• On MovieTome: The 10 worst movies of 2009 so far!
September 30, 2009 4:36 PM PDT

15 worthy Blu-ray movies for less than $15

by David Carnoy
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 25 comments

Critics of Blu-ray often talk about how expensive the discs are, but in recent weeks, a growing number of Blu-ray movies have become more affordable, with several dipping below the $15 price point and some even slipping in at $9.99 on Amazon.

Cheap is popular these days and, not surprisingly, a lot of these bargain-price titles end up on the bestsellers list on Amazon. But when it comes to owning discs, most people have become pretty discerning, and don't just buy anything because it's cheap. With that in mind, we've culled down the list of bargain titles and selected 15 we think are worth owning.

As always, it's important to mention that taste is subjective, and if you don't like our picks, call us out and make your own suggestions in the comments section. If you're persuasive enough, we'll edit the list and swap in new titles. And as new budget Blu-rays come out, we'll also update the list. (Note: The discs on the list all were priced at less than $15 on Amazon at the time of this writing. Naturally, those prices are subject to change.)

For reference, here are the discs we considered but ultimately didn't include this round: "Bullitt," "Unforgiven," "Beetlejuice," "V for Vendetta," "Swordfish," "A Clockwork Orange," "I am Legend," "Fugitive," "The Road Warrior," "The Dirty Dozen," "Enter the Dragon," "Risky Business," "Dirty Dancing," "The New World," "Top Gun," and "Being There."

Click on any image to view the movies we did pick.



Related coverage:

Hunkered down in New York City, Executive Editor David Carnoy covers the gamut of gadgets and writes his Fully Equipped column, which carries the tag line "The electronics you lust for." He's also the author of "Knife Music," a novel. E-mail David. Follow David on Twitter.
Recent posts from Fully Equipped
Top 15 Black Friday tech deals
Top 40 must-have Blu-ray Discs
Does the new Kindle have better contrast?
LED TVs: 10 things you need to know
15 worthy Blu-ray movies for less than $15
Is this your Kindle?
Will PSP Go keep pirates at bay?
Keyboard for Apple tablet already here?
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (25 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by alloyd50 October 1, 2009 6:28 AM PDT
2001 and Wild Bunch are indeed stellar transfers of 2 unbelievable movies. I would have included Clockwork Orange over the Shining - not on the basis of the movies but the Clockwork transfer is a revelation and you see details you've never seen before.
Reply to this comment
by the_iceman October 1, 2009 7:26 AM PDT
it is the price that is holding back Blu-ray's mainstream success, most people dont want to drop 30$ for a movie they can get on DVD for 15. With ton of DVDs that can be had for less than 10 bucks (10-which is about the cost of a single movie ticket). If the players come down to 100 or less and all the movies more closely match DVD prices then I can see Blu's market share really jump. Also, I still question the quality of older movies on Blu vs DVD quality.

I know the newer stuff looks amazing in 1080p ,for older movies though unless the director/movie studio really take their time and do a complete frame by frame restoration add amazing new audio or something to the effect. I just cant see justifying either re-buying a movie or spending more for it on Blu. I'm also a bit tired of the movie industry's double dip game- release a movie then months or a year later release a better version of it after you already bought the first one..

The difference from VHS to DVD was huge, but not so much DVD to Blu... Just my opinion.
Reply to this comment
by stuntman_mike October 1, 2009 8:06 AM PDT
I know you say that it is just your opinion that DVD to BD is not a huge jump, and you are entitled to feel that way, if you are talking about really big TVs, DVD starts to show its age and it is very noticeable.

Also with the transfer of old movies. Film is a very high quality medium, even as compared to digital cameras today. If the master is in excellent condition, and the transfer is done properly, an old film on BD can be quite beautiful.
by darcal123 October 1, 2009 10:50 AM PDT
I think he meant for the vast majority of the population, not just videophiles. And he's correct... the difference from VHS to DVD was far greater than the difference from DVD to Blu-ray. Especially with how well some players can upconvert a DVD now (though still not Blu-ray quality of course).

With VHS to DVD you went from sometimes poor quality video cassettes that deteriorated over time that you always had to adjust the tracking with to cool CD looking discs that were capable of jumping between any point in the movie and greatly improved picture quality that always remained the same. With DVD to Blu all you basically had was better picture quality and audio with some added content that most consumers don't really care about. Big difference. So there's really not that great push with the average consumer that he/she must buy Blu-ray because it's so much more superior and convenient when compared to DVD.
by troyoverton October 1, 2009 11:53 AM PDT
Film is a fine media. And it is (in my tech opinion) 1 pixel. Film cameras were never measured in pixels or resolutions.

Its up to digital conversion schemes to break it into microscopic pieces that are transferred individually and pieced together again to render the digital image. Think of it as "Beam me up, Scotty!" Same idea, really.

There have of course been numerous ideas for new media to carry gelatin past an intense xenon concentrated light beam, through a aperture plate and lens to a screen, and some of them have held up pretty well.

But I digress.... the fact does indeed come down to the original master, and then the created digital "master" copy. I believe that properly handled film can last many years, and hold up to the stress of the occasional run, but prints that were run in wide release are hardly suitable for use in rendering digital master copies.

Also at issue for me is the ability of your upconverting DVD player to render the current 1080p standard, and also the distance at which you sit from your screen. I have a Pioneer DVD player that I have installed a third party firmware on, and its ability to upscale to 1080p is actually quite good. Coupled with the fact that I sit an appropriate distance from the screen, (and that I don't have another moviegoer's gigantic head blocking my view) I feel that sitting at home, enjoying the films on a digital domain (via DVD) and exercising my at will use of the PAUSE button is currently my favorite, and most cost efficient movie experience.

As the ability of digital formats and conversion algorithms improve, there could be varying results in quality between existing and as yet to be developed formats. But for right now, for me anyway... I'm pretty impressed at what we've accomplished with 8GB worth of 0's and 1's.
by troyoverton October 1, 2009 11:57 AM PDT
Film is a fine media. And it is (in my tech opinion) 1 pixel. Film cameras were never measured in pixels or resolutions.

Its up to digital conversion schemes to break it into microscopic pieces that are transferred individually and pieced together again to render the digital image. Think of it as "Beam me up, Scotty!" Same idea, really.

There have of course been numerous ideas for new media to carry gelatin past an intense xenon concentrated light beam, through a aperture plate and lens to a screen, and some of them have held up pretty well.

But I digress.... the fact does indeed come down to the original master, and then the created digital "master" copy. I believe that properly handled film can last many years, and hold up to the stress of the occasional run, but prints that were run in wide release are hardly suitable for use in rendering digital master copies.

Also at issue for me is the ability of your upconverting DVD player to render the current 1080p standard, and also the distance at which you sit from your screen. I have a Pioneer DVD player that I have installed a third party firmware on, and its ability to upscale to 1080p is actually quite good. Coupled with the fact that I sit an appropriate distance from the screen, (and that I don't have another moviegoer's gigantic head blocking my view) I feel that sitting at home, enjoying the films on a digital domain (via DVD) and exercising my at will use of the PAUSE button is currently my favorite, and most cost efficient movie experience.

As the ability of digital formats and conversion algorithms improve, there could be varying results in quality between existing and as yet to be developed formats. But for right now, for me anyway... I'm pretty impressed at what we've accomplished with 8GB worth of 0's and 1's.

also... @darcal123: I would also argue that besides the quality of the DVD, the most difference was made in the use of component video vs. s-video or composite. Take a DVD player with all of them, plug it into a CRT TV, and try the different connection options. DVD still looks average on a low-grade video standard like composite.
by make_or_break October 4, 2009 11:48 PM PDT
Price yes, but for me high quality of Blu-ray itself can at times be somewhat annoying to watch. I've seen a couple of movies on BD that were actually shot in HD. Did I REALLY need to see all those gnarly wrinkles on the actor's face that--despite all heroic efforts of the make-up crew--live on in infamous high-definition Blu-ray? Movies are all about make believe, right? Well there appear to be TIMES when a little fuzziness wouldn't HURT the cause. Excuse me while I go barf just from the recollection of these inglorious HD images.
by mhaven98 October 1, 2009 7:58 AM PDT
I agree, the prices for most new release Blu Rays here in Canada are $34.99 (give or take a couple of bucks) + 13% TAX. Meanwhile the same movie on DVD is $18.99. People aren't going to pay almost double for HD picture when DVD is just fine for most. I know some people who can't tell the difference (sad as that sounds but it's not uncommon). If Blu Ray is going to take off, it needs to be priced reasonably. I would say at most $2 more than DVD but ultimately the same price would be best. Until then, people will continue to buy the DVD and take the extra money they saved and buy a second DVD. This is not the same leap as cassette to CD so stop marketing it like that. Blu Ray picture is awesome but DVD is not bad either.
Reply to this comment
by xmaster_dosx October 1, 2009 1:21 PM PDT
i feel the same way
by stuntman_mike October 1, 2009 8:01 AM PDT
How in the world could you leave Unforgiven off that list lol? That's one of the best westerns ever. It was lauded by the academy. And it is only $8.99. If that doesn't scream buy, I don't know what does lol.
Reply to this comment
by atgrammer October 1, 2009 9:36 AM PDT
I can notice the difference between DVD & BD but my wife can't and we have a 50" 1080p plasma tv. We usually rent movies out of the $1 kiosk at Safeway...I have never bought a BD and it's been years since I've bought a DVD.
Reply to this comment
by graviz October 1, 2009 10:17 AM PDT
'The Shining'

Blu-run, Blu-run, Blu-run...

Photo credit: Amazon.com

Shouldn't it say Blu-RUM, Blu-RUM, Blu-RUM (not run?)
Reply to this comment
by dcarnoy October 1, 2009 1:56 PM PDT
yes.
by xmaster_dosx October 1, 2009 1:20 PM PDT
amazon is now my go to place for blu-ray movies. i think i get ripped of sometimes though.
Reply to this comment
by bblackmoor October 1, 2009 2:58 PM PDT
Blu-Ray is a completely unnecessary technology. At current widescreen television sizes (in the neighborhood of 40-50 diagonal inches), the increased resolution is insignificant. There is no reason to spend more money on new disks and new players, and at least one very good reason not to -- the DRM (Digital Rights Mafia) restrictions on Blu-Ray disks are even more onerous than that on DVDs.
Reply to this comment
by karthikveeramani October 1, 2009 3:13 PM PDT
While I agree that the DRM is annoying and doesn't let you back it up to your hard drive etc., I do not agree that bluray is useless. Being someone who watches on bluray often, I can see a lot of difference in the colors and crispness while watching on bluray. I have a 46'' display. I cannot say that I can distinguish an upscaled dvd from bluray all the time, but the difference is quite obvious in many cases I have seen.
by Kendokill October 3, 2009 1:41 AM PDT
There is a difference in the 40-50" HDTVs from blu to dvd transfer, and it's quite obvious.
by mavfan2 October 12, 2009 2:00 PM PDT
side by side there's a definite difference but I often forget whether the DVD I got from netflix is standard or blu ray as I'm watching on a 46" samsung lcd 650 series and a PS3 for the player. I watched Once Upon a Time in the West last night and it looked fantastic. Yeah, if it were blu-ray it probably would have looked a little better but not so much better that I'd really care.

My biggest problem with blu ray is that in the not to distant future we're going to be hit with new 4K TVs and media and I'm patient enough and young enough that I'm willing to wait rather than to invest a lot in the current tech. then a few years after that we'll have another new leap forward. I had my previous television for 13 years before I got my LCD and was happy with it. Can you imagine that anyone will be happy with one of today's TVs, 13 years from now?
by karthikveeramani October 1, 2009 3:10 PM PDT
A lot of times, if you pre-order the movie on blu-ray, you'd get it for about the same price or even cheaper. I got Batman Begins and Dark Knight (this was around $20 I think). Sign up for Amazon.com newsletter, they'll send you a notification when the pre-ordering option is available. Sometimes, if you sign up with Warner studios website, they send coupons and discount options, which can be applied on top of their pre-ordering price. If you know the movie is worth watching on blu-ray and owning, it is a lot cheaper to preorder.
Reply to this comment
by JazzGuyy October 1, 2009 3:38 PM PDT
There are a number of Blu-Ray players now available for under $150, sometimes under $100. If you shop around a bit the price differential for Blu-Ray discs vs standard DVDs is in the $3-5 range and the gap is narrowing. The price argument against Blu-Ray is becoming less true all the time.

Even the best upscaling of a really good DVD source does not equal Blu-Ray and DVD sound cannot compete with the lossless BD audio formats.
Reply to this comment
by Jim Dodds October 1, 2009 7:57 PM PDT
46" Samsung, Dvd does not look near as good as cable HD with my Samsung upscaling player. Haven't hooked up a Blu Ray yet but if it is as good as HD the difference would stand out very much.
Reply to this comment
by regulator1956 October 1, 2009 8:03 PM PDT
Target has lots of DVD from $6 to $10 in SoCal. Blu-ray needs to start going for volume.
Reply to this comment
by brucet1953 October 2, 2009 6:23 PM PDT
Thanks for the tips!

Back (way-y-y-y back) when CDROM disks made their debut, tons of crummy software was shoveled onto the new "miracle" and "shovel-ware" was born. I've been concerned about just what kind of quality to expect when buying older movies that have been burned to the new wonderchild (Blu-shovel ware?)Obviously some are better than others.
Reply to this comment
by Kendokill October 3, 2009 1:43 AM PDT
Bruce, the best thing you can do is check review sites on the blu-ray transfer quality. These sites are a great resource in showing what is worth buying or not. It's especially handy for older movies being transferred to blu-ray.
by hakeis1 October 4, 2009 9:53 PM PDT
DVD to Bluray is a monster jump, if you don't believe it you better go get your eyes checked. If you own a Tv with a screen size of 42 inches or larger bluray is a night and day differance. Bluray also kicks digital video streaming by a land slide, who needs all that skip and jump from poor buffuring and slow internet.
Reply to this comment
(25 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

About Fully Equipped

Executive Editor David Carnoy has been covering electronics for CNET since 2000, arriving at the company just as "that whole Internet bust thing" happened. Early on, he launched CNET's cell phone coverage, earning him the nickname "Wireless Dave," then moved on to bigger and broader things. Hunkered down in New York City, he oversees CNET's Home and Hardware reviews, which includes all things related to home theater, PC, and digital imaging. Fully Equipped covers the gamut of gadgets and gizmos and, to keep things lively, Carnoy likes to alternate between writing useful, advice-oriented pieces or thought-provoking columns with inflammatory headlines designed to elicit commentary from readers. Fully Equipped is the longest continuously running column on CNET.com.

For older columns, read the Fully Equipped archive (2002-2008).

Add this feed to your online news reader

Fully Equipped topics