At the risk of sounding like Nicole Kidman, we all know the feelings that unite audiences in the cinema. But as I watched the re-release of Interstellar, a new feeling came over me. As I sat down in front of the IMAX screen at AMC Lincoln Square, I was honestly shocked to see the 2:45 p.m. Friday showing of a 10-year-old film in an incredibly large theater with dramatic bench seating – the only TRUE IMAX cinema in Manhattan – was totally full.

This marked the start of the film’s second weekend. (Last weekend, the film grossed a cool $4.6 million from 165 screens.) And before the film even started, it struck me that we in the audience were already deeply convinced that we wanted it relive “Interstellar.” Of course there were some who had never seen it. This was essentially a revival of Christopher Nolan’s 2014 space odyssey meets climate change and metaphysical father-and-daughter heartthrob. And as we looked at the giant square of a screen, I found myself immersed in the sacred cinematic trinity of curiosity, discovery and excitement.

I confess that I was never a big fan of Interstellar. Now that I’ve seen it for the second time, I’m still not. It’s a very strange blockbuster: made with the gorgeous, breathtaking, you-are-in-space technique of a filmmaking wizard (which is greatly enhanced by IMAX), and yet with a story that zigzags 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 “Whoa!” and woo-woo. The screenplay was written by Nolan and his brother and collaborator Jonathan Nolan, but Interstellar feels like a collaboration between Stephen Hawking and M. Night Shyamalan.

Moments of it touched and fascinated me, others made me cringe, but never completely bought It. I’m sorry, but there is a fundamental contradiction in making a “visionary” sci-fi film that is so fetishistically indebted to “2001: A Space Odyssey,” from the organ chords to the double-plane wormhole to the theme of the Rebirth of humanity. But my point here is not to complain. I have to say that despite all my complaining, I was really happy to see Interstellar back on the big screen. It felt like an adventure to travel back in time (even if just a decade), and I was thrilled to find 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 such 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 of flowers to, and there aren’t many like him. No one is suggesting that re-releasing the film would break the bank.

Still, I think this is a moment where carefully chosen new releases could attract audiences and serve a greater purpose. If you see a film in a cinema that is not a current film, then that is almost by definition a passion for cinema. And the passion for cinema must be remembered by the audience. The megaplex as a revival house? Why not? It’s been done before. But maybe we should think about doing it with some fresh programming know-how. First of all, here are 12 films that I would like to see again in the cinema with an audience. In other words, 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 audiences are alive and well for a “Gladiator” film. So why not bring back the original, in which Russell Crowe creates the definitive charismatic portrait of? not-toxic masculinity?

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

“Gravity” (2013). It’s simpler than “Interstellar” and three times the size of the film. Seeing the film in the theater will melt you into its star-struck majesty and anti-gravity pace, not to mention Sandra Bullock – in her best performance – as an astronaut set loose in the universe.

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

“Spirit” (1990). It’s got it all: love, death, pottery, supernatural excitement, and Demi Moore, the collective appreciation for who revived The Substance in its romantic heyday. And Patrick Swayze was quite a force. Time to return to her unleashed melody.

“Casino Royale” (2006). Now that Daniel Craig has left the Bond building, James Bond fans can relive what is arguably the greatest 007 film of all time. In my opinion, the Craig Bond films have become French overnight, but the actor’s first entry into the role is a stand-alone marvel of narrative grandeur.

“Bridesmaids” (2011). Nothing demands an audience like a comedy. And Kristen Wiig and Paul Feig’s tempestuous romantic satire of female friendship in the glowing light of marriage and class warfare is a kind of infectious laugh riot.

“Cocktail” (1988). Yes, I’m serious. For 40 years, the words “Tom Cruise” and “film audience” have been flip sides of the same coin. You could name 20 better Cruise films, but “Cocktail’s” claim to fame is its borderline innocent, borderline corrupt ’80s shamelessness. Could this deep, cheesy nostalgia work for a new generation? Let’s find out.

“Blade” (1998). The allure of Blade, the style-heavy vampire hunter, is now at its peak, and there’s a rush that comes from watching certain comic book movies 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 like old friends only adds to the enjoyment of this brilliant, gritty thriller, the kind of film that was once Hollywood’s bread and butter and now looks like Tolstoy. But it can still captivate the audience.

“Zoolander” (2001). Now republished, I imagine it as a “Rocky Horror Picture Show” for the age of Instagram narcissism. There’s quite a cult for this Ben Stiller fashionista farce, and they should embrace it, but so does a potential new generation of “Zoo” heads.

“primal instinct” (1992). Do you remember sex in the cinema? Even in 1992, there was a certain sense of guilt, and that’s part of what this infamous, downbeat thriller is about: throwing off the shackles of responsibility and giving in to the beast within. It’s time for Sharon Stone to remind us all once again what movie stars are.