User reviews

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!

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.

I have to confess I came to Daylights End with very limited expectations. I was then surprised at how easily it exceeded all of them.

This is a very good film. Its intelligently written, with a implausibly plausible premise and down to earth, honest characterizations, that lend this film a certain maturity. It reminiscent of films like 28 Days Later and whilst it has a B budget, still manages to hand in an A grade performance.

The action scenes, in particular, are "polished". Clearly a lot of work went into the run and gun scenes and I suspect, a military expert was used to lend the whole thing an air of realism.

Just as surprising is the quality of acting. Pretty much everyone from Lance Henrikson, Johnny Strong and the rest of the cast hand in decent performances.

Its remarkable how much can be done with so little, whilst deep pockets Hollywood often achieves so little, with so much. Well shot, acted and directed, with a convincing story, that's very entertaining. Eight out of ten from me.

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.

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

Finally someone who is appropriately cautious.

Strong jawline.

How long after the apocalypse before you don't stop at stop signs instinctively?

No bullet shortage.

If it was such a close call what were you gonna do if everything worked out?

Of course Lance is here.

Wash your hands.

You don't close the door behind you?

Super fast alarm response.

Why would you ever drive down an alley.

Why don't you trap them in cells or at least a choke point?

I expected more from the Alpha.

Hope is our greatest weapon!

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

This is an indie movie but it doesn't feel like an indie movie. It felt like the original Mad Max or 28 Days Later! Great action scenes and lots of quick scare shots.

Johnny Strong (Fast and the Furious, Black Hawk Down) delivers a great performance along with Lance Henriksen (Aliens, Aliens 3, Terminator).

The movie was directed by William Kauffman. He is a killer indie director that makes some great action films with limited budgets. Don't know how he pulls it off. Can't wait till he gets a real Hollywood budget. Chad Law wrote the script. They both did Sinners and Saints, which was another good movie.

Johnny Strong did the soundtrack to the film and it is really good!

The movie was filmed entirely in Texas. If you live in Dallas, you may recognize a few areas. I was surprised to find out that the movie was shot in Dallas at the old Police Station. It is in the same building the Lee Harvey Oswald was shot in. The sets and environments were awesome and made you feel like you were in the post apocalyptic world.

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.

This movie started slow, and by that I don't mean you have to wait for the action, instead it makes you wait a long time before anyone speaks. The action scenes are slick, well staged and frenetically shot like a Bourne movie, and there's alot of action; thousands of shots are fired throughout the flick. I just wish they had shaved 10 minutes off the shooting for some interesting character development so that we actually cared about what was happening. Instead we get one or two brief flashbacks, and a lot of intense stares and macho shouting. The movie is well made for its budget and its and interesting film, it just really falls flat because it doesn't pull you into the story. The Vamp/Zombies are intense and fast, though never explained much, and that would be okay if the story had other things going on, but it doesn't. I usually love a good Siege narrative, especially in the horror genre, but this was too light on the narrative part. See it if you like lots of weapon heavy shootouts with relentless hordes... or you could just watch someone play Left4Dead for 90 minutes.

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.

No one: Director: You know what would make this scene better........ If you put sunglasses on!

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 ...

Another low budget production with an atrocious script. The whole thing is just a collection of boring action scenes with very little in-between. Forget about a good story, forget about characters that you care about, forget about nice scenery. You'll be staring at a brick wall, a prison cell or a dirty street. That's it. The "horde" of zombies consists of 15 people. They don't even bother to change their clothes, so you'll be seeing a lot of the same people playing as various different zombies. It's not obvious at first but it becomes pretty evident by the end of the movie. This could have been much better with a good script. The first ten minutes are the best part of the whole thing but don't get fooled, the rest of the movie is complete and utter trash.

It's on a budget and cinematography is fine. They chose a style for photography, camera work is good so you can watch this flick and not feel it low budget actually.

However, characters are one dimensional and stereotypical. You won't feel attached to any of them which in a zombie movie can be good, people die, but you won't care much neither.

The plot isn't smart, it borrows the two main ideas from two other famous movies in this genre you most certainly have already seen. It also suffer probably by some cuts that left out some scenes that might have helped understand more. Sometimes you wonder a little what's happening. The movie also doesn't offer any background on what kind of apocalypse is and what are these human creatures that drop if shot in the chest not like zombies and burn in daylight like vampires. ???.

All in all there's a lot of good action and we don't need a lot of plot to make a watchable genre's movie, but bad characters and boring although scarce dialogues make this movie a little uninteresting and 20 minutes too long.

Chelsea Edmundson, who plays Sam, does an undeniable job portraying the persistent leading lady, eager to fight for all. Her affectionate concern, along with that tough need to survive, makes this attractive leading lady even more interesting. Thomas Rourke (Johnny Strong) is that quietly bold soul that effectively makes the audience want more of his story. Even though I adore a hidden and somewhat romantic side of any story, I appreciate even more, the action leading to a short and surprising reveal. Mr. Strong does just this! All characters exemplified the training and knowledge of how to operate a weapon, as if this was indeed a way of life for them now. The frenzied storm of energy and firearms stayed constant, and the dramatic feud between the devising characters only added to the crisis. As with many films, there sometimes is that surprising unfortunate loss; sadly, it usually would be those characters that could reprise a most beneficial role. I almost want to hate Chad Law for including those downfalls! I believe Mr. Strong made the movie even more appreciable, with his effective score arrangement. This was not a James Horner Celtic, or a John Williams Jurassic Park composition, however I would say that the adaptation, although sometimes toting the line of loud, was certainly apocalyptically fitting. Well done Mr. Strong. I can't leave off the shameless comic relief Drew (Gary Cairns) brings to the film, as well as the sincerity of, and agreeably looking, Ethan (Louis Mandylor). All of this, along with iconic Lance Henriksen, makes for a well-shaped action flick. I feel that William Kaufman did a fine job making these words become human. This is surely a fun movie night for any zombie/vampire/apocalypse enthusiast!

Lots of fake reviews which is plain to see and an all too common event here on IMDb. Lol about time they realized that opening an account, reviewing one movie and giving it a massive big up only makes them look desperate.

However one poster on the message board was shot down for mentioning I am Legend, but he was correct to mention it as it was the name of the book plus someone else said that I Am Legend was a copy of Omega Man making you think that was the original movie of the story from the book. but failed to mention Omega Man could be described as a copy of Last Man On Earth which was before Omega Man and also based on the I Am Legend Book.

Some people need to move on and stop clinging to the past, when a movie gets old it doesn't always mean it is a classic. Some movies do stand the test of time granted but not all. Some just do not age well. The 1st/original isn't always the best as mentioned before Omega Man seems to be the one people mention rather than Last Man on Earth.

IMHO Omega Man wasn't that special, just above average, as was this and the Asylum version I Am Omega which I thought was better than its IMDb rating by a long way, but when people see the name Asylum attached to a movie that automatically rate it down. Asylum do have a eye for making good zombie though;). The Z Nation series is a good and successful example. Season 1 of Z Nation I found more entertaining than season 5 of The Walking Dead.

Anyway, I gave most of the movies mentioned above a similar rating of 6 with Last Man an average 5 and Legend was slightly better than the rest with a 7. Last Man on Earth seemed to drag like a 2 hour movie even though it was lest than 90 minutes.

Yeah I know this isn't much of a review of the movie but it seems if anyone likes this movie they will always get shot down as being someone involved with it due to the dumb people involved with movies making blatantly biased reviews.

I found the lead male actor was good when being bad ass, otherwise wasn't a very interesting character. The woman with the doll I think would of made a better lead female role. There was plenty of action, some nice infected people make-up but story could of been expanded and less based around one area. Had a promising start, a decent mid story which wasn't really followed to it's maximum and a bit of a lame ending.

Would of been nice to see a flash back or a mention of how it all started too but over all I have seen a lot worse with a lot higher budget and this is one of the better ones in this genre. But yeah still just above average overall.

Last Man on Earth 5/10 (IMDb 7/10). The Omega Man 6/10 (IMDb 6.6/10). I Am Legend 7/10 (IMDb 7.2/10). I Am Omega 6/10 (IMDb 3.3/10). Daylight's End 6/10 (IMDb 5.5/10). I Am Legend 2 (Now known as Untitled I Am Legend Reboot ?/10.

Lotta gunplay. And it has Lance Henriksen, but thats not enough to help it much,

Story weak. I Am Legend, it is not. 3/10