Anyone remember when home video began making serious inroads in the entertainment business, and the price of a movie on videotape could run as high as $100?
The studios never dreamed that average Joes would want to buy movies, reasoning that rental stores — which began popping up all over the country in the late 1970s and early '80s — were the only way to go.
So movies were priced outrageously, and rental stores had no choice but to inflate studio coffers by purchasing multiple copies … hoping to rent them out enough times to cover the cost and bring in a profit. This gouging was euphemistically referred to as "rental pricing."
Of course, ordinary people could buy films if they wanted — but who could afford them? It apparently never occurred to studio moguls that if movies were more affordably priced, volume sales would boost profits.
Apparently, the thinking was: Who wants to see a movie more than once? This, on the heels of "Jaws" (1975) and "Star Wars" (1977) having already proved that blockbusters made their money because fans watched them over and over.
Also, if no one will buy a movie that can be cheaply rented, how do you explain libraries, where books are free? People still buy them! (I purchased a couple of hardbacks just last weekend as birthday gifts, and the bookstores were buzzing with business.)
Of course, the studios eventually came around, realizing that a lot of people actually wanted to own their favorite movies and put them on the shelf next to their favorite books. And movie prices began to drop to what was termed "sell-through."
At the start of this trend, however, major titles would still be released at "rental prices" to gouge rental stores — then, after a few months, the price would drop to a more consumer-friendly, affordable level, and collectors would start buying en masse.
By the time DVD came along, exorbitant rental prices were a thing of the past. But now the past is catching up with us again, as DVD companies are bringing "rental prices" back, now referred to as "rental only."
Certain movies are being released only to rental agencies before a price drop makes them available to the general public months later. This time around, however, rental-store prices won't be available to the general public, if "The Brothers Bloom" is any indication.
Anyone who reads these pages knows that I receive a lot of DVDs to review each week, and when "The Brothers Bloom" arrived on my desk, I took it as just another release. The fact that I received it on Oct. 1 and the release date shown on the accompanying press sheet was Sept. 29 seemed odd, but I just figured it arrived late.
Then I read the explanation that both DVD and Blu-ray versions of "The Brothers Bloom" were being released "for rental only," and the price was nowhere to be found.
Curiouser and curiouser, as Lewis Carroll would say.
Rumor has it (meaning I read on the Internet) that "The Brothers Bloom," a comic caper flick, will be available to the general public for purchase early next year, and this rental-store-only release is intended to boost awareness of the film, which was a box-office flop back in May. (When it played in Salt Lake theaters.)
The film is an uneven but mostly well-done yarn with excellent performances by Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo as con-artist brothers — and especially by Rachel Weisz in a completely winning turn as a mark who becomes an accomplice/love interest.
The biggest drawbacks arrive as the film wraps up and somewhat unravels in a far too "serious" conclusion. But most of the way, it's quirky fun.
"The Brothers Bloom" is one of those films that not everyone will embrace, and it's probably not going to be a personal-purchase favorite, even when it does become widely available.
In fact, it's quite possible that making this film a rental-only release will backfire.
Rent it, watch it, and you may enjoy it — but will you really want to keep it? Not likely.
e-mail: hicks@desnews.com