This is just a quick thread which will fade soon enough, but I didn't want to pose this dilemma in an already existing thread because I didn't think anyone would see it in time for me to make a decision. Any advice will be most appreciated. I'm trying to decide whether it would be worth it to go see the Nicholas Ray KING OF KINGS in a theater for the first time on Easter night or to save my money and instead buy the Blu Ray. Why not do both? Well because money is very tight right now and I can't really justify spending over $25 for one movie, which is just about what it would entail. Admission to the movie is $11 plus the cost of gas to drive to the theater. The Blu Ray is currently $14.99 at Amazon. The theatrical version being shown will not be in 70mm, but 35mm, and according to the theater website, it is about four minutes shorter than the Blu Ray running time, leading me to believe it will probably be missing the Overture or the Entr'acte or Exit music, maybe all three? Adding to this concern is that there is no information at all about the print being shown. I have had mixed experiences in this venue regarding print quality, but reigning in my mind are an absolute horrible print of EL CID I saw there a few years ago and an equally bad ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST I have to admit that if it were in 70mm, there would be no hesitation in going even if the print was worn. I guess I could go see it and then hold off on getting the Blu until I had more money or it gets reduced in price. What would you do?