I'm not a big fan of movie theaters. Because it is much more appealing to me to be able to pause a movie while relaxing at home, rather than watching it with a bunch of strangers on someone else's schedule.

Recently, however, I discovered something that makes going to the cinema worthwhile: the IMAX experience

. Movie theaters have always had an uphill battle to draw people in when the allure of home viewing is too real, whether it's the Cinerama of the 1950s or the modern 4DX theater that tries to turn the viewing experience into a half-assed amusement park ride. Because all of these things are completely impractical in the majority of living rooms.

And it's not just gimmicky screenings. One of my two nearest movie theaters charges only £5 ($7) for adults, and the other has soft leather recliners and legroom that would make an airline CEO blush. Perhaps the thinking is that the best way to get people to take a seat is to show them what they are looking for: low prices and comfort that they don't have at home.

And it worked. When I lived within walking distance of a movie theater and didn't have to worry about parking or traffic, I would go to the theater on a whim. I even saw "Rampage" once. That was definitely not a good movie, but it didn't matter. I had no plans, and the ticket cost only five pounds.

But that was pre-Covid, and these days it takes a lot more to get out of the house and into a room with dozens of other people. Aside from the latest comic book movies like "Suicide Squad" and "Legend of Shan Chi and the Ten Rings," I've found that it's the IMAX theater that takes me out of the home theater.

I realized that this is not an entirely new development either: as far back as 2009, when "Avatar" was released, I avoided seeing it because I wanted to see it in IMAX. The entire film was marketed as being a visual spectacle, so I figured I should see it in IMAX. Staying at my parents' house, I had to wait two weeks until Christmas break when I could use the car.

Since then I have not had such a great experience with IMAX. I suffered through the awful blurry 3D conversion attempted in the final "Harry Potter" film, went out of my way to see Marvel TV's "Inhumans" snoozefest, and went on a slightly awkward date that was only made awkward by the fact that the Gemini man was present.

"Dune" is a good example. Since HBO Max is not available in this country, my only legitimate options were to watch it in the theater or wait for it to arrive through the normal home distribution channels. Honestly. I could wait. I had read the book, I couldn't be spoiled by the movie, and I would have to wait at least two years for the rest of it anyway.

However, one of the biggest draws of "Dune" is the spectacle, and I knew my TV (although a good one) could not hold a candle to a full-blown IMAX theater. This is because IMAX screens are large, averaging 52 feet high and 72 feet wide, or a little over 3.5 stories tall. That's bigger than my house, let alone a TV screen.

IMAX also has the advantage of a large aspect ratio. This is a higher ratio than the 16:9 of a TV or the 2:4:1 of a standard movie theater screen. And "Dune" pushes the ratio even higher, with a peak aspect ratio of 1.43:1 in IMAX laser (the highest IMAX) screenings. Naturally, scenes from films shot with IMAX cameras will show more, and Denis Villeneuve took advantage of this in his latest film.

After all, "Dune" is an epic story dedicated to location, and if you can see as much of Arachis as possible, you can see how desolate the planet is. But there is so much going on in the IMAX scenes of "Dune" that I find myself wondering how the editors could crop the images and still intend to include everything that matters.

One could say that Villeneuve should not have encouraged people to abandon HBO Max and watch the film in theaters. He should have insisted that they go see it in IMAX instead; Henry T. Casey, editor of Tom's Guide Streaming, admits that he should have seen the film in IMAX.

Although his choice of seat put him a little too close to one of the speakers (which sometimes hurt his ears), he enjoyed it much more than he did watching "Suicide Squad." In fact, as soon as I got home, I booked tickets for Marvel's "Eternals," which was similarly filmed with IMAX in mind. [It helps that Chloe Zhao is a very visual director, and "Eternals" promises many of the same big visuals that make the IMAX version of "Dune" so appealing. Zhao recently admitted that Denis Villeneuve helped him with the IMAX portion of the film.

It is clear that all the advantages of seeing a film in IMAX can also work against it: IMAX is a very specific type of cinema and is not as widespread as regular cinemas; the chances of finding more than one IMAX screen at a single multiplex are basically zero, and thus the daily The number of possible screenings is limited.

My nearest IMAX is a 45-minute drive away and appears to show only three times a day. And for the average person who works 9 to 5, these times were quite awkward. Even more so considering that "Dune" is two and a half hours long.

IMAX tickets are also expensive. If I had seen a regular screening of "Dune" at the same time as the IMAX screening, I would have paid about half the price. Even though British movie theaters seem to be in a race to the bottom, IMAX tickets are still more expensive. Not so bad for a single person or a couple watching a movie without the overpriced popcorn. But for a large group or family, doubling the price is not economical.

But for me, if I'm willing to forgo the trip to the movie theater and have to pause and go to the bathroom in the middle of the movie, I'd rather make sure the trip is worth the effort.