15 worthy Blu-ray movies for less than $15
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Blu-run, Blu-run, Blu-run...
Photo credit: Amazon.com
Shouldn't it say Blu-RUM, Blu-RUM, Blu-RUM (not run?)
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?
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.
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.
/rant
-
by rando1017
November 26, 2009 10:26 PM PST
- The price gap between DVD and BD is shrinking daily. Transformers 2, Wolverine and Star Trek were all $19.99 on Blu Ray at release. $4 more than the DVD version. The audio track alone is worth the extra $4. Hell, Wolverine even included a DVD and a digital copy at that price. (which makes me suspect a no-frills, movie only new release at $15.99 is coming soon.)
-
Like this
Reply to this comment
-
(29 Comments)Now, it's really a matter of the movie for me. I bought the above movies on Blu ray because the special effects warranted a high resolution experience. Same with the audio. When the Enterprise kicks on the engine and my bass kicks in, I want my pictures to shake on the wall. But when I go out and get, say I Love You Man, I don't see any point in spending extra for the Blu Ray because it doesn't really warrant it. I don't need to see the pores on Jason Segal's face, and the pop soundtrack won't sound any better through 7.1 than the tiny speakers in my TV.
Some people just don't need the extra experience Blu Ray offers. I have countless friends that STILL have 27" CRTs from 1997 sitting in their living rooms. But if you have an HDTV, especially over 40", the difference is gonna be quite apparent. (Watch Planet Earth!) And if you have the equipment the lossless audio is just ridiculous.
I think Blu Ray is just great. And with the prices coming down all the time on the movies and players(Under $100 for Black Friday) it's only a matter of time before DVD will be gone and this won't even be an issue.