I still feel awfully sorry for Claudia Karvan who continually would get called Claudia Karavan by Ethan Hawke when he was doing press for the film.

Awful cover.

Why couldn't they use that red teaser poster they had? I loved that poster! At least as a slip-cover or something.

Anywho, I enjoyed this flick more-so than Sperig Brothers' previous film, Undead(the ending ruined it for me). I loved the concept and the roles being reversed where vampires are the majority here. The ending was pretty weak but a very entertaining movie. Definitely a purchase for me.

Isabel Lucas is great and all, but, compared to the other female lead, Isabel's screentime was very thin. Why isn't the other actress' name up there? It's not like Isabel lucas is much more known just because she had a small stint in Transformers 2. Oh, and great movie by the way. Meh on the artwork. Will buy on blu.

Honestly, the cover looks really good. Better than the awful poster art.

rebel-scum wrote: *vomits at Billy Gates*

Why rebel-scum, WHYYYYY?!

*vomits* HORRID cover art. What's so wrong with the poster art most of the time?! Looks almost like an American remake of "Night Watch".

Artwork added

triply wrote: Possibly another fangless vampire tale to add to the Twilight list would be "Cirque du Freak". That was one of the worst movies I have seen in recent times. I must be getting old, but these kids as vampires and wannabe vampires are beginning to piss me off.

 I liked Daybreakers and Cirque du Freak. Two totally different movies and both enjoyable for different reason.

Definitely picking this one up. I love the directors first film Un Dead!!!

I know the artwork will be posted on here soon with better resolution, but for those interested in the meantime here is what its gonna look like:

mc_serenity wrote: Kyle Mertes wrote: I rolled my eyes when they revealed his character to be named Edward...

Did you not read my previous post? This movie was already in the can way before Summit put the Twilight movies in production. It's just a coincidence, that's all. (I doubt the Sperig Brothers are fans of Stephanie Meyer either.)

I know it's coincidence but Twilight was a big hit as a book first which was published in 2005.

Totally agree with you, prozacnation and hogaburger.

I greatly enjoyed this flick until the end.  The story was good, the acting was decent, but the gore was really unnecessary.  Had this not had all the over-the-top gore, it would have not only garnered a PG-13 rating, but it would've been an overall better film.  I rolled my eyes when they revealed his character to be named Edward...

I'm undecided if this is worthy to add to my Blu-ray collection, though.  Maybe worth NetFlixxing once, and that's it.

mc_serenity wrote: Primogen18 wrote:  Did they really have to name the guy Edward and have a human "love interest" for him?

This movie was shot and finished before the first "Twilight" movie ever went into production (shooting was in summer 2007 and the movie was essentially finished a year later). Lionsgate delayed it to a 2010 release, but the end credits have a "Copyright MMVIII" notice at the very end.

And this was far more refreshing as a vampire movie. Some really nice gore, a great score and a really potent surround track. It's great to see some decent, hard-R movies like "Daybreakers" and "Wolfman" remake in the midst of this PG-13 pseudo vampire c**p.

I agree mc_serenity, Daybreakers and Wolfman were both a great change of pace of these bloodless, soulless vampire flicks such as Twilight and New Moon. We needed something dark, gritty, and bloody, and that's what we got. Not only that, but I actually cared for the characters in both Daybreakers and Wolfman, and thought the premise of both movies was strong. With that saying, I like Wolfman a little better (even though I REALLY like Daybreakers) because I thought it was paced better, have better visual effects, and the sexy Emily Blunt.

Nonetheless, both Daybreakers and Wolfman are great movies in my opinion. The acting and premise were both strong and both films offered great gore. I don't see why some people didn't like either movies. You wanted a dark and grisly horror picture and you got one.

Primogen18 wrote:  Did they really have to name the guy Edward and have a human "love interest" for him?

This movie was shot and finished before the first "Twilight" movie ever went into production (shooting was in summer 2007 and the movie was essentially finished a year later). Lionsgate delayed it to a 2010 release, but the end credits have a "Copyright MMVIII" notice at the very end.

And this was far more refreshing as a vampire movie. Some really nice gore, a great score and a really potent surround track. It's great to see some decent, hard-R movies like "Daybreakers" and "Wolfman" remake in the midst of this PG-13 pseudo vampire c**p.

Thought this movie had a lot of really good ideas but they were terribly executed. The CGI violence/gore was just silly and over the top while the rest of the movie was very serious in tone. It really took me out of story.

I really did like this film. Will be buying on Blu

Didn't see it. Not really interested, but will catch it sometime on home video.

Legion from Sony would follow on same day as this.