Didn't expect a $100 mil Netflix movie about vampires to rip this hard, but JJ Perry-- a stunt coordinator from the John Wick and Fast and Furious franchises, among others-- makes this whole thing like a big-budget DTV action flick. It's got real stunts! real sets! real car crashes! and lots of fun gore and beheadings. I'm sad it's not a theatrical release! This is what Netflix-- and other studios-- should make more of!

Here's my review: https://letterboxd.com/russellhfilm/film/day-shift-2022/

But if you don't trust me, I agree with Matt Lynch here too: https://inreviewonline.com/2022/08/12/day-shift/

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Or more in a Frank Longo sensibilities sort of way?

I ask because we have significant differences in certain areas (all things wachowski, for example).

I saw this and went eeeeeeh from jump, but may give it a go if it has a broader appeal

this is nothing more than a typical netflix action/comedy b movie.

which makes it weird that frank says netflix needs to make more of these. they already make a bunch!

i mean...honestly...ask yourself...what would you expect from a movie with snoop dogg and dave franco?

>this is nothing more than a typical netflix action/comedy b
>movie.
>
>which makes it weird that frank says netflix needs to make
>more of these. they already make a bunch!

Netflix shoots all these fucking things on green screen and CGIs them to death. This isn't one of those! And it feels genuinely refreshing as a result.

Again, it's by one of the stunt coordinators of John Wick, the John Wick director is an EP... it's not as good as the John Wicks, but it's so much closer to that ballpark than most any other big movies Netflix is doing.

>i mean...honestly...ask yourself...what would you expect from
>a movie with snoop dogg and dave franco?

Yeah, I'm always far more concerned with the below-the-line talent than the above-the-line. But sure, if the idea of Snoop Dogg firing a giant fucking chaingun into a sea of vampires and shredding them limb from limb doesn't sound good to you, then yes, I wouldn't see this.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

theres a reason its barely clinging on to a 6 imdb and 50+% rotten tomatoes score lol.

thats pretty much the standard reception for all of these netflix cookie cutter action flicks.

apparently you want netflix to double down on the content strategy that most people are complaining about these days.

>But sure, if the idea of Snoop
>Dogg firing a giant fucking chaingun into a sea of vampires
>and shredding them limb from limb doesn't sound good to you,
>then yes, I wouldn't see this.

ey cold truth...you can read this line and decide for yourself lmao.

You keep saying it’s like Netflix cookie cutter action, when I’ve watched basically every action movie they’ve released in the last few years, been disappointed by most, and was not remotely disappointed by this.

It’s a thousand times better than Red Notice and The Adam Project and these other goofy CGI-fests it’s been investing in. Because the action is well choreographed and well executed consistently throughout. If that doesn’t matter to you in a movie, that’s cool. It does to me. You can spend your time watching other movies. If someone reads this and the caliber of action matters to them, I encourage them to check it out. It’s not the fucking Raid or whatever, but it was a surprisingly good-ass time. 🤷‍♂️

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

the will smith flick that was pretty much universally panned as bad (i didnt think it was as bad as everyone else did...but i was clearly outnumbered lol).

and bright has a better audience score on rotten tomatoes by almost 20 points.

you liked it. thats fine. taste is subjective.

im just pointing out that the overwhelming reaction to this flick is pretty much the usual grading of the bulk of these in-house netflix action b movies. and i happen to agree with it.

*shrug*

>>But sure, if the idea of Snoop
>>Dogg firing a giant fucking chaingun into a sea of vampires
>>and shredding them limb from limb doesn't sound good to you,
>>then yes, I wouldn't see this.
>
>ey cold truth...you can read this line and decide for yourself
>lmao.

Yeah that description reads an inch away from “Zombie strippers with boomerang knives vs an army of nanotech-enhanced catholic priest super soldiers?! SIGN ME UP!

The RT rating made me wince a bit
But that line killed it for me completely.

Unless it’s on some Machete shit- which went a bit too off the rails for me- it would be hard to watch that with a straight face.

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

>But sure, if the idea of Snoop
>Dogg firing a giant fucking chaingun into a sea of vampires
>and shredding them limb from limb doesn't sound good to you,
>then yes, I wouldn't see this.

If that’s the selling point, then I’m good.

That description reads like B movie cheese, enjoyed through thick, coke-bottle glasses over a handle bar mustache, not *good* action.

Which is fine. But that description in no way reads like a quality action scene.
It reads like a scene that’s heavily reliant on a a grab bag of cheap gimmicks.

I enjoyed it very much unironically, and I think the action is objectively well executed as both a filmmaker and a lover of action cinema. But if something doesn’t sound good to you, then don’t see it.

All I can do is convey how I felt about it and encourage others to give it a shot. I thought going in that it was going to be very mediocre, and I was delightfully surprised. But you don’t need to give it the same chance I did. There’s plenty of other movies and TV to watch out there without Day Shift. So follow your gut.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I’m aware that I don’t have to see a movie just because Frank Longo liked it.
I’m aware that the existence of this doesn’t magically erase other things I do like.

I’ve seen those retorts from you before.
Nobody suddenly has an epiphany when you tell them that.

Nobody stops dead in their tracks and says, HOLD UP, you mean I don’t have to watch it?
And I can still watch other things? What a relief!

That never happens. Because everyone already knows this.
And it’s a weirdly defensive response.

Because, for crying out loud, when you present “snoop doog tearing a sea of vampires to shreds with a chain gun” as though that’s a selling point, it screams ironic affection.

It’s ok, man. Truly. I fully realize I can still get back to this Quantum Leap binge before the new series drops next month.

If I got defensive, it’s because if you come in saying “is this actually good, or is it ‘you’ good?” and then subsequently make fun of the things i earnestly think were fun about the movie? Then yeah. Forgive me if I think that kind of sucks to see and creates an inclination within me after a long Saturday to get a little defensive.

Anyway. Have a good weekend.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>If I got defensive, it’s because if you come in saying
>“is this actually good, or is it ‘you’ good?”

No, I asked if it had broader appeal, or if it was simply in line with your sensibilities.

I have enough self awareness to know that I have particular sensibilities, and understand that certain things check boxes that speak to those sensibilities, and something that has a much broader appeal.

I know there’s certain things that I love that others don’t, so I have no problem saying “I like XYZ, but this may not work for you, for such and such reasons”.

It was a perfectly reasonable question and not at all a shot.

I break your balls over your love for wachowskis- and that’s all it’s ever been: ball breaking.
Ribbing. Joshing. Joking. Razzing.

Not, fuck you, you’re a piece of shit for liking Jupiter ascending. It’s literally just jokes.

But if that bothers you, say something. I’m not out to make people feel like shit for liking a goddamned movie.

>subsequently make fun of the things i earnestly think were fun
>about the movie?

I thought Movie 43 was hilarious.
I’m just about the only person who does.

I have a friend who razzes me to this day for taking him to see it.

It doesn’t ruin my day. Because it’s a joke, and not at all intended as a kick in the nuts.

And yeah, the scene you described sounds much more like a sketch comedy skit than a serious action scene.

Then yeah. Forgive me if I think that kind of
>sucks to see and creates an inclination within me after a long
>Saturday to get a little defensive.
>
>Anyway. Have a good weekend.

Man if you’re having a long day I get it. It was just jokes though, no harm intended or desired.

Dude led with *such* an unprovoked, over-the-top asshole comment I was even kind of taken aback.

The long screed above talking about how your reaction was wrong and you're too sensitive was great. I wanted to flip the switch in my office off halfway through, though - pretty clear it should only be read by gaslight.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Talk about gaslighting.

If your answer to that is yes, that’s highly unlikely, but hey, maybe your tastes are really dead center.

If your answer to that question is no, then that’s a demonstration that my initial question was perfectly reasonable.

Yes, this is an either or proposition.

What I know is that Frank’s sensibilities- particularly with action movies- tend to ignore really bad writing, because he thinks air-skating lychans are awesome.

He’s certainly entitled to that.

So yes, his deep affection for Wachowski movies- which don’t tend to be particularly well received- makes the question of whether his love for a big budget action spectacle fits more in line with his personal sensibilities, or has a broader appeal, is perfectly reasonable.

Gaslighting is calling my question “unprovoked and totally over the top”.

That response to my question isn’t even thin-skinned, it’s an all-out ego tantrum.
There’s nothing remotely offensive about my question.

You want to talk gaslighting? If your ego is such that it doesn’t grasp the difference between your personal predilections and a broader appeal, or the fact that you have demonstrably different tastes in the genre, 100% of that gaslighting is coming from you- and anyone aghast that it even came up.

I know certain shit appeals to me, and doesn’t quite hit with certain friends.
A new Lox joint just dropped a fee days ago.
I know which friends will probably like it, and which ones likely won’t.

Because I not only have self-awareness, I recognize that other people like different things than I do.

Gaslighting is your bullshit “long screed” comment- because I had to add more robust context to what was already obvious, but was apparently needed because Frank’s ego had a little meltdown.

And here you are doubling down on that same bullshit.

Accept the outcome of your words and move on with your day, you child.

Maybe you can spare us any more of your perpetually awful posting in the meantime while these boards still have the smallest inkling of life left.

I asked a very simple baseline question to demonstrate why you and he are both are objectively wrong.

There’s a reason you won’t bother answering that question.

There was nothing inherently or subversively malicious about the question.

That his ego had a meltdown at the mere suggestion that his particular sensibilities should be the barometer for a more broadly appealing film doesn’t make me an asshole.

But by all means, you can continue derailing his post railing against a perfectly reasonable question- all while pretending that the real problem is me responding to your objectively more aggressive and malicious comments about/toward me than my question can even be reasonably construed to be toward him.

I’m happy to help, because you don’t have a leg to stand on- and neither does he.

>
>That his ego had a meltdown at the mere suggestion that his
>particular sensibilities should be the barometer for a more
>broadly appealing film doesn’t make me an asshole.
>

Only one having a meltdown is you, bud. I’d tell you to take a breather and then reread the convo, but your “who’s the asshole?” radar is clearly broken.

So please, give us another 20 paragraphs explaining why everyone else is wrong. Maybe you’ll convince someone.

I'm not the one upset over a fair and benign question.

In fact, I'm the only one who isn't upset at all.

And you don't have anything to point to that could reasonably be characterized as a "meltdown".

Frank's big issue is a joke, to the point that he had to use entirely an entirely different word than the one I used to reach his conclusion. Which means the offense was, yep, in his head, not in my actual words. This is an objective fact. To be clear, I don't give a shit about convincing you, because genuine reason is lost on you.

But you don't get to run in with this fuck shit after things had already ended, without a response.

>Only one having a meltdown is you, bud. I’d tell you to take
>a breather and then reread the convo, but your “who’s the
>asshole?” radar is clearly broken.

I've taken several breathers. They're called "yawns" and "laughs", because that's how ridiculous Frank and his white knights sound.

And I love the attempt below to vilify me for simply responding to demonstrably errant personal attacks and poor reasoning.
It completely undermines whatever good you think you're doing here. Another dumb "der you write a lot of words" retort. I get it though- it's easier than refuting the actual statements, and it makes you feel like you made a valid point. I hate to spoil the fun, but that's a fucking delusion.

>So please, give us another 20 paragraphs explaining why
>everyone else is wrong. Maybe you’ll convince someone.

Says the guy who ran in to *further* derail the post made by the guy he's defending, by upping a discussion that had nothing to with you, to say absolutely nothing of note, for no purpose other than to antagonize me. Your contribution- as was khn's- only served to reignite something I finished discussing four days ago.

Bang up job helping Frank and his ego tantrum fuck up his own post though.

I'd say the lame motherfuckers who say shit like "I bet you're fun at parties" aren't fun at parties- except they usually attend parties full other people who say shit like that.

"workin hard or hardly workin" type cornball over here lmfao
"this weather is really something!" simple Sam small talk type

Look how willing you are to continue to fuck up a post started by Frank, about a movie he likes, supposedly in his defense.

You really think you accomplished something here too.

conversely, you’ve chosen to spam Frank’s post with empty, worthless posts aimed at me- all while contributing absolutely nothing to the subject at hand.

That’s not “nailing” you.
It’s just an objective fact.

for someone with one-third of the replies in a post about a movie you’ll never watch.

>for someone with one-third of the replies in a post about a
>movie you’ll never watch.

Since you won't answer, I will: they don't.

A significant number of those posts are replying to you- and 100% of your presence in here is you going at me directly, over something that was clearly over with, and had nothing to do with you.

In fact, you haven't said a single word about the movie, and every point you thought you were making has been immediately and thoroughly shown to be wrong.

None of this is remotely up for debate or subject to opinion. You're objectively wrong- and in the wrong- from every possible angle.

https://i.ibb.co/1rqv5R5/CBA776-CC-C10-A-4919-88-C3-56593-C02860-B.jpg

Your presence in this post is weird.

I came to discuss the movie, and asked a reasonable question of the OP.
He and I said what we had to say on the matter and that was that.

Your entire purpose here is solely to antagonize me over a dead issue that had nothing to do with you.

Worse, you didn't even have an actual take on that.

You are objectively, factually, definitionally the problem here.

... who saw it and reacted the same way I did. So I think it's broader than just my sensibilities, though obviously as a guy who really values competent action, fun stunts, and some cool gore, it's very up my alley as well, lol.

Don't expect high art or anything-- it's a fun action movie in the vein of things like John Wick, Constantine, etc.-- but it's easily one of the better big studio movies of the year in terms of action, and it's got a fun breezy California vibe to it. It's derivative in ways, but man, the execution is just really impressive. Especially considering what Netflix usually churns out for their big production pictures.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

There are some legitimately great action scenes especially in the first half of the movie. JJ Perry is a legend in the stunt game and it's the 87/Eleven team (John Wick, Atomic Blonde, etc).

It's even works better as a comedy for most of its run than I expected from the trailer. The working class/union stuff is a great hook but is used mostly as a "fresh take" and world building rather than actually having a point of view other than unions are a hinderance.

The biggest issue is the movie is WAY too long. There's no reason this movie should be nearly two hours. The last act is so needlessly drawn out that the villain threatens characters two or three times and then just stands around as we cut back to the heroes taking forever to save the day.

It's absolutely a DTV movie with a couple of A-list stars. I'm thinking lion's share of the budget went into Foxx/Franco's paychecks. But Perry is used to doing a lot with a little and accomplishes some cool fun stuff for half the movie.

It's basically a Scott Adkins movie (a pretty good one) that Netflix had the money to insert Foxx into. I mean that both as a compliment and as a means of setting expectations.

All that said, it's WAY better than BRIGHT and way better/more fun THE GRAY MAN.

-------------------------------

A lot of you players ain't okay.

We would have been better off with an okaycivics board instead of an okayactivist board

The run time didn't hurt my experience, so you can see how I'd be high on this if I didn't think it dragged, lol. Beyond that, I agree with everything you said-- especially the last two lines.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I was watching it like "did i click the wrong movie cause this is maybe just okay, but nothing amazing"

---------------------------------------

"The world is before you and you need not take it or leave it as it was when you came in." - James Baldwin

kept thinkin about how foxx be telling stories about how he went and did a bad movie..

also, franco was awful.

JJ Perry did his thing! This looks great. It's decently shot, competently writen. Actors showed up. Honestly, a perfectly palatable Netflix joint.

Good action flicks don't have to be terribly expensive. I could see Netflix turning out two or three of these a year, for 2/3rds the budget and getting just as much burn for them.

********************************

Get Out The Room!
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
@fakewilliamkatt

"You probably wouldn't worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do!" - Olin Miller

>Good action flicks don't have to be terribly expensive. I
>could see Netflix turning out two or three of these a year,
>for 2/3rds the budget and getting just as much burn for them.

Like, give JJ Perry or other stunt coordinators, say, a 50 mil budget? I bet you get the same level of awesome action and thrills. You can't have it be a vampire movie with all the prerequisite CGI, and you might not be able to have your leading man be of Jamie Foxx's caliber... but yeah, you could crank out some really fun late-summer-style action movies if you use your money wisely.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

this is definetely better than most Netflix big budget action films

and jamie Foxx carries it and the choreography is well done.

This was a solid action flick. I don't get the tepid responses.

********************************

Get Out The Room!
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
@fakewilliamkatt

"You probably wouldn't worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do!" - Olin Miller

I know I am, just because I'm so sick of our culture's love affair with guns. Not the movie's fault, necessarily, but I switched it off after the first scene (which was pretty well done).

----
I check for: Serengeti, Zeroh, Open Mike Eagle, Jeremiah Jae, Moka Only.

getting big name headliners just to shovel typical dtv material through.

action stood out as mentioned, and while 15 minutes too long, the pacing was brisk.

as far as Netflix's quality control, I think movies like this are more reliable than spending $200 million or whatever on Gray Man (which was OK to me)

and what movie studio is infallible, btw? Netflix has diluted their brand a bit due to volume, but let's not act like every major studio is putting out a new monthly classic in theaters

HBO probably has the best content to quality ratio in the business, and all that's gotten them is a subpage on an upcoming Discovery+ app -- right below the 29th season of 90 Day Fiancé

--------

>and what movie studio is infallible, btw? Netflix has diluted
>their brand a bit due to volume, but let's not act like every
>major studio is putting out a new monthly classic in theaters

Oh, no one is *infallible,* any studio is, like, three major bombs away from insolvency at the end of the day.

But take Universal for instance. They're producing 27 movies this year. They can point to big hits with tangible results. Even if Jurassic World 3 was a dud critically, it's nearing a billion dollars box office worldwide. The new Minions movie is nearly 800 million worldwide. Nope crossed 100 mil domestic alone. They even have some nice, clearly profitable mid-range things like The Black Phone ($153m worldwide on a 16m budget) and The Bad Guys ($245m worldwide on a <80m budget).

Setting aside Netflix's volume causing brand dilution for a moment (they've released 42 English-language movies *already* this year), they just spend absurd amounts on things that have absolutely zero provable impact and have for years. Like, Spiderhead cost 100m. The Adam Project cost 116m. Gray Man cost 200m. Those are just this year. They have myriad movies every year that they spent a boatload on that would almost certainly flounder, if not outright tank, at the box office. If you told me they spend more on movie production in a calendar year than any given studio, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

And they assume because they say, "hey, this is our most-watched movie ever!", that it's the same as box office reports. Or they report "this is how many people watched this this week!" when it's unclear if they mean how many people actually watched it start to finish or how many people technically started the movie because it autoplayed on someone's TV after something else ended when they weren't paying attention. So they have a giant credibility problem on top of it.

Part of me wonders if the overspending is how they satiate the actors/directors/writers/producers who get either diminished residuals or no residuals whatsoever. I know they pay writers more upfront, generally, than a writer would get selling the same script to a studio where a project could go on to air on TV/cable. This probably plays a role in why Gray Man and Red Notice are expensive as Fast Nine and Tenet, but look drastically worse. (That and the upfront costs leading to them cutting corners with FX companies-- this is certainly why Marvel is starting to have the same problem.)

So yeah, I just think they need to spend less on these movies. Make mid-budget things, build their brand that way. Fewer movies would help, but if they want more content to feed the machine, you have to give them *something* memorable beyond the names of the actors attached. Right now, they're claiming Red Notice, Gray Man, and Spenser Confidential as franchises of the future. And I think that shit is *bleak,* lol.

EDIT: and to be clear, I think they overspent on Day Shift too! I just think Day Shift at least has memorable enough action that it is more likely to linger in people's memory as "something good" more than most of Netflix's original movies. I'd file it alongside something like Extraction, which they spent 65 mil on-- I think if they'd made Day Shift 2-3 years ago, they'd have spent closer to that, lol. But they've *really* poured money on the fire the last three years.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide