here, and I will probably write even more about the movie soon. I've seen it twice more since writing that review, and am seeing it a fourth time in a few hours. I've seen it in real IMAX, fake IMAX and on a standard screen. Personally, I prefer the expanded "open matte"-style IMAX experience. While cinematographer Roger Deakins claims to have composed with both the 2.40:1 scope image (seen in traditional theaters) and the 1.9:1 image (seen in IMAX theaters, affording more picture at the top and bottom of the frame, but still not filling an IMAX screen entirely) in mind, to me the IMAX version (which is ultimately closer to what you'd see on a 16x9 television set) looks better. Frames in the traditional version seem artificially cropped at times. Others disagree, and feel strongly that the 2.40:1 version is preferable. Personally, though, I'd recommend seeing it on an IMAX screen if you have access to one. Otherwise, you're not missing out; Deakins' photography looks gorgeous on both version and you'll never notice the difference unless you watch the two versions back-to-back, as I did the other night.
Technicalities aside, though, this is a great Bond film and good looking enough for Deakins to be a strong Oscar contender, despite the Academy's long-held prejudice against Agent 007. So... enjoy!
Click here to read my review of Skyfall.
WARNING: Comments here on this post may include SPOILERS. Feel free to post your unedited reactions to the film below!