Everything Coming To Australian Netflix This Week (April 8)

Image: Supplied

Here is your Netflix binge-list for the week, fresh from the Australian servers! This week's highlight is The Silence - a dystopian thriller about deadly monsters starring Chilling Adventures Of Sabrina's Kiernan Shipka. Other noteworthy additions include the Z Nation prequel Black Summer, romantic dramedy The Perfect Date and the beloved musical La La Land.

Read on for everything coming to the service for the week of April 4 to April 14.

The Silence imagines a world under attack by deadly creatures who hunt by sound (that should be "re-imagines" - the premise if virtually identical to 2018's A Quiet Place.) It stars Kiernan Shipka, Stanley Tucci, Miranda Otto and John Corbett with directorial duties undertaken by Annabelle's John R. Leonetti.

Netflix will also be adding You vs. Wild; a new series from survivalist/urine drinker Bear Grylls, Huge in France which charts the struggles of French comedian Gad in America and gritty superhero flick Kick-Ass 2. Curiously, it is also adding American History X - a sympathetic portrayal of white supremacists starring Edward Norton. (The timing is odd, to say the least.)

Here's the full list, complete with synopses and trailers.


New Netflix TV Shows

You vs. Wild (10 April)

In this interactive adventure series, you'll make key decisions to help Bear Grylls survive, thrive and complete missions in the harshest environments on Earth.

Black Summer (11 April)

A prequel set in the Z Nation universe, BLACK SUMMER is a new series introducing all new characters from every walk of life. As what's left of the old world order collapses around them, a group of survivors encounter the best and worst of humanity in the darkest hours of the Zombie Apocalypse.

Huge in France (12 April)

“Huge in France"" would be an autobiographical look at Gad's experience reinventing himself in the US. It would be 80% in English, 20% in French, and would focus on Gad's career, dating life, and rediscovery of his identity in the absence of the fame he's become accustomed to.

Special (12 April)

A gay man with mild cerebral palsy decides to rewrite his identity as an accident victim and finally go after the life he wants.

Star Trek: Discovery: Season 2 (18 January)

Mysterious events in different regions of the galaxy launch Discovery on a new mission with a temporary captain: Christopher Pike of the Enterprise.

New Netflix Movies

La La Land (9 April)

While navigating their careers in Los Angeles, a pianist and an actress fall in love while attempting to reconcile their aspirations for the future.

The Perfect Date (12 April)

To save up for college, Brooks Rattigan creates an app where anyone can pay him to play the perfect stand-in boyfriend for any occasion.

The Silence (12 April)

When the world is under attack from terrifying creatures who hunt their human prey by sound, 16-year old Ally Andrews, who lost her hearing at 13, and her family seek refuge in a remote haven. But they discover a sinister cult who are eager to exploit Ally’s heightened senses.

Who Would You Take to a Deserted Island? (12 April)

On their last night together, four longtime flatmates' lives are suddenly upended when a secret is revealed during the course of an evening celebration.

Kick-Ass 2 (15 April)

Following Kick-Ass' heroics, other citizens are inspired to become masked crusaders. But Red Mist leads his own group of evil super villains to get revenge, kill Kick-Ass and destroy everything he stands for.

American History X (15 April)

A former neo-nazi skinhead tries to prevent his younger brother from going down the same wrong path that he did.

Netflix Kids & Family

Trolls: The Beat Goes On!: Season 6 (9 April)

The trolls face a day without a holiday, Biggie accidentally starts a fun-tastic new dance craze, and Guy turns a camping trip into a "glamping" trip.

Mighty Little Bheem (12 April)

An innocent toddler’s boundless curiosity — and extraordinary might — lead to mischief and adventure in his small Indian town.

31 TV Shows You Need To Watch In 2019 (New And Returning)

After an unbearably long hiatus, Game Of Thrones is finally swooping back onto TV screens in 2019. But that's not the only thing to get excited about. Over the next 12 month, a ton of new and returning shows will be returning to our TVs and laptops - from Black Mirror season 5 to a new remake of The Twilight Zone. Here are 31 shows you need to mark in your calendar.

Read more


Comments

    it is also adding American History X - a sympathetic portrayal of white supremacists starring Edward Norton.

    Way to completely and utterly miss the point of American History X. At NO point is the movie sympathetic to white supremacists. Put down the virtue signalling and actually watch the movie. It shows the seedy side of the life, it shows the ramifications of living by the sword and dying by the sword. It shows how people in power use those under them to perform their actions (as happens in those disgusting organisations all too frequently) and ultimately, it shows a tale that noone in the end, is beyond redemption, showing that we are all potentially tabula rasa (a blank slate) at birth, and that our hatreds and ignorances are learnt, not biologically inherited (as Dereks are from his father and consequently, his little brothers are from him).

    But it also shows, that with the right guidance, that we do live in a world where ignorance can be destroyed with knowledge, compassion and forgiveness. It's a long process, but it can be done. At no point in the movie, is it sympathetic. It makes you feel dirty by the end, for even remotely siding with them at all, it makes you understand the wrongness behind how they act, but it doesn't shy away from showing that violence doesn't know colour, death doesn't either.

      Yeah, I have absolutely no idea how anyone could possibly interpret the movie as being sympathetic towards white supremacists. That would be an absolutely garbage reading of the film.

      Any nuance in characterization is too much, apparently - anybody with a hateful worldview needs to be portrayed as a cardboard cutout deplorable with no other characteristics whatsoever or a certain kind of progressive will throw your entire movie in the "problematic" bin. Even if the point of your movie was utterly unambiguously that this behavior is not ultimately excusable or acceptable.

      Yeah, i'm glad someone called that out. I'm assuming the author never watched the movie.

      We can agree to disagree but I found it problematic (as did the film's own director who publicly disowned it prior to release.)

      I'm particularly thinking of the basketball court scene where the neo Nazis banish the African American players forever after winning a match (the latter are also shown to be cheating incidentally.)

      But like I said, agree to disagree! :-)

        In what way problematic? It's been a couple years since I last watched it, so some things aren't fresh.

        I read that the director Tony Kaye wasn't happy with the film because there were disagreements between New Line Cinema, Edward Norton and the director about the director's cut and the longer, performance-focused/Oscar bait theatrical cut.

        No offense Chris but your point is invalidated by the fact you've simply seen he disowned the movie then simply assumed it was based on racial motivation?

        The reason he disowned the film was due to editing issues. As he himself stated:

        The version of American History X that got released was 40 minutes longer than my cut. I had done a hard, fast, 95-minute rough diamond of a picture. But the movie they put out was crammed with shots of everyone crying in each other's arms. And, of course, Norton had generously given himself more screen time.

        The basketball scene shows two gangs playing each other at Venice beach, a hotspot for gang activity in the 80s and 90s. It's not "problematic" to depict two opposing groups as being like that, both sides cheated in the game, one straight up and the other covertly. Honestly, you can say 'agree to disagree', but you can only do that when you do it from an informed stance, not one where you're just making stuff up to suit a narrative you're seemingly creating on the fly? You're normally better than that.

          But the movie they put out was crammed with shots of everyone crying in each other's arms.

          So a sympathetic portrayal then? I'm aware editing issues caused Kaye to disown the movie. But you have to ask yourself why he was so vehemently opposed to the added content?

          This wasn't a David Lynch vs Dune situation where the studio cut became a disjointed, bloated mess. It very much sounds like his main beef was to do with Norton giving himself more screen time and presenting the character in a more positive light.

          I don't recall Norton's gang cheating in the basketball scene - I only remember the black guy committing a blatant foul and Norton taking it on the chin as if nothing happened.

          Incidentally, don't mistake my issues for kneejerk "that's racist!" reactionism. I'm a big fan of Romper Stomper - which managed to humanise skinheads without making them sympathetic

            I disagree with the absolute black and white sentiment you're trying to put forward here. You seem incapable of understanding the nuanced argument this movie ended up putting forward. It wasn't perfect and it was a more "comicbook" version of real life racism, but it was by no means what you're trying to present. What the original director, and in the end, Norton, presented was a view that tribalism ends up benefitting noone, that hate destroys all and that unless you escape that path early or avoid it all together, your actions will harm those around you. Derek escapes it but the resonance of his actions are catastrophic. The moral compass of the movie is a man played by Avery Brooks, playing Sweeney, but the true heart of the film is Lamont, Dereks inmate friend who helped him break his shackles of hate and understand that colour is rubbish, people are people and noone is beyond redemption if they truly seek it. But one of two things will generally happen to morally corrupt characters in films such as these. Usually they either suffer horrendously or learn the error of their ways. Both happen. Derek learns his former way of life is garbage with no redeeming qualitied, that there is nothing to be gained from hate and then he not only regains his soul, but he loses his brother, knowing it's his fault ultimately.

            You basically want to say "the movie is sympathetic towards neo nazis" but at no point is it sympathetic towards the Neo Nazi way of life. If anything it's a condemnation on the life and a meditation on how hate will only breed hate and eventually bring on loss for everyone.

              You make good points but for me the movie went out of its way to present Norton and his brother as the sympathetic underdogs - even before they learn the error of their ways.

              The most glaring example: Norton's character horrendously murders a defenceless thief in cold blood and the movie is very quick to gloss over this as it rushes towards his redemption arc.

                That I always took as a condemnation of the criminal code being imbalanced, especially when we hear the story about why Lamont is in jail and compare it. Derek defends his property from home invaders which likely would've been seen as justifiable initially as one was armed from memory, however when he curbstomped the guy, he only served a few years. Lamont however, gets 6 years for stealing a tv and accidentally dropping it on a cops foot. The fact we're only ever exposed to these two sentences gives us the opportunity to compare the absolute disparity between them and see how unfair it is. One murders and gets away with it as a black gangbanger is seen as worthless, another steals, breaks a cops foot and must miss a giant portion of his life. Something to definitely consider.

                Fyi while I love Romper Stomper, something I did feel glorified the culture in the end and missed the mark by a country mile, despite a brave effort, was the new tv show. I got what they were trying to do, taking a centrist viewpoint of matters, showing both sides as faulted, but damn if it didn't feel as if it didn't succeed at all to me.

                  I get that Norton's crime was used to highlight bias in the US justice system, but I think they really fudged it. We are shown very little in the way of remorse or regret from Norton's character - it's almost as if the movie wants you to forget what happened so you can root for him in jail. [Edit: Bad choice of words given what happens to him.]

                  Consequently, the black gangbanger isnt just depicted as worthless in the legal system - he is depicted as worthless to the movie's plot. His death isn't viewed as important. (While that wouldn't be an issue in an action movie it's kind of a big deal in a drama about race wars.)

                  I've not seen the Romper Stomper TV show - should I give it a miss then?

                  @chrisjager I think it would've been good to have seen some remorse or regret from Derek absolutely, they should've had a scene, especially with Sweeney, with Derek finally admitting that, it would've loaned a lot of power and redemption to the films arc. The movie does want you to root for him to redeem himself, but I always felt it was to 'become who he was before' and not to 'maintain who he is now'.

                  The gangbanger is basically just a plot device, set up by the game at the beginning to say 'bad guy that the other guy has a rivalry with' so that when he breaks in, it feeds into the idea that essentially, for the point of the movie, white lives at that juncture in time were definitely seen as 'more valuable', even those of neo nazis, than black ones.

                  I don't think everything in this movie is perfect however, I think that it presents a lot of things as a little too glossed over and imbalanced at times. I think my biggest fault with the movie, is it takes personal responsibility in a lot of cases and throws it entirely out the window (all black gangbangers do things of their own accord apparently, but ALL white neo nazis are manipulated solely by their parents and Stacey Keach, for instance, so there's an applicable angle for the pity :) ).

                  But, as for the Romper Stomper tv series? While I found the movie exceptionally good, the tv show just never quite did it for me. The movie felt 'real', in the 1980's and 90's I literally saw stuff like that happen in Melbourne and Brisbane (albeit not on such a large scale), however the tv show just made it absurd, with a tv presenter involved, an Antifa variant involved, a white nationalist group taking the place of the Neo Nazis (until they rise again in a later episode) and the whole thing essentially feeling like a worthless venture into absurdity. It's worth a watch once if you keep your expectations low and don't expect anything on par with the movie :)

      So, no, the film itself doesn't express any sympathy with White Supremacists nor their politics BUT it IS popular with actual white supremacists and neo-nazis because it is made to be very easy to interpret the film that way.

      I don't believe that was the intention of anyone involved in making the film, it's not supposed to be read that way, but it is very easy to do so and many aspects of the way the movie was made lend themselves to the sympathetic interpretation nazis see in it. At the very least the personal glory (before the subsequent shame) Norton's character revels in as he's being arrested is far too close to actual glorification for comfort and dumb nazi dickheads won't, and didn't, grasp the nuance therein. Even though I personally don't interpret the film the way nazis do, the very fact nazis interpret it that way makes it deserving of at least some criticism.

        Indeed, but that again wasn't the intent of the art. It's like Pepe Frog, he wasn't originally drawn as a white power symbol, but due to some people who claimed it was, now, he's viewed as one for some silly reason, despite the original artist begging people to understand he isn't. Even Boyz'n'the'hood, as John Singleton once pointed out, was a deconstruction on the absurdity of gang culture and the fruitlessness of that endeavour, was seen as 'the movie' for 'gangbangers' to watch in the 1990's for some reason. People will inevitably cherrypick and see what they want to see in something, that's why art is in the eye of the beholder. The art itself shouldn't be shamed, the people who watch it and view it that way however, should be condemned to the ends of the earth.

    The movie is upside-down, inside-out and by writing, "I agree to disagree" proves that what you think is right is in fact wrong.
    Reporting on movies or other subjects should never be what the reporters think, like or dislike.
    Let people themselves say what they like or dislike, it is NOT up to the reporter to to agree or disagree, the great reporters remain neutral, they are not paid to take sides.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now