Movie theater mille lacs

The movie is finally available in the Philippines!! Deciding whether I should watch it on IMAX or if 2D is fine. The price difference is only about $4 but the nearest IMAX theater from my place is roughly an hour away so just wondering if it's worth the travel or if I should just watch it from a cinema that's walking distance from me.
Appreciate your thoughts!

Some background: He's (21M) my (21F) coworker. We've been working together since June of last year but didn't really start talking to each other until September. We were hitting it off during the fall but didn't get the chance to work together as much during the spring due to scheduling changes. I definitely liked him first. I'm honestly not sure what I did to get him to like me back; I'm not particularly good at flirting at all. I guess I just annoyed him enough that I eventually started to grow on him. He's always asking me how I'm doing and how school's going. He goes out of his way to start a conversation with me. We have our little inside jokes; he's always teasing me about how aggressive I am. I've caught him looking at me several times.
Anyway, now that the school year is over, he's going to be doing an internship in another state for the next three months. I, on the other hand, am working on finding a new job so that I can move out. Suffice it to say, I'll probably be gone by the time he comes back to work in the fall. So, I decided to message him via our work communication app and ask for his contact information. I would have asked him in person, but our workplace only releases the schedule week-by-week, and it's not always consistent each week, so I didn't know that our last shift together (on May 5) would be our last 😔. This is a part-time job comprised mostly of high school and college students, so it's not like dating a coworker would risk my career or anything, and like I said, I'm planning on quitting anyway. What I said was this: "Hey, do you have Instagram or Snapchat or a phone number or something? Since I probably won't be working here by the time you come back in the fall. Idk just in case we never see each other again 😅".
I'm so scared. I was literally trembling as I sent the message. That was about six and a half hours ago; it's nearly 4 am now, so he's definitely not responding until morning. Was I too forward? Guys like it when girls make the first move, don't they? Did I make the right decision? I mean the worst he can say is no, right? Or, I guess, leave me on read, in this case. I'm worried I might be bothering him during finals week, although I think nearly everyone's finals are over at this point. I know he's a super busy guy; if he doesn't get back to me right away, I understand. I just couldn't hold back any longer; I was worried he'd stop looking at our work app over the summer and I'd lose my chance forever.
I'm also worried that he thinks I lost interest in him. I feel like I was bolder when talking to him during the fall, but these past few months I've been kind of shy around him since we hardly see each other anymore. Sometimes my mind just goes blank around him. I'm able to socialize with my other coworkers really easily because I'm not attracted to any of them, but when it's just us one-on-one my brain is just like "Oh my god, cute guy!" and turns to mush and I forget how to speak. Most of the time he's the one initiating the conversations and I feel bad. But I don't know, maybe I'm just overthinking things.
Lastly, I'm worried he might think less of me now that I've dropped out of college. I told him during our last shift together that I had dropped out about a month ago, and the way he reacted seemed a bit judgmental. I don't think he meant to be judgmental, though; I think he just had no idea what to say. Or maybe I'm just hypersensitive to criticism, I don't know. I didn't want to go into the personal reasons (mental health and family stuff) behind why I decided to drop out (although I think he can kind of tell something's up), so I'm worried he just thinks I'm lazy and a quitter. It doesn't help that I tend to goof off and socialize a lot during work; not to the point where I'm not doing my job, but enough that it's clear I'm definitely not the hardest worker there. He, on the other hand, is super conscientious about his work; he has a great work ethic, which I admire. I think we just view work in different ways. I'm never going to slack off so much that I'm hurting my coworkers, but I'm also not going to put in maximum effort for a corporation that doesn't even pay me a living wage. I'm just worried that he sees the way I act at work and thinks of me as this ditzy dumbass when I'm so much more than that.
I've never actually been in a relationship, but I have had quite a few crushes, and I can say without a doubt he's the biggest crush I've ever had. I know everyone views their crush through rose-colored glasses, and while I know he's not perfect, this man is seriously a walking green flag. He's so smart, handsome, and funny. He's the sweetest guy; I don't think he has a mean bone in his body. He's always trying to cheer me up whenever I'm down. He's effortlessly kind to everyone and goes out of his way to help people. Did I mention we work at a movie theater? Well, during the worst shift of my life, two weeks after Barbenheimer (fun for audiences, but absolute madness for movie theater employees), I was stuck working the concessions stand completely alone on a Saturday night (usually we would have three to four employees on such a busy night). It was chaos; literally a nonstop line for at least an hour and a half, with absolutely no help from my managers (until I had a mini mental breakdown later that night, but I digress). Anyway, my crush was literally the only one who helped me prior to my mini mental breakdown. He was working as an usher that night (one of the people who cleans the theaters after each movie) and stayed ten minutes past the end of his shift to help me make popcorn and restock the concessions stand. He didn't have to do that. Our managers worked us like dogs that summer; most people would have been out of there the moment their shift ended. But not him. This was before we had even started talking, definitely before he started reciprocating feelings. There was no ulterior motive here. He just saw a coworker struggling and decided to go out of his way to help, with no benefit to himself. Because that's just the type of person he is. And that might seem like a small thing to you guys, but I feel like genuine kindness is so rare these days. I feel it's such a dog-eat-dog world out there; seems like we're all becoming more and more individualistic, and that everyone is only looking out for themselves. I don't know, I just hear horror stories about shitty guys all the time, and he just seems different.
I'm just terrified of the response (or lack thereof) I'm going to wake up to in the morning. Because even if he does give me his number, what then? There's been this unspoken chemistry and connection between us for months now. One of us has to confess our feelings, right? Will it be me? Will it be him? Will either of us have the guts to do it? It's our last chance. It's now or never. And I feel like maybe I'm not in the best place in my life for a relationship... but are any of us ever truly ready for one? I couldn't help falling for him when I did. I just feel like if I don't take that risk and confess my feelings to him now, I'm going to regret it for the rest of my life. And even if he rejects me, or we try dating and it doesn't work out, at least I can say I tried. The pain of rejection is nothing compared to the pain of regret, right?
I just need some reassurance and support. Someone tell me I made the right decision. And wish me luck 😅

Hello,
I am moving to the bay area and love to explore cities. I don't know where to start really.
If it helps, I like bookstores, movie theaters, record stores, cute stores in general, good goodwill, good food that isn't too crazy expensive, hiking, and antique stores.
Thx for the help and can't wait to explore

Why This Poster Exits

It appears the upcoming Sonos headphones will have Dolby Atmos capability (for those with a Sonos soundbar). Hopefully we can finally have an unobtrusive option for watching movies while other people are present or sleeping nearby.

The Ace headphones will offer lossless audio playback over Bluetooth (presumably via AptX Lossless), and they’ll be capable of dynamic head tracking when a user is listening to spatial audio content on supported music services. The headphones will also deliver spatial audio for Dolby Atmos home theater content when you’re listening to TV audio; a Sonos soundbar will be required for the convenient feature of TV sound passthrough.

Hello, I’m 17 years old and want to watch a 17+ movie with a girl. But the only form of identification I have is an expired Id would I still be able to be let through?

Guns are just way too abundant and security is not strong enough in most places to deter a motivated person from killing many people at once in a short period of time.
Even if there was an assault weapons ban, plenty of mass shootings have been carried out with simple handguns. Handguns are easy to conceal and are legal to open or concealed carry in many places.
The worst school shooting in the US (and formerly worst mass shooting overall) at Virginia Tech was committed with two handguns which to my knowledge still have very little restrictions in that state. The spree only ended because the shooter committed suicide and he could have killed more which is a common scenario (as opposed to the shooter getting killed by police).
I think that shifting the age requirement from 18 to 21 doesn't really do much either, people still can get access to guns from those that are stored in their home that were legally obtained by an older person. E.g. the Sandy Hook shooter at 20 years of age was old enough to legally wield a "long gun" (rifles or shotguns) but ironically was not old enough to have a handgun. His mother had legally acquired many guns and was the one who taught him how to shoot. He used a rifle in the shooting.
The shooter at Parkland passed a background check despite having a slew of documented mental health issues, at the age of 19. This was a semi-automatic rifle he used to kill 17 people in 4 minutes.
Security is not strong enough anywhere to deter a motivated and well-planned shooter. Most times you hear about these things they just walk into a crowded place that is unguarded e.g. a supermarket, a church, a mosque, a nightclub, a university lecture hall, a restaurant, or an elementary school, a movie theater, and are able to wreak havoc in mere seconds. Unless we had a shit ton of guards in literally every location that a mass shooting could theoretically happen, there's no way I could see one actually being stopped before it starts.

INB4: I don't have kids, not sure I even want kids. Not a fan of kids who aren't my relatives, either. Not even a fan of all my relatives who are kids.
Some childfree people seem to be getting more and more entitled about feeling like they shouldn't have to be in a space where children exist ever. Childfree spaces are incredibly important, yes, and family friendly places having designated child-free hours is a great development. ETA, "childfree spaces" includes age-appropriate spaces for infants and younger children. I don't need a million comments about infants in movie theaters, I thought that would have been pretty easy to figure out
However, some people act as though it's some sort of infringement on their rights to have to exist in the same space as a child. Children exist and have a right to be in society. Yes, sometimes they will cry, throw tantrums, be loud, run around, etc, and when that happens, parents should absolutely be making their best effort to calm/quiet their child or remove their child from that space if necessary and able to.
But sometimes, children have to be allowed to exist in a space. Children will be on planes or public transportation sometimes. Children will live in your neighborhood or your apartment building. Children will be at the store or in a restaurant. Expecting perfect behavior from children 100% of the time is unreasonable. Expecting children to be extremely quiet 100% of the time is unreasonable.
No, children do need to be constantly running around and being loud, but also children do not need to be silent or invisible to be acceptable to society. There's a reasonable middle ground, and I think a lot of childfree people refuse to accept that.

So the movie is coming in december,and i hope it will make a ton of money domestically in my country.The reason is that Italians during christmas,for the most part,watch really dumb comedies set during christmas period.That don't really have nothing to do with christmas aside from the movie events happening late december.A movie like this,domestically in Italy,made more money than a Marvel movie or Star Wars movie in theaters at the same time. Its a pipedream,but if a dumb italian comedy is in theaters during december 2025,i hope the FNAF 2 movie will make more money domestically than that one. To give you an idea of how dumb these movies are,a infamous scene is about a rapper named Puke that calls his fans "belches".During a live performance,he pulls down his pants in front of his audience,puts a lighter in front of his behind,and does a fart on fire that send him to the hospital with severe burns.I'm gonna cringe so hard if something like that makes more money than FNAF 2 in my country.

Golf simulatoMovie Theater room needs completed. Im in the midwest and looking to see if bid seems fair for scope of work. Room has already been studded for 95% of it (just has to frame soffit for HVAC running along one side), electrician done, 40% insulation done, and low voltage done.
I am providing flooring, the remaining insulation material, and trim boards.
https://imgur.com/a/nMXppH9

I have a monitor audio bronz 2 bookshelf as front left and right speaker in a home theater. I am planning to upgrade them with one of the above. Which one of them will make the most audible difference in quality of sound. I will have to replace the matching center at later stage. My play time is 60% music 40% movies. All speakers are powered by denon 3700h receiver. Thanks in advance

Golf simulatoMovie Theater room needs completed. Midwest and looking to see if bid seems fair for scope of work. Room has already been studded for 95% of it (just has to frame soffit for HVAC running along one side), electrician done, 40% insulation done, and low voltage done.
I am providing flooring, the remaining insulation material, and trim boards.
https://imgur.com/a/nMXppH9

Adaptation is a game of give and take. Especially when you're adapting something from film to the stage, you have to be aware of what you are losing by removing from the piece when placing all of it in real time in front of the actors. With film you can use close-ups, montages, quick editing, lighting tricks, visual effects etc to create your world. The suspension of belief in film can be harder to keep in tact because we expect a degree of realism from it. In the theater, we know everything we're watching is an artifice. We know the sets are made of cardboard. We know the ocean is shiny plastic. We know that's not real blood or a real knife. You're going into this with a much higher suspension of belief than in film where the goal is often to mimic real life as much as humanly possible. One bad visual effect can break the whole movie. Think of how many reviews, good and bad, couldn't help but mention the less than great visuals in the final battle in the first Black Panther film. On stage, you have the benefit of actors being able to respond in real time to anything that goes wrong and because that person is right in front of us, we have that connection with them and we can go along for the ride much easier than with film. That give and take can make or break an adaptation because for whatever you take away you have to justify that choice by adding something to it. Many adaptations, regardless of the medium, don't always do this and if they do they don't fully understand why what they removed worked. Anastasia is one such example of this because while they do try to add new elements to the story, it almost feels like an entirely different show. But to explain the intricacies of that we need to go back, all the way back.
Don Bluth made a name for himself primarily in the 80's after leaving Disney and creating his own animated films. His work was seen by many as anti-Disney because of the complexity of themes, darker subject matter and animation style that wasn't afraid to be uncomfortable or ugly. That's the general perception of his work but I'd also argue that the relationships between the characters in his films were much more fleshed out and complex than a lot of the stuff Disney was releasing at the time or after. Bluth wasn't afraid to have his characters be rude or mean or cowardly or insecure. The protagonist wasn't always a hero in the purest sense and oftentimes characters would act in a way we'd consider realistic. If they were in a scary situation, they'd run away or try to get out of it. If it was a situation that could benefit them, they'd try to profit to the fullest. Bluth placed his characters in worlds that were very mean and cruel but this only served to heighten the moments of joy and levity. As the 90's rolled on and Disney managed to climb back to the top of the mountain, Bluth did what he could to try to keep up. He didn't see a ton of success in the 90's largely because while at times he tried to ape the Disney formula, they still felt like watered down Don Bluth films.
Enter Lynn Arhens and Stephen Flathery.
In the 90's, these two were some of the biggest names in musical theater with projects like Once On This Island and Ragtime under their belts, to name a few. Lynn Arhens is actually a personal hero and inspiration of mine and oddly enough not for her theater work, although I'm a huge fan of that as well. I grew up watching Schoolhouse Rock as a kid and I actually learned how to write songs while watching those videos. Laugh all you want but you tell me how'd you explain something as complex as parts of grammar or the solar system or the revolutionary war in three minutes or less, for children no less. Her superpower is being able to explain a lot of information in a very short amount of time while having you sing along. Another thing she excels at is making songs the audience can actually leave the theater humming. That being said, it's worth contextualizing the world in which the bulk of their success was born.
Much like Democrats shell shocked by the Republican successes of the 90's, everyone not named Andrew Lloyd Webber was still in a state of awe and envy due to the massive success of Phantom of the Opera, Cats and Evita. The mega musical was born in the 80's and as we tap danced into the 90's, everyone else was trying to catch up. A characteristic of musicals from this era was that they all had that one big song they could perform just about everywhere to pull people in who otherwise may have never given the show a second glance. This was often the catchiest song in the show, oftentimes the opener, and the rest of the songs could range from equally good to songs you'd skip on the soundtrack. This is very much an approach that Arhens and Flathery would use and while I wouldn't say any of their songs were outright bad, there's often quite a bit of fluff. On the flip side, the 90's Disney animated musicals maybe had 5 to 7 songs and there was definitely an economy of time at play here. Today an animated film can be two hours, in the 90's this was far from the case. Every song needed to have a specific function within the story and character development. Rarely would you get songs that are just there to be there. Les Poissons is an example of this. The court of miracles and gargoyles number from Hunchback are also examples. But usually the stronger films like Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King etc were very careful about how many songs and where they were placed. In theater, you can cut and remove songs during previews or even during the run of the show. Outside of doing test screenings, film doesn't really afford you this unless you're early enough in production that the changes can be done in a reasonable amount of time. It's not like Disney could've released a new version of Hunchback as it was in theaters if audiences weren't responding to A Guy Like You. All of this is important because while Don Bluth was very much aping Disney's style at the time, it was clear he was trying to bring elements of the theater to the film as well.
Anastasia the film for all its flaws, and we'll get to those, is a pretty tight narrative and nearly every single song serves some sort of narrative or character based purpose. If a character is singing there is a reason why and that character is important in some way. A big part of the reason why it works is because while it's definitely inspired by The Mouse's then current offerings, it still very much feels like a Don Bluth film. The concept of even turning this story into a musical is very off-beat and in-tune with what Bluth would normally make. I can't imagine Disney making The Secret of Nimh but I can imagine Bluth trying and succeeding at making The Black Cauldron. I really don't see Disney ever making a film like All Dog's Go to Heaven but I can definitely see Bluth doing something really interesting with The Great Mouse Detective. His style is dark and evocative and isn't afraid to make you deeply uncomfortable or sad. Anastasia definitely toes the line but there's sequences in there I just cannot imagine Disney ever doing. The sequence for Once Upon a December is so haunting, melancholy, deeply sad and yet hopeful. Anything having to do with those weird demon things, especially when they try to get Anya to commit suicide, is something Eisner would never let his animators do. At the same time, the relationship between Anya and Demitri feels less like a fairytale romance but honestly like a 90's Meg Ryan romcom. They argue like normal people. They joke with each other like an actual couple would. They feel very realistic and realistic relationships between characters is something Bluth excels at. Because the worlds he creates are usually pretty ugly in some ways, it allows for the relationships to be more grounded. You wouldn't but Anya falling for Demitri in a day like Ariel did for Eric because the world the former couple inhabits feels harsher and therefore the characters have more grit. That being said the film does have flaws that become very relevant once we start talking about the stage version:
1) The villain does not feel properly integrated into the story. Most Disney villains had some kind of relationship with the protagonist that sets the main conflict into motion. Ursula is the one who conducts the spell. Scar is both Simba's uncle and kills Mufasa. Jafar is the first main character we ever see and he's the one who finds Aladdin. Rasputin is in the opening and he does set up the main conflict but there's no relationship between him and the protagonists. They don't even know he's alive until the last ten minutes of the film. He impact the narrative but he definitely could have been woven into the narrative more. I think confining him to the underworld was a mistake. With some slight reworking, you could have had him appearing as some of the randos Anastasia meets along her journey or even have the orphanage owned by him a la Mister Sinister. The setting and time period feels more like a suggestion than any sort of adherence to historical accuracy so they could've gone wild.
2) Most of the stuff in Paris feels like a completely separate movie. The last song we get is Key to Your Heart, which is also the closest we get to fluff, and there's no song within the film proper until after that. At the Beginning absolutely slaps but it should've been in the actual film. Everything after Sophie's song is fine but the film takes on a much more serious and grounded tone until Rasputin decides to remind us he's in the movie. The somewhat surreal tone and the momentum the film had comes to a screeching halt once we get to Paris. That being said, it's still a very good portion of the film but it doesn't really match with anything else in the first two acts.
3) Rasputin's motivations aren't entirely clear. He's still alive because the curse hasn't been fulfilled, I think. He wants to die forreal but that only happens if Anya is offed and even then that's ambiguous. Does he wanna die? Does he wanna be human again? Did he want power of any sort? If he wants to fulfill the curse to move on, we see he bites the dust quite literally once Anya breaks the glowing thingy anyway. It's a cartoon so you could say don't think too hard about it but the logic falls apart the exact second you analyze it. Why not have Bartok just smash the thing once he realizes it's still active? Why does Rasputin want the Romanovs dead so damn badly? His reasonings aren't explained well in the beginning so his actions feel more like an act of interia that anything else.
4) The side characters are kinda annoying. Vlad is mostly okay because he serves a definite role in the story as playing the more level headed one to Demitri's more fiery personality. Sophie starts to grate on my nerves but whenever she does they shunt her out of the film. The mandatory cute animal sidekicks range from irritating to please make it stop.
For what it's worth, the stage adaptation exercises both animal sidekicks largely be consequence of this version trying to be more historical fiction rather than a Disney Renaissance style musical. That brings us to one of the biggest and most controversial changes in the stage version, Gleb. He's a Russian officer who is torn between his feelings for Anya and his duty to the cause. He replaced Rasputin as the main threat. With Gleb, they do rectify points 1 and 3 but this is not without losing much of the energy Rapustin injects into the piece. For all his faults, Rasputin and his weird demon things move shit from Point A to Point B while also being very entertaining at the same time. Gleb has more of a motivation than Rasputin but the story comes to a screeching halt whenever we have to focus on him. He is in love with Anya because she's hot I guess and we get so many songs of this dude belting for the gods about how much he wants her but he can't pursue her. There are a total of three songs counting reprises that are dedicated to this and they're basically all the same. Gleb wants to bone, he has daddy issues and we move on. He interacts with her more but there is no reason he should be this blue balled over a chick he does not know. Anya and Demitri still have great chemistry and the plot is reworked to give them more time together. I like their dynamic more in the film but the musical does this fine but just differently. Anya doesn't really even know Gleb nor that he wants to see if the curtains match the drapes. So we're stuck in this completely unnecessary lopsided love triangle that makes Wolverine, Scott and Jean Grey's bullshit seem like Shakespeare. There is almost zero evolution within Gleb's many croons about how much he wants to bang this chick. He comes to basically the same revelation every single time so whenever he gets a song it's basically time for a pee break. Unlike Rapustin who at least gets an entertaining last fight and death, Gleb doesn't really even get that. He corners her, she goes full on Malala and tells him to do what he's gotta do, he chickens out and dips. They try to give it some weight by having Anya comfort him but she doesn't know this man and she certainly doesn't know he's in love with her. It feels even less powerful than the original ending because at least Rasputin actually killed her family so there's some connection there. Gleb is the son of the guy who was involved so his connection to any of this is nebulous at best. Why not just make him an ex-boyfriend or orphan she grew up with? Why not actually just make him the dad Gleb keeps referring to? Rasputin actually wants her dead and the story moves mostly because of his machinations behind the scenes. Gleb feels shoehorned into this narrative and he's not even entertaining while he's there. His songs are slow, repetitive and he has no real personality.
This is not the only change they made to the story. Vlad now has a mini subplot where he's trying to get back Sophie, now named Lily. This means she's in the story a lot more than she was previously and they don't succeed in making her less annoying. In film, a character can bounce in and out of the narrative without us questioning why they're not there. Theater is a bit different because you can't really have characters that just show up and never appear again. It's been done but usually they'll have the actor play a dual role in the story as well. Lily gets a lot more to do and I'm sorry but almost every song she gets besides the one from the film are also pee break songs. Land of Yesterday just feels like a Russian version of If I Knew Then from Beetlejuice but with much less relevance to the story. The Empress also gets a song now and while it's more memorable than any of the stuff Gleb or Lily get, there's no reason for it to be there. Some composers feel the compulsion to make every single emotional beat a song and while I understand that desire, you don't need it. Honestly my first time seeing the show, I started laughing when she busted out singing because it's so random. The original film got the point across without this and the musical does not expand on her character in any way so there's nothing new to communicate here. Maybe they felt the character should sing more but even without Close the Door, she gets some parts in other songs. This is an example of the fluff I was referring to earlier.
But for everything they added, they removed a lot of stuff but tried to play it down the middle. For example, in the film Rasputin tries to get Anastasia to kill herself by giving her an enchanting dream that turns into a nightmare. Demetri saves her life, she now has learned to trust him more and we move on. In the musical, Rapustin no longer exists but the scene does in a way. Now she has a nightmare about her family being killed where she Demetri comforts her as he does before but there's no narrative reason for this scene to be here. By this point, they've had more moments to build the romantic connection so it feels redundant. They also want to give us a reason to lead into the song where they realize they both know each other and that she's really Anastasia. It's a very flimsy setup and the film did this much better by having Demetri be the one who saved her life. It also undercuts his character development by a lot. There's no scene where he rejects the money. He doesn't have a personal connection to Anya or her grandmother like he did before. His character is neutered a lot in this version and doesn't come off as selfless as he did before. He turns down the money but not only does he have less of a reason to that now, that reveal feels much less powerful. His character isn't even involved in saving her life towards the end. While they do get more time to bond in this version, I just don't feel like they added enough to justify some of these changes.
I don't quite understand why they chose to go the route of realism with the musical. Maybe they're responding to people who thought the more fantastical elements were out of place but as we can see without that, the story doesn't have much of a reason to be a musical. There's an older movie version of this story with Ingrid Bergman that hits a lot of the same beats as the 90's version. That version is decidedly not a musical and also isn't that great of a film either. This isn't the easiest story to make compelling and the 90's version threaded the needle as best as it could. By using the story of Anastasia as more of a jumping off point for the type of fairytale musical audiences had become used to, it managed to make the story more removed from the actual real life Anastasia who did in fact die, although that was not known back then. The musical leans too much into the history and it just doesn't work. There are dark shows that deal with heavy subject matter. The Color Purple is basically just Beat My Ass: The Musical. But that show isn't also trying to be a romantic whimsical experience, Anastasia very much is. I wish they had just kept Rapustin, weaved him into the story more naturally and gave him a stronger personal connection to Anastasia and kept the darker non-history related elements in the show. The movie is plenty dark at times but the history and political struggle is given a passing mention in the opening and is rarely ever brought up again unless to refer to actual murders. The musical felt like Bridge of Spies set to music with how much focus they put on the political aspect of the story. That does not mesh and I think it's part of the reason why this show doesn't have as strong of a following as the film. It's not ungodly awful, but it doesn't justify its existence.

Alright Cincinnati, I need to know where I can get the best Icee flavors (preferably icee brand but others will do). Looking for somewhere that has flavors besides just blue, red, and cola. Also ideally somewhere with free admission, like a gas station, not a movie theater

Honestly, I saw this random film on youtube and I can't find the name. All I remember is that the film takes place in a theatre/play where the audience (or some of the characters) can do whatever they want to the actors. I think it was an old movie, but not completely sure. The only scene I can kinda remember was one where a woman was like assualted by either the audience or the other stage characters; and, she claimed her son/child was like an important figure in religion/the theater's story.