AMC Loews Lincoln Square 13 with IMAX

1998 Broadway,
New York, NY 10023

Unfavorite 62 people favorited this theater

Showing 201 - 225 of 1,250 comments

moviebuff82 on September 11, 2017 at 5:19 pm

I wonder when AMC will renovate the other screens will they change the name to just AMC Lincoln Square?

bigjoe59 on September 11, 2017 at 1:40 pm


thanks to Mikeoaklandpark for your reply. I am still baffled by it all. I can’t tell you the number of BIG eagerly awaited films that I have seen where the auditorium I see it in is virtually empty. then when I read on Mon. morning that the film had a huge opening weekend I can’t help but wonder where the $$$ came from.

Mikeoaklandpark on September 11, 2017 at 12:34 pm

It was sold out at my local Cinemark and it was in their largest theater

bigjoe59 on September 11, 2017 at 12:02 pm


for people who saw IT at this theater was your particular auditorium any where near full? i saw it at an other AMC/Loews theater and the place was maybe 15 percent full. so how did the film gross $123 mil on the opening weekend?

xbs2034 on September 1, 2017 at 9:32 pm

The Landmark and Lincoln Square will have some overlap on the film’s they play, as tickets for Mother! are on sale for both locations (when you consider how far west the Landmark is, they are probably over a mile away from each other, so it’s not too much for them to play the same film in my opinion).

Also, while Dunkirk has now completed its IMAX run, AMC actually brought back the regular 70mm print on the Loews screen for Labor day weekend.

ridethectrain on August 29, 2017 at 12:28 pm

with the lessoning on competition. Yes I expect competition

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on August 29, 2017 at 12:18 pm

With eight screens I imagine they will play anything they can get.

bigjoe59 on August 29, 2017 at 11:26 am


to Al A., boy the stuff you know and I thought I knew a lot. I wasn’t aware Mark “Shark Tank” Cuban was the owner of the Landmark chain. what you said about affording the same films as the places you stated is certainly a valid point. but is the new multiplex going to be art house fare or a mix with big studio films. one thing I like about the Sunshine is it only plays art house fare.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on August 28, 2017 at 2:25 pm

If they can avoid playing the same films as Lincoln Plaza, Lincoln Center and Lincoln Square, they can succeed. Don’t forget that Landmark’s owner, Mark Cuban, also owns Magnolia Film and can provide himself area exclusives the same way IFC and Cohen do in Greenwich Village.

bigjoe59 on August 28, 2017 at 12:49 pm


thanks for the reply. as I see it the success of the new multiplex depends on the people in the immediate are frequenting it. I doubt anyone else will venture to 57St. and 12th Ave. to see a film. its kind of like the 62 St. and 1st Ave. multiplex which opened in 1992? while it was a modern state of the art facility at the time it didn’t help it in succeeding and that was a fairly residential area as well.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on August 28, 2017 at 12:22 pm

bigjoe59, it is a growing neighborhood full of bars and restaurants with several new condos going up. The area is already so popular that that the community board gets constant late night noise complaints from local residents.

bigjoe59 on August 28, 2017 at 12:11 pm


to Al A.– i hope you don’t mind me posting a question on this page since the theater in question doesn’t have a page yet. this Sept. Landmark Theaters will open a multiplex on 57Th St. and 12th Ave. who in the name of God is going to go to a theater on 57th St. and 12th Ave.?

CF100 on August 28, 2017 at 11:22 am

In the interests of truth seeking, from “Perception while watching movies: Effects of physical screen size and scene type”:

“5.1. Why do presence ratings increase with screen size?


“Thus, a high-level account of these results might posit that larger displays are generally more impressive and therefore more engaging. Of course, it should come as no surprise that object size is an important visual measure. After all, it is not retinal images but the properties of distal stimuli that we are rightly interested in, and our perceptions of these are derived from the influences of various perceptual constancies, including size constancy.

“Evidence from fMRI (Murray, Boyaci, & Kersten, 2006) has shown that the spread of activation across the retinotopic V1 increases with an increase in perceived size, even when retinal size is constant. Exactly why this occurs is still not clear […] but it does show that the perception of physical object size, traditionally associated with high-level processes, can assert its influence at the very earliest stages of cortical visual processing, presumably through feedback.”

So, screen size is a factor, albeit in that particular study the field of view was kept constant, with the screen size altered by using two different screens, one more than twice the size of the other.

CF100 on August 28, 2017 at 5:05 am

alpinedownhiller: Sure, screen size is a factor, hence I began my post by comparing an 80ft.+ wide screen with a 5" diagonal mobile phone. Obviously holding the phone right in front of your eyes isn’t the same as a large screen even if the “FOV” is the same.

Confused by your comment: “Yeah but since you can chose where to sit, screen size does make a difference”?

alpinedownhiller on August 27, 2017 at 9:26 pm

Yeah but since you can chose where to sit, screen size does make a difference.

(Plus, you actually still get a sense that a screen is a bigger and it feels more impressive even if you sit far enough back that it fills up less of your FOV. Sit farther back from a 100' wide screen relatively to FOV than a 60' and it still feels way bigger and more impressive and sitting far back from a 30' screen feels more impressive than sitting 12" away from a 24" wide screen.)

CF100 on August 27, 2017 at 3:59 pm

With regard to the discussion on IMAX screen sizes, the important factor (given, say, 80ft.+ wide screens and not a 5" mobile phone) is the geometry of the auditorium.

IMAX and OMNIMAX Theatre Design goes into some detail on their requirements.

Essentially, the distance from the screen to the last row should not exceed one screen width, and the first row not more than 0.35x screen width.

Also, the front row should be somewhat above the bottom of the screen, and the last row positioned about half way up.

Of course, the projection system must also be adequate to cope with the closer position to the screen compared to a traditional auditorium, and stadium seating is a given.

These requirements can also be expressed in terms of horizontal and vertical viewing angles.

IOW, whether a screen is 85ft. or 95ft. wide will make little difference, especially since the viewing angles vary depending on which row you choose to sit in!

bigjoe59 on August 25, 2017 at 1:49 pm


I wasn’t aware Union Square was the only theater to have it. I was just asking fellow moviegoers who might have experienced it was it was exactly. so I thank AL A. for his frank critique of it.

digital3d on August 24, 2017 at 9:44 pm

Regal E-Walk also has 4DX.

It’s priced about the same as IMAX. Though before noon IMAX is cheaper.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on August 24, 2017 at 9:16 pm

Why would you ask that question here, bigjoe59? Union Square is the only 4DX house in NYC and it IS a stupid rip-off.

rayman29 on August 24, 2017 at 9:04 pm

This is 4DX.

bigjoe59 on August 24, 2017 at 1:02 pm


exhibitors are forever thinking up ways to get more $$$ from moviegoers eventhough movie tickets in Manhattan are already to frigging high. to which what in God’s name is 4DX?

moviebuff82 on August 2, 2017 at 10:47 am

The imax at the AMNH is the second biggest real imax in the city, although they mostly show documentaries in regular and digital and lack reserved seating that other imaxes have. It’s also the oldest and first IMAX theater in the NYC area since its opening more than 35 years ago.

alpinedownhiller on August 1, 2017 at 5:43 pm

(Thinking about the Chinese more, I think I was probably getting the 80' figure from recalling what they had said about the size of the screen that they had taken OUT and not the one they put in when they put in the new Laser IMAX system, so the 94' probably is correct.

Side, side note, Jersey Gardens theater in NJ has a huge auditorium that has the width to easily support at least a 75' wide screen, maybe even 80', it seems to have mroe like a 65', the problem is down where the screen is the ceiling is really low so they can’t fit much more than a 65' wide one in height wise if they want to keep at least ditigal IMAX ratio, if they were willing to move it up a few rows, which would seem reasonable enough since the place has a zillion seats in it, I’m sure they could fit in at least a 70' digital IMAX screen and I wonder if they could manage a 75', it might even be possible to raise the ceiling a bit down there since I suspect there has got to be some good bit of space up above the ceiling assuming they don’t have some critical pipes and such routed above it right there and then, if they ever went laser, could maybe give northern NJ a huge 80' wide digital IMAX ratio screen)

Back to this one, the weird thing is the auditorium here and screen at first look actually look smaller than the Reading Laser IMAX. I could swear the theater here has less seats across each row. That said once the full Dunkirk trailer started it did seem super looming, running full height, even from second to last row and that did give the sense the screen is the largest around. But the Reading one is huge. I’m sure it’s got to be the 86' you mention for sure and I might have guessed more like 93'. I think the New England Aquarium one is 85'. Anyway, whatever, hard to eyeball and different auditorium shapes can make it trickier to get a feel for what is going on.

I’m not a fan of the buttkickers at Reading, but otherwise it’s the best screen I’ve ever seen (the one here would be second best now for 2D but, at least the day I was there with the glasses they had then, one of the worst ever for 3D). I could swear they keep it, the Reading, even darker in the auditorium than the Laser IMAX here at Lincoln Square so the blacks are just utterly inky and the 3D, at least when I was there, used different glasses that produce utter perfection, just unlike any 3D I’ve seen anywhere else ever, just perfect, while the Laser 3D here ended up being horribly disappointing with the new glasses producing terrible double vision for the right eye, realyl do hope they actually do 100% fix that)

HowardBHaas on August 1, 2017 at 2:30 am

As an official volunteer, I’ve often added screen sizes to the Introductions of our pages, especially when I see the most credible proof, such as the theater’s official website providing specifications so feel free to link such information -copy & paste from the link & mention the source- in a comment on the relevant theater page. I’ll often see such pages for well known movie theaters. This site wishes to be specific for each theater.

xbs2034 on July 31, 2017 at 8:51 pm

Al Alvarez- thanks to the laser system, now every film fills the screen at least left to right, and it can be completely filled top and bottom with a 1.43 title.

Alpinedownhiller- I did see Dunkirk in IMAX laser in the Reading, MA IMAX just last week (to see it a second time after first seeing it in regular 70mm in NYC), and had been there once before for the first Amazing Spider-Man on 15/70 film. And the screen isn’t quite as big as Lincoln Square or San Fran (I believe it is 86 feet wide, but not sure on that), but its definitely one of the more impressive IMAXes I’ve seen. And seeing the 1.43 footage in Dunkirk there was pretty breathtaking (I also thought the regular 70mm footage, while obviously not as impressive, looked a bit better there than on 70mm film projection).