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

[Josh Steinberg]

#147 - Dakota (1945)
Viewed on: November 20th, 2017
Viewing Format: Blu-ray (Kino)

Dakota is a 1945 western b-movie directed by Joseph Kane and starring a younger John Wayne. I picked this up during the same Kino summer sale as the Randolph Scott westerns. Unfortunately, after the Scott films, this one was a little bit of a letdown. It's not a bad film by any means; it's more accurate to say that it's an adequate film.

John Wayne stars as a gambler who marries the daughter (Vera Raiston) of a millionaire railroad tycoon (Hugo Haas) that he manages to get on the wrong side of. Fleeing west to Fargo, Raiston has come up with a scheme to turn their savings into a big investment while turning the tables on her angry father, and Wayne has no choice to go along with it, though he'd prefer to go to California. When they arrive, they must deal with some unscrupulous locals trying to swindle Wayne, and Haas' own men.

The transfer on this Kino disc, provided by Paramount, is unremarkable. The print is dupey and has scratches and other damage. It's easily watchable but never anything close to pristine. The audio is generally in better shape. The disc also includes a commentary and a trailer.

Dakota is a decent b-movie with some familiar faces but not the most compelling entry in Wayne's filmography. I don't regret seeing it, but it's also something that I probably didn't need to buy.

 

[Bryan^H]

#145 - Canadian Pacific (1949)
Viewed on: November 13th, 2017
Viewing Format: Blu-ray (Kino)

I picked this up a few months ago during a Kino sale. It checked a few different boxes for me: as a classic western b-movie, it's in a genre I've been discovering and enjoying this year. It's in two-color Cinecolor, a mostly forgotten process, and I enjoy archaic movie formats. And it stars Randolph Scott, who was Cary Grant's frequent roommate in between Grant's many marriages; I watched all of Grant's films last year, so why not watch one or two from his roommate? And, there's that wonderful little moment in Blazing Saddles, when Scott's name is invoked with reverence; now I could have some context for that.

Scott stars as a surveyor working on the building of the Canadian Pacific train line. Along the way, he must deal with a crooked fur trader (Victor Jory) who has convinced a local town that the train will only bring trouble. With the townspeople restless, Jory also stirs up trouble with the local Indians, and before long, Scott's getting it from all angles. Scott is a reassuring presence throughout, and with him representing the side of good, there's little doubt what the eventual outcome will be.

This is a very exciting disc from Kino. The film was restored by HTF's own Torsten Kaiser at TLEFilms in Germany and it looks fantastic. The look of the color is different from Technicolor; it has an almost pastel look to it that is both unique and pleasing. The audio has a slight background hiss but is otherwise clear and very easy to understand. The disc also includes a trailer. There's also an extensive documentary about the restoration, including samples of all of the elements used and restoration work performed. And, just to sweeten the deal, the disc also includes an extensive sample of an original 16mm color print, and samples from a silent 8mm black and white version marketed to home audiences in the 1950s. If there's one minor complaint, it's that the disc doesn't include subtitles.

I liked Canadian Pacific. The movie itself wasn't mindblowing, but the presentation and wealth of extras are well worth a look.

I brought this over to my parents house and watched it with them. They loved it, and asked if I had more movies like it. I told them I do, and would bring some over soon.

I am a somewhat selfish movie owner. I watch so many of my movies isolated from the rest of the world. And it is the wrong way. Of course I enjoy them by myself...but watching movies at home with friends, family, loved ones...movie watching becomes something magical, meaningful, and memorable.

An early New Years Resolution-to have many more "movie nights" with people I care about. Not just once, or twice a year.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I am a somewhat selfish movie owner. I watch so many of my movies isolated from the rest of the world. And it is the wrong way. Of course I enjoy them by myself...but watching movies at home with friends, family, loved ones...movie watching becomes something magical, meaningful, and memorable.

I always love to watch movies with other people, especially those nearest and dearest to me. Watching a favorite movie with someone who's never seen it before makes it feel almost new to me, and it's a wonderful way to enjoy something familiar in a new way. And discovering a new movie with someone is always great, and whenever I rewatch the film, I always remember who I first saw it with.

With that said, I sympathize because I find it hard to arrange movie nights nearly as often as I'd like. Between my unusual work schedule and people being scattered in different directions, it's hard enough to get together, and sometimes it's a hard sell to suggest sitting on the couch on these rare visits instead of doing something more active or interactive. Having a projector and surround sound helps, especially if it's an experience-type film - it's much easier to get someone over to watch Star Wars, The Avengers or even 2001: A Space Odyssey than it is for an older or more obscure movie. (I have an unusually high, for me at least, number of people asking lately if they can come over to watch Wonder Woman in 3D on the projector.) But, I also really enjoy cooking, and people seem to like what I come up with, so the dinner-and-a-movie invite works sometimes. My wife had never seen a Marx Brothers or a W.C. Fields film, and I think comedy works better with an audience, so I was able to invite a mutual friend over to watch one of each and make dinner over a couple nights. Lure 'em in with the ribs, then show 'em the classics! I'm hoping to have another such dinner screening for Hitchcock's Rope soon. First of all... showing a movie about a dinner party at a dinner party, how great is that? My living room table has a compartment underneath, so that's somewhat similar to the chest in the film. And I just love that movie, I think it's fascinating, and at 80 minutes, I'm not asking for a three hour commitment from anyone.

I have some friends and relatives that I just can't watch movies with. No names, this isn't about trying to shame anyone. Someone I know just can't sit still that long; I used to live closer to this relative and now I don't see them as much, so I get that they'd rather sit and talk than watch a screen. And some others just have vastly different tastes. But I honestly think it's more about the time. I guess it makes sense. If watching a movie means more to me than it does to most other people, I guess it follows that watching a movie together also wouldn't be as meaningful an activity to everyone else. My wife is my most frequent movie partner, and it's a mix of stuff - new movies in franchises we watch together, mutually enjoyed favorites, occasionally one of my blind buys, or something one of us wants to show to the other. I had a roommate in the years after college who I'd watch movies with a few nights every week. But I've also had long stretches where it's mostly solo viewing. And nowadays, when you look at the sheer number of movies I've watched on this thread, that's mostly me on my own - there's just no way to coordinate watching that many with other people.

Point of the story... getting together with people for movies is easier said than done, don't be too hard on yourself.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

#148 - Cover Girl (1944)
Viewed on: November 21st, 2017
Viewing Format: Blu-ray (Twilight Time)

I picked this up last year during a Twilight Time sale because I needed to hit a certain number of titles to be eligible for a sale, but I wasn't at all familiar with the film. But I figured, how bad could it be to have an extra Gene Kelly movie sitting on the shelf? It sat there over a year, and then one night my wife came home and said she felt like watching an old musical. I put out a few selections, and this one made the cut.

The film is an utter delight! Rita Hayworth performs at a nightclub run by her boyfriend (Gene Kelly) and also their friend (Phil Silvers), and ends up being discovered by a magazine editor who had once been in love with Hayworth's grandmother. Hayworth is torn between staying loyal to Kelly and her roots, or pursuing the opportunity to be a cover girl and have her big break. Kelly doesn't want to hold her back, as much as he loves her, and she decides to take the job. Stardom quickly follows, but it might not be everything Hayworth hoped for, and Kelly finds he misses her more than he imagined. Filled with wonderful songs and absolutely mesmerizing dancing and choreography from Kelly (the first time he was allowed to choreograph his own dance routines in a film), Cover Girl left a smile on my face from start to finish.

This out of print Twilight Time disc offers a transfer from Sony that was very pleasing to me. The sharpness and clarity were good, and the audio was very clear and full. If the color wasn't as vibrant as I might have hoped, the presentation overall was very enjoyable. I understand that Sony recently completed a new master that's been released internationally, but I'm satisfied with this disc. Though the disc doesn't offer any bonus features, English subtitles are available.

Cover Girl is the best case scenario for a blind buy, the kind of movie where you know you'll want to see it again before it's even had a chance to finish. Gene Kelly and Rita Hayworth are both fantastic, the songs and dances are lively, and the story is familiar and comforting. This is a welcome addition to my collection.

 

[Matt Hough]

Introducing friends to movies they're unfamiliar with is my greatest joy. My proudest moment came when I had some friends over and showed them Now, Voyager. There wasn't a dry eye in the house, and one friend wanted to see it again immediately.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Wow, Josh. That was quite a backlog of film writeups you posted! I really enjoyed your comments on Cover Girl. I had never seen the film all the way through until I picked up the Twilight Time release, and thought it was a terrific film. I really like Gene Kelly's films, and Rita Hayworth is an absolutely stunning actress -- I am always mesmerized by her presence in a film. I need to watch this one again soon.

 

[DavidJ]

This out of print Twilight Time disc offers

It’s such a bummer reading your thoughts and thinking that sounds like one that I’d really like too only to come to this sentence.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It’s such a bummer reading your thoughts and thinking that sounds like one that I’d really like too only to come to this sentence.

Had the same thing happen to me when I was reading a recommendation on another thread.

After the holidays, I want to make a list of discs I reviewed here that I'm unlikely to revisit. I'd like to offer them here at low prices for anyone interested - maybe there will be something you wanted out of that list, though I think I have to keep Cover Girl.

 

[Ray H]

Just found this thread and have to congratulate you on such a noble endeavor. I just fired up DVDProfiler and it would appear I have 1,097 blind buys that I still haven't watched! Limiting that to just movies, I'm at 855, which is still rather hefty. Guess I know what I'll be doing the next 5 years.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Thanks Ray!

 

[Joel Arndt]

"Soldiers and civilians, people by the millions, want to see the perfect Cover Girl..." or something like that and to me this is a very nearly perfect musical. Josh, that's excellent that you and your wife enjoyed Cover Girl so much. It's been a favorite of mine for years! Wonderful songs, dances and performances not only by Hayworth and Kelly, but Phil Silvers, Eve Arden and Otto Kruger. And Stanley Donen assisted Kelly in the choreography, including the amazing Alter-Ego sequence.

For many years it was thought no color print of Cover Girl was extant.Can you imagine watching this film in B&W???!!! And, I'm really excited that Sony has done a further restoration because the TT disc looks very good, but it's not a perfect representation of three-strip Technicolor. Would love to see that.

Nice to see you branching out to other genres and not only that, but enjoying them as well. I believe a film that's well made in any genre is good. Isn't that a piercing insight into the obvious?

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Just found this thread and have to congratulate you on such a noble endeavor. I just fired up DVDProfiler and it would appear I have 1,097 blind buys that I still haven't watched! Limiting that to just movies, I'm at 855, which is still rather hefty. Guess I know what I'll be doing the next 5 years.

Holy crap! That's a lot of unwatched blind buys, Ray. According to DVD Profiler, I only have 1,265 total titles. You have almost as many unwatched blind buys!

I only have 8 unwatched blind buy films in my collection, according to DVD Profiler, along with one blind buy TV series. I have a total of 23 unwatched titles in my collection, with 10 of those being TV series. It usually takes us a long time to watch the TV series, so I try not to buy too many of those.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I believe a film that's well made in any genre is good. Isn't that a piercing insight into the obvious?

I agree completely. I liked Roger Ebert's philosophy of reviews, that films should be graded against what they were trying to accomplish. One genre isn't intrinsically more valuable than another.

I also think there's a difference between a film that's bad, and a film that's well made but just not to my tastes. If I don't like a movie I watch in this thread, I try as best I can to note in my reviews whether I think that's because the movie was poorly made or whether it just wasn't my cup of tea.

One of the things that turned me off from a lot of professional criticism and award presentations as I was first discovering movies as a kid was how critics and award groups did seem to feel that certain genres were inherently superior to others, and that certain genres were automatically inferior. In general, films that are dramatic or melodramatic, and that have running times over two hours, are considered by these groups to be the cream of the crop. According to people and groups like this, the worst drama is superior to the best comedy. Science-fiction isn't even worth being mentioned. The mere existence of the horror genre is a source of offense. Animation is unworthy of discussion. It goes on, and on, and on. I like to use the recent film "The Martian" as an example of Academy bias. It was nominated for Best Picture but didn't win. It had everything that the Academy usually loves, and would easily count as "Oscar bait" except for the fact that Matt Damon is lost on Mars instead of, say, Antarctica. If Damon had been stranded somewhere on Earth, I think the combination of star power, legendary director, commercial and critical success, and general crowdpleasing nature would have resulted in "The Martian" winning Best Picture, or at least being acknowledged as a serious contender. (By denying director Ridley Scott a Best Director nomination, the Academy was signaling that it was not a serious choice.) But because he was lost on Mars instead of lost at sea, the movie is inferior in the eyes of the critics and awards-givers.

I generally like the New York Times movie reviews, but their current chief critic, Manohla Dargis, is remarkably biased against films based on comic books. I can guess exactly what she'll say before reading a review of a comic book film, and I'm usually right. It was really funny when Christopher Nolan was directing Batman films, because she separately held Nolan in high regard (probably also regardless of the quality of the film, if Nolan did it, it had to be great), so she had to walk this tightrope of "If it's based on a comic book, it's automatically bad, but if it's directed by Nolan, it's automatically good, but this is based on a comic book and directed by Nolan, so, AHHHH!"

 

[Robert Crawford]

Just found this thread and have to congratulate you on such a noble endeavor. I just fired up DVDProfiler and it would appear I have 1,097 blind buys that I still haven't watched! Limiting that to just movies, I'm at 855, which is still rather hefty. Guess I know what I'll be doing the next 5 years.

Huh, that's nothing compared to me. I'm too embarrassed to even post a number except mine are not blind buys. I've previously viewed most of the movies in my collection.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I have too many discs for movies that I upgraded from DVD to Blu because they were movies that I liked, where I haven't watched the BD version yet. I got a good number of them during the Warner DVD2BLU promo where you could send in your old DVD version and $5, and they'd send you the Blu-ray. Whenever I look at the list of titles I got that way, I'm really surprised that I haven't seen more. You'd have figured, for instance, that I would've watched The Departed sometime in the last five or six years, but apparently not.

This thread has already gotten me in a little trouble because my plan had been to finally watch all of the things I had lying around the house forever, but instead, it's turned into me buying new stuff to watch as well. I apparently have no discipline.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I have too many discs for movies that I upgraded from DVD to Blu because they were movies that I liked, where I haven't watched the BD version yet. I got a good number of them during the Warner DVD2BLU promo where you could send in your old DVD version and $5, and they'd send you the Blu-ray. Whenever I look at the list of titles I got that way, I'm really surprised that I haven't seen more. You'd have figured, for instance, that I would've watched The Departed sometime in the last five or six years, but apparently not.

This thread has already gotten me in a little trouble because my plan had been to finally watch all of the things I had lying around the house forever, but instead, it's turned into me buying new stuff to watch as well. I apparently have no discipline.

I'm seriously thinking of not buying any new discs starting January 1st until Black Friday deals next November. That way, I concentrate on watching my collection of un-watched discs and shrinking that number. I save a bunch of money as just about all discs released during the calendar year are cheaper during those Holiday sales. Hell, I have every DirecTV movie channel and I go to the movies a lot so it's not like I'm going to miss much.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

My new year's resolution will probably involve fewer blind buys.

This year, I made progress in terms of cutting back on purchases of films I've already seen. I'll give you an example. I saw Suicide Squad in IMAX 3D last summer, and since I collect the Marvel and DC movies, I planned on buying the 3D Blu-ray when it came out. However, I found that I enjoyed the movie less than I normally enjoy a film of that type, and the 3D disc seemed to be higher priced that some previous titles. I wasn't in a rush to see it again and it was more than I wanted to spend. So, I made a point of not buying it until it was at a better price. A few times since then and now, it's dropped from $30 to $25 and even to $20, but even when it was onsale, I hadn't felt like watching it again yet. Finally, after Justice League came out, I got an urge to watch it again, and within a couple days of that, it was onsale for $9.99. This time, I bought it, and watched it immediately upon arrival. I saved money by waiting but still had it when I wanted to see it. I need to do more purchasing like that. With that in mind, when Hidden Figures was onsale for $5.99 during a Black Friday sale, I passed. I really liked the movie in theaters, and I know I'll watch it again at some point, but right now I haven't been in the mood for it. If it was that cheap once, it'll likely be that cheap again. But I just don't need to have the disc sitting on my shelf, collecting space, and having my bank account shrinking, for something I'm not watching. I have too many discs where I saw the movie in theaters and liked it, preordered the disc, and then still haven't watched that disc. But I've gotten much better this year about not adding to that pile.

So my current big weakness is blind buys. There are occasions where it does make more sense to buy a movie than rent it. The three movie set of The Cowboys/The Searchers/The Green Berets is a good example. The Searchers had come recommended and I decided I wanted to watch it. The single movie disc was about $12 at the time. The combo with the three movies was onsale for $8. So it was definitely cheaper to buy all three movies than just The Searchers. It's $4 to rent each of those movies individually on a streaming service. So, for the price of watching two of those movies once, I got to keep all three. But, the flip side to that is, I never would have bought or rented The Green Berets in the first place. But, I also wouldn't have looked for The Cowboys either. So that may have been worth it, especially if I watch The Cowboys again.

But then you have a movie like Nineteen Eighty-Four, which I bought onsale from Twilight Time for $25, plus about $5 in shipping - so about $30. I found the movie to be grim and depressing and not something that I want to rewatch, well made, but not something I need to revisit. I could have rented it for $4. Instead, I paid $26 extra to have it on a shiny disc instead of as an invisible file. For every Cowboys success story where I got a movie I would have otherwise missed, and got it cheaper than renting, there's a Nineteen Eighty-Four that cost me more than the rental and is just collecting dust now. (I don't mean to pick on Twilight Time - there have been plenty of blind buys from them that have worked out in my favor, that was just the first example that came to mind.)

So yeah... I think I could stand to cut back on my buying. I often act as though rental doesn't exist anymore, but the truth is, with services like iTunes and Vudu, renting is cheaper and easier than it's ever been.

 

[bujaki]

I'm a richer man (not financially) for acquiring many, and I mean many, blind buys. If I only bought movies that I've seen before it would be like being on a diet of vanilla ice cream day after day. Nothing against vanilla lovers. But so many riches are to be found when you are willing to explore the unknown and go outside your comfort zone. There's a huge universe out there.

 

[Ray H]

Holy crap! That's a lot of unwatched blind buys, Ray. According to DVD Profiler, I only have 1,265 total titles. You have almost as many unwatched blind buys!

I only have 8 unwatched blind buy films in my collection, according to DVD Profiler, along with one blind buy TV series. I have a total of 23 unwatched titles in my collection, with 10 of those being TV series. It usually takes us a long time to watch the TV series, so I try not to buy too many of those.

I showed much more restraint on DVD and used to take care to watch every single DVD and every extra on each disc. With Blu-ray, I think it started with those Blockbuster going-out-of-business sales. Everything was so cheap so that mentality I had of only buying movies I absolutely loved went out the window. I guess I also became a bit of a quality snob, couldn't bear to watch SD content when an HD version was available. My local library (my main source of movie watching back in the DVD heyday) didn't/still doesn't carry BDs, and the cost of buying a used BD from GoHastings.com was comparable to renting. Started buying everything I'd ever want to watch and I fear I became an obsessive collector. Started importing movies not available here and double and triple dipping, etc. And so my collection ballooned a bit out of control.

I think I'm starting to slow down with the advent of digital and 4K BDs, but I still have that obsessive collector mentality and not enough time to watch everything I'd like to.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm a richer man (not financially) for acquiring many, and I mean many, blind buys. If I only bought movies that I've seen before it would be like being on a diet of vanilla ice cream day after day. Nothing against vanilla lovers. But so many riches are to be found when you are willing to explore the unknown and go outside your comfort zone. There's a huge universe out there.

Absolutely. The question is just... do you need to purchase the movie, as opposed to renting it, to achieve that same goal? Back when DVD was new, there were far more titles available for purchase than there were for rental, and I was into blind buys because that was my only way to see certain titles. And there are still some discs which fall into that category. But nowadays, a huge number of titles released to disc are also available for legal streaming rentals - there are even plenty of titles where the streaming version is of a higher quality than the disc version, because it's available in HD streaming instead of an SD disc.

So while I hope to continue traveling outside my comfort zone and exploring the unknown... I want to be more open to the idea that buying a disc isn't the only way to accomplish this mission. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a disc if it was a movie I wanted to see and wasn't available any other way. But in cases where I could spend $4 to rent it, or $20-$30 to buy it, I'm just thinking that I should be less snobbish about the rental option.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Absolutely. The question is just... do you need to purchase the movie, as opposed to renting it, to achieve that same goal? Back when DVD was new, there were far more titles available for purchase than there were for rental, and I was into blind buys because that was my only way to see certain titles. And there are still some discs which fall into that category. But nowadays, a huge number of titles released to disc are also available for legal streaming rentals - there are even plenty of titles where the streaming version is of a higher quality than the disc version, because it's available in HD streaming instead of an SD disc.

So while I hope to continue traveling outside my comfort zone and exploring the unknown... I want to be more open to the idea that buying a disc isn't the only way to accomplish this mission. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a disc if it was a movie I wanted to see and wasn't available any other way. But in cases where I could spend $4 to rent it, or $20-$30 to buy it, I'm just thinking that I should be less snobbish about the rental option.

I am trying to do the same thing, Josh, and use streaming as a way to watch films I am unfamiliar with before deciding whether to buy them. Of course, I still do make some blind purchases, but I try to do that with films that I think I will like based on reviews and comments from people here with similar tastes. In the days of really cheap DVD's, I bought everything, since it wasn't much more than renting. However, I ended up with a lot of films sitting on the shelf that I would never watch again. I've purged most of them from my collection, and if I do blind buy something I'm not crazy about now, it gets purged, too. If the title came with a digital code, I still have that version of the film available to watch if I ever do get the urge to see it again.

So, I still get to see as much new stuff as I have time for. However, I am just going about it in a more reserved manner than I used to.