Tomatoes)

“Ocean’s Twelve,” a sequel that could very well be the epitome of the struggle to create a stellar sequel, might just take the cake. The original crew is coerced by their long-time nemesis (a studio executive, if you will) to repay their debt with interest – meaning they must surpass the grandeur of their initial heist. Characters exchange lines about how this time they’re “forcing it” and putting in a tremendous amount of effort, only to find themselves falling short.

A recurring theme revolves around contemplating retirement, which is ironically portrayed as an empty pursuit. Interestingly enough, the director of “Ocean’s Twelve,” Steven Soderbergh, took a brief hiatus from filmmaking shortly after its release before returning to work. Critics in 2004 often labeled it a rehash, seemingly oblivious to the fact that this was exactly the point the movie was trying to make.

Deja Vu (2006)

Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 55

This sci-fi reinterpretation of Alfred Hitchcock’s “Vertigo,” titled “Deja Vu,” has drawn criticism from its own writers, Bill Marsilii and Terry Rossio. They allegedly disapproved of director Tony Scott’s decision and felt that he undervalued their intricate time travel plot in favor of other aspects of the story. The narrative revolves around a government agent (Denzel Washington) who investigates a terrorist attack in New Orleans using an experimental technology to revisit past events. He not only tracks down the culprit but also develops feelings for one of his victims (Paula Patton). Although I haven’t read the “Deja Vu” screenplay, I can say that the final film is among my favorite projects by Tony Scott; it’s both poignant and peculiar, with a touch of melancholy and several mind-bending twists.

The Fast and the Furious (2001)

In the debut of the “Fast & Furious” series, a significant portion of what would later become its signature elements were already in place. The film boasted flashy, over-the-top action scenes, a tight-knit group of characters that felt like family, a blurred line between good and evil, and above all, the undeniable chemistry between wide-eyed Paul Walker and gravelly-voiced Vin Diesel. While the death-defying stunts may have initially drawn audiences in, it was the tumultuous, yet endearing relationship between these seemingly incongruous duo that kept them returning for more.

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 55
The Fast & Furious saga would continue to expand and improve, but it’s remarkable how much of the formula was already in place in the franchise’s first installment. The film showcased dazzling, extravagant action sequences, a core group of characters that felt like family, a gray area between hero and villain, and most notably, the combustible, bromantic connection between wide-eyed Paul Walker and growly-voiced Vin Diesel. What initially attracted viewers were the breathtaking stunts, but it was the contentious, yet endearing relationship between this unlikely duo that kept them coming back for more.

The Devil’s Rejects (2005)

In a simpler and more engaging manner:

Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 54

Rob Zombie’s “House of 1000 Corpses” is essentially a standard slasher movie, where a group of teens find themselves targeted by a twisted family of murderers. In contrast, the sequel, “The Devil’s Rejects”, portrays this family as anti-heroic characters, following their harrowing escape from the law after committing previous atrocities. This shift might explain some of the mixed reviews the film received. Personally, I find “The Devil’s Rejects” to be quite effective (although it’s undeniably dark). However, given the significant differences between this sequel and “House of 1000 Corpses”, it’s not uncommon for fans of the first film to dislike its follow-up.

The Mexican (2001)

Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 54
In their prime, Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts were two of Tinseltown’s biggest stars. However, perhaps their popularity was the film’s downfall when they starred together in “The Mexican“. Marketed as a romantic comedy, the movie was essentially an unusual crime drama that kept the two leads apart for most of its runtime. After a breakup scene early on, Pitt and Roberts followed separate storylines. Despite this, both performances were strong, with James Gandolfini shining particularly bright in his role as a crook who kidnaps Roberts’ character and uses her as leverage to force Pitt’s character to find a valuable antique pistol – the very item that gives the film its title.

Jackass: The Movie (2002)

The Rotten Tomatoes score of 49% for the original Jackass movie suggests that it didn’t appeal to everyone, particularly film critics. Interestingly, despite being considered by many as the funniest installment in the franchise, the first Jackass movie has the lowest Rotten Tomatoes score compared to its sequels. This is surprising, considering the most recent release, Jackass Forever, received an 86% rating – nearly double that of the original! It’s possible that film critics, especially those who grew up watching the TV series and movies, have developed a taste for offbeat humor over time.

National Treasure (2004)

I was taken aback by the Rotten Tomatoes score of 46 for the Indiana Jones/Da Vinci Code-esque National Treasure films starring Nicolas Cage. Despite their enduring popularity on cable and persistent fan demand for a third movie, it seems these historical puzzle-solving adventures didn’t resonate with critics two decades ago. One might argue that they erred in this assessment, as the sequel is not without its merits!

The Cell (2000)

Title Score: 45 (Rotten Tomatoes)

The film “The Cell” presents a typical post-“Silence of the Lambs” serial killer pursuit narrative. However, its visuals are truly breathtaking. Directed by Tarsem, this film takes us into the twisted psyche of a comatose serial killer (Vincent D’Onofrio), as a psychologist (Jennifer Lopez) and an FBI agent (Vince Vaughn) venture into his mind using experimental technology to locate his next victim.

Much like many thrillers from that era, “The Cell” is both intensely serious and absurdly whimsical. The outlandish costumes and surreal visuals alone make it a must-watch experience.

The House Bunny (2008)

Title Score: 44

ordinarily, The House Bunny, a film about an older Playboy Bunny (she’s only 27) who is kicked out of the Mansion and takes over as the house mother for a group of social outcasts at a sorority, might not be worth watching. However, with Anna Faris in the lead role, it transforms into a hilarious movie. Faris delivers one of the most remarkable comedic performances of this century. The supporting cast, including Emma Stone and Kat Dennings, who play two of the main sorority sisters that Faris guides through life lessons, is also quite impressive. Consequently, over half of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for The House Bunny are negative.

The Box (2009)

Title with Rotten Tomatoes Score: 42

In this piece, we discuss the movie “The Box,” which severely impacted director Richard Kelly’s Hollywood career. Starring Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, the film is based on a short story by Richard Matheson and a later “Twilight Zone” episode. The plot revolves around a deal where pressing a mysterious button grants $1 million, but at the cost of someone’s life. Critics panned the movie, and audiences were left bewildered by Kelly’s dark and surreal interpretation. “The Box” even earned an uncommon F from CinemaScore voters, indicating widespread disapproval. However, despite this negative reception, I find myself intrigued by the film – perhaps I’m drawn to Frank Langella’s portrayal of a sinister capitalist or the overall eerie and apocalyptic atmosphere that Kelly creates.

Saw VI (2009)

Title Rating: 39 (Rotten Tomatoes Score)

Although the “Saw” series owes its existence to James Wan and Leigh Whannell, it was only with the creative leadership change that we saw the best “Saw” movie emerge. In “Saw VI,” a ruthless insurance company executive becomes the focus of an extended ordeal, mirroring the brutal nature of our healthcare system in a thought-provoking way. It’s almost like a modern twist on “A Christmas Carol,” where instead of ghostly visitations, characters are subjected to deadly traps and puzzles. The pièce de résistance? A merry-go-round connected to a shotgun, upon which an insurance executive (Peter Outerbridge) must make life-or-death decisions about his subordinates while they plead for their lives. The ensuing chaos is reminiscent of the competitive spirit that defines American business.

The Break-Up (2006)

The Break-Up’s Rotten Tomatoes Rating – 34

The film “The Break-Up” has its moments that can be uncomfortable, intentionally so. This film, which revolves around the agonizing end of a long-term relationship between Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston, doesn’t offer the usual romantic comedy thrills. But then again, what would you expect from a movie called “The Break-Up”? Perhaps it’s the paradoxical essence of the title that captivates me. Or maybe my spouse and I, who still occasionally shout “Baby wanted 12!” and “Mind meld! Mind meld!”, are the only ones who found this film to be quite quotable.

Gamer (2009)

In this reimagined version:

Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 30%
This sharp dystopian satire critiques the culture of video games, with Gerard Butler portraying a contestant in a blend of reality TV and first-person shooter games. His character, Kable, is remotely controlled by a different player (Logan Lerman), who dictates his actions within the game. This unique concept serves as a foundation for a gripping action movie — and since Gamer was helmed by the team of Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, the cinematography of action sequences is fast-paced and high-quality.

Semi-Pro (2008)

The lowest Rotten Tomatoes score among all the listed films is held by “Semi-Pro,” a Will Ferrell comedy that I’ve likely watched more than any other film on this list. In this movie, Ferrell portrays the owner and star player of a dismal ABA team, the Flint Tropics, aiming to elevate his franchise to the NBA before the deadline. Despite its low score, it’s no shocker given that Ferrell didn’t collaborate with Adam McKay on this project, which is usually when his comedies receive positive critical reception. Nevertheless, the film boasts numerous laugh-out-loud scenes and an impressive ensemble cast (Woody Harrelson, Andre Benjamin, Will Arnett, Andy Daly, Andy Richter, David Koechner, Rob Cordry, Jason Sudeikis, Kristen Wiig, among others). To top it off, Ferrell sings a song titled “Love Me Sexy.” So, are you not entertained?!?

The Rotten Tomatoes score for “Semi-Pro” is the lowest of all the listed films. This Will Ferrell comedy is a movie I’ve watched more than any other on this list. In it, Ferrell plays the owner and star player of a struggling ABA team, the Flint Tropics, with hopes to bring his franchise to the NBA in time. While its low score isn’t shocking due to Ferrell’s lack of collaboration with Adam McKay on this project, the film features many humorous scenes and an impressive supporting cast (Woody Harrelson, Andre Benjamin, Will Arnett, Andy Daly, Andy Richter, David Koechner, Rob Cordry, Jason Sudeikis, Kristen Wiig, etc.). To cap it off, Ferrell sings a song called “Love Me Sexy.” So, are you not entertained?!?

Read More

2025-05-27 22:26