I'm not sure I agree with an earlier poster who stated that curved screens in cinemas were done to compensate for the shortcoming of projectors. However curved screens did optimize the image produced through anamorphic lenses,
From my understanding, one of the benefits of a curved screen was the enhancing of peripheral vision, to draw the viewer more into the action as happens to us in our everyday experience of the visual world. But this effect require a large screen, so that the edges of the screen were perceptibly to the sides of the center of the viewer's focus. This doesn't occur with a small TV display.
A curved screen on a smaller display can have aesthetic appeal, which is obviously a matter of taste, and possibly a curved screen is structurally stronger than a flat one, but I'm not sure.
As to the point that Irkuck has raised consistently...that the benefits of 4K begin to appear at larger screen sizes...I ran across a review of the new Onkyo TX-NR636 AV Receiver on Sound And Vision which reiterates the point:
"...but the big news is “full” 4K-at-60-Hz ability, versus the 4K-at-30-Hz limitation of HDMI 1.4. I won’t have much to say about that, lacking as I do 4K sources and a 4K display—nor am I quite sure I’m ready to sit 4 feet from a 50-inch screen to perceive the greater pixel density beyond 1080p that 4K video offers..."
What Irkuck has been talking about has to do with the ability of the eye at various distance to resolve detail, and this is based on pretty uncontroversial science.
Marketers often do not simply speak to our needs, but actually stir us up to want things that we think we need. To take a critical look at this is a useful point of view, whatever people decide to do with their purchases.
My perception of the 65" 4K set as somewhat sharper was based on my being pretty close to the display.