Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Bright - Netflix

13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    I disagree with his assessment of the movie, but Johnny wrote about the movie, and you wrote about him. I've a lot more respect for his opinion.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,667 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    Johnny Ultimate has consistently expressed his admiration for Chris Nolan and JJ Abrams blockbusters among many others and he's currently defending the latest Star Wars film. Not liking DC films and being lukewarm or indifferent to Marvel doesn't mean you don't like blockbusters. If it does then I guess I'm a "film snob" too.

    At least Johnny Ultimate is able to explain why he like/dislikes something, unlike a lot of people around here these days who can only defend their own poorly articulated opinion by implying that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or in denial or a snob or a paid shill.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭kerplun k


    Johnny Ultimate has consistently expressed his admiration for Chris Nolan and JJ Abrams blockbusters among many others and he's currently defending the latest Star Wars film. Not liking DC films and being lukewarm or indifferent to Marvel doesn't mean you don't like blockbusters. If it does then I guess I'm a "film snob" too.

    At least Johnny Ultimate is able to explain why he like/dislikes something, unlike a lot of people around here these days who can only defend their own poorly articulated opinion by implying that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or in denial or a snob or a paid shill.

    There’s not much to articulate here. It was no frills, no huge campaign, no hype, no expectations. Easy come, easy go. That was the beauty of it.

    If something like this was released in cinemas it would have been torn to shreds. Not a hope of a sequel, and a billion articles on what went wrong.

    Personally I like this approach. It eliminates all the internet cr*p that comes attached to big scale projects.

    The approach Netflix have taken here, in this age, where everything is hyper analyzed is quite frankly,, refreshing.

    The film simply doesn’t deserve long winded posts on why it was good or bad.
    Enough people liked it. Sequel is green lit. Move on.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    No one should expect to be cowed or insulted because they choose to expand on their thoughts, be they positive or negative, about a film. Otherwise it's not much of a 'discussion' forum, now is it?

    And passing some kind of 'blockbuster purity test' is utter boll*cks, to be blunt; I'd be the first to admit that folks like Johnny U have tastes that probably diverge drastically with my own, but at least he takes the time to properly articulate his thoughts. It's a more positive contribution than posting about RottenTomatoes and taking cheap shots at critics. :rolleyes:

    And as for 'Bright', on balance it's arguable it did more things right than it did wrong but honestly that ratio was pretty tight to begin with & scarcely a glowing endorsement; I think enjoyed the film but on reflection that was despite its many flaws - certainly not because of them - and maybe I enjoyed the concept more than the actual execution. There's a kernel of a great idea that as suggested earlier, would be better explored in a TV series than a bombastic B-movie. Maybe a sequel can iron out the flaws, but that'd involve replacing David Ayer with someone not so obsessed with alpha-male bromance & Latin American gangs.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    kerplun k wrote: »
    There’s not much to articulate here. It was no frills, no huge campaign, no hype, no expectations. Easy come, easy go. That was the beauty of it.

    If something like this was released in cinemas it would have been torn to shreds. Not a hope of a sequel, and a billion articles on what went wrong.

    Personally I like this approach. It eliminates all the internet cr*p that comes attached to big scale projects.

    The approach Netflix have taken here, in this age, where everything is hyper analyzed is quite frankly,, refreshing.

    The film simply doesn’t deserve long winded posts on why it was good or bad.
    Enough people liked it. Sequel is green lit. Move on.

    Apples and Oranges; given 90% of blockbusters on release in cinemas are based off pre-existing Intellectual Properties, of COURSE there's more discussion when things go right or wrong, because they're clearly made from the viewpoint of being presumed or automatic success stories - and often come with pre-existing fanbases & interest. So if and when The Mummy or Dark Towers of this world bomb - why wouldn't there be discussion? It's a multi-billion dollar industry trying to commercialise pop-culture adaptations, of course there's going to be talk about it.

    Netflix haven't taken any approach beyond making a blockbuster based off no prior IP - which, yeah I guess is refreshing if hardly revolutionary. They've taken a pretty public step into a market hitherto unexplored by the service - crowd-pleasing blockbusters - so again, of COURSE there's going to be discussion about this first step :)

    No, the film is hardly going to live long in the memory, not released within the teeth of Christmas and a new Star Wars film, but people are perfectly entitled to discuss, articulate or debate what, why or how a film succeeds or doesn't - again, it's the FILM FORUM; it kinda comes with the territory :rolleyes: :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Possibly 6/10 because I thought it was a brilliant concept, had great actors, some good moments but I just wasn’t loving it. If it had good unknown actors in the main roles (I expect a lot from smith, edge and Naomi) I might of had lower expectations.

    Loved the fairy fight!


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,667 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    pixelburp wrote: »
    And as for 'Bright', on balance it's arguable it did more things right than it did wrong but honestly that ratio was pretty tight to begin with & scarcely a glowing endorsement; I think enjoyed the film but on reflection that was despite its many flaws - certainly not because of them - and maybe I enjoyed the concept more than the actual execution. There's a kernel of a great idea that as suggested earlier, would be better explored in a TV series than a bombastic B-movie. Maybe a sequel can iron out the flaws, but that'd involve replacing David Ayer with someone not so obsessed with alpha-male bromance & Latin American gangs.

    It even looks and feels like a tv pilot, yet it apparently cost 90 million, most of which was presumedly spent on Smith and Ayer. They could have replaced Smith with any number of far cheaper actors and Ayer with someone like Peter Berg and ended up with 10 episodes for the same money. The Adam Sandler movies make sense to me - they are cheap to make and Sandler has a lot of fans - but I can't really get my head around what a film like Bright contributes to Netflix's catalogue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,889 ✭✭✭✭Tom Mann Centuria


    I actually quite like reading the detailed review/critiques of films that maybe get a pass because they're popcorn blockbuster films.

    I do admire that people are so "into" films and care passionately about it, they'll take the time to give reasons for why it was good, bad or indifferent rather than it was great, or a great heap of shlte. (that would be my standard of review unfortunately).

    Back on the topic of the film I thought it was watchable, but Alien Nation, from way back when, did a better version of the human/alien buddy movie, and I'd sooner watch that again than Bright.

    Oh well, give me an easy life and a peaceful death.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    I actually quite like reading the detailed review/critiques of films that maybe get a pass because they're popcorn blockbuster films.

    I do admire that people are so "into" films and care passionately about it, they'll take the time to give reasons for why it was good, bad or indifferent rather than it was great, or a great heap of shlte. (that would be my standard of review unfortunately).

    Back on the topic of the film I thought it was watchable, but Alien Nation, from way back when, did a better version of the human/alien buddy movie, and I'd sooner watch that again than Bright.

    For me i just didn’t get invested in the budding relationship. Also found the strength of the baddies a bit off. They dispatch a swat team and small arm of gandftersvin seconds with some cool knife and then lose their mojo in the garage fight!

    This is the kind of stuff I will forgive in comic book or Star Wars movies cause I expect disparities but this didn’t feel like it was meant to be comparable with them! That said, will prob watch if there is a sequel cause I’m a very forgiving audience member!


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,068 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    I just think Netflix's original films, outside a couple of safe-ish prestige bets, have been a bit of a cluster**** with little regard to quality. Quantity has always been Netflix's focus, and quality really doesn't matter to them if enough people tune in regardless, but something like Bright feels like the kind of film that wouldn't be produced for the big screen simply because it's not good enough for it. It feels like a cast-off script that somehow managed to attract some big names. David Ehrlich's review is scathing beyond even what I'd say about it, but I think he's perceptive in suggesting it's almost a film designed for background viewing or from occasional glances up from the phone - there's a certain carelessness and lack of focus to the thing that felt very strange to me. It felt 'phoned on', almost unwilling to go where the premise teased - telling that the best, most intriguing shot in it (the dragon one) has little bearing on the film whatsoever outside some background colour.

    Netflix are aiming for totally different audiences, but in contrast Mubi on a fraction of the budget are releasing and supporting some really interesting films that actually seem to have had some curatorial thought put into the selection. It's generally is a vote of confidence in the material from my eyes, even if naturally I won't like them all. A 'Netflix Original' could be any old piece of crap: the good ones are few and far between.

    Though as I said I still haven't forgiven them for what they did to Blame!, by far their biggest crime of 2017. If anyone hasn't read the manga, do: it's a masterpiece of visual storytelling. The film on the other hand...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    I just think Netflix's original films, outside a couple of safe-ish prestige bets, have been a bit of a cluster**** with little regard to quality. Quantity has always been Netflix's focus, and it really doesn't matter to them if enough people tune in regardless, but something like Bright feels like the kind of film that wouldn't be produced for the big screen simply because it's not good enough for it. It feels like a cast-off script that somehow managed to attract some big names. David Ehrlich's review is scathing beyond even what I'd say about it, but I think he's perceptive in suggesting it's almost a film designed for background viewing or from occasional glances up from the phone - there's a certain carelessness and lack of focus to the thing that felt very strange to me. It felt 'phoned on', almost unwilling to go where the premise teased - telling that the best, most intriguing shot in it (the dragon one) has little bearing on the film whatsoever outside some background colour.

    Netflix are aiming for totally different audiences, but in contrast Mubi on a fraction of the budget are releasing and supporting some really interesting films that actually seem to have had some curatorial thought put into the selection. It's generally is a vote of confidence in the material from my eyes, even if naturally I won't like them all. A 'Netflix Original' could be any old piece of crap: the good ones are few and far between.

    Though as I said I still haven't forgiven them for what they did to Blame!, by far their biggest crime of 2017. If anyone hasn't read the manga, do: it's a masterpiece of visual storytelling. The film on the other hand...

    I think you have hit nail on head. They are aiming for different audience for different movies. I’ve watched some Sandler movies and there’s a reason why he doesn’t do many punch drunk love movies (he was brilliant) it’s because he has an audience that like what many people love to complain about his movies!

    It’s funny because I cannot articulate myself as well as you can but I enjoy all kinds of movies. In many cases it’s about how I feel about something as opposed to issues like character progression, story, plot holes or stupid/boring bits. I’m quite forgiving depending on what I get from something and if I can take enough from a movie I don’t get too bothered with what doesn’t work.

    Expectations are a huge issue sometimes.

    I enjoyed okja but not as much as I thought I would after watching trailer. Some great actors in the mix (Swinton is brilliant). Loved grand Budapest hotel (Fukin hilarious- just superb) but I wasn’t chomping at the Bit to watch it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,216 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    It was either this or repeats of ET, The Eagle has Landed, various Indy's/Back to the Future or any of the usual crap that they play every year - it was a winner for me
    Good marketing ploy to release it just before Xmas day - makes it look better compared to what else you may have to watch again


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭brianregan09


    I just think Netflix's original films, outside a couple of safe-ish prestige bets, have been a bit of a cluster**** with little regard to quality. Quantity has always been Netflix's focus, and quality really doesn't matter to them if enough people tune in regardless, but something like Bright feels like the kind of film that wouldn't be produced for the big screen simply because it's not good enough for it. It feels like a cast-off script that somehow managed to attract some big names. David Ehrlich's review is scathing beyond even what I'd say about it, but I think he's perceptive in suggesting it's almost a film designed for background viewing or from occasional glances up from the phone - there's a certain carelessness and lack of focus to the thing that felt very strange to me. It felt 'phoned on', almost unwilling to go where the premise teased - telling that the best, most intriguing shot in it (the dragon one) has little bearing on the film whatsoever outside some background colour.

    Netflix are aiming for totally different audiences, but in contrast Mubi on a fraction of the budget are releasing and supporting some really interesting films that actually seem to have had some curatorial thought put into the selection. It's generally is a vote of confidence in the material from my eyes, even if naturally I won't like them all. A 'Netflix Original' could be any old piece of crap: the good ones are few and far between.

    Though as I said I still haven't forgiven them for what they did to Blame!, by far their biggest crime of 2017. If anyone hasn't read the manga, do: it's a masterpiece of visual storytelling. The film on the other hand...

    I've often disagreed vocally so with you on the past but I do agree here to an extent I did enjoy Bright to be honest , but on the same token I did left wanting more , Will Smith was just Will Smith and he did carry a presence that I don't know could any randomer carry especially next to Edgerton who was fantastic in the role of the Orc....I do agree with you on Netflix throwing the netflix original label on everything and anything though...I see you mentioned Blame.....Just look at what they did with Death Note my favorite anime/manga :( and i'm a fan of Wingaards work


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭kerplun k


    pixelburp wrote: »
    of COURSE there's more discussion when things go right or wrong, because they're clearly made from the viewpoint of being presumed or automatic success stories - and often come with pre-existing fanbases & interest. So if and when The Mummy or Dark Towers of this world bomb - why wouldn't there be discussion? It's a multi-billion dollar industry trying to commercialise pop-culture adaptations, of course there's going to be talk about it.

    I see cynicism is alive and welll...

    The Mummy or Dark Towers of this world???

    Please don’t mention these two films in the same sentence, but your absolutely right, one of these films was presumed an automatic success, Stick Tom Cruise in the Mummy franchises, and make it a monster universe... guaranteed hit, completely agree.

    On the other hand, The Dark tower... A presumed succes? commercialised pop-culture? Your way off pal. TDT was a massive gamble, the mass audience had no idea what TDT was, and the creative people behind it tried their absolute best to make it accessible. To launch something new, in a genre that’s produced flop after flop. It was a labor of love made by people who really wanted to tell this story, it didn’t come off, okay, fair enough, but the fact that it was cr*ped all over by a mountain of cynicism didn’t help. And BTW, it didn’t flop, it made back almost double what it cost.

    Thank god we have the likes of Netflix, which can produce something original like Bright, and be immune to the impact of RT and so called criticism, and be given a chance to breath, it’s something I wish TDT was afforded.

    I also find it hilarious that your suggestion of ironing out the flaws of a Bright sequel is to get rid of David Ayer, the man who co wrote and directed the film, the man who made this film happen, the man which you think should be replaced? Maybe you should do it, you seem to know better.

    I’m sorry if this comes across as a bit crass, but your DT comment made me FURIOUS.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    I wasn't expecting much but I thought it was really solid and consistently entertaining. For me, to call something a 'perfect popcorn movie' isn't a slight at all and that's pretty much what I found 'Bright' to be. Good leads with genuine chemistry, decent action, a simple but intriguing concept and the whole thing just moves so well.

    I can see why critics didn't like it on some level, but this 3/10 thing is pretty absurd. I'd consider it a very easy 7/10, maybe even an 8 if I put more thought into my overall feelings but I'm happy with the fact that it's a film that asks very little and delivers a lot.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭Choc Chip


    I feel like I need to watch it again, because no one has mentioned the drawn out chase that seemed to last for the whole movie and I'm genuinely beginning to think I imagined it.

    I like Will Smith and I thought the premise was great.... and then it just went nowhere. Who were these people chasing the wand? What happened in the big war that led to the hatred of the orcs? Who is the wee lassie who is the traitor? Why did she become a traitor?

    It felt like lost with every scene bringing a new question and nothing really being answered. And I didn't care enough about the characters to listen by about an hour into yet another chase/fight scene.

    That said, I'll probably watch a sequel, jist in the hope of some answers.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    kerplun k wrote: »
    I see cynicism is alive and welll...

    The Mummy or Dark Towers of this world???

    Please don’t mention these two films in the same sentence, but your absolutely right, one of these films was presumed an automatic success, Stick Tom Cruise in the Mummy franchises, and make it a monster universe... guaranteed hit, completely agree.

    On the other hand, The Dark tower... A presumed succes? commercialised pop-culture? Your way off pal. TDT was a massive gamble, the mass audience had no idea what TDT was, and the creative people behind it tried their absolute best to make it accessible. To launch something new, in a genre that’s produced flop after flop. It was a labor of love made by people who really wanted to tell this story, it didn’t come off, okay, fair enough, but the fact that it was cr*ped all over by a mountain of cynicism didn’t help. And BTW, it didn’t flop, it made back almost double what it cost.

    Thank god we have the likes of Netflix, which can produce something original like Bright, and be immune to the impact of RT and so called criticism, and be given a chance to breath, it’s something I wish TDT was afforded.

    I also find it hilarious that your suggestion of ironing out the flaws of a Bright sequel is to get rid of David Ayer, the man who co wrote and directed the film, the man who made this film happen, the man which you think should be replaced? Maybe you should do it, you seem to know better.

    I’m sorry if this comes across as a bit crass, but your DT comment made me FURIOUS.

    LOL, jeez kerplunk get a grip; you're not the first person to love a film against the broader consensus of opinion, doesn't entitle you to flip out on me at the expense of a fairly straightforward point being made.

    And if we are going to play that p*ssing contest, I loved "Valerian & the City of a Thousand Planets" but I'm not going to hulk out because the rest of the world doesn't share my enjoyment :P

    My point, to repeat, is that blockbusters in the cinema are nearly ALL adaptations of generally popular (or pre-existing anyway) intellectual properties - the complaint about 'remakes and reboots' isn't exactly without cause. Dark Tower was no different in that regard (heck, so was Valerian) :)

    Without going completely off topic into an autopsy of a different film, Dark Tower can be reasonably judged a 'flop' in real terms because (for one) in this era of the mega-blockbuster, making back "almost double" doesn't cut it anymore & it's a case of "go big or go home" for studios - IIRC, marketing budgets and other non-production costs often generally bloat out the real final tally for a movie. The other Stephen King adaptation this year - IT - makes for a good comparison case because there was a film that didn't write itself like a hurried TV pilot, had half the budget of Dark Tower, trusted the audience in doling out its story ... and make nearly 10 times the production budget. Cynicism doesn't come into it, but greed sure as hell does: Sony are desperate for that big blockbuster franchise hit (Spider-Man Homecoming is there only real success & IP of the last few years IMO, and even that required another studio to step in), crammed a known epic into a 1:30 hour PG-13 film and lo & behold the crowds didn't come flocking. Suddenly all the spin-offs and sequels had to be paused.

    Anyway... back on topic :D

    And yes, I think a "Bright" sequel would do better without David Ayer writing; I'm going to out on a limb here and guess that the overall concept (Fantasy races in 2017 LA) was Max Landis' inspiration, not Ayer's, with the latter's contributions centring around the Police & gang dialogue and setting - you could have transplanted all those scenes into End of Watch & never noticed the difference :)

    As mentioned, there's a TONNE of potential in this world - it's a genuinely curious, original concept (shadowrun fans, quieten down) - only hinted at in various points of the film: I got frustrated because instead we were spending time with Ayer's obviously-scripted police 'banter' between Smith and his knuckle-dragging cohorts, when a film about two cops on patrol SHOULD have given the story access to a whole host of corners of this world. Hell, I was waiting for the apparent inevitable twist that
    some corporate Elves were behind it all, necessitating a face-off in Elftown
    . Nope, Instead we got stuck in a strip club & some Ayer character tropes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,427 ✭✭✭mooseknunkle


    I like Will Smith and i thought this film was good.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,339 ✭✭✭El Horseboxo


    The universe was the intriguing and interesting part of this film. Felt they didn't execute taking advantage of it enough. Was still enjoyable and the 2 hours didn't seem long. Not too much to dwell on once I turned the tv off. Only read reviews after I watch films and was surprised to see this slated. It's far from being a complete good film but in no way did I think it deserved the reviews it got. I'd watch a sequel.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,572 ✭✭✭khaldrogo


    I just watched The Foreigner on Netflix. I found it very enjoyable. Jackie Chan and an all star Irish cast. Far better than Bright


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    I would say this would be OK to watch before watching Bright



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭Choc Chip


    Slydice wrote: »
    I would say this would be OK to watch before watching Bright


    I wish I'd watched that first now ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,973 ✭✭✭Chris_Heilong


    I was very good, the ending was a little weak but overall a good chase movie, hope to see more from this world.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Decent film, that intro above should have been integrated into the opening titles, it would have helped set the scene.

    It suffered from not enough world building before getting into the different factions and how they would like to play each other and Will Smith being Will Smith

    Training Day/End of Watch/Alien Nation/District 9


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It feels like the kind of movie that should have been a tv show instead.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭SnakePlissken


    In one particular scene we witness Will Smith brutally stomp a fairy to death, in the scene immediately following we have Smith telling his daughter that though all species may look different, we all just want the same thing and are equal in worth.... The screenplay sets this up without hint of irony.

    An absolute mess of a movie.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,480 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Faries are pests, they're not one of the 9 races. They're just flying rats.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭judeboy101


    Orc clan leader mentioned dwarves, worth a sequel just to see dwarves.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭Pretzill


    Thought this was utter crap, and I can hardly believe I sat through it all. The only redeeming feature was the comedic moments which Will Smith and Co seemed to be grateful for - a pastiche of Tolkien borrowed baddies made good and a little Harry Potter thrown in for Dark Lord- wandy- in the real world.

    It had a message which became lost early on, for me, but then I wouldn't be a fan of fairy killers :-D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,979 ✭✭✭conorhal


    The universe was the intriguing and interesting part of this film. Felt they didn't execute taking advantage of it enough. Was still enjoyable and the 2 hours didn't seem long. Not too much to dwell on once I turned the tv off. Only read reviews after I watch films and was surprised to see this slated. It's far from being a complete good film but in no way did I think it deserved the reviews it got. I'd watch a sequel.

    Yeah, you could have jettisoned the fantasy element and literally picked any other mcguffin and still had the same film, it was '21 Blocks' with some pale chick tagging along. All the 'lore' of this world they created seems to have existed exclusively as really on the nose graffiti on walls.
    The film had a few good moments but no real solid identity. Alien Nation already did this, but more effectively.


Advertisement