Daylight's End

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

Really enjoyed William Kaufman's and Johnny Strong's last outing together in Sinners and Saints back in 2010. That's also the last time Johnny Strong had been on screen except a small short in-between. I wish I could see Johnny Strong do more movies as he normally does quite well Sinners and Saints was a great action flick and I enjoyed Daylight's End just as much.

This movie had a lot of what I like, post apocalyptic setting, lot's of action, some Sci-fi mixed in. This was a good movie for what it was. I see many people saying it's good for a low budget flick while that's true, I have also seen many big budget movies that were really bad. If you have a pretty good script like this and some OK actors and actresses, even on a small budget it can be very enjoyable. That's just what this movie is a good way to spend a few hours. Sure it's not earth shattering but we did enjoy it for the few hours we watched it.

So go in with an open mind and don't expect the world and you might just come out having enjoyed this flick.

But it didn't. Low budget movie but it's actually a decent watch. Usually when I've watched B-flicks with these themes they just come off as cheesy or cheap. This films uses it's effects very well and doesn't try to be more than what it is. Actually the movie seems to have been perfectly made for it's budget. The costumes and makeup looked good. Why the 7/10 though? Well I never nit pick low budget films like this where they got the job done of being entertaining. Only problems I had with the film is that the grenades had terrible effects and should of just been left out. The guns just seemed to last forever like they had infinite ammo.

As a gun enthusiast myself it always bugs me when the guns don't seem realistic especially in apocalypse movies where they should be conserving ammo. It also kept getting on my nerves that the main character had a semi auto rifle but it fired like it was a sub machine gun. Even worse it was a "Socom 16" rifle (which it said on the bolt. Those rifles take ammo that isn't exactly easy to come by and it's also very expensive ammo. It really would be the last type of weapon you'd want in an apocalypse because you would never find any ammo for it yet he's firing rounds like he put in an infinite ammo cheap code.

Other part of the movie I didn't enjoy so much were some of the other characters with the exception of Sam and Annabelle they all actually seem pretty unlikable. Johnny Strong (haha what a name) the main character pulled off the likeable hero part. The other characters though I mean it was a tough choice between who was the bigger jerk. Acting wise the acting fit the movie.

So yeah a 7/10 for this movie. It was a decent watch for this type of genre.

For a small budget production, this script was way over the number of pages you usually see. It had a plot, characters, ideas, good execution, good actors.

One of my favorites is Lance Henriksen, I simply adore the man. From his sci fi early work to the horror side he adopted lately, he is just great to see on the screen. One of the most underrated actors in my honest opinion.

And about the movie: you'll pretty much see full on action. A lot of gun power, some small hand to hand combats, and plenty of blood. Not gore, but blood. You'll see humanity, monsters, light and dark. It is a movie that will keep you going for sure. If you're into horror, or zombies and you wanna pass some time, this is a better way to do so.

Cheers!

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.