I was looking forward for this for quite some time. Bob's reviews never failed me before so I'm pretty sure I'll like this movie. Thanks Bob 
Escape to the Movies: Daybreakers
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Moviebob needs to stop censoring his f-bombs. It's getting annoying. Other than that, great review and good taste in movies.
Honestly, the review had me surprised, I may actually have to go see it now. I was originally turned away by the first advertisement I saw for it, which seemed (to me) to give away every major plot point in the movie, erasing my enthusiasm for seeing it.
However, if it is as wonderfully exciting as you say it is, consider my mind changed.
However, if it is as wonderfully exciting as you say it is, consider my mind changed.
I think this is the first time one of these reviews has seriously mislead me. It wasn't horrible, but I went in expecting exception, and got mediocre, at best.
The backstory/plot is somewhat interesting, but the delivery is boring as hell, sort of the opposite of Avatar, which had an incredibly generic plot, but delivered to perfection.
The backstory/plot is somewhat interesting, but the delivery is boring as hell, sort of the opposite of Avatar, which had an incredibly generic plot, but delivered to perfection.
Jeez, for you folks citing the metacritic ratings, notice that they are skewed down because of some ridiculously low scores primarily from two sources: the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. Personally, given how I've seen those reviewers rate other films, I think my tastes and opinions are more similar to Bob's than theirs.
Clearly, in the future, you should take into account that you disagreed with him on Daybreakers when you consider Bob's opinion about a movie, but that is only in regards to your tastes. Trying to claim that he is 'wrong', because 'other critics didn't agree'? I don't think you understand the purpose of a review.
Off-topic: here's hoping 'Book of Eli' is the film next week.
Clearly, in the future, you should take into account that you disagreed with him on Daybreakers when you consider Bob's opinion about a movie, but that is only in regards to your tastes. Trying to claim that he is 'wrong', because 'other critics didn't agree'? I don't think you understand the purpose of a review.
Off-topic: here's hoping 'Book of Eli' is the film next week.
Call me a snob, but I kinda need more reason than "anti-Twilight"-ness, "REAL" vampires, and crossbows and vintage muscles cars to see a movie these days. Kindly cut the "nerdgasm" crap and tell us how this movie distinguishes itself not just from Twilight, but the "quality" vampire media out there. Tell us how it's better than True Blood, or how it reiterates themes from Nosferatu. Does it feature new perspectives on the rea-
You know what? Never mind. *slunks sheepishly off to read The NY Times*
You know what? Never mind. *slunks sheepishly off to read The NY Times*
I watched Daybreakers this morning (nothing like a gory vampire flick at 10am to get your day going!) I really liked the story; that we're well into the vampire plague when the movie begins (similar to Zombieland and District 9.) The vampires were believable and, if needed, bloodily-violent (especially the mutants.)
Ethan Hawk was good in his role as a troubled scientist with (some vampires would say) misplaced morals. And Sam Neill felt solid as the corporate tycoon with nary a moral at all.
I will say I was pleased to see the film, while visually dark wasn't all gritty and grainy like the previews led me to believe. A lot of blue-coloring for the vamps and golden-sun during the human/daylight shots.
This was a good movie, one I was glad I got to see in the theater (I get to see so few movies non-DVD these days.)
And, now I know how to survive the upcoming vampire plague that's set to hit in 9 years.
Ethan Hawk was good in his role as a troubled scientist with (some vampires would say) misplaced morals. And Sam Neill felt solid as the corporate tycoon with nary a moral at all.
I will say I was pleased to see the film, while visually dark wasn't all gritty and grainy like the previews led me to believe. A lot of blue-coloring for the vamps and golden-sun during the human/daylight shots.
This was a good movie, one I was glad I got to see in the theater (I get to see so few movies non-DVD these days.)
And, now I know how to survive the upcoming vampire plague that's set to hit in 9 years.
Kind of sort of, but I can't remember the details. I think my brain is trying to block all memory of it out of self-preservation. Man, that was an awful movie. The really bizarre part? Someone in Japan thought it would be a good idea to make an anime series based on it, which turned out to be equally bad and got canceled (and from the one episode I watched out of morbid curiosity, I can see why).Raithnor said:
I wish I had seen this before choosing to see 'The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus' instead tonight. Not that Parnassus was bad, quite good in my opinion in fact, but if I had known that the vampires would be acting like actual fucking vampires, I would have been more willing to give this one a chance and see the other later.
Now I must be off to donate some plasma so I can afford to go see a movie about vampires farming human blood (damn being an extremely poor college student).
Now I must be off to donate some plasma so I can afford to go see a movie about vampires farming human blood (damn being an extremely poor college student).
He's probably sick of the Twilight films and the people talking about them. I know I am. Might check this out later.Gekidami said: