Maths in the Movies: Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

The 5th movie in the Indiana Jones series was released in the UK on 28th June 2023. Amongst the fans in my circle of friends it has been well-received, certainly more so than the 4th instalment (Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) was. This isn't a general review^[1], but a brief discussion of some of the mathematical themes that make an appearance.

I'll do my best to make the following spoiler-free, but as I'm discussing things that happen in the movie I can't guarantee that I'll manage. With that in mind, if you haven't yet seen the movie the safest course of action would be to lock this post in a snake-ridden vault and grab your hat & whip and head out to the cinema before reading any further.

Stony Stratford: Things to See and Do

If you're looking for things to do in Milton Keynes I've recently discovered* Sophie etc, a blog covering just that topic. It focuses on food (she's pointed me towards some GREAT takeaways during lockdown) but also posts now and then about other adventures that are up for grabs in the area. There's a post (this one, in fact) about all of the fantastic things you can do in Stony Stratford, a gorgeous former market town up in the furthest reaches of north-west Milton Keynes. Actually, she doesn't quite cover all of the things that are worth seeing, though the one I'm going to tell you about is a bit niche.

Film Review: Mile 22

Friday night's cinema trip saw Mark Wahlberg monologuing his little socks off through this espionage-action-thriller. Catch up on the trailer below:

After some character introduction, scene-setting and plot exposition the movie eventually gets to the crux: an asset needs transporting twenty two miles (ah, right) to an extraction point. This (probably not a spoiler) doesn't go entirely to plan. John Malkovich tells them they need to get there quickly; no delays. There are plenty of delays and they, naturally, get there just in time.

It's a pretty violent film with guns, explosions, blood, death and some pretty impressive martial arts scenes courtsey of Iko Uwais (fans of The Raid movies will recognise this name). There's a decent core story delivered by some famous names (Lauren Cohen will be a lot more famous in my head once I've finally got around to watching The Walking Dead), and on the whole I enjoyed the experience.

That said, there's a lot of padding for such a short movie (94 minutes). There's a sort of narrative device which sees Wahlberg popping up every so often part-way through an interview which is evidently a post-balls-up inquiry. This goes nowhere. His character's super-intelligence and the fact that he's somewhere on the autistic spectrum is regularly mentioned, though this has no bearing on the plot other than to be occasionally used by the other characters to explain away him being an arsehole at points. There's a nuclear weapons/ terrorism backdrop which also doesn't really come to anything and appears to be a bit of a red herring to draw viewers away from the plot twist, which really isn't groundbreaking enough to require being drawn away from.

Also, it's pretty derivative. There's a street shootout that isn't quite Heat. Uwais runs around an apartment block decking people with cool moves, but it isn't The Raid. There's even a little Ronin in there somewhere.

Ignore all that, though, and it's not a terrible way to spend 94 minutes if you're into action movies and like a bit of Wahlberg. It's forgettable, a bit confusing at points, and probably has some enormous plot holes if you think too deeply about it, but if a bit of Friday night violence is your thing, it's better than heading into town and baiting the big guy at the bar, and you get a thick smear of psuedo-plot thrown into the bargain.

Film Review: The Little Stranger

It's Sunday night, and it's not unusual for me to head to the cinema. This week, based on a novel by Sarah Waters, it's The Little Stranger. The trailer (below) paints a picture of a spooky mystery; an evil presence in an old, run-down house.

The movie left me cold. It feels like a slow-burner that's going to kick off any minute, and then after a little less than two hours it just stops. There a a couple of moments that are seemingly intended to shock, but delivered so matter-of-factly, so stoic, British, stiff-upper-liply they barely moved me at all, other than to think "great, it's getting started now." But no. Back to plodding along until the next mildly unnerving moment in an otherwise sedentary story.

I had a lovely one hundred and eleven minute sit down, with each scene's background wonderfully evocative of post- World War II middle England: dreary and grey but somehow beautiful at the same time. There's some fantastic imagery surrounding the house, too: it's a gorgeous gothic mansion in the flashback scenes, a vibrant backdrop to a young and happy family; and then in the present day it's as dilapidated and unkempt as the older-than-their-years remnants that are fighting a losing battle on the inside.

None of this, however, detracts from the fact that it just doesn't give what the trailer promises. There are hints of ghost story, but this never develops into anything. A tease of family madness, but this, too is left largely unexplored. A dark past that's hinted at all too briefly and then left unresolved.

Maybe I missed something. Should I read the book?

Movie Review: Ted

I went to see Ted on Friday. For those not in the know, it's a movie from Family Guy creator Seth McFarlane, starring McFarlane, Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis.

The basic premise, without spoiling anything, involves a young John Bennett making a wish for his teddy bear to come to life. It does. Cut to twenty-odd years later and John's now thirty-five and played by Wahlberg, and his teddy (Ted) is still very much alive and kicking.

I'm going to split this review into two parts, now:


You'll Love This Film If:

• You find Family Guy consistently funny. [I don't]
• You enjoy Patrick Stewart doing eloquent and received-pronunciation voice-overs which include saying things which are slightly inappropriate. [I do]
• You were born in the 80s and have some sort of nostalgia for 80s things. [I do]
• A certain 80s science fiction movie with a soundtrack from Queen had any kind of formative influence on you. [It did in my case]
• You think Mark Wahlberg's actually a pretty decent actor, and surprisingly versatile given his back catalogue, and that he's pretty damned good at acting with a co-star who's not really there. [I do]
• You want to give the more 'thinky' parts of your brain a rest, and give the parts that laugh at farts an airing. [I do, from time to time]

You'll Hate This Film If:

• You dislike gratuitous drug references in movies. [I do]
• You dislike gratuitous swearing in movies. [I do]
• You dislike gratuitous sex references in movies. [I do]
• You dislike gratuitous minority-group slurs in movies (whether or not they're supposed to be 'ironic'). [I do]
• You've never seen Flash Gordon. [I have]

You'll probably be ticking some of the points in both sections. In this case, you've just got to think about what outweighs what: Flash Gordon was a massive influence on my upbringing, so this cancelled out a couple of the gratuitousness items, for example.

Ted is not big and it's not clever. Intellectually, it's on a similar level to Dude, Where's My Car? but it does have its moments. If you're prepared to dig deep enough you can find some decent social commentary and a moral or two, but the underlying 'drugs and swearing are totally things that are fine to do all of the time' aspect of the movie will stop me rushing out to buy it when it's released on DVD. If you're a Patrick Stewart fan you'll want to see the beginning and the end, and for the Flash Gordon - philes, you'll want to stick around for the middle. If you're someone who owns Family Guy box sets, you'll probably be crying with laughter most of the way through.

One of the best things about this movie is that it is yet another example of Mark Wahlberg's acting talent. His acting opposite a CGI teddy bear is so naturally believable I'm not sure I can believe it. He plays a drug, booze and swearing-obsessed guy but manages to get you to like him anyway, which is good because the movie wouldn't work at all if you didn't.

In short, it's a simple movie that rides on the back of Family Guy in that most of its humour is "you can't say that!" shock-value based, with a little bit of slapstick thrown in now and then. As with Family Guy most of its actual appeal comes from the frequent references to the 80s, frequent references to science fiction, and frequent references to 80s science fiction. If any of this holds any interest for you, and if you're able to set the higher parts of your brain on some other task for the duration of the film, you'll probably enjoy it.

Prometheus: A Review

I've just indulged in one of my loner-trips to the cinema to (finally) catch Prometheus before it disappears from the big screen, after having heard mixed reviews. Many people seem to think it's brilliant, with an equal number proclaiming it a travesty against the genre.

For those who aren't in the know, Prometheus is Ridley Scott's latest number, set in the same universe as the Alien series of films. It's set prior to the events in Alien, Aliens and the other really rubbish sequels, but isn't a direct prequel of the series.

I think I liked it.


The Good Stuff.

It's slick, pacey and stylish, with convincing effects, and even the 3D* was good. The soundtrack was effective, although I like a bit more silence in my movies - yes, a film score helps to set the mood, but at the same time, creeping edgily through a derelict alien spacecraft on a godforsaken rock** is a bit less realistic if it sounds like you're being accompanied by a full orchestra. The story itself was enticing, and I felt that it went on for about the right length of time- I wasn't left thinking 'was that it?', nor did I breathe a sigh of relief when my aching backside was finally released from the torment that is a cinema seat.


The Bad Stuff.

Seriously, Ridley, geeks are clever people. Sci-Fi geeks are into the Fi largely because they know at least a bit about the Sci and want to explore the extremities of what's plausible. Give us some credit. The sciencey bits in Prometheus came straight from The Ladybird Book Of How To Make Yourself Sound All Sciencey*** with barely a nod to actual science. It strikes me at an odd angle that science fiction movies these days are all so blasé with regards to actually making the science believable. Right from the beginning I was left wondering at how the Prometheus had managed to travel five light-years in only two years whilst having only very rudimentary suspended animation technology. The very premise of the movie (which I shan't go into here so as not to spoil it for the few people who haven't seen it) had the biologist in me squirming uncomfortably, and there barely is any biologist in me at all.

I'm ranting - sorry. The plot itself was full of holes so large you could fly an Imperial Star Destroyer through most of them without worrying too much about scratching the paintwork.

But despite all that, I quite liked it. Fassbender's robo-Pinocchio was excellently played and wonderfully dialogued (and monologued, in parts), and he stole the show. Some of the other characters were a bit two-dimensional, and a couple may as well have started the film in red shirts and with targets tattooed on their foreheads, but clichés aside it was an enjoyable enough movie, and I'll be interested in seeing the inevitable sequel (they left that wide open...)




* I'm not always a fan of 3D, as it seems to be a gimmick for getting punters to part with more cash and doesn't often add much to a movie. It seems to be settling down a bit now, but it's still more moneygrabbing than innovative moviemaking, in my opinion.
** Yes, this particular cliché was delivered by Charlize herself.
*** Which doesn't actually exist, but I might write it myself now I've thought of it.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - A Review

It's not a genre of film that I'd usually think too hard about watching from its trailer alone: there were no car chases, spaceships, shootouts, aliens, flux capacitors, Natalie Portmans or orbital slingshot manoeuvres even hinted at. What did attract me, though, was one more thing that I like in a movie: dry British wit.

The premise of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is this: a bunch of previously unconnected old people, including Bill Nighy, Penelope Wilton*, Maggie Smith and Judi Dench **, find themselves, after various personal misfortunes, leaving their British lives behind and hightailing it to Jaipur's Best Exotic Marigold Hotel for the Elderly and Beautiful. Far from the paradise depicted in the brochure, it's a ramshackle ruin with inept but infinitely positive and lovable Sonny (Dev Patel) working in vain to resurrect his father's dream. The bunch, along with Sonny, share experiences that change their views of the world in ways that none of them could have predicted.

The film contains a stream of expertly delivered lines with the comic timing that we've come to expect from the likes of Bill Nighy, and if I had to pick just one genre to fit the film into, it'd be comedy. It's funny from start to finish, with the audience regularly laughing out loud and a refreshing feeling that all the funny bits hadn't been in the trailer. But it's not just funny: each character has their own storyline, their own reason for leaving their life behind. Each of these storylines is compelling and unique, and the characters themselves are wonderfully three-dimensional without the need for silly glasses to see them as such.

Best Exotic explores such themes as homosexuality, casual racism, old-age, death (both of people and of relationships), love and Delhi-belly with maturity and subtlety, and these themes neither detract from nor are hindered by the movie's comedic streak.

A number of my favourite films are British, and this is a shining example of the British film industry doing what it does best: intelligent, funny, emotional and completely watchable comedy drama. It's a reminder that a film can be funny without slapstick; that it can explore edgy topics without shoving them in your face. This one, in my opinion, is a keeper, and may well be the best British movie in quite a while.

* These first two in, essentially, the same roles they played in Sean of the Dead. Well, they're married, at least.

** I struggle to think of this lot as old people even if, according to the figures, they are.

Star Wars in 3D: Is It Worth It?

I went to see Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace - 3D* on Friday. I couldn't find anybody who was willing to go with me, but I went anyway. 29 years before my first solo cinema trip, though, for a loner of my advanced level** must be something of a record.

I have, of course, seen The Phantom Menace*** on the big screen before, having originally been released in 1999, as well as the other two prequels****. I also managed to see The Empire Strikes Back when it was re-released in 1997 (having been originally released two years prior to my own first appearance in 1982).

And I was, of course, disappointed (as any self-respecting Star Wars fan was) that Episodes 1, II & III didn't quite match up to the brilliance of the original IV, V & VI. However, I'm not quite as violent in my dislike of the prequels as many are: they're not bad films, they're just not as good as the original trilogy. It's nice to have some backstory.

Anyway: Star Wars in 3D.

George Lucas has, of course, decided that it's time for a new conservatory and has noticed that the 3D bandwagon would be a perfect one to jump on in order to raise the funds. As a result we have TPM-3D.

I think it's important to note that I'm not an unreserved fan of 3D movies just yet: I've seen a few, including Avatar which I thought was unnecessarily long with the 3D aspect being little more than a gimmick, and Up which was an excellent film but gained nothing from the 3D aspect beyond one or two 3-4 second 'oooh' moments throughout its 96 minute running time. I recognise the potential of the 3D technology, and I look forward to the moment when something truly original bursts forth that just wouldn't be the same in plain old 2D, but I'm firmly in the crowd that sees cinematic 3D as nothing more than a pretty gimmick so far.

Having said that, TPM-3D was the first 3D film I've seen where the 3D aspect did truly appear to add an extra something. George and his special effects elves have certainly thrown a good amount of work and (I assume) money at this venture, and it is definitely rather more than the botch-job I feared would result from retrofitting a movie with a pair of 3D specs.

It must be remembered that TPM wasn't written or filmed with 3D in mind, and this may be why it works so well: Some films, such as Avatar, were written for 3D, and it seems that the storyline suffered as a result- the gimmick took over. Other films, such as Up, were great stories but seem to have had the 3D aspect bolted on at the last minute just to take advantage of the current craze. TPM, however, is a decent movie with good special effects, a generally compelling storyline, Natalie Portman, and a boss who's prepared to chuck big bucks at it and to take the time to make sure that when it bows down to the latest gimmick, it looks damned good afterwards.

Honestly, I turned up because I wanted to see some Star Wars on a cinema screen, with space battle sound effects assaulting me from all directions. The fact that it was in 3D meant nothing more than an increased cost and some silly glasses. When it started, however, and those yellow words began scrolling out from the bottom of the screen, receding into the infinite distance, I had a wow moment. That simple thing looked amazing, and it intensified that spine-tingle that accompanies the beginning of any Star Wars movie.

I occasionally glanced at the movie without the glasses on - most 3D movies are not entirely in 3D (apparently only about 20% of the '3D' version of the last Transformers movie was actually in 3D) - and it seemed to me that which bits to 3D-ify were very well thought out indeed: Some of the space shots really gave a feeling of infinite distance that isn't quite there when you're watching in 2D, and there were a few scenes in which, although the main action (Qui-Gon and Anakin talking about the force, for example) wasn't in 3D (and didn't need to be), there were subtle background effects going on that tickled your senses through the back door*****.

But where do we go from here? My understanding is that Lucas is using TPM-3D to test the water and decide whether to release the other five movies in order to pay for his new swimming pool, extension, double-garage, summer house and guest-bungalow (respectively). This, of course, means that we have to pay extra to wear silly glasses and watch the worst three films in the franchise before we get to the meat-and-two-veg.

Personally, I want to see A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi in all their cinematic, multi-channel stereo surround-sound glory, and if that means pandering to George's money grabbing for a couple more years first, then I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to do it. And if they look as good as TPM-3D did, I might even find myself enjoying it.




* That's a mouthful- I'll refer to it as TPM-3D from now on.
** My lonerchloriants are off the chart...
** Hereinafter referred to as TPM.
**** Attack of the Clones (2002) and Revenge of the Sith (2005). You can probably figure out the contractions by now.
***** If you'll allow me to so gratuitously mix my metaphors.

Jurassic Park

The next classic film to be re-released in cinemas* as a celebration of its release on Blu-Ray is Jurassic Park.

Back in 1993 I was an 11-year-old** dino-obsessive with the privilege of going to see the much-hyped dinosaur-resurrection movie Jurassic Park at the now non-existent Palace Cinema in Wellingborough. I remember at the time being wowed by a ground-breaking and trend-setting Speilbergian mixture of animatronics and CGI effects, and assaulted from all angles by a story that was at once emotional, witty, suspenseful and terrifying, whilst providing nourishment for my already well-developed geek-streak.

Here's the original trailer:

So, in 2011, when I heard that this movie - one of few that stand out from the background of many movies that I saw as a child*** - was being re-released, the decision to go and see it was not one that really had to have any thought put into it. This time, I took a trip with three friends to the Cineworld at Northampton's Sixfields complex.

Some things have changed since I last saw the movie; back in 1993 my parents bought my ticket, and alongside a drink and some popcorn they got change from a fiver. In 2011, my ticket plus a bag of M&Ms had me breaking into a £20 note. Also, having completed a maths degree in the interim, Doctor Ian Malcolm's previously impressive mathematical topic-dropping and elucidation had turned into a list of words gathered at random from The Ladybird Dictionary of Mathematics. Other than that, however, I didn't notice a lot of difference: my childlike excitement at seeing dinosaurs brought to life was still there, and the effect was much the same as it always was due to the fact that the visual effects don't seem to have aged at all- they hold themselves favourably against many much more recent big-budget movies, and even blow a few of them out of the water. The film was still, to my more adult mind, alternately funny, emotive and terrifying (and yes, I mean terrifying rather than simply scary); the storyline kept my attention, and the imagery, now-iconic sound-effects, and classic musical score tickled my senses in much the same way as they did eighteen years ago.

I had the dual pleasure of attending the screening with one friend who also remembered the film from the first time round, and also two friends who had never seen it before. Both said they enjoyed the film, and I certainly enjoyed noticing them as, in the scarier and more fraught moments of the film, one squirmed in her seat in fear, and the other almost ripped her boyfriend's arm off in terror.

If you've never seen Jurassic Park, I thoroughly recommend taking what's left of the opportunity to do so on the big screen. If you saw it first time around, go and relive part of your childhood. Sometimes movies don't age very well, but this is one that hasn't aged at all.




* The last one I cared about being Back To The Future.
** About the same age as Lex.
*** I can even remember that we sat toward the back-left of the cinema screen in which we saw it, and that I also had a bit of a crush on Lex at the time.

The A-Team movie (2010): A quick review

I've just got back from seeing the new A-Team movie at the Odeon cinema in Leicester. I'll try not to give too much away, but be warned that there may be one or two spoilers contained below...

The short review
It was awesome.


The longer review
I can't remember the last time I saw a movie at the cinema in its first week, let alone its first day, but I've been looking forward to this one for a while. I turned up at the cinema to find the longest queue I have ever seen at any cinema, and quickly decided that the best thing to do would be to book tickets online (using my mobile), bypassing the queue entirely. This meant that I couldn't use my Orange Wednesday ticket, but hey, this is the A-Team. How often does an A-Team movie come out? Anyway...

The premise...
The first few scenes introduced the characters wonderfully, and I found the premise behind these scenes to be interesting: rather than being set after the TV series, or before it as a prequel, the movie reinvents the concept in a modern setting. The very beginning shows Hannibal and Face, who are already friends and comrades, meeting B.A. and Murdock for the first time. Cut to 8 years later, and the team are a unit of American soldiers towards the end of the war in Iraq. They are sent on a covert mission and... stuff happens. I won't detail what, but it's a good modern analogue of the Hanoi bank job that is the back story for the original series.

The characters...
Hannibal, Face, B.A. and Murdock are all very definitely the characters from the TV series, but modernised. This is a good thing, though: played absolutely faithfully, many of the team's original characteristics would jar against our expectations in a world that's moved on 18 years since the series first started: changed attitudes would have us not liking certain characters as much as we should (Face's misogyny, for example, has been toned down, but he's still the womanising conman we all love). Lynch is in the movie, but the only thing lifted from the original is his name: he's not even an army colonel. Having said that, the Lynch character is intriguing, entertaining and a worthy adversary for the boys.

The plot and action...

Ludicrous plans, over-the-top action scenes, generally unbelievable plot devices. In short: perfect. There are a couple of scenes that pay decent homage to the B.A-welding, Murdock-being-crazy, build-stuff-out-of-whatever's-lying-around montages from the series, and the original A-Team theme tune makes a brief appearance on a couple of occasions (but not enough for my liking!)

The verdict...
I loved it. I thought it was an excellent tribute to one of my favourite television shows. It brought the concept up to date, changed all the bits that needed changing and kept most of what made it brilliant the first time around. I'd love to see a new TV series resulting from this, but I can't see it happening.
Will you like it? If you want it to be exactly the same as the TV series, then no. But if you ever truly thought that it would be, you're kidding yourself. If you want to see a decent tribute, but are open minded to having a few things changed to make it suitable for a 2010 audience (some of whom have never seen the original series, remember), then you'll love it!

Some almost-spoilers...

• Stick around until the end. The very, absolute end.
• The van! There needs to be a sequel to put that right.
• I love it when a movie gets all self-referential.

The A-Team movie (2010) trailer and comments

Without too much preamble, here's the trailer for the new A-Team. I'll talk about it a bit afterwards.

First thoughts? It looks like it'll be in much the same vein as the original TV series, but with bigger explosions and shinier effects. All of that is a good thing. The premise of the film appears to stay true to the premise of the TV show, and the characters, although difficult to discern from a single trailer, appear to pay fairly close homage to the originals. The most important cast member, the van, appears to be indistinguishable from the original. Phew! If you haven't seen any of the original series, here's a taster of what you're missing:

The IMDB The A-Team (2010) page lists the UK release date as being 30^th July 2010, which isn't bad considering how long this has been in the pipeline!

Other interesting things worth mentioning: The IMDB page's cast list includes Dirk Benedict (the original* Faceman) and Dwight Schultz (the original Murdock), but it doesn't say who they're playing! I'm assuming cameo roles, then! Apparently Mr T. (the original BA) was offered one too, but turned it down**. The original Hannibal, George Peppard, died in 1994. Also, this has been quoted to be the "Die Hard/Bourne Identity/Casino Royale" version of the A-Team, meaning that the violence will be turned up a notch, and people will die (only two characters were killed in the original series' five-season run).





* Actually, this isn't quite true. The absolute original Faceman was played by Tim Dunigan, but he was only in the role for one episode: the pilot entitled Mexican Slayride.
** Presumably because he's too busy doing this:

And this...

How to save money on cinema tickets

I'm pretty sure most people know about Orange's 2 4 1 ongoing promotional deal, so I won't go on too long about what it is. I would like to talk about some of the less obvious parts of the deal, though, as well as what to do if you're not actually a customer of Orange mobile.


Just in case you don't know
"Orange Wednesdays" are Orange's way of acquiring and keeping more customers. It is, to be honest, genius. Movie prices are exorbitant these days, but simply texting the world 'Film' to the number '241' gets you a code that you show the ticket salesperson at your local participating cinema (check the cinema chain's website for this- I know most if not all Odeon cinemas are included, but I'm not sure about any others) when you're purchasing tickets, and it halves the price from (for example) £7.10 each* to £7.10 for two of you.


What's the catch?
A very shrewd question to ask! There are two catches:

1. It costs 35p to receive the text message with the ticket number in it. Compare this, though to the fact that you're saving £7.10*, and you're actually £6.75 up.
2. You need to be a customer of Orange.

My mobile's with 3 / T-Mobile / O2 / Virgin / etc, so I'm stuffed, right?
Not so. There are a couple of things you need to consider.

Firstly, you don't necessarily need an Orange mobile to qualify for Orange Wendesdays. If you are an Orange internet customer (either home broadband or dialup) you qualify too. Find out how to get your ticket here.

Secondly, it costs just £1 to get an Orange Pay As You Go sim card of your own. All you need is a phone to put it in. Most people have an old phone lying around the house, or know someone else who does, so this is worth doing in order to save money on cinema trips even if you only use it once. Even better, from time to time Orange allow you to request Orange PAYG sim cards for free. You can even get cashback on some requests, if you look in the right places (such as TopCashback- they'll pay you 60p for ordering one at the moment).


Any catches with this method?
Just the one. In the Orange Wednesdays T&Cs it states 'Text tickets are issued on a priority basis to active customers who spend over £5 per month with Orange. Orange may revise the terms of this promotion from time to time.' I haven't heard of any problems because of this so far, though.


So far you've told us how to get free cinema tickets and free Orange sim cards. Could there possibly be any more?

• Yes! This doesn't seem to be widely known at the moment, but if you've got your Orange Wednesdays ticket, you can also get 2 for 1 pizza at Pizza Express** to complete the package of your Wednesday night out. You just need to download the voucher from http://web.orange.co.uk/article/pizzaexpress/ and take it to your nearest Pizza Express restaurant. You'll also need to show your Orange Wednesdays text ticket.
• Also, Odeon now have their own rewards card. See my blog post for details and to find out if it's worth it.
• Finally, as with everything, don't forget to use your cashback credit card to pay for all purchases in order to maximise your savings!

*The cost for a standard seat on a Wednesday evening at my local Odeon cinema at the time of writing.
** Only on Wednesdays, hence being part of the Orange Wednesdays promotion.