Regency Theatres Tamarac Square Cinemas

rivest266 on April 10, 2024 at 12:15 pm

Reopened by Regency on November 18th, 2004 by Regency Cinemas. video:

rivest266 on April 9, 2024 at 9:28 pm

Mann theatres bailed out on September 3rd, 2001, the date of its final showtimes. More to come.

MichaelKilgore on November 27, 2019 at 9:29 pm

This note says the Tamarac 6 was scheduled to open on Dec. 17, 1976.

Boxoffice, Dec. 13, 1976: “DENVER – Mann Theatres is adding nine screens in Denver and Fort Collins … The Denver addition, with six screens, will be named the Mann’s Tamarac 6. Seating capacity will be 400 in two sides, 450 in one and 250 in each of the other three. … The theatre, which will open Friday (17) will be managed by Dick Roselein”

Computist on January 6, 2012 at 11:39 am

Demolition on the entire mall began in December 2011, with a planned TJ Maxx and retail spaces to take its place.

kencmcintyre on July 9, 2009 at 5:46 pm

This was in the Indiana (PA) Gazette in November 1982:

DENVER (AP) – A husband and wife arrested last year after bringing their own popcorn into a movie theater have filed suit seeking $400,000 from the theater’s corporate owner and four employees. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Denver District Court by David Schulz and Mary Lou Richardson, who were arrested last November in the Tamarac Theater after they broke theater rules and brought their own popcorn. Schulz was jailed for five hours after four Denver police officers handcuffed him and took him out of the theater. Ms. Richardson was given a summons.

They were acquitted in March of charges of disturbing the peace. The lawsuit claims the theater’s employees subjected the couple to malicious prosecution, false arrest and imprisonment. Schulz and Ms. Richardson also claim they were libeled and slandered by theater personnel. The theater is owned by Mann Theaters Corp. of California. Mann president Lawrence Gleason is named as a defendant because of remarks he made in a television interview after the arrest.

The theater has a rule prohibiting the consumption of any food that is not bought at its concession stands. The couple’s lawsuit contends that this policy is “designed to protect corporate profits from sales of ‘buttercorn’ or ‘butter-flavored popcorn,’ which product in fact contained no butter.”