On the threat of sounding like Nicole Kidman: Everyone knows the emotions that unite an viewers in a movie show. But once I went to see the rereleased “Interstellar,” I used to be struck by a brand new feeling. Taking my seat in entrance of the IMAX display on the AMC Lincoln Sq., I used to be actually shocked to see that at a 2:45 p.m. Friday displaying of a 10-year-old film, an extremely giant theater, with dramatic banked seating — the one true IMAX theater in Manhattan — was completely packed.

This was the kickoff of the movie’s second weekend. (Final weekend it took in a neat $4.6 million on 165 screens.) And earlier than the film had even began, it struck me that these of us within the viewers had been already profoundly united in eager to reexperience “Interstellar.” There have been some, after all, who had by no means seen it. But this was principally a revival of Christopher Nolan’s 2014 space-odyssey-meets-climate-change-meets-metaphysical-father-and-daughter heart-tugger. And as we gawked up at that enormous sq. of a display, I plugged into the holy cinematic trinity of curiosity, discovery, pleasure.   

I confess that I’ve by no means been an enormous fan of “Interstellar.” Having now seen it a second time, I’m nonetheless not. It’s a really bizarre blockbuster: made with the sumptuously achieved, eye-popping, you-are-there-in-outer-space strategy of a filmmaking wizard (all of which is grandly enhanced by IMAX), but with a narrative that zigs and zags for two hours and 49 minutes, nearly as if Nolan had been making it up as he went alongside. All of it ties collectively in the long run, after all, nevertheless it’s nonetheless equal components “Whoa!” and woo-woo. The script is by Nolan and his brother and collaborator, Jonathan Nolan, however what “Interstellar” looks like is a collaboration between Stephen Hawking and M. Night time Shyamalan.

I used to be moved and enthralled by moments of it, I cringed at others, and I by no means completely purchased it. I’m sorry, however there’s a basic contradiction in making a “visionary” sci-fi film that’s this fetishistically beholden to “2001: A House Odyssey,” from the organ chords to the double-planed wormhole to the theme of humankind’s rebirth. However my level right here isn’t to grumble. It’s to say that for all my carping, I used to be genuinely gratified to see “Interstellar” on the massive display once more. It felt like an journey, going again in time (if solely a decade), and I used to be psyched to comprehend that various others felt the identical manner.

Which leads me to ask: If a film that’s, in my view, removed from Nolan’s masterpiece can get pleasure from this type of redux success, what different motion pictures are ripe for a theatrical rerelease? I notice that Nolan is the type of filmmaker a studio in all probability desires to toss a bouquet to, and there aren’t many like him. Nobody’s pretending {that a} rereleased film goes to interrupt the financial institution.

But I believe this can be a second when judiciously chosen rereleases might lure audiences in and serve a better goal. Whenever you go to see a film in a theater that’s not a present film — that’s, nearly by definition, cinema ardour. And cinema ardour is what audiences should be reminded of. The megaplex as revival home? Why not? It’s been achieved earlier than. However perhaps we should always contemplate doing it with some freshly energized programming savvy. For starters, listed below are 12 movies I’d like to see in a theater with an viewers once more. Put one other manner: Would you reasonably pay $17 to see one in every of these or “Morbius & Kraven: The Spider-Villain Squad”?

“Gladiator” (2000). “Gladiator II,” Ridley Scott’s eminently watchable if less-than-spectacular sequel, proves that the viewers for a “Gladiator” film is alive and effectively. So why not carry again the unique, by which Russell Crowe creates the definitive charismatic portrait of non-toxic masculinity?  

“Pulp Fiction” (1994). It’s nonetheless Quentin Tarantino’s biggest movie, and it nonetheless begs to be seen on the massive display, the place it will probably as soon as once more take its place as a mythological eruption of hazard and pleasure.

“Gravity” (2013). It’s less complicated than “Interstellar,” and thrice the film. Whenever you see it in a theater, you nearly merge with its starstruck grandeur and anti-gravity tempo, to not point out with Sandra Bullock — in her most interesting efficiency — as an astronaut lower free within the universe.    

“Combat Membership” (1999). All these younger males who voted for Trump? You would say that the indignant insular bro tradition that supported them was first marked by this film. What a factor it might be to expertise David Fincher’s feral fable once more from inside that tribe often called an viewers.  

“Ghost” (1990). It’s acquired every thing: love, demise, pottery, supernatural pleasure, and Demi Moore, the collective appreciation for her revived by “The Substance,” in her romantic heyday. And Patrick Swayze was fairly a drive. Time to return to their unchained melody.  

“On line casino Royale” (2006). Now that Daniel Craig has left the Bond constructing, it might serve James Bond followers to re-experience what’s arguably the best 007 film ever. In a single day, in my view, the Craig Bond movies turned franhise-y, however the actor’s first plunge into the position is a stand-alone marvel of storytelling majesty.

“Bridesmaids” (2011). Nothing craves a crowd like comedy. And Kristen Wiig and Paul Feig’s uproarious romantic satire about feminine friendship positioned below the new glare of matrimony and sophistication battle is that type of contagious chortle riot.

“Cocktail” (1988). Sure, I’m severe. For 40 years, the phrases “Tom Cruise” and “film viewers” have been flip sides of the identical coin. You would identify 20 higher Cruise motion pictures, but the glory of “Cocktail” is its borderline harmless, borderline corrupt ’80s shamelessness. May nostalgia this deep-cut tacky work for a brand new era? Let’s discover out.

“Blade” (1998). The lure of Blade, the style-heavy vampire hunter, is now at fever pitch, and there’s a rush that comes from seeing sure comic-book motion pictures that had been made earlier than the Marvel revolution. Within the title position, Wesley Snipes takes command as solely he might.

“L.A. Confidential” (1997). When Curtis Hanson’s labyrinthine Los Angeles noir got here out, few had heard of Man Pearce or Russell Crowe. Figuring out them like outdated mates solely enhances the pleasure of this sensible darkish thriller, the type of film that was once Hollywood’s bread and butter and that now seems like Tolstoy. However it will probably nonetheless maintain an viewers in its grip.     

“Zoolander” (2001). Rereleased now, I envision it as a “Rocky Horror Image Present” for the age of Instagram narcissism. There’s fairly a cult for this Ben Stiller fashionista farce, and they need to end up for it, however so ought to a possible new crop of “Zoo” heads.   

“Primary Intuition” (1992). Keep in mind intercourse on the motion pictures? Even in 1992, there was a sure guilt about it, and that’s a part of what this notorious down-and-dirty thriller is about — throwing off the shackles of duty to provide into your interior beast. It’s time to let Sharon Stone remind all of us once more what film stardom is.