The "did you know this streams on Netflix?" thread

[MarkGrace]

According to my account, this is what I've watched so far this year, complete with one word review. Most is probably in the "last movie" thread, but might as well include here in case anyone goes looking.

Pi (interesting)
The Details (amusing)
AD Season 4 (funny)
Sex and Lucia (sex)
The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover (dry)
Top of the Lake (atmospheric)
Meet the Fokkens (boring)
Mulholland Dr. (awesome)
Hemlock Grove season 1 (terrible - made it two eps)
Days of Heaven (best framed movie ever - ok, that's not one word)
Cosmopolis (bizarre)
Blue Mountain State season 1 (awful - watched two eps)
Holy Motors (peculiar)
Pretty in Pink (classic)
Morvern Callar (dour)
Certified Copy (confusing)
Bottle Rocket (entertaining)
Heathers (dark)
House of Cards season 1 (salacious)
Blue Valentine (morose)
Vanilla Sky (trippy)
Good Will Hunting (amazing)
Paris (french)
Glengarry Glen Ross (talking)
Manhattan (witty)
El Bulli: Cooking in Progress (yum)
Dogtooth (odd)
American Horror Story season 1 (tammytaylorishot)
Traffic (engrossing)
Code Unknown (huh?)
Tell No One (suspenseful)
Resevoir Dogs (terrific)
First Position (ballet)
Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (Zzzzzz)
A Happy Event (romcom)
Jeff, Who Lives at Home (sweet)
The Queen of Versailles (vapid)
Revenge season 1 (soapy)

[Armenag]

Tell No One (suspenseful)

Tell No One is great, though I can see why someone dislike its violation of conventional thriller tropes.

[UteStar]

I was going to insert a Summon Utestar! image here, but it does not appear he was popular enough to have a summons card made for him. That's a true shame.

That is indeed sad. If you had whipped out that summons card, I would have come running. Fringe rocks almost as much as I do when I talk about it.

[UVACoug]

According to my account, this is what I've watched so far this year, complete with one word review. Most is probably in the "last movie" thread, but might as well include here in case anyone goes looking.

.....

Traffic (engrossing)

.....

I think I must be the only person in the world that doesn't get Soderbergh. People rave about everything he does, but with the exception of Ocean's Eleven ... I find his films boring or vapid. I haven't seen Traffic yet, so maybe it is an exception (it did win an Oscar) ... but I'm guessing that I'll feel the same way about it as I have his other films. Engrossing is certainly not an adjective that comes to mind when I think of a Soderbergh film.

On a similar note (off point) I just can't buy his claim that he sold Candelabra to HBO because all the film studios thought it was too gay to be successfully marketed. He isn't really known for getting huge releases with all his films, so I can't believe he was expecting Candelabra to be a huge hit ... and when was the last time a studio turned down a film for being "too gay." After watching the movie, the truth is that it was incredibly boring and vapid. While Douglas put in a phenomenal performance, there just wasn't a lot going on. HBO bought it for its star power and to win Emmys. Without Douglas and Damon, it would have been lucky to be picked up by Lifetime or Logo.

[MarkGrace]

I think I must be the only person in the world that doesn't get Soderbergh. People rave about everything he does, but with the exception of Ocean's Eleven ... I find his films boring or vapid. I haven't seen Traffic yet, so maybe it is an exception (it did win an Oscar) ... but I'm guessing that I'll feel the same way about it as I have his other films. Engrossing is certainly not an adjective that comes to mind when I think of a Soderbergh film.

On a similar note (off point) I just can't buy his claim that he sold Candelabra to HBO because all the film studios thought it was too gay to be successfully marketed. He isn't really known for getting huge releases with all his films, so I can't believe he was expecting Candelabra to be a huge hit ... and when was the last time a studio turned down a film for being "too gay." After watching the movie, the truth is that it was incredibly boring and vapid. While Douglas put in a phenomenal performance, there just wasn't a lot going on. HBO bought it for its star power and to win Emmys. Without Douglas and Damon, it would have been lucky to be picked up by Lifetime or Logo.

Do you think his films are boring and vapid? I can't tell.

Next to Anderson, he's probably my second favorite director going right now (er...retired right now; damn you, Malick!). To me he's about a thousand times more interesting than someone like, say, Nolan. And I say that not because I think his movies are always superior, but because as a collection they've become far more wide-ranging and unexpected (where Nolan I feel like is on a pretty specific course right now). So I'm interested in what he's doing picture to picture, because he's always going somewhere new. His last three theatrical releases he goes from Haywire, to Magic Mike, to Side Effects, all of which are all pretty major genre leaps. As a collective filmography he's done such broad work that I find him really compelling (though thematically he's hit some of the same points -- the man sure loves to rail against Capitalism).

And while he doesn't get big releases for all his films, I think he's the director that's best navigated the line between doing big grossing commercial releases and smaller minded indies. He's done at least 6 films that have grossed +100mm (Ocean's Trilogy, Traffic, Erin Brokovich and Magic Mike), and over the course of that he's mixing in smaller, more experimental films like Bubble (where he just went to some town and cast people living there in all the roles). I also love the wrinkles he puts on certain genres, like casting pornstar Sasha Grey in her first feature to get the authenticity of a call girl, or Gina Carano in her first feature in Haywire. Sometimes that can lead to some pretty mixed results (Carano was a terrible actress, but the fight sequences were awesome), but to me it's always interesting to watch.

As for the Candelabra claim, I don't know that I've got much of an opinion there since I didn't follow it much. But studios have become very wary of anything that's not going to return big money (hello comic book movies and sequels!), and just this week Spielberg predicted the studio industry will collapse and said Lincoln was "this close" to being an HBO film. He said that for a long period of time he was certain HBO was going to release it, not a studio. And then it was picked up at the last second. If a movie about the country's most famous president from Big Picture Speilberg damn near didn't get a studio behind it, then I have no reason not to believe that studio's would have passed on a biopic about Liberace.

[UVACoug]

Do you think his films are boring and vapid? I can't tell.

Next to Anderson, he's probably my second favorite director going right now (er...retired right now; damn you, Malick!). To me he's about a thousand times more interesting than someone like, say, Nolan. And I say that not because I think his movies are always superior, but because as a collection they've become far more wide-ranging and unexpected (where Nolan I feel like is on a pretty specific course right now). So I'm interested in what he's doing picture to picture, because he's always going somewhere new. His last three theatrical releases he goes from Haywire, to Magic Mike, to Side Effects, all of which are all pretty major genre leaps. As a collective filmography he's done such broad work that I find him really compelling (though thematically he's hit some of the same points -- the man sure loves to rail against Capitalism).

And while he doesn't get big releases for all his films, I think he's the director that's best navigated the line between doing big grossing commercial releases and smaller minded indies. He's done at least 6 films that have grossed +100mm (Ocean's Trilogy, Traffic, Erin Brokovich and Magic Mike), and over the course of that he's mixing in smaller, more experimental films like Bubble (where he just went to some town and cast people living there in all the roles). I also love the wrinkles he puts on certain genres, like casting pornstar Sasha Grey in her first feature to get the authenticity of a call girl, or Gina Carano in her first feature in Haywire. Sometimes that can lead to some pretty mixed results (Carano was a terrible actress, but the fight sequences were awesome), but to me it's always interesting to watch.

As for the Candelabra claim, I don't know that I've got much of an opinion there since I didn't follow it much. But studios have become very wary of anything that's not going to return big money (hello comic book movies and sequels!), and just this week Spielberg predicted the studio industry will collapse and said Lincoln was "this close" to being an HBO film. He said that for a long period of time he was certain HBO was going to release it, not a studio. And then it was picked up at the last second. If a movie about the country's most famous president from Big Picture Speilberg damn near didn't get a studio behind it, then I have no reason not to believe that studio's would have passed on a biopic about Liberace.

There is no question that he has a wide range when it comes to genre. I just find most of the work he does in those different genres to be somewhere between middling and good. I don't hate all his movies. Magic Mike was entertaining, but I also felt it was pretty unimportant and somewhat generic. Certainly not a movie that made me think or that I would ever want to watch again. In contrast, look at Anderson's Boogie Nights. Not exactly the same genre, but similar subject matter. In my opinion, Boogie Nights is much more original and creative ... and I think Boogie Nights actually has something important to say about life and politics and society. I consider Boogie Nights to be among the best films I've ever seen. Magic Mike was just a film about a male stripper who wasn't as superficial as you might think.

I really think it was Contagion that made me finally decide I didn't like Soderbergh. I'm not a huge fan of global disaster movies to begin with, but that movie was painful to sit through. How can someone get that many terrific, dynamic actors and make a movie that literally put me to sleep. There was no charisma from anyone in that movie.

Also, I think the budgets for Lincoln and Candelabra prevent an easy comparison. I have no doubt that Soderbergh could have gotten a theatrical release for Candelabra if he wanted one. I think the truth is that HBO wanted it and was willing to pay more than any of the studios.

I need to spend more time on Soderbergh's filmography though. I completely acknowledge that my opinion my change if I see more of his work. So far, though, he seems pretty overrated.

[MarkGrace]

There is no question that he has a wide range when it comes to genre. I just find most of the work he does in those different genres to be somewhere between middling and good. I don't hate all his movies. Magic Mike was entertaining, but I also felt it was pretty unimportant and somewhat generic. Certainly not a movie that made me think or that I would ever want to watch again. In contrast, look at Anderson's Boogie Nights. Not exactly the same genre, but similar subject matter. In my opinion, Boogie Nights is much more original and creative ... and I think Boogie Nights actually has something important to say about life and politics and society. I consider Boogie Nights to be among the best films I've ever seen. Magic Mike was just a film about a male stripper who wasn't as superficial as you might think.

Well, I think you give MM less thematic credit than it deserves, but I guess we all see these things differently. To me I love the fact that he takes a movie about dudes in g-strings and uses it as commentary on the mentality behind the Great Recession. And I love that he's doing ostensibly a mainstream movie, but mixing in all these sorts of non-mainstream techniques. Plus there are just some incredible shots in there, including the terrific use of light in the scene shot at the sand bar and that amazing sequence where the shot looks like it folds in on itself during that hazy drug scene. While it's not Boogie Nights (to me that's top-tier Anderson, where something like MM is minor Soderbergh), I do think it touches on several of the same themes, though not as profoundly (I think it would have alienated it's audience had it gone in that direction). Anyway, more thoughts on that here:
http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...l=1#post836079

Was just reading through that thread again and cracking up. Commando's "MG Presents Dong Alert" seriously made me LOL all over again.

I need to spend more time on Soderbergh's filmography though. I completely acknowledge that my opinion my change if I see more of his work. So far, though, he seems pretty overrated.

Maybe you won't. Seems like you've see a few, though most of what we've discussed here I think are his relatively minor works. If you ask people about his best works, you're probably going to get Out of Sight (might be my personal favorite), Traffic, The Limey, Sex Lies & Videotape (though that's probably more influential than anything else), King of the Hill, etc., not MM, Side Effects and Behind the Candleabra (though I thought all of those were good).

But again, what makes him so interesting to me is not any single movie, more the collection of his entire works. He just has so much variety and so much of it so well done.

[Katy Lied]

and just this week Spielberg predicted the studio industry will collapse

In that same interview both Spielberg and Lucas said that movies (specifically summertime blockbusters) need to go to $50-$150 in ticket prices in order to remain economically viable. The extra cost would buy additional benefits like seeing the movie prior to release (don't know how sustainable this is), getting a digital copy of the movie in your ticket package, and special items from the movie's stars like autographs or raffle tickets for a personal encounter.

[Surfah]

In that same interview both Spielberg and Lucas said that movies (specifically summertime blockbusters) need to go to $50-$150 in ticket prices in order to remain economically viable. The extra cost would buy additional benefits like seeing the movie prior to release (don't know how sustainable this is), getting a digital copy of the movie in your ticket package, and special items from the movie's stars like autographs or raffle tickets for a personal encounter.

That is nuts. I will never see a movie for $50. I rarely go to the movies because the cost at $15 is prohibitive.

[The_Douger]

That is nuts. I will never see a movie for $50. I rarely go to the movies because the cost at $15 is prohibitive.

Yeah, we would just wait for blueray or netflix or whatever if that's the case.

We have little kids so we don't get to see anywhere near the amount of movies we'd like to. So, most of the time we're just watching them later anyways. I don't mind spending 10 bucks for one, but I'm not paying 25 or 30 or 50.

[Surfah]

Yeah, we would just wait for blueray or netflix or whatever if that's the case.

We have little kids so we don't get to see anywhere near the amount of movies we'd like to. So, most of the time we're just watching them later anyways. I don't mind spending 10 bucks for one, but I'm not paying 25 or 30 or 50.

We're in the same boat. For us to get out to a movie is almost an event. Babysitter, dinner, tickets, snacks maybe at the theater. Usually when all is said and done we're into the date for $60-70, more if we grab dinner. I can't imagine a date night to the movies costing $100-200. I'd much rather go get decent seats to a Nats game or maybe eat at a finer establishment than we're used to at that price.

[Coach McGuirk]

The Fall - Season 1.

Started watching this last night. Really Really good. Its a BBC Psychological thriller and only 5 episodes this season and they are set for season two in 2014

[MarkGrace]

The Fall - Season 1.

Started watching this last night. Really Really good. Its a BBC Psychological thriller and only 5 episodes this season and they are set for season two in 2014

Sounds like something I'd be into. Gonna add that one. Thanks.

[Coach McGuirk]

here is a little teaser someone put together from episode 1

[Green Lantern]

In that same interview both Spielberg and Lucas said that movies (specifically summertime blockbusters) need to go to $50-$150 in ticket prices in order to remain economically viable. The extra cost would buy additional benefits like seeing the movie prior to release (don't know how sustainable this is), getting a digital copy of the movie in your ticket package, and special items from the movie's stars like autographs or raffle tickets for a personal encounter.

I actually think there could be some benefits to this. Pricing the big tentpoles higher and the art-house indies lower could drive more people to see a mid-range indie like Mud rather than shelling out for Lone Ranger. I know it's wrong to pretend that any movie executives have a decent understanding of any kind of ROI other than "spend 200 million, make a billion!" but it could lead to more diversity in the marketplace, especially if some of those big expensive tentpoles tanked because people weren't willing to lay out that much money for a ticket.