We – Todd & Kara – use Letterboxd (TJSNK = the initials of each member’s name in our family) to keep track of the movies watched and provide short reviews with ratings. Star ratings are assigned based how entertaining the movies are:
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ – Love it, Must See ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️½ – Amazing ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ – Great ⭐️⭐️⭐️½ – Good ⭐️⭐️⭐️ – Entertaining ⭐️⭐️½ – OK ⭐️⭐️ – Mediocre ⭐️½ – Bad ⭐️ – Terrible ½ – Unwatchable .
He writes all the reviews and sees all movies, we go to some of them together and she weighs in sometimes..
These are our (mostly his) opinion only and don’t expect everybody else on the internet to agree (or disagree), but love to discuss more about movies and TV. Heck, we disagree with each other on some movies.
He started this blog to explore from a fan’s perspective the theater-watching experience, movies, movie lists and other features that Letterboxd doesn’t (yet?) make available (why can’t we blog through there?). Also to explore the Regal Unlimited Plan (member since August 2019), streaming video channels and TV without cable. Subscribe below to get notified when new posts are made.
Last month we checked out our first Cinebarre in Las Vegas at Palace Station (note that we misspelled Cinebarre as Cinnebar) Casino, this month we saw the opening of Zombieland Double Tap⭐️⭐️⭐️ at the Cinebarre in Salem, Oregon. It was interesting to note and experience the difference between the two Cinebarre locations. We expected a very similar experience, but it was notably different in a few areas, which will be detailed below.
The layout of the Cinebarre was a little different. At Palace Station Casino lin Las Vegas you go up an escalator to enter the Cinebarre, At Salem, Oregon Cinebarre it is at street level, you first go to the box office to receive your ticket and then enter the Cinebarre where your ticket is ripped immediately. There is an old school arcade upstairs (pictured at the top of the photo). Nice to see throwback arcade games like Pac-Man and Super Mario Bros. represented. Also, was a cool-looking Avatar pinball machine that I wanted to play, but it was eating quarters. We told the manager and were promptly refunded, no questions asked.
The theater layout had long tables in front of the seats with a secondary aisle so the attendants could come down and service more conveniently. At Cinebarre Palace Station the table you eat on is an expanded arm rest table that is permanently at your side. Most Regal theaters you just have the arm rest that folds down and has room for a drink cup, but Cinebarre Palace Station has a mini table that can fit your dinner. At Cinebarre in Salem, Oregon there is a long table that is about a foot or so in front of the chairs. On that table is a button to press that turns red which summons the server to provide service as well as napkins, salt and pepper and ketchup..
Before the previews, it was kept way darker (too dark) in the theater and difficult to see at the Cinebarre in Salem, Oregon. I had to use the flashlight on my phone to illuminate the menu. The theater was about 60-70% full to watch Zombieland Double Tap on its very first showing. Many people were ordering concessions.
The ordering process is different. You are encouraged to write your order on a piece of paper at Cinnebar Salem, Oregon. At Cinnebar Palace Station in Las Vegas the attendant shows up, knows who you are, takes your order, processes in his portable credit card machine and you pay at the time of ordering. At Cinnebar Salem, Oregon you do not pay until late into the film. The attendant shows up and puts a traditional bill inside a folding holder and you are required to attempt to read the bill in almost pitch black environment during the feature presentation. I didn’t want to break my phone flashlight out to try and read the bill so I just used the illumination of the screen upside down so Kara could try to read,. Also, the attendant never applied our 10% concession credit for being Ultimate Unlimited members because he didn’t know who we were. Again, we didn’t want to disturb other patrons during the movie by pushing the red button and asking for help, so we ended up just paying the full price which was a little over $50 for both of us. This is about what we’d pay for dinner anywhere else, so the prices were reasonable.
No assigned seating at Cinebarre in Salem, Oregon. The dinner format was less formal at Cinebarre Salem, Oregon. We sat in the very back room, centered on the screen. This was a good seat to watch the movie. Comfortable, but not as comfortable as a recliner.
The menu was different. Cinnebar Salem, Oregon seemed to have a little less items available on the menu. In particular,ra was looking forward to eating another ice cream sandwich, but that wasn’t on the menu.. I had a hamburger (“Top Hat Burger” as it was called) and ordered it with bacon but the bacon did not come on it. The burger was cooked well and delicious, as well as the accompanying fries. Also, ordered and enjoyed the boneless wings coated with bourbon bbq sauce. Again, these were cooked well and tasted great. To drink I just had soda and Kara had water. She also had an order of potato skins. I didn’t try any of the potato skins but she said they were good.F
Summary of Experience and Comparison
I preferred the experience a little bit more at the Cinebar Las Vegas, particularly the ordering and payment process, however, it was more traditional restaurant style at Cinebarre Salem, Oregon. The food was good at both locations and comparatively priced to other restaurants. They didn’t serve the popcorn in the stainless bowl at Cineabarre in Salem, Oregon, instead it is in the traditional paper bucket. The butter had a slightly different taste that was not as good as most other theaters.
While I’d give Cinebarre Palace Station in Las Vegas an A- grade for experience, I’d rate the Cinebarre in Salem, Oregon a B, maybe even a B-. It was good but marred by the total darkness, and the fact that when you pay the bill it is distracting from watching the movie. At the Palace Station they did a better job making the dinner portion over and settled before the movie started.
Despite the differences between the two, both experiences were still overall positive and what mattered most — the quality of food — was very good, if practical and one is nearby, I’d recommend others check out a Cinnebarre near you. The list of Cinebarres from Regal is quite small as of this writing (only 8 locations across the US, most of which are on the west coast), so this might not be possible for most reading.
Next month I’m hoping we can visit one of the two Cinebarres located not too far from our home — either Issquah, WA or Mount Lake Terrace, WA. We are fortunate to be located near three of the eight Cinebarre location.
Ah yes, movies that portray what the great beyond is like. If you are not looking for a faith-based film and want something with a comedy outlook there is always Oh God with George Burns and John Denver.
Heaven Can Wait also checks off boxes for the type of feel-good movies I like to watch. Warren Beatty plays Joe Pendleton who is a quarterback for the Los Angeles Rams and is about to get his start in the big game when he is hit by a car. His angel watching over him took him out too soon, not expecting the outcome and thus he didn’t really die from the accident. Now, the angel has to put him back in another body because Joe’s body was crealsomated.
I like how the way station to heaven is portrayed in the film.
This isn’t a religious, preachy or spiritual film and yet it comes off invoking that type of vibe to the viewer. Whether or not you believe in an afterlife, the viewer believe in this type of afterlife.
This movie was remade by Chris Rock in 2001 in the film Down To Earth, and used a comedian “false dying” instead of an athlete, but that is a pale comparison to Beatty’s film.
Absolutely love when people fight back against the film critic culture. Queen’s Roger Taylor isn’t happy with how some critics — movie reviewers — slayed Bohemian Rhapsody when it was released:
While Taylor was put off by the negative response from movie reviewers, he was also emboldened by the many positive comments he received from moviegoers. “I think people know a lot more than film critics,” the drummer opined. “And the word of mouth via social media is so much more powerful than [a] review from a guy who probably watches 40 movies a week and has probably lost the essence of the joy of a movie.”
This might sound ironic that I like what Roger Taylor is saying. Despite being a movie reviewer and having a website with the words “movie reviews” in the domain and being a person who does watch, rate and review a lot of movies every week (not quite the volume of 40+ per week) I still consider myself first and foremost a moviegoer. I am proud to be someone who pays to go see movies for the entertainment experience.
I don’t go to movies to rate and review them for a job. My day job has literally nothing to do with movies.
Speaking for myself, I don’t watch movies to dislike or be critical of any of them. In fact, it gives me much greater pleasure to be entertained by movies than not to be. Who would want to pay to be miserable?
My wish is to love every movie seen, but sometimes am letdown by movies that have terrible acting, completely unrealistic dialogue, lame special effects, blurry and shaky camerawork, cliched stories seen dozens or (gasp) hundreds of times and just aren’t a fun experience. When that happens, my ticket enables me the right to share my disappointing experience with others — so I do. But that’s not done out of any personal or professional agenda.
Bohemian Rhapsody is a biopic, and I personally like biopics. Haven’t rated or reviewed that one yet as of this writing, but did see it in the theater last year on release and enjoyed it. Thought Freddy Mercury was portrayed well. That the film celebrated the band, Queen and their music. When I do get around to rewatching, rating and reviewing, my review will be positive and recommend to others to watch the movie (that means it will be at least 3 out of 5 stars, using our review criteria).
But what if I didn’t like the movie? Would I be part of Roger Taylor’s scornful commentary? Probably so. It’s unfortunate, but yes. Negative reviews are what draw the ire of people making movies, not positive ones. Other fans or reviewers will challenge positive reviews. Just read the comment exchange on our Air Force One ⭐️⭐️⭐️½ review. Initially, I gave it too many stars and another reviewer — who disliked the movie — challenged that I gave it too high a rating compared to the lower rating given to Hustlers⭐️½ (which I am standing by that negative review, regardless of how much money it has made). I don’t want to get off track, but the number of stars a movie has can be adjusted after more deep, critical thinking and successive rewatches. Some movies I never want to even try to watch again, so those will never change.
(If you hate Air Force One and love Hustlers and think that somehow disqualifies me to write any reviews, so be it)
Actors, directors, producers, the people paying money. Of course they want positive reviews, I get it, but you can’t pay me to say something entertained me that didn’t. You could pay me to visit a movie theater and watch a movie — although nobody ever has as of this writing — but you can’t pay me for my opinion.
In the music world, I go to concerts to enjoy hearing songs I like by the band/artist played live. A good concert to me has a setlist of songs that entertains. Hopefully they don’t play it completely safe and mix in at least a few deeper cuts (songs not as “popular”), so that I might explore deeper into the band/artist’s discography.
When I go see a movie I’m hoping to love it. That it will become part of my “until I die” rewatch list. That list is my own. I don’t care if that movie is loved or hated by virtually everybody else. If I loved it, that is all that matters to me.
My reviews are personal to me. So, when I share a review. I’m sharing my personal taste — or distaste. I realize that’s counter to the way that most/all professional critics work their craft. They are doing it because it is their job. They are paid to be objective.
But we all know that’s BS. Most of them aren’t.
Most film critics are not intellectually honest about their personal tastes and biases. It’s uncommon reading any pro critic’s review and seeing the reviewer list his/her personal biases and how these impacted the review. Why not? It’s because journalistic integrity tells them they can’t do that. They aren’t supposed to interject themselves into the objective review process.
That’s what we do differently here at this blog, in our video reviews and through every review shared.
We’re not the only ones that review movies this way, so I’m not claiming some huge originality or moral high ground or anything. I’m just sharing how movie reviews by us are “the audience” that Roger Taylor from Queen is talking about.
I haven’t been comped to see a bunch of movies and write a review. I’ve spent over a thousand dollars of my own money watching movies in the last 90 days alone. Where do I get these figures from? See August and September how much our expenses were for going to the movies + the cost of streaming channels we subscribe to and my internet connection which is $100/month. That adds up to over $1,000 in the last three months. That’s out of our pockets.
Nobody has paid me to go see any movies. I paid my own way 100%. Paid for popcorn and soda at a huge concession markup cost. I’m clearly part of the “audience” that Roger Taylor looks fondly toward.
(Unless I leave a negative review of Bohemian Rhapsody, perhaps)
Will I always have to pay my way in? Don’t know. If I was offered to go see and review a movie then I would disclose that in the review. That’s something else that really bothers me when a review doesn’t indicate if the reviewer had to pay to see the movie or were comped to see it in exchange for a review. That should always be disclosed!
I have never seen one advanced screening. Not one. I’ve seen thousands, perhaps 10,000+ movies in my life, and have never, ever been to an advance screening. Professional critics see them every week! This is how they can write reviews on movies the rest of us don’t get to see until they open in the theater.
EXAMPLE (pictured above). Disney’s Maleficent: Mistress of Evil already has 94 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and the movie doesn’t have any public screenings until later today.
This will dissuade some people in the “audience” from paying to see this movie. It doesn’t matter to me, even if it was 0% score (meaning every reviewer who saw the movie disliked it). But I believe this is Roger Taylor’s concern. That some people saw negative reviews for Bohemian Rhapsody and chose not to see the movie.
Sure, that’s reasonable. I’d encourage others to only base whether or not they see movies based on critics that they trust best match their tastes. Even so, there will always be differences of opinions. For this reason, if you want to be absolutely certain how you will feel about a movie, always go yourself and find out. Don’t listen to any movie review, including the movie reviews by us.
(Someday in the future, I would like to attend a film festival and see movies ahead of official release. They are open to movie fans, not just professionals. That sounds like fun)
Back to Queen and Roger Taylor and why I loved his venting. He is vindicated, you know. Bohemian Rhapsody is the most popular and financially successful biopic ever. The audience overwhelmingly loved the movie.
Queen was involved in the making of the biopic and is clearly taking the reviews personally, so you can see why Taylor is mad, but this man has been performing for dozens of years in front of fans at concerts. If those fans didn’t like the music, they wouldn’t be at their concerts or buy so many of their albums.
Movie reviewers are a necessary and valuable part of the process. The reviewers need to be honest with their opinions and not have their opinions paid for. I would argue that some in the process are not being 100% honest and that’s what Roger Taylor is rightfully calling out.
What do you think of what Roger Taylor said? Is he right?
Hump Day Wednesday. Also the day before the openings of new films in the theater. Such a great middle week day!
Kara has Thursday, Friday and Saturday off, so I’m hopeful we can see all four of the movies above, but finding some of the release screenings in our area can be challenging (a venting topic for another day).
Am excited to see more Halloween-themed movies this week, albeit they are sequels. Last week had an underwhelming Addam’s Family⭐️⭐️ but it did well at the box office next to Joker ⭐️⭐️⭐️½ .
Maleficient: Mistress of Evil
Has the look of something that could be very good. An epic fairy tale with some good-looking effects. I’m intrigued.
However, similar to IT: Chapter Two ⭐️⭐️½ I haven’t seen the first one and am worried I might miss context. Do like the subtitle: “Mistress of Evil” but I’m hit or miss on liking the newer Disney films (love many of their classics). That includes the newer Star Wars since they bought them from George Lucas.
This one is 2/10 for anticipation. Don’t know much about it other than what’s in the trailer, but the trailer generated a little interest. Am going in optimistic, looking to be entertained on this one, but it’s not something I’m clamoring to see.
Zombieland: Double Tap
Another sequel to a movie I haven’t seen. Maybe I can catch the double-feature that is showing in some theaters. It’s definitely an odd experience watching the sequel before the original. It’s like reading series books out of order.
After watching this trailer, I’m definitely more excited about this one than Maleficent: Mistress of Evil. Cool look of The White House with weeds overgrowing it. I’ve enjoyed some of Woody Harrelson’s films. Good to see they got the entire cast of the first Zombieland back, so this might be a more pure sequel.
Sacrilege, I know, but I’m not a huge zombie fan. Think they have been overplayed with the whole success of AMC The Walking Dead (which I do like that), but excessive zombie carnage could be fun.
This one gets 5/10 for my anticipation. I’m guessing Kara will want to see Maleficent before this, because she isn’t much of a horror fan. This is more horror-comedy, so maybe it will be more appealing to her. Will soon find out!
I’ve seen the most rewatch trailers for this film and have concern with Adolf Hitler being funny. Think I’d rather see Hitler handled in a horror film than a comedy. Let’s face it, the guy was just pure evil personified, but it could be ok.
Nobody in the theater was laughing at any of the satirical Hitler jokes, probably because they weren’t funny. Seeing Hitler dance around? It just isn’t working in the trailer for me.
The controversial elements of this film plus the fact that I do enjoy comedies puts this at 3/10 for my anticipation.
Have seen one trailer in advance for this one, but not much else is known. Let’s check out the trailer again:
Hmm. Kinda corny music. What is this movie about? Not a very good trailer at all. Not seeing much that I want to see here. Luckily there are more trailers and one has a ton of views on YouTube, but reading through the comments I’m sensing others are confused too. I watched, saw a lot of quotes from critics saying it was great.
The film chronicles the story of two lighthouse keepers as they are faced with solitude, but start to lose their sanity and become threatened by their worst nightmares.
So, it is a horror movie, good. That increases my curiosity. 2/10 for anticipation, but below Maleficent.
ANTICIPATION for Week of 10/17 MOVIES
How much on scale of 1-10 anticipating the 10-17-2019 movies?
Zombieland: Double Tap – 5 /10
Jojo Rabbit – 3/10
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil – 2/10
The Lighthouse – 2/10
Are there screenings in our area to see these movies?
Zombieland and Maleficent are wide screenings, so they will be easy to be screened at Regal Cinemas (where we have an unlimited pass). The Lighthouse is showing at one Regal theater about 20 miles away. Jojo Rabbit looks like the wildcard, it isn’t showing as of this writing anywhere near us. So, that one may get passed unless it appears somewhere…
Are YOU looking forward to seeing any of these movies? If so, which one(s)?
Horror hasn’t always been about blood and guts being spilled. Perhaps some fans would define the “best” horror that way, but for me the best is whatever makes me feel fear. From a historical perspective, certain types of films have been prominent, also highlighting real life and fears of the time (EXAMPLE. alien invasion and nuclear war).
I’m sure this can, has and will always be debated, but being a horror fan to me, means appreciating, enjoying and being entertained by horror no matter what era it comes from.
HOW TELEVISION HAS CHANGED
Television has changed immensely since the 1950s. That and movie theaters were once the only way to view horror. Television and the edited versions from the theater with commercials added. Soon, came cable TV and soon premium channels like HBO (1972) to break up the ABC, NBC, CBS and independent model.
In 1975 the ability to record TV and then fast forward through the commercials via Betamax (eventually replaced by VHS and then DVD and then Bluray and then UHD) and then, wow, the ability to buy and watch the movies with no commercials.
And then in the 1990s the internet changed everything with TV again.
Today, my TV is getting the content not via antenna over the air or via cable, it’s all coming through the internet. Streaming channels have broken up and divided the massive movie libraries and distribute movies on a rotating cycle (some licenses are here, then there, then there, and then back here, and so on).
BUYING MOVIES HAS CHANGED, TOO
There was a time when we bought and collected DVDs like crazy. We built a library of over 700 movies before we stopped, realizing new, better formats would always be coming out, thus making our current library inferior format (and they did — Bluray, UHD, 4k, soon to be 8k and who knows what else is coming!).
There will be. And in 5-10 years, what Ang Lee used to make his film will not be bleeding edge. There will be something new. Perhaps even in a few years when James Cameron rolls out all his new Avatar sequels.
At some point I realized there is a technology treadmill that I was working to buy the same content in a better format. And, so I’ve mostly stopped the neverending hamster wheel of buying content and focused more on only buying the heavily rewatchable movies. That list is much, much smaller. Those movies I’ll rebuy in better formats and/or just buy to stream for convenience wherever there is an internet connection.
Back to eras. The different eras.
So how are “classics” being defined? Any movie produced in the 1960s and earlier.
1960s and earlier
The era of Hitchcock’s superb movies Psycho and The Birds are classics. Horror in the classics era wasn’t about gore and blood, although there were some bloody horror movies. Depending on how far back we go in time, it was more about the creature, monster, the psychotic killer. Why did they kill and when were they killing vs. showing very much of how the killing occurred. An argument could be made that this type of “leave the details up to the viewer’s imagination remain the most frightening.
1970s – 1980s
In my era growing up, the 1970s and 1980s, John Carpenter’s Halloween and Friday the 13th were the “new” horror and sequels to these films could be expected at somewhat predictable intervals (every few year on Halloween, another Halloween movie). We enjoyed Stephen King and a wide variety of slasher films as fodder for nightmares, it’s the original classic films that jump started my first interest and excitement in horror movies. Showing more graphic gory kills began in these two eras, while in the past the horror was less visual and more psychological.
Then came the 1990s, the torture, game and birth of amateur/found footage horror era. The cringe horror era which seemed to focus more on self-mutilation at the hands of some sadistic mastermind (Saw) and/or a bunch of strangers brought together to figure out how they got to some strange place (Cube). Slasher mashups with mystery and horror (Scream). More of a thinking scary type of horror here. Creative ways to maim and kill people highlighted.
2000s – current
In 2000s and forward we’ve seen more technology/internet horror as well as a continued resurgence in reboots and remakes and more found footage and amateur film “real” horror. I would challenge this era among the weakest and least scary of innovative horror types.
I liked what Rob Zombie tried to do when rebooting Halloween, but it isn’t (and probably can’t be) as good as the original. It might take 100+ years before any worthwhile reboot/remake could be done with any great success. They are trying with Chucky. I think the continuation of sequels, like they’re doing with Halloween is a better path. It’s tough remaking horror when the original — the strong feeling and emotion of the original — burns fresh in the mind of people still alive.
The current theatrical window is around 90 days. Look above at the current number of week new movies have been playing in the top 10 via Box Office Mojo. As of last weekend (10/11/2019) 7 of the top 20 movies with screening are making money.
I haven’t done a deep statistical analysis of the numbers, but it looks from casual observation that most movies drop somewhere between 30-60% in sales from week to week. Sure, there are some films that perform outside this window, so if we consider a movie opens with 20 million and has 50% loss of revenue the first four weeks, here would be the hypothetical performance:
Week #1: 20 million Week #2: 10 million Week #3: 5 million Week #4: 2.5 million = 37.5 million
Now if the theatrical window was reduced to four weeks, as being proposed, and streaming were allowed then what would be the impact if the theater continued to show the same movie? Would the dropoff increase to 60-70%? Or would it stay about the same roughly 50% dropoff?
That’s one question. The bigger question is how many movies even make it past the first four weeks still having screenings? 45 more movies out of the bottom 65 listed for a total of 52 out of 85 (61%) continue to have screenings beyond four weeks. What is the total revenue for the bottom 65 compared to the top 20? Movies ranked 21-85 only make $20 million versus the top 20 movies make $120 million.
The data is obvious: the top 20 movies make the most money and the freshest movies in release time make the most money. So, the amount of money a movie makes decays drastically — except in a small, few movies (like Lion King that has continued to make money over a couple months) — over the course of the first few weeks. After a month, the money most movies make from the box office is minimal.
While most sources we spoke to agree that a day-and-date release strategy is simply too drastic of a jump from this current system, they do think a three-to-four-week-after-release model could become a reality in the near future.
My wife and I really aren’t the average moviegoers. At least not since August 2019. I’ve seen over 31 movies in the last two months. That’s almost ten times the number of movies the average moviegoer in the US sees in a year. Prior to becoming Regal Unlimited Members, I still saw over 25 movies in the theater in 2018, which is still way more than the average of 3-4 movies per year.
We love seeing movies in the theater. I enjoy the movie theater experience and do not want to see it go away. I do want to see it evolve and change with the times. Waiting 90 days to stream movies doesn’t make any financial or logical sense any more. I’m going to see the movie the first four weeks, so it matters none to me personally whether or not the theatrical window is reduced, but it will allow people who don’t go to the movies very often to see a movie while there is still buzz through streaming.
Will some moviegoers wait for the streaming instead of going to the movie theater? This is Hollywood’s fear. I doubt the numbers will be significant. The people who want to see the movie as soon as it is released will still go to the theater. As long as there is some theatrical window — and I’m not advocating for same day in theater release to streaming — because I think that would hurt the movie theater traffic.
What do YOU think? Keep the theatrical window the way it already is (90 days)? Reduce to 30 days? Reduce to some other number of days? Or just leave it the way it is?
AMC Theaters On Demand will offer about 2,000 films for sale or rent after their theatrical runs — much like Amazon or iTunes. Disney, Warner Bros., Universal, Sony and Paramount have made deals with AMC for catalog and new-release movies to be available through the new service, with pricing between $3 to $5.99 to rent and $9.99 to $19.99 to buy.
How long before the big theater chains start their own streaming service like Netflix or Amazon Prime Video? I’d be in favor of this IF they were somehow able to fill that time gap by dumping newer movies into their streaming service after the initial screenings dropped below a certain number and/or after a certain amount of time (30 days, perhaps?).
As for there being “to many streaming services” I’m all for competition. Let them compete with Netflix, Amazon and Disney if they must.
Speaking of Disney’s new streaming service that opens November 12 and will cost $6.99/month, they have posted their launch title library and it’s collected here which includes all the Star Wars movies and all 30 years worth of The Simpsons!
Now after that more exciting Disney+ stuff, back to AMC’s new streaming rental and buy service.
Something tells me that this will be just another place to buy movies that most people aren’t going to use. Why buy movies at a bunch of different places. We buy movies at Amazon and Vudu currently online. The only other service under consideration is FandangoNow because they work with the Occulus and sell 3D movies.
Too many different places to buy movies and keep track of them isn’t very desirable.
As for renting videos at about the same prices as Amazon, Vudu, etc? Don’t see the point there either unless they have movies not available at existing online rental stores.