Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

If you love old movies, you will fall in love with Julia Marchese's film about The New Beverly revival cinema. Yes, a film about a movie theater, but this is like no other theater. Just think about this: Tarantino loved it so much that he saved it in 2007, and said "As long as I'm alive, and as long as I'm rich, the New Beverly will be there, showing double features in 35mm." Modern consumerism induces the feeling that the only good things are the newest ones. For too many people only premieres matter, and yesterday's movies are obsolete. This leads to a sort of "Fahrenheit 451" situation, where instead of forbidding and burning books, we exile old movies from our lives. The time consuming life leaves you little time to watch an old movie, and to watch it properly, in a cinema, on 35mm. Not digitized, not colored or remastered, not dubbed. When you watch classic movies in their natural habitat you are able to live it and see how creative they were in their means of expression. In many of today's movies these means are predigested and condensed into clichés, voided of any nutrients, like canned food. Shortcut handlers to your emotions, atmosphere based on special effects rather than inner journeys through the minds of the characters. It is true that one way to build new means of expressions is to turn the previous means into concentrated space food. Modern films that use this properly are able sometimes to make you live an entire life in 90 minutes. I am a huge fan of modern movies, but if you love somebody you want to understand their past, to meet their parents and even grandparents, to breathe the air of their childhood place.I was fortunate that in Bucharest there are for many years three important cinematheques and revival houses, which run old movies since the time they used to be new :), and where I saw a huge quantity of old movies. These are places where you can travel in the past, where movies seem real, you can almost feel the smell and taste of celluloid, live the lives of people who saw the movies when they premiered, but with the eye of someone coming from the future. So my next trip to LA will definitely include the New Beverly. And if I am lucky enough, in addition to watching a couple of good movies, I may sit next to Joe Dante, John Landis, Kevin Smith, Rian Johnson, maybe David Lynch or Quentin Tarantino :)

Out of Print (2014)*** 1/2 (out of 4)This here is an extremely entertaining documentary that takes a look at revival cinema and why 35mm prints are so important. The main focus of this documentary is the New Beverly Cinema in California, which has become a cult favorite since they show double features on 35mm.John Landis, Kevin Smith, Seth Green, Patton Oswalt, Edgar Wright, Richard Kelly, Stuart Gordon, Lloyd Kaufman, Clu Gulager, Joe Dante, Fred Dekker and Tom Holland, are among the people who are interviewed as well as people who work at the theater as well as those who religiously attend it week after week. There's one thing for certain, if you're a film buff then you'll certainly want to visit the New Beverly Cinema after watching this movie. This documentary does a brilliant job at selling this theater and explaining why it is so popular to film buffs who want to enjoy these old classics and not-so-classic movies on the big screen. The second portion of the documentary talks about the importance of 35mm film and why it is slowly going away in favor of digital files. From here we also hear more about the theater including the various famous faces who go there and show off their favorite movies.OUT OF PRINT is certainly a highly entertaining film and it's one that any film buff is going to love. The documentary does a masterful job at getting to the bottom of why people love movies as much as they do and this theater is basically shown as a Heaven for film buffs. I really liked the various stories told and especially since I've never been to this place. The one thing the film doesn't really hit upon is how 35mm prints simply can't be shipped all over the country. It's brought up many times that this theater isn't making a great amount of money and I'm going to guess that the majority of prints shown there are from L.A. so there's not too much of a cost. Getting prints shipped to countless theaters across the country with dwindling crowd numbers is why so many have gone over to digital. With that said, more and more mainstream theaters are showing classic films on the big screen and this here wasn't happening when there were only 35mm prints going around.

So I wrote this because there was only 1 review here and frankly I thought it was an unfair and a bad review.To start out with this movie gives the history of the New Bev. It tells how it got started, what happened when the owner died, and gives it some historical context and importance.This is not just a film about 35mm films. It is a story of the theater itself. It's importance, it's place and it's purpose. It goes on to tell the story as to why this theater is important, and why people love it. It is no coincidence that QT bought the movie theater. He grew up watching movies there. It remains a favorite as there are tons of Q n A done there, and lots of celebs choose to go there to view older movies that they like and mingle with the non A list crowd.There is some discussion of 35mm film medium in the doc. But let me put that into perspective for you since the last review seems to have missed the point. No one is claiming that people shouldn't use digital media. What is being said, is that there is a whole lot of 35mm film out there that people are choosing not to preserve due to the cost. They would rather let it be destroyed than keep that art. Those films are art, and that art should be preserved as once it is gone, it is gone forever. That the world misses something when the original works on 35mm are lost. That movies who will never make it to digital production will be lost. Furthermore, that films originally shot in 35mm should be shown to audiences in the 35mm, in the same way in which an oil painting shouldn't be redone in an acrylic for museums. The artists original work should be displayed as intended in the artists medium. That the dust and scratches of the old films and projector is part of the experience of that piece and part of the history of the piece.This is actually a fairly well done doc, which is no surprise considering who is involved aka Kevin Smith. Smith is literally one of the coolest guys in Hollywood. Say what you will about his movies, he is a huge movie buff who appreciates the fact that other people love movies too. He tries to bridge that gap, and show that The New Beverly is a very special place where people can simply be movie buffs, and is a place where fans can connect to the Hollywood crowd who too are simply fans of the movies that inspired them. Creating a unique connect with the art in general. I actually really enjoyed the doc. It's educational, uniquely pop cultural, and informative. It helps raise awareness of preserving old films, and inspires people to explore their love of movies. Why I am not a huge fan of most of kevin Smith's actual movies, I do think the different projects he does where he is just being himself and promoting the love of film are his greatest contributions. Shows like this and An Evening with Kevin Smith are excellent docs and well worth the watch.

This docu about the New Bev Cinema in Los Angeles (now under management of technophobe Tarantino who made sure they play everything in 35mm) feels like a elitist whine-fest. It always baffles me that overly nostalgic people are actually demanding they're getting the unintended defects from an archaic medium. A 100 years ago when film was invented film stock and prints was the best thing they could come up with at the time and it did actually work well. But it also had some problems like being sensitive to scratching, wobbly unstable imagery, mechanical projectors who made a rattling sound, loss of resolution with each transfer or duplication. Now technology has advanced and we have digital cameras who can easily match film, digital projectors who give a clean stable image that doesn't degrade with each showing. Now we can actually show the film like it was intended by the director each time it's projected! Now these elitists are saying: it's not romantic, it's to perfect, inhuman. They are actually comparing human flaws (humans indeed aren't perfect) to a medium. To those people I say: the medium is NOT the message. Good films will be made no matter what medium they're on. If they had digital a 100 years ago they would have used that. We don't HAVE to conserve a 100 year old technology because it's important. It had it's time, now we have something better. Let's move on. A typical characteristic that also defines human evolution is that people always try to better themselves and the way they do things. If we didn't we would still be no better then the monkeys we evolved from. Progress is part of the human condition so why fight it?