Netflix - Film Recommendations *READ FIRST POST*

vidor

Oh man, I know everyone has different tastes but I forgot about that Marian Jones episode as it was hands down the worst of the lot. I'll let Scott Tobias do the talking on that one.

e_e

Mickeroo

Separate threads for film & TV

Haha that kind of thing has been happening a lot in the app lately I've noticed.

By the way, I find Reggie Watts hilarious in general but Comedy Bang Bang is awful stuff imo.

e_e

Haha haven't seen the show yet but the CBB podcast has its moments imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRSe2LODPNg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqFvAugYoXQ

Beefy78

warpdrive wrote: »

2016 is going to be a huge year for Netflix. They'll be increasing their selection of originals from 16 to over 30 and apparently they're also working on around 10 films and given how good Beasts of No Nation was for their first film I'm sure at least one or two of them will do well

To be fair, Netflix had nothing to do with how good Beasts of No Nation was. They distributed it but it was made and finished before they got involved.

sky88

Watched the ridiculous 6 and it was just horrendous even for adam sandler who has put out some terrible films in the last 10 years this was just horrific.

A very murray Christmas was very disappointing not very funny and it just lacked any real life to it

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Separate threads for film & TV

I wonder how many people will have watched The Ridiculous 6 just to confirm what we all suspected, it's awful.
How do Netflix rate success? If 10 million people stream it and give it an average rating of one star do they care about the one star or about the 10 million streams?

pixelburp

Separate threads for film & TV

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I wonder how many people will have watched The Ridiculous 6 just to confirm what we all suspected, it's awful.
How do Netflix rate success? If 10 million people stream it and give it an average rating of one star do they care about the one star or about the 10 million streams?

Supposedly Netflix keeps its viewing numbers a trade secret, certainly I've read nothing myself along those lines, so nobody really knows how well or otherwise it's own productions have been doing.

warpdrive

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I wonder how many people will have watched The Ridiculous 6 just to confirm what we all suspected, it's awful.
How do Netflix rate success? If 10 million people stream it and give it an average rating of one star do they care about the one star or about the 10 million streams?

I'd say from here on out the only people that will watch it will be the ones who purposely watch terrible movies to get a laugh out of how bad they are. The only reason I watched it was because it showed up as four and a half stars on my Netflix the day it came out...no idea why that happened lol

Sad Professor

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I wonder how many people will have watched The Ridiculous 6 just to confirm what we all suspected, it's awful.
How do Netflix rate success? If 10 million people stream it and give it an average rating of one star do they care about the one star or about the 10 million streams?

They care about keeping subscribers. Not everybody wants quality content.

Earthhorse

Separate threads for film & TV

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

If 10 million people stream it and give it an average rating of one star do they care about the one star or about the 10 million streams?

Not sure how Netflix measure success but just to say they've done away with star ratings. You can't rate content anymore so that can't be their measure of success.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Separate threads for film & TV

Sad Professor wrote: »

They care about keeping subscribers. Not everybody wants quality content.

If they're paying big money to people like Sandler to create original content and he's creating utter crap they're going to care. Quality content is what makes people think they're missing out and need to subscribe to Netflix. Something like OITNB gets people thinking they need to subscribe to Netflix, another $hitty Adam Sandler film doesn't.

I get the point people are making though, streaming figures don't matter as much as subscriber figures. But as I said I can't see anyone being compelled to subscribe to Netflix just so they can see Adam Sandler's latest bag of crap.

Lots of nominations at various awards for their original "TV" content. If they're paying people to make films for them they're going to want to see some of that action too, I'd assume.

Dman001

Looking at the Box Office performance of some of Sandler's more recent films, such as Pixels, Grown Ups, Jack & Jill, Just Go With It, it's not surprising that Netflix partnered with Sandler as people are obviously going to his films. However, it boggles the mind somewhat as Netflix's quality of TV Series have been top notch overall.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Separate threads for film & TV

Dman001 wrote: »

Looking at the Box Office performance of some of Sandler's more recent films, such as Pixels, Grown Ups, Jack & Jill, Just Go With It, it's not surprising that Netflix partnered with Sandler as people are obviously going to his films. However, it boggles the mind somewhat as Netflix's quality of TV Series have been top notch overall.

I suppose if you were a huge Sandler fan the price of going to the cinema to see one film would cover a year's subscription to Netflix. I can only think they're trying to target a very specific audience with this deal and overall they're trying to hit as many demographics as possible. Not targeting or alienating any one group with their original content.

fin12

Separate threads for film & TV

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I suppose if you were a huge Sandler fan the price of going to the cinema to see one film would cover a year's subscription to Netflix. I can only think they're trying to target a very specific audience with this deal and overall they're trying to hit as many demographics as possible. Not targeting or alienating any one group with their original content.

I loved Jack n jill though:):) Have the dvd.

ScottStorm

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I suppose if you were a huge Sandler fan the price of going to the cinema to see one film would cover a year's subscription to Netflix.

F##k me your local cinema is expensive!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Separate threads for film & TV

ScottStorm wrote: »

F##k me your local cinema is expensive!

Ha! I meant a month, not a year. :eek:

osheen

Separate threads for film & TV

Bring the wife and kids to the cinema and the year of netflix is cheaper

Earthhorse

Separate threads for film & TV

Maybe if you have 8 kids.

Bozo Skeleton

If you've had 8 kids you probably would watch an Adam Sandler movie.

warpdrive

About the Sandler deal and targeting certain demographics - that's exactly it. Apparently Sandler is pretty popular in a few places like South America lol.

ThisRegard

Separate threads for film & TV

I'm just going to put this out there, I watched him with the kids in Bedtime Stories a couple of weeks ago and really enjoyed it. Hate me if you will.

skeating

defo

Earthhorse

Separate threads for film & TV

Bozo Skeleton wrote: »

If you've had 8 kids you probably would watch an Adam Sandler movie.

If you have 8 kids you are an Adam Sandler movie.

johnny_ultimate

Sometimes I think Adam Sandler, PT Anderson and everyone who watched Punch Drunk Love was suffering some sort of wonderful, shared fever dream

Watched A Very Murray Christmas last night. It's grand, I suppose. I'm not sure what demographic it was aiming for, but in description I should have loved it: a Sofia Coppolla directed, Bill Murray starring special featuring cameos from the likes of Jenny Lewis and Phoenix. Alas, even at 55 minutes or so it's overstretched and thin - basically a load of recognisable faces (some more recognisable than others) showing up and singing festive songs. For a while, it gets by on charm and some solid covers - the Phoenix contribution is particularly neat, and Maya Rudolph gives it many socks. But by the time it descended into an over-extended, sub Busby Berkeley (well, well sub) choreographed sequence I was tuning out.

As said, it's OK - there is, under the surface, very vague hints of the sort of dreamy melancholy that was so much more potent in Lost in Translation. But they're not much more than hints, and overall this feels like the sort of production that was more fun to make than watch.

Something that was added recently, and deserves a bigger audience is Results. (copy & pasting from another thread) Andrew Bujalski follows up his wonderfully oddball, experimental Computer Chess with... a conventional rom-com? Not exactly, as there's no fear Bujalski has surrendered to the mainstream here - while it is at its heart a comedy of the romantic sort, the once-mumblecore-auteur approaches the material with an uncommonly insightful, eccentric eye and a strange tone that is unlikely to appeal to a wide audience. And it's not exactly like Guy Pearse, Cobie Smoulders and Kevin Corrigan make up your bog-standard screen love triangle, either, despite being significantly bigger names than Bujalski's previous leads.

What impresses here, as in Bujalski's first three films, is the depth of the characterisation - all three leads here are troubled, weird, conflicted and charismatic, not always likable but always fascinating. The script is witty and full of sharp observational moments, and the relationships develop with nuance instead of constant bolded punctuation marks. Stylistically it is something less distinctive following the 16mm, probing camerawork of his early films and the confidently, fantastically low-fi approach of CC, which is disappointing. But as Bujalski himself unapologetically said, sometimes a filmmaker needs to work on something that might actually pay a liveable salary - and to his credit Bujalski has managed to transition to a slightly more commercial, high-profile arena without abandoning the philosophy that makes him such a memorable filmmaker.

kunst nugget

Separate threads for film & TV

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Something that was added recently, and deserves a bigger audience is Results. (copy & pasting from another thread) Andrew Bujalski follows up his wonderfully oddball, experimental Computer Chess with... a conventional rom-com? Not exactly, as there's no fear Bujalski has surrendered to the mainstream here - while it is at its heart a comedy of the romantic sort, the once-mumblecore-auteur approaches the material with an uncommonly insightful, eccentric eye and a strange tone that is unlikely to appeal to a wide audience. And it's not exactly like Guy Pearse, Cobie Smoulders and Kevin Corrigan make up your bog-standard screen love triangle, either, despite being significantly bigger names than Bujalski's previous leads.

What impresses here, as in Bujalski's first three films, is the depth of the characterisation - all three leads here are troubled, weird, conflicted and charismatic, not always likable but always fascinating. The script is witty and full of sharp observational moments, and the relationships develop with nuance instead of constant bolded punctuation marks. Stylistically it is something less distinctive following the 16mm, probing camerawork of his early films and the confidently, fantastically low-fi approach of CC, which is disappointing. But as Bujalski himself unapologetically said, sometimes a filmmaker needs to work on something that might actually pay a liveable salary - and to his credit Bujalski has managed to transition to a slightly more commercial, high-profile arena without abandoning the philosophy that makes him such a memorable filmmaker.

I've been about to watch this several times as I've always liked Guy Pearce in films but have been put off by the Rom Com look attached to it but that's my mind made up. I'll watch it over the weekend.

MonkstownHoop

Earthhorse wrote: »

If you have 8 kids you are an Adam Sandler movie.

Ha ha ha

Darkglasses

Limmy's show has been added, sketch show by Scottish comedian Brian Limond. A lot of it is on Youtube already, I think it's hilarious.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Separate threads for film & TV

Darkglasses wrote: »

Limmy's show has been added, sketch show by Scottish comedian Brian Limond. A lot of it is on Youtube already, I think it's hilarious.

Loads of Scottish stuff added today. Burnistoun is up there, it's a bit hit and miss. This sketch was hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAz_UvnUeuU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZthGdjGX0E

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Separate threads for film & TV

I watched a film called Take Care on US Netflix today. It's kind of a RomCom, I guess, but not a terrible cheesy one.

Leslie Bibb plays Frannie, who has been hit by a car and has a broken leg and arm and is basically incapacitated for a while. When she gets out of hospital she quickly discovers that her friends/family aren't going to kill themselves helping to look after her so after a pretty pathetic, and brief, attempt to look after herself she ends up calling her ex boyfriend and guilts him into looking after her much to the annoyance of his current girlfriend. Her leverage being that she looked after him for 2 years while he was battling pancreatic cancer and as soon as he got better he dumped her.
The interesting thing is that none of the characters are all that likable and yet they're still watchable. It's a somewhat ridiculous set up and yet it's still kind of believable. It's also very funny in places, or I found it funny anyway. It's all pretty light without being cheesy or hearts and flowers kind of romance. They touch on some heavier stuff but don't really dwell on it and all in all I found it a pretty enjoyable 90 minutes.