Josh's Blind Buys: Watching The Unseen Collection (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

I love Wilder, but I've always avoided Ace in the Hole because I've read and heard similar comments from many sources. I've found it hard to get motivated to watch it.

I think that contributed to the approximately 15 year delay from when I took that class and wrote the paper about Wilder to actually seeing the movie. But it was well worth it in the end. Don't mean to sound like I'm pushing you - but even if the description sounded solumn, the movie itself was thrilling to watch.

In the "No Time Like the Present" Department, I took the opportunity tonight to watch The Spirit of St. Louis on DVD. Unlike my fourteen-year old experience where I drifted off during the movie, I had no trouble staying awake and enjoying myself tonight. Very impressed with the 5.1 surround sound on the DVD.

I love that movie!!!

 

[Nelson Au]

Josh, thanks for the additional insight. I took a moment to review an interview with Damon from last year while promoting The Great Wall. I must have been really good at avoiding spoilers and just general pop culture stuff. I had no idea he was fighting in interviews the controversy of his character white washing! It seems a pity that overshadowed the movie and a shame it didn't do better in the box office. It was a very expensive film I can see from the articles. I see an analysis of its failure was due to just not the right mix of elements that would attract an audience. I'll find out when I see it.

I agree with your thinking that the big tent pole films today have all this expectations of big returns and also set-up follow-up films. Formulaic too.

The failure reminds me of Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. I have no background on the source material it is based. From the clips I've seen it looks great visually. I'll probably wait for the blu ray. But my point is that it's interesting to open our minds to see other ways; to paraphrase something from Star Trek. I'm not that familiar with Zhang Yimou's works, but I'm interested in checking out some of his more known works. He's known for his use of color. It seems the average movie goer will only stick with what they know and are less open to try new stuff. I'm also curious about the martial arts features he's done. I like several of Luc Besson's films too, fun combination of action and humor with offbeat characters. But I haven't seen everything from him.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Nelson, check out "To Live" - I first saw it in high school (a teacher showed it in class) but I couldn't remember the name of it, I just remembered that I had seen this incredible movie. When a college professor showed it, I was so glad to finally learn the name. I'm not sure that I had ever seen a film like it before, one that so expertly used the backdrop of history (in this case, that of early to mid 20tg century China if memory serves) while telling the life story of beautifully realized characters. I haven't seen it in years, but I'll never forget it.

The Great Wall isn't on that level, but for my money, it was much more fun than Transformers 5, which I actually did see. Another benefit to the Great Wall - it knows when to end. It's 100 or so fun minutes, and then it ends. Transformers 5 was nearly three hours and kept piling climax after climax and even though it started out fun, it became an endurance test by the end. The Great Wall succeeded at being fun without trying to be Lawrence Of Arabia.

I have theories on why the average moviegoer is seemingly less interested in new ideas in movies. I think it's a combination of being able to get great storytelling of any genre and style on television for free (or small subscription fees) these days. Going to a movie is more expensive than ever. So if you're going to leave the house, where you're getting great shows, where movies are available streaming three months after they open theaters, and where your TV is better than you dreamed possible ten or twenty years ago, well, you better have a reason to go. And I'm thinking maybe moviegoing is turning into something like going to a concert where you're only going out to see stuff you already know you'll like. It costs me $16.50 to see a regular 2D movie, or $26.50 for an IMAX 3D movie. It cost me more to see "Logan" once in IMAX than it did to buy the Blu-ray two months later. I knew that was gonna be worth seeing on a big screen but for things where I'm not sure, I find myself less enthusiastic about going out. (If the prices came way, way down, or they did more Dunkirk-style IMAX movies, I'd go more. But for regular stuff... as an example, I recently rented a comedy called "Edge Of Seventeen" and I loved it. But I also didn't mind that I spent $4 instead of $16 and it didn't seem ruined being watched on my home projector instead of at the theater.)

 

[Nelson Au]

I'll chase a copy of To Live, thanks for the recommendation.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Josh,

You're right about the timing of The Great Wall. I think the length of the film was perfect. I actually enjoyed this film a lot more than what the critics and some others have said about this movie. Anyhow, I'm going to sample it again in just a few minutes as I'm comparing the 4K/UHD disc to the 3-D disc. Yesterday, I enjoyed the 3-D presentation more, but I viewed it in total darkness while watching the 4K/UHD disc during daylight. Now, I'm going to watch the 4K disc in darkness.

As to Edge of Seventeen, I really loved that film. I viewed it twice during its theatrical run. I haven't watched the Blu-ray yet, but will do so before this year is out as other titles at all are ahead of it.

 

[B-ROLL]

I'll chase a copy of To Live, thanks for the recommendation.

It is called To LIVE !http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110081/

 

[Josh Steinberg]

As the Edge of Seventeen, I really loved that film. I viewed it twice during its theatrical run. I haven't watched the Blu-ray yet, but will do so before this year is out as other titles at all are ahead of it.

I'm very happy that I'm not the only one! Great performances, good script, felt really true to life. It's a movie I'm likely to watch again at some point.

I don't know what your take on theatrical vs. home viewing is. In a perfect world, if all theaters cared about the presentation quality, and if a regular 2D movie was less than $16.50 a ticket, I'd certainly go more often. I used to. Amazon now has Edge Of Seventeen on Blu-ray for $15, so it would be cheaper to buy the disc new than it would have been to see it in theaters once. Throw in that I watched it by my wife, and the cost of seeing it in theaters once rises to more than double the cost of the disc. For a movie where I enjoyed the trailer but didn't feel an urgency to rush out to see it, waiting to watch it at home was the right choice for me. I wish I didn't have to do movie triage, but there's just so much stuff out there competing for eyeballs, and it's so expensive, that I feel forced to give priority to films that either have unique enhancements for the theatrical screening (like an exclusive IMAX ratio) or movies where I'm all but guaranteed to like them.

It's a real shame that it has to be this way. Earlier in the year, Regal did a Best Picture Nominee marathon for $35 (or, less than the cost of two tickets to a single 2D movie), where all nine nominees played multiple times over a two week period, and you were allowed to see as many of the films as many times as you wanted. It also included a reusable coupon to order a large soda and large popcorn combo for only $5. I only intended to see the two or three of the movies there, but I ended up coming back to see them all. If moviegoing were more reasonably priced and didn't feel like a major investment choice, I'd be very happy to go more often and take more chances on new things. When I was growing up, all movie tickets were about $8, and when I was in college, they were about $10. Inflation has not gone up that much in the last 15 years to justify doubling the price, nor has inflation gone up so much to justify that IMAX has gone from $20 to $27 here in about three years.

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks Bryan. I did find only one DVD copy of To LIVE on Amazon. For $90.00. I found a few on eBay for considerably less.

Josh, one reviewer on Amazon is a college professor who regularly shows this film to his class. I wonder if it's the same professor as yours?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

If the professor is out of Emerson College in Boston, could be... here's something funny, I can remember which high school teacher showed it and in which class, but I have no memory of which college professor showed it or in what course.

Thanks Bryan. I did find only one DVD copy of To LIVE on Amazon. For $90.00.

Wow, yeah, I'm not sure I'd recommend any movie for that price. But if you can get it for a normal price or find it as a rental, definitely worth seeing. Probably not something you'll rewatch a ton.

 

[TJPC]

I've talked about this before. Here in Ontario we have a type of Visa card called a "Scene Visa" that racks up points toward free movie tickets. We use this card for everything we buy, (but pay it all off at the end of each month!). I think the program is about 10 years old.
We see all the blockbusters throughout the year, and have had to pay actual cash only a handful of times when we have buy one admission get one free coupons. The rest were pad through scene points.
Sometimes we switch over to our Airmiles Mastercard, because we actually have to many free movies in the pipeline.

 

[Alf S]

I guess we're lucky. Our Cinemark up the road offers $3 matinees for all movies and the theater isn't that bad. Not top end seating etc but still a very good deal, especially for a family of 4. Plus I get weekly food coupons and can get a big popcorn and coke for under $10.

Even our high end theater, I mean top notch, is only $7 for new releases during the day. A real bargain.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

There are some ways to get cheaper admissions here. You can buy passes in advance through third-party services at a discount, and this sometimes can be a good deal. (The problem with those is that you have to redeem them in person, and since all the major movie theaters in NYC are reserved seating, waiting until the last moment when arriving at the box office to buy a ticket is not a great strategy.) And there are different credit card reward programs. (I tend to funnel things through a card that gets me Amazon points so I can get more blind buys.) And I realize that NYC is above average in prices, so not everyone has the same experience. The only thing that generally qualifies for "matinee pricing" here is the first showing if it happens before noon. If the first showing is after noon, no discount. But I work nights and keep a later schedule, so waking up to go to a 10am movie just isn't in the cards for me. AMC Stubs is a good deal for me - you get $5 back for every $50 spent, so in practice, if I buy a pair of tickets, I'm getting $5 off.

But it's just disheartening that I can get excited about a new movie coming out, go to purchase advance tickets, and then it just sucks to see that two tickets are over $50. Something like Dunkirk, which I saw on IMAX 15/70 film, where the film print alone supposedly cost about $30,000, that I can justify spending that money on. But it's harder for me to justify it when it comes to small or medium sized films that are primarily dialogue based, that are relegated to the inferior screens at the movie theaters. I don't love being asked to spend $16.50 to see a movie on a screen that's at most twice the size of what I have at home.

I think a while ago, the theaters were faced with a choice: attendance was declining. They had a choice between trying to combat that by going after the biggest audience possible and re-imagining the movie-going experience into something indispensable. I think I may have said this on another 3D threat, but that was kinda the point of 3D when it was first invented, along with Cinemascope, Cinerama and multi-track audio -- the idea when those things were invented in the 1950s wasn't to jack up prices, it was to give the audience something they couldn't get at home on a TV. And it worked. TV could have killed moviegoing in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and it didn't. It even survived the VCR and the DVD. I think it was a major failure on the part of the studios and the theaters for not remembering that when 3D came back, and they're doing the same with advanced audio formats like Atmos, charging more. And the more I'm asked to pay, the more critical I get about presentation quality. If your screening is under $10, I'll put up with imperfections. For $27, I expect perfection, because I know I'll get that if I wait for the Blu-ray and watch at home - so if you're charging me $16 or $27, you better give me a batter presentation than I can get at my house. But anyhow, the studios had a choice of working on making the experience so good that movie theaters wouldn't lose their relevance, or abandoning mass audiences and concentrating instead on getting more money out of their existing customer base. Sadly, they went for the second option. Now theaters are raising prices again, putting in expensive recliner seats that reduce capacity by half or more, There's a plethora of food and beverage options that are fairly new, including full service dining during the film at some locations.

It looks like that's what they're doing. If you look at box office grosses in the past five years or so, it's pretty much gone up every year -- but the actual number of tickets sold is going down, so the extra money is coming from different upcharges. Although I'd hate it, I can imagine a time in the not-so-distant future where tickets shoot up even further to compensate. And maybe studios will start insisting on special prices for certain movies. Disney already tried that this year with the first screenings of Beauty And The Beast -- if you wanted to see the very first show, Disney was insisting on a $35 ticket price. They tried to soften the blow by calling it an event and including a free poster, but I can see that as a possible practice for the future. "Oh, you want to see the new Star Wars movie opening night? That'll be $50 a ticket, but we're giving you a deluxe poster so that's cool, right?"

 

[BobO'Link]

You know... I just couldn't justify ~$25 a ticket. At all. I have trouble paying the $7.50 per ticket matinee price here (it's $8 otherwise - yeah a whole 50 cents off) for no other reason than I can wait ~6 months and buy a copy of that same movie for what it costs for just two of us to see the film in the theater.

A couple of years ago we gave my oldest grandson 3 movies with a friend, concessions included, for his birthday. It was ~$40 per movie (I went with them as they were just a bit too young to go it alone) for 3 admissions, 1 refillable large popcorn, and 3 drinks. 6 months later I purchased all three of the films they'd selected as well as one they passed on for less than the cost of one of those theater visits.

What got me the most is those kids showings had mostly better behaved people than the last few "adult" films I'd seen. No one was on their cell phones or having a running conversation with their friend(s).

They'd have to work very hard to provide something I can't get at home and would be willing to pay extra for. Because of an eye condition I get severe eye strain trying to watch 3D films so they're avoided. I find modern audio mixes to be mostly annoying. About the only thing worth going for is the popcorn and the theater here will let you go in, purchase just popcorn, and leave so there's no real reason to stay for a movie.

 

[TJPC]

Actually, it sounds like the best idea is for you to blind buy every movie that looks good to you, and even if you hate some, and throw them away, it probably would be cheaper.

 

[TravisR]

I guess we're lucky. Our Cinemark up the road offers $3 matinees for all movies...

Where do you live, 1985?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

You know... I just couldn't justify ~$25 a ticket. At all.

I'm coming very close to not being able to. When it's a special presentation like Dunkirk, where the presentation is immaculate, and the audience is well behaved, sure. But I am getting sick of paying about that price for anything less than perfection. My strategy used to be to go to the first or second showing on Thursday night, on the theory that the people who go to the opening showings really care about the movie and really want to see it and won't talk through it. That worked as long as the openings were at midnight, but once they started them earlier at 7pm and 10pm, a good audience stopped being a guarantee. I saw Thursday opening night showings of blockbusters like Fate Of The Furious, Alien Convenant, Spider-Man: Homecoming and others this year, and I had to deal with people talking or playing video games on their cell phone during the movie or any number of other distracting things - and in theory, these were all people who were so excited to see this movie that they couldn't wait until the next day.

Call me crazy, but when I go to a theater and the movie starts, the only light I want to see is from the projector, and the only sound I want to hear is from the speakers.

I said to my wife recently, "Someday, and it may be coming sooner than I ever imagined, I'm going to need you to remind me of something. When I start getting excited about a movie opening up or a concert tour coming to town, you need to remind me how frustrated I get when I'm actually there, and tell me that I'm not a total loser sellout traitor for opting to stay home."

Actually, it sounds like the best idea is for you to blind buy every movie that looks good to you, and even if you hate some, and throw them away, it probably would be cheaper.

Almost certainly! I missed the new Beauty And The Beast in theaters earlier in the year, so I just went ahead and did the blind buy of the UK 3D disc. If I like the movie, great, and if not, I'm sure there are plenty of people who could take it off my hands.

I sometimes forget about the option to rent too. There's a movie called "The Circle" that came out in April, I think. I thought the trailer was good, liked the poster, liked the cast, wanted to see it, but just didn't get a chance to. Rented it this week on iTunes for $5.99. It ended up being terrible, so I made the right call skipping it in theaters and opting to rent instead of blind buy, but the HD stream looked great, and it was perfectly satisfactory for my needs.

My blind buys tend to be older films, where the master used on the disc is newer than the one used for streaming. For example, the Warner Archive Blu-rays are always made from brand new masters. The same movies are available on iTunes and Vudu, and often in HD, but the HD master there is older and not quite as cleaned up or pristine. So I feel like I'm getting something special buying the disc over renting it. But with something like "The Circle", it's a brand new movie that was shot digitally, there's only one master, and it's the same one used to make the theatrical DCP, the Blu-ray and the HD streaming version. So that makes more sense as a blind rental, because I'm getting the same thing that I'd be getting any other way.

Speaking of blind buys, I am still about five or six reviews behind, but will try to stop ranting about silly stuff and get to them soon

 

[TJPC]

We live in a city of about 500,000. Our public library has a vast collection of Blu Rays and DVDs you can borrow for free with the click of a mouse. They also get almost every movie and TV show season set.
The public library of any large US city must have even better resources. If you reserve as soon as the disc comes out, it does not take much time at all to arrive at your local branch.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I honestly should check out my local library to see what's available. I used to use it to take out Kindle books from home, but it's been a long time since I've checked in on my membership.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

#127 - The Lodger: A Story Of The London Fog (1927)
Viewed on: July 18th, 2017
Viewing Format: Blu-ray (Criterion)

Though not Alfred Hitchcock's first film, The Lodger is the film many consider the first where Hitch got to show off the style and sensibility that would make him famous. Though I tend to prefer Hitchcock's mid-to-late period films the best (things like Vertigo, Rear Window, Dial M For Murder, Psycho, etc.), I was excited when Criterion announced this release, and bought it during the recent sale.

The Lodger tells the story of a Jack-the-Ripper-like series of murders occurring in London. All of the victims have been blonde girls, with the killer leaving behind a note signed by "The Avenger" with each corpse. So when a handsome man (Ivor Novello) matching the description of the killer shows up asking for a room to rent, the blonde model, Daisy (June Tripp), who lives in the house with her parents naturally become suspicious. I don't want to say too much more about the story except to say that Hitchcock does a fantastic job with the "is he or isn't he the killer?" suspense.

The presentation on the Criterion disc is fantastic. Though it's not perfectly pristine, it's miles better than I would have expected for a silent film from 1927. Though shot in black and white, the original release prints were tinted, and the disc here replicates that look to gorgeous effect. A new stereo score, encoded in uncompressed PCM, is also included and goes well with the film. There are a wealth of bonus features I haven't yet touched, including another Hitchcock-Novello silent film, Downhill.

After seeing The Lodger, I understand why this is frequently considered to be the first Hitchcock film where he had developed his own voice. All of the hallmarks of his career - the building suspense, the man who may or may not be guilty of a crime, women who could be virtuous or tempting, and more - all appear here. For Hitchcock fans, The Lodger is a must-see movie, and this presentation is the way to see it. (For everyone else, especially those not used to silent film, this may be more of a rental than a purchase, but is still worth seeing in my book.)

 

[BobO'Link]

Call me crazy, but when I go to a theater and the movie starts, the only light I want to see is from the projector, and the only sound I want to hear is from the speakers.

OK... you're crazy! Seriously though, I'm exactly the same. Somehow I always wind up in front of that guy who likes to put his feet on the back of my chair.

I said to my wife recently, "Someday, and it may be coming sooner than I ever imagined, I'm going to need you to remind me of something. When I start getting excited about a movie opening up or a concert tour coming to town, you need to remind me how frustrated I get when I'm actually there, and tell me that I'm not a total loser sellout traitor for opting to stay home."

I stopped attending rock concerts in the late 70s after finally accepting that most acts just are not that good live. Much like going to the theater I also realized I could purchase several albums for the cost of attending a concert and could listen to the music for years, in a better environment. When I saw Three Dog Night, front row seats, the friend I was with talked constantly! When I saw Chicago Transit Authority (before they changed the name to "Chicago") a friend's cousin talked constantly! And most rock audiences are there more to party than listen to the act they paid to see. The best act I ever saw live was The Allman Brothers Band. They could actually play well and deliver every time. I'd much rather attend a live orchestral or choral concert as the music is almost always performed well and the audiences are much more attentive and better behaved.

I swore off going to the theater about 20 years ago. Audiences were becoming less respectful of others the forced commercials before the movie began were starting to get out of hand. It's done nothing but get worse in the intervening years.

A few months back I mentioned I'd love to own a 60" or larger set. My wife just doesn't "get it" and shook her head asking "Why do you need something that large?" She's not a "movie person" so just can't understand the desire to have a large screen. It's not like I want a "theater room" as I can't stand current 5.1 audio mixes where the voices take a back seat to the music and audio effects. I want to hear what's being said, not a music cue or loud sound blowing my hair back! Another reason I avoid the theater - I do not like the sound systems/mixes (and I play my music at "earschplittenloudenboomer" levels). At least at home I can set the player/tv to "normalize" the sounds - well most of the time. Some just can't be "fixed."

Our public library has a vast collection of Blu Rays and DVDs you can borrow for free with the click of a mouse.

I, too, forget about the Library. I used to avail myself of their offerings frequently but years ago discovered my book collection was superior to their offerings - basically they had no SF titles I either didn't own or hadn't read. I stopped going. My dad (he's 83) checks out videos all the time and I'm always surprised at the titles he's seen that way.