I judge movies on two variables: cost and "size". Cost is the price for seeing the movie - is it truly worth the $10 to see it at the first-run cinema, should I wait for second-run, or is it worth renting via Netflix, or should I wait for cable (some are only worth "waiting for broadcast"!)? Size is whether or not I think the movie would be diminished by seeing it on a smaller screen (my 27" Toshiba) rather than the however-many-feet in a cinema.
For some movies, it's pretty clear. "Pirates of the Caribbean", for example, is worth first- or second-run because it really wouldn't translate well on the smaller screen. "Scoop", on the other hand, would translate just fine. Sadly, I'm finding that the vast majority of movies fall in the the latter category.
Pop Goes the Library has a post about this very topic
For example: Going to movies at theaters still has appeal, particularly for younger teens, but among respondents ages 21 to 24, 56% said they wanted to see the new movie at home, and only 9% said they would rather travel to a theater.I'd also venture to suggest that part of the problem is that you've paid $10 for the movie, only to have people all around talking and using their cell phones and taking care of their crying/squirming child (apparently, babysitting is no longer in fashion) - even in the middle of a PG13 or R movie. It makes the experience that much less pleasant.
I don't know if this is a price thing or if it's an indication that we're becoming more and more insulated--that it's harder to have those kinds of big planned moments that connects a large portion of society. I remember reading once that during the series finale of M*A*S*H, sewer systems up and down the East Coast were overtaxed because everyone was using the bathroom during commercial breaks. I doubt something like that could happen nowadays. I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing, but it's something to think about.
As Norma Desmond so famously said, "It's the *pictures* that got small."