Jackson Heights Cinema

40-31 82nd Street,
Jackson Heights, NY 11373

Unfavorite 11 people favorited this theater

Showing 76 - 100 of 139 comments

Bway
Bway on June 9, 2006 at 12:46 am

Well hopefully they do the same thing at the Ridgewood Theater, as I think it’s the same owners. I don’t think they need a building permit to just renovate their auditoriums. Apparently they keep the Jackson in about as good a shape as they keep the Ridgewood. Any repair is better than nothing.

Warren, interesting find about the JH Airdome.

imoutopoul
imoutopoul on June 1, 2006 at 4:53 pm

Hey Guys,
I was at the Jackson the other night catching X-Men. I noticed that the main theater was closed and the windows blacked out. Depending who I spoke to I was told that the projector needed repair to the ceiling being fixed to a major overhaul of the main theater. I didn’t see any building permits or construction containers around the theater. Everybody I did speak to said that it would reopen within a month. Does anybody have any further info?
Jimmy M

Bway
Bway on March 21, 2006 at 5:50 am

Oh, and Warren, I forgot to comment on your comment about the movies on the Jackson’s marquee in the current photos…..it appears perhaps all three are fitting for the theater’s present state!! Irony is not even the word!

Bway
Bway on March 21, 2006 at 5:48 am

Thank you Warren, what an elegant interior it had! And the beautiful marquee! Compared to what is there today! Thanks for the photos.
From what I gather, the front part fo the Jackson is still intact, meaning the procenium arch, and all the plasterwork, because the multiplexing took place in the back of the theater?

Bway
Bway on March 21, 2006 at 4:29 am

As for the condition, it appears the owners of the Jackson (which also own the Ridgewood Theater) don’t seem to take much better care of the place than the Ridgewood Theater. In fact, on the exterior, the Ridgewood seems to be in better shape (and that’s saying a lot).

Bway
Bway on March 21, 2006 at 4:28 am

Thanks very much Warren, those are the first I have seen of it. did the Jackson have a balcony? It seems sort of too low, unless that’s just an illusion of just the lobby being low.

Bway
Bway on March 21, 2006 at 1:28 am

I don’t have any of the interior, but if you are looking for a theater highly intact inside (and out), check out the RKO Kieth’s Richmond Hill. While the seats have been removed, most of the interior of that theater is completely intact. And it was never multiplexed, so even more intact.
Here’s a link:
/theaters/3972/

As for the Jackson, I too would be interested in seeing photos of the inside. I don’t know how much of the original ornamentation survived the multiplexing.

jurayj
jurayj on March 20, 2006 at 6:36 pm

could someone please post current photos of the jacksons exterior facade including entrance details, and any current interior shots
to show its condition, I am looking for highly intact new york movie houses to present to the landmarks commission

JHGuy
JHGuy on January 2, 2006 at 6:08 am

I went to see a movie there last night. Most of the theater’s original details appear to be intact under several coats of paint. The main auditorium is one of the largest movie houses I’ve been in since I was a kid, although it has a faint odor of stale fake butter flavor.

And the movie had subtitles in Spanish. Did this bother me? No, as I’ve been to theaters all over the world that play Hollywood movies with subtitles in many different languages at once. It is rather entertaining that several of you are getting all hot and bothered over subtitles as some sort of vandalism of the movie. The Jackson Triplex shows Hollywood blockbusters—not art. There are several other movie theaters in the area accessible by subway and car. So it’s not like the Jackson Triplex is the only theater around showing Hollywood movies. (You don’t’ complain about the Eagle that shows Bollywood musicals 8 blocks away.) However, the Jackson is the only theater accessible on foot from Jackson Heights that shows Hollywood movies.

dellwebb
dellwebb on December 25, 2005 at 7:53 am

Grew up in the neighborhood. Was there many times, before and after it became a triplex. For some reason remember seeing, “The Incredible Shrinking Woman” there with Lily Tomlin over everything else. My fondest memory of it was pre-triplex was when I went to a Saturday afternoon event in the mid-70’s, “Go Ape for a Day”, all 5 films starting with of course “Planet of the….”

maramadus
maramadus on October 30, 2005 at 6:31 pm

I purchased and removed an old (early 1950s) sound system from the Jackson Triplex in the summer of 2004. Does anyone have any information or history on when the Jackson first went to stereo sound? I would venture that this system would have been their first sterophonic sound system and would love to know exactly when it was installed.

br91975
br91975 on July 15, 2005 at 7:34 am

The exterior – without, of course, the original marquee – appears today much as it did in the image Warren posted earlier this afternoon.

Bway
Bway on July 11, 2005 at 8:51 am

Ah, it was cut up totally different than other cut up “multiplexes” I am thinking of.

RobertR
RobertR on July 11, 2005 at 8:42 am

The Jackson used the elevated stadium section (I am refraining from using “balcony” before I am corrected)to make theatres 2 and 3, so except for the year iot must all be there.

Bway
Bway on July 11, 2005 at 8:38 am

If you take the multiplexing of some of the other theaters, such as the Ridgewood Theater, most of the auditorium ornamentation survives, except for the fact that it has walls cutting up thing, like the huge ceiling circle, etc.

br91975
br91975 on July 11, 2005 at 8:26 am

The foyer retains most of that appearance to this day; I imagine much of the same, save for the alterations brought forth by the triplexing, can be said for the auditorium itself.

RobertR
RobertR on July 11, 2005 at 7:20 am

I never knew the jackson was such a beautiful house. It’s shocking they have not carved up that main floor. Has anyone seen it recently, does it look the same?

br91975
br91975 on June 20, 2005 at 9:54 am

Had a chance to peek inside the Jackson Triplex when I was in the area a couple of weeks ago and have to say I was very impressed with how well-preserved it is, save for some graffiti on the upper facade and a somewhat modernized (with stucco walls) vestibule area between the main entrance and secondary set of doors. It’s clear the owners recognize the value of the property; they’re also, from what I could tell, doing a solid business.

Ken Roe
Ken Roe on December 29, 2004 at 10:33 am

Ok Warren, we will give it the majority view that Krapp was the architect.

I just find it strange that in an architectural magazine like The Architectural Forum was, there would be a ‘mistake’ in captions to photographs of theaters illustrated as having been designed by the architect and writer of the article-Charles Sandblom. Maybe a correction was printed in the following issue, eh?

Ken Roe
Ken Roe on December 23, 2004 at 4:44 am

The Jackson Theatre is given as having a seating capacity of 1,839 in Film Daily Yearbook for 1941, and 1,821 in the F.D.Y for 1950.

I have photographs of the auditorium and foyer taken at its opening which illustrate an article by Charles Sandblom in the June 1925 edition of the magazine “The Architectural Forum”.

Charles A. Sandblom is credited as the architect of the Jackson Theatre.

br91975
br91975 on November 20, 2004 at 10:10 pm

Let’s give all this talk about ‘subtitled films at the Jackson Triplex’ A REST!!! Chill, people, chill… and let’s move on…

Divinity
Divinity on November 20, 2004 at 9:58 pm

Some claim that subtitles are a “distraction” (as posted above).
I happen to think that it’s a bit deeper than that.
You may be on to something Jamie Somers.
By the way Jamie, I simply adore the bionic woman. Did you grow up watching those re-runs or is that your real name?

Broan
Broan on November 20, 2004 at 4:01 pm

Hm… from a business standpoint, which movie theater in an ethnically diverse area will do better? One that shows movies catering to the two largest groups, or one? Which group is larger, the xenophobes who are afraid of words they don’t understand, or the minority with no alternative venue. Gee… this is a tricky one.

And isn’t it simply appalling how opera houses are now projecting subtitles for their operas? If you want to understand opera, you should learn the language!

JamieSomers
JamieSomers on November 20, 2004 at 3:43 pm

Oh my Gosh! What is the big deal about people enjoying there language. We need more ethnic venues like that to assist people that dont know the language and people that want to understand another one. I think that you people are bothered by the fact that it is a Spanish theatre, not by the letters. You are probably the same kind of people that hide in the shadows of the night so that no one will see you when you paint swasticas on our temple.

Bway
Bway on November 6, 2004 at 5:25 am

I agree Robert. As I said, I will not discuss this any firther either.