tomroyal.com

Somewhere in deepest darkest Greenwich, out near the Millenium Dome, lies an Odeon multiplex cinema. Formerly a Filmworks, it's the shape of a huge bucket and holds 18 screens including, since December, an IMAX theatre.

How, I wondered, can you cram an IMAX screen into an existing cinema without ripping a good half-dozen other screens out? The answer is that, as it turns out, you don't. You stick a smaller screen in, slap a big IMAX badge on the outside and a few extra quid on each ticket.

Look on the web for information on the Greenwich IMAX and you'll find that IMAX has been outfitting cinemas with a system completely different to its traditional "build a screen the size of Jupiter and project 70mm film on it" setup for some time. Some people are very angry with the fact that the new, identically named, IMAX system is obviously inferior to the original as it uses a far smaller screen and relatively low-spec projectors (two 2K, rather than 4K, models). You'll also find an Odeon website blathering about "floor to ceiling screens" and "theatre geometry", while a local newspaper report shows four kids with an oversized ticket and the rather grainy picture of the screen I've reproduced above.

Nothing on the web, though, could tell me what I needed to know: should we pick an IMAX showing of the film (conforming entirely to stereotype, we wanted to see Star Trek) at Greenwich or the slightly cheaper 35mm screening next door? So, dear Google indexing robots and those who may be searching for the same information, here's my two cents.

The IMAX screen (9) is, appropriately, one of the biggest – almost 240 seats in three banks. Most of the central bank are "premier" seats that cost extra. We were on the aisle on a side bank about two thirds of the way up, and the view was fine – the rake's quite steep, so you can see clearly over those in front. The screen itself is nowhere near IMAX size, but large enough for the auditorium and, yes, almost floor to ceiling, while the sound system is impressive if terrifyingly loud. The image in our showing was brilliant for roughly two hours of the film, but marred by annoying blue stripes for about two minutes near the start – whatever caused these, they were fortunately banished.

So, is this new, smaller IMAX a con? Possibly – it's certainly confusing. Is it worth a fiver per ticket if you know it's not proper IMAX, though? I'd say so: short glitch aside, the picture is better than most that I've seen in UK multiplexes lately, so you're paying a bit more for a high quality digital screening. And, as an added bonus, there's very little pre-film advertising to suffer through – just a few IMAX idents and two of the dumbest trailers I've ever seen (Transformers 2 and, honestly, GI Joe The Movie). Go, gawk, enjoy – just don't cough up any more for the Premier seats.

Oh, and Star Trek is really rather good. Thanks for asking.

Every so often, in the office, a pub, or an airport lounge, I find myself having an argument with someone over London. Or, more specifically, why on earth anyone would choose to live here. Every time it boils down to the same thing: I'm presented with a fairly reasonable list of things that stink about the city (the price of housing, the price of transport, the price of beer, the price of anything else come to think of it, the fact that most of W1 smells strongly of piss until they hose it down at 8am, the tramps, the drug dealers, the crime statistics, etc etc). In return, I offer a couple of good reasons why I like it. Somewhere in the middle of this list, after true 24-hour shopping and transport, the Tate museums, any variety of specialist food / shop you could ever need within 40 minutes, I usually end up mentioning London's many cinemas and theatres.

This is wildly hypocritical for two reasons. For one, I really hate cinemas. Although I walk past the Soho Curzon almost every day, and I'm cheered by its existence, I've never seen a film there and I probably never will. Who wants to watch a film in a room full of randoms with no easy access to a kettle or pause button? Not me. As for multiplexes full of sugar-caned teenagers stuffing week-old popcorn, I'd rather simply not watch the film at all, thanks very much. And the adverts before each screening are annoying. Gah.

As for the theatre: I never go. This is not because I don't like it (I do, and unlike cinema there's no home-based equivalent other than maybe watching drunks row in the street), and not for a want of trying, but largely because it's a) expensive and b) almost impossible to get seats for anything worth watching unless you're organised enough to book far in advance. So, despite living in London for years and working in what's sometimes hilariously dubbed "London's Theatreland" (where's the Hamlet-themed roller coaster?), I haven't been to the theatre since moving here.

Until yesterday, that is. Thanks to some marvellously good luck, good fortune and timing (bank holiday, theatre tokens, me noticing the sign going up at the Gielgud theatre the other week on the way to work, and getting in before the reviews are printed) Helen and I went to see God of Carnage at a preview last night. I won't spoil the plot any more than the website itself does, but here's a three bullet point review:

• Stupid name (and logo, for that matter – it looks like the kid from the Great Ormond Street adverts got hit by a bus)
• Very funny script that doesn't seem to have been wrecked in translation (they/he/whatever left the setting in France, so all the Monsieur/Madame stuff still works)
• It's good. Go see it if you get the chance.

So, that's theatre covered for the next five or so years. Now I'm on a roll I might even get my arse down to see No Country for Old Men at the BFI, if they sell coffee.