On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 00:43:25 UTC-5, Obveeus  wrote:
> On 12/25/2017 10:09 PM, RichA wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 December 2017 07:57:15 UTC-5, Obveeus  wrote:
> >> On 12/23/2017 2:28 AM, RichA wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 22 December 2017 22:30:17 UTC-5, Obveeus  wrote:
> >>>> On 12/22/2017 9:27 PM, RichA wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 21 December 2017 23:11:58 UTC-5, Obveeus  wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/21/2017 8:24 PM, RichA wrote:
> >>>>>>>
https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=R148WqGxDMSpjwSYt7uICw...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can't even find it on Rottentomatoes.com which is very interesting.  Paid-off to bury it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'll skip making the obvious joke about why you cannot find BRIGHT.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bright
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not there when I looked.
> >>>>
> >>>> Odd since it was there a day before your post when I looked.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for the film, it is much better than the rottentomato reviews would
> >>>> have you believe.  Perhaps the film side of the reviewer world is still
> >>>> smarting from the idea that evil Netflix will convince people to watch
> >>>> films in the comfort of their own home instead of the theater?  BRIGHT
> >>>> is not the crime procedural I feared it might be.  It is a bit of
> >>>> sci-fi, but it is just as much alt.history as sci-fi.  Mostly, though,
> >>>> it is a buddy cop flick in the vein of 40 HOURS or BEVERLY HILLS COP.  I
> >>>> know some reviewers don't like the idea of sci-fi having any nudity or
> >>>> swear words, but really there isn't even much of that...and certainly
> >>>> not so much that it should have been a problem for sci-fi viewers.
> >>>> Maybe they were worried about their 8 year old kid's fragile ears and
> >>>> eyes?  Whatever the case, the film is entertaining and manages a bit of
> >>>> funny and a bit of social preaching.  Some of the transitions are a bit
> >>>> rough and the fight sequences are definitely a bit too filled with quick
> >>>> cuts and wire work and such, but the plot is solid enough and does its
> >>>> job creating characters and a world that is interesting and in focus
> >>>> enough to warrant a sequel.
> >>>
> >>> It seems like "Alien Nation" again.
> >>
> >> It did have some ALIEN NATION feel to it and that was a good thing.  I
> >> actually would have preferred even more of an ALIEN NATION vibe than it
> >> had since that was what I was hoping for.
> >>
> >> Side note:  At least the reviewers haven't scared people away from the
> >> film.  IMDB shows that 11,000+ people watched and rated it
> >> yesterday...and the ratings are all skewed towards the top half of the
> >> spectrum without looking like a bunch of relatives just chimed in with
> >> obligatory 10s.
> > 
> > Netflix has $90M riding on it, not including whatever promotion cost.  I'm sure they hired a few
homeless to salt the mine.
> 
> Salt the mine?  You think Netflix is hiring homeless people to set up 
> IMDB accounts?  Checking...over 35,000 ratings on IMDB now.

No, they'd hire "content producers" (filler-people, people who normally churn-out inane articles to
fill websites, no shortage of liberal arts grads who need the money) to open multiple accounts.