Daylight's End

A zombie apocalypse is never a good thing. A movie with that as a theme in it though, can be a really nice thrill ride. So while this may not be the best movie about this ever, it is more than a decent effort. We get the same guy who played the main character in another Kaufmann movie (Saints&Sinners) and gets to shine here again.

Though he is not getting as much attention here, because of the role itself, the action is very well shot. There are clichés abound of course that may weigh down the impact of the movie or the characters fate for some watching. But you should be aware of that. Overall it's nicely done for a small budget movie and one that still manages to have some style ...

considering the marketplace is flooded with hundreds of b level zombie movies like this, it's always best to approach this sort of thing with low expectations to avoid disappointment.

i,m happy to report that for once, this movie actually delivers by being a reasonably good post apocalyptic zombie movie, full of non stop action, a decent plot and sympathetic characters you can actually root for. i also loved the interesting new take on zombies by making them part vampire due to their aversion to sunlight.

Lance Henriksen should be a stranger to no one, and adds some star power to proceedings, even if he isn't the main character. if you have nothing else to watch one evening, give this a try, you may be pleasantly surprised, i know i was.

Imo this movie certainly deserve more than 5.

Yes, it looks cheap in many places but it also has redeeming qualities. Basically, everything that comes out of this movie is never very good and in some instances it is really lacking, but overall it is enjoyable.

The characters are very numerous and we don't get to know them very well. They will mostly stay complete strangers to the audience until the end. Even the main protagonist is that way. But on the other hand, they aren't ''flat'',''idiotic'',''generic'' characters (minus the ''BADASS'' hero), they still have decent lines and interactions among each others.

The camera quality though suffers from the low-budget thingy and gives that cheap impression to the movie. While the set is decent>good, the costumes are very authentic, same for the makeup, and the casting (when it comes to visual). Just to explain my thoughts on that, there is a pattern in recent movie where every character is a teenager, with a stupid makeup and a stupid face (I am sure its about makeup and light), a good case is the recent Warcraft.

I do think that the plot is sometimes inconsistent, and that they chose to film some scenes just for the sake of having those scenes in the final cut. Worst, the same is true for some characters: there is clearly one character that is just there to make one scene happens and that afterward becomes completely useless; that can probably be true in other movies, but here it is quite shocking in the sense that everything might indicates that this characters is important or will become important later on. Which never happens, it's just a filler.

My review might look ''weak'' because it doesn't manage to underline the inner qualities or deficiencies of the movie, but it is only because the movie is that way. There is nothing really shiny about it, and although it has deficiencies in certain areas, I still think that it provides for an overall agreeable watch. Despite its faults there is a sense of authenticity that helps build intensity. I have to say, the final-final scene also made me sweat, which doesn't happen so much to me in other movies.

I wish they had a better writer for the characters and plot development, otherwise they still have a decent man capable of taking care of the ambiances&atmosphere; the general ideas are there, it's just that tiny bit of execution and cleverness that is lacking.

To summarize + Costumes/guns/(visual)casting + Intensity + Gunfights ain't bad - Gunfights sometimes feel a bit repetitive and sometimes idiotic - this cheap ''look'' of the camera - some inconsistencies in the plot or some scenes (but that would require spoilers to elaborate) - characters development really lacking

To be honest, I feel sorry for those zombies. Their life really is meaningless. A numb existence without any excitement or pleasure. No pleasant dinners at a favorite restaurant. No well-deserved vacation on a sunny beach. No sports or interesting hobbies. Their sole purpose is hunting uninfected fellow men. And when there's nobody left to hunt, the only thing they can do is standing idly somewhere, probably wondering what to do next. Dead boring in other words. The undead in "Daylight's End" have an additional problem. They hate sunlight. Much like the creatures in "I'm Legend". The only difference with the latter film is that you knew how the misery began. In this movie the filmmakers keep you dangling.

Nowadays it's pretty hard to come up with an original zombie movie, since the market is flooded with this genre. Here they tried to give a different twist to this sub-genre by giving the bloodthirsty creatures characteristics of a vampire. That's immediately demonstrated in the opening scene when Rourke (Johnny Strong) finds an undead hiding in a freezer. In no time it's being reduced by Rourke into a smoldering barbecue sausage.

Rourke is a loner who travels across the U.S. as a kind of Mad Max in his armored Plymouth, equipped with a complete arsenal of firearms. His only goal in life is to eliminate as much murderous mutated persons as possible. As gunmen did in the Wild West, he keeps track of the score by carving notches in the butt of his rifle with his immense dagger. The not so talkative Rourke looks ultra-cool and mega-efficiently. The controlled way of attacking, the calm look, always a well thought out answer and always using a targeted plan to take revenge on the creatures responsible for the death of his wife. All this makes him the ultimate anti-hero.

Although this is a low-budget film, at times the images used aren't inferior to those of some blockbusters. By contrast, the acting level of some equals that of an actor in an ordinary television program. Luckily Lance Henriksen's contribution was significantly better than that in "Harbinger Down". And what a surprise. You'll also be witnessing some stupid decisions. Obviously this is necessary in this genre of films. Otherwise nothing significantly would happen. Is there a positive side to this film? Yep of course. It's generously filled with action and swift, fierce confrontations. When Rourke joins a group of survivors, ex-policemen who barricaded themselves in a police station in downtown Dallas, and tries to fend off the daily attacks by zombies, a seemingly infinite number of battle scenes are presented. And it's also hard to keep track of the number of head shots.

And that was the biggest let down for me. After 15 minutes, the course of a confrontation was quite predictable and a bit trite. Over and over again a significant number of zombies are gunned down by a hail of bullets but they still managed to grab a poor soul every time. Oddly enough Rourke failed to hit the big leader despite his skills as a shooter. And skills he has! His precision is masterly and time after time again it's breathtaking to see how an opponent ends up with a gaping bullet wound right in the middle of the forehead. After seeing the head size off the end boss, it's hard to believe he could miss that. "Daylight's end" won't show anything new. It's an action-packed horror and the frantic pace makes sure you won't get bored eventually.

More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT

I'm a fan of this genre. There's not much new ground broken here, but the movie is fun and very professionally done. A lot of new apocalyptic movies look cheap and this one does not. The action is very well done and the scenes are very intense. The scenes with guns are all very exceptionally done. The character development is weak however, except for the antagonist, who is very interesting. There is very little reason to connect to, or to care about, the good guys though. I see a lot of inflated reviews here, so I registered to say that the movie is actually pretty good, but not as great as early reviews here led me to believe. I think this is worth the "price of admission," but only on a slow night.