Will the success of ‘Interstellar’ in theaters start a trend?

At the risk of sounding like Nicole Kidman: We all know the emotions that unite an audience in a cinema. But when I went to see the re-release of “Interstellar,” I was hit with a new feeling. When I sat down in front of the IMAX screen at AMC Lincoln Square, I was frankly shocked to see that at 2:45 pm on a Friday screening of a 10-year-old movie, an incredibly large theater, with dramatic seating – only genuine The IMAX theater in Manhattan – was completely full.

This was the start of the film’s second weekend. (Last weekend it took in a nice $4.6 million on 165 screens.) And before the movie even started, it struck me that those of us in the audience were already deeply united in wanting re-experience “Interstellar.” Of course there were some who had never seen it. Still, this was basically a revival of Christopher Nolan’s 2014 space-odyssey-meets-climate-change-meets-metaphysical-father-and-daughter heart-tugger. And as we looked up at the giant square of a screen, I joined the holy cinematic trinity of curiosity, discovery, excitement.

I’ll admit that I’ve never been a big fan of “Interstellar.” After watching it a second time, I’m still not. It’s a very strange blockbuster: made with the lavishly executed, eye-popping, you’re-there-in-outer-space technique of a filmmaking wizard (all of which is enhanced by IMAX), yet with a story that zig-zags for 2 hours and 49 minutes, almost as if Nolan was making it up as he went along. Of course, it all comes together in the end, but it’s still equal parts “Wow!” and woo-woo. The script is by Nolan and his brother and collaborator, Jonathan Nolan, but what “Interstellar” feels like a collaboration between Stephen Hawking and M. Night Shyamalan.

I was moved and captivated by moments of it, I cringed at others, and I never quite bought the. I’m sorry, but there is a fundamental contradiction in making a “visionary” sci-fi film that is so fetishistically dependent on “2001: A Space Odyssey”, from the organ chords to the double-planed wormhole to the theme of the rebirth of humanity . But my point here is not to grouse. That is to say, for all my qualms, I was really happy to see “Interstellar” on the big screen again. It felt like an adventure, stepping back in time (if only a decade) and I was psyched to realize that more than a few others felt the same way.

Which leads me to ask: If a film that, in my opinion, is far from Nolan’s masterpiece, can enjoy this kind of redux success, what other films are ripe for a theatrical re-release? I realize that Nolan is the kind of filmmaker a studio would probably want to throw a bouquet at, and there aren’t many like him. No one is pretending that a re-released movie is going to break the bank.

Still, I think this is a moment where carefully selected reissues could entice audiences and serve a higher purpose. When you go to see a movie in a theater, it is not a current movie – that is, almost by definition cinema passion. And cinema passion is what the audience needs to be reminded of. The megaplex as a house of revival? Why not? It has been done before. But maybe we should consider doing it with some fresh energetic programmers. For starters, here are 12 movies I’d love to see in a theater with an audience again. Put another way: Would you rather pay $17 to see one of these or “Morbius & Kraven: The Spider-Villain Squad”?

“Gladiator” (2000). “Gladiator II,” Ridley Scott’s highly watchable, if less spectacular, sequel proves that the audience for a “Gladiator” movie is alive and well. So why not bring back the original, with Russell Crowe creating the definitive charismatic portrait of not-toxic masculinity?

“Pulp Fiction” (1994). It’s still Quentin Tarantino’s greatest film, and it’s still begging to be seen on the big screen, where it can once again take its place as a mythological outburst of danger and joy.

“Seriously” (2013). It’s simpler than “Interstellar” and three times as much as the movie. When you see it in a theater, you almost melt into its starstruck grandeur and anti-gravity pace, not to mention Sandra Bullock – in her finest performance – as an astronaut cut loose in the universe.

“Fight Club” (1999). All the young men who voted for Trump? You could say that the angry island-bro culture that supported them was first shaped by this film. What a thing it would be to experience David Fincher’s wild fable again from within the tribe known as the audience.

“Ghost” (1990). It’s got it all: love, death, ceramics, supernatural suspense and Demi Moore, the collective appreciation for her revived by “The Substance,” in her romantic heyday. And Patrick Swayze was quite a force. Time to go back to their unchained melody.

“Casino Royale” (2006). Now that Daniel Craig has left the Bond building, it would serve James Bond fans to relive what is arguably the best 007 film of all time. Overnight, the Craig Bond films became franchise-y in my opinion, but the actor’s first foray into the role is a standalone marvel of narrative majesty.

“Bridesmaids” (2011). Nothing craves a crowd like comedy. And Kristen Wiig and Paul Feig’s uproarious romantic satire about female friendship set under the hot glare of marital and class warfare is that kind of infectious laugh riot.

“Cocktails” (1988). Yes, I’m serious. For 40 years, the words “Tom Cruise” and “movie audience” have been the flip side of the same case. You can name 20 better cruise movies, but the glory of “Cocktail” is its borderline innocent, borderline corrupt ’80s shamelessness. Could nostalgia this deep-cut cheesy work for a new generation? Let’s find out.

“Blade” (1998). Blade, the silent vampire hunter, is now beckoning at a fever pitch, and there is a rush to see certain comic book movies that were made before the Marvel revolution. In the title role, Wesley Snipes takes command as only he could.

“LA Confidential” (1997). When Curtis Hanson’s labyrinthine Los Angeles noir came out, few had heard of Guy Pearce or Russell Crowe. Knowing them as old friends only adds to the pleasure of this brilliantly dark thriller, the kind of film that used to be Hollywood’s bread and butter and now resembles Tolstoy. But it can still hold an audience in its grip.

“Zoolander” (2001). Re-released now, I imagine it as a “Rocky Horror Picture Show” for the age of Instagram narcissism. There’s something of a cult following for this Ben Stiller fashionista farce, and they should show for it, but so should a potential new crop of “Zoo” heads.

“Basic Instinct” (1992). Do you remember sex in the cinema? Even in 1992, there was a certain sense of guilt about that, and that’s part of what this infamous down-and-dirty thriller is about – shedding the shackles of responsibility to give into your inner beast. It’s time to let Sharon Stone remind us all again what movie stardom is.