Redundant and unnecessary.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Absolutely the worst movie.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

My review of this film is not that of a professional film critic, but rather an average viewer not looking to dissect the film stock, directing, etc.. While it was not the perfect film, it was damn close. I will refrain from spoiling the plot with excessive detail, though I am very tempted, as it's quite apparent that some here (1 out of 10) simply did not understand what happened in this film. (To that person, I say stick to Scooby Doo, where they explain it all at the end.) While some may have been put off by the low-budget appearance of the film, I simply don't get this argument. I saw nothing that detracted from the story. The filming never bothered me. The acting was superb. The filming style and the lackluster appearance were perfect for this type of storytelling. This movie did not require lavish scenes, nor great special effects. Simply put, this was a great story told through visual medium.I'll admit that the movie does start slowly, but it sucked me in rather quickly. Initially, it had the familiar feel of another "twisted to be twisted" film. I'll say that did not subside for quite some time, but in this case, it really, really worked. Instead of being put off, I found myself to be more intrigued. This can be credited to great shot sequence and outstanding acting by Paul. I became as lost as the main character. I wondered after clues as to what might be real and imagined. In short, I took the ride that our main character did. This is truly rare for me in today's cinema! My only complaints would be with a few of the minor characters. A few of them came off as a bit cliché. The story called for this, but I felt it wasn't done quite well enough to make me forget that people like this really do exist. This may have been the "low budget" feel that some have pointed out. This is a very minor complaint; one more in hindsight rather than anything that distracted me from the story.Finally, the summation brought things into a nice (if subdued) clarity. It wasn't the abstract ending that I usually hate in a film that starts off so surreally. It made sense. I got it (and slightly ahead of the reveal). Story-wise, it was a great answer. Plot-wise, I would have fleshed the ending out just a bit more. It felt a little rushed.Again, this was a fantastic film that I look forward to watching again. Perhaps, my subsequent viewing will give way to my notice of some of the flaws that may exist. However, nothing will take away from the fact that my first viewing was refreshingly and unexpectedly great. Kudos to all of those involved!

Not many people have voted for Daydreamer, and even less have written a review. Because of this I'm writing this review, and with English not being my native language, I'll try my best to make it understandable for everyone.The reason I watched Daydreamer is the brilliant acting Aaron Paul has shown us as Jesse Pinkman in the television series Breaking Bad (if you haven't watched it, stop reading and go watch it now). In this movie Aaron Paul has a slightly similar role as in Breaking Bad.In Daydreamer he's a young drug-addict that has no ambition to change the miserable path he's on. And then he meets this classy blonde girl that turns his life upside down without him even realising it. It sounds cliché right? It's not. The movie keeps you guessing what's going on. Not even the main character knows what's going on. And the ending, it really caught me by surprise.Overall it's a good movie, it's honest, dark, cruel and brilliantly edited. It definitely deserves more views than it has right now.

I'm a pretty harsh movie critic, but there is one thing I'm generally pretty forgiving about, and that is when people are trying to do something original. Even if the end product isn't The Godfather, I'll still walk away happy that at least a few people aren't trying to make a movie that's just like every other one on the planet.I saw Daydreamer at the Vail Film Festival, and in this case, I give a lot of credit to the filmmakers for making an indie flick that's a clever twist on a stale genre--that of multiple personalities. I don't want to ruin any plot details, but basically this movie could be considered to be the existential opposite of such films as Fight Club, and such classic stories as Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde, or that of the Incredible Hulk.I don't mean to sound ambiguous, but let's just say that the filmmakers chose to take the story of a man who obviously has a bit of an issue with possible multiple personalities, and went in a philosophical direction than almost any other movie of the genre.And for that, I give them credit.As for the movie itself, it is shaky in a few places, but overall, very entertaining. There are a few scenes in particular that were interesting and had some actual, genuine humor sprinkled throughout the film.So I would recommend that you figure out a way to see it. Not sure whether it's got distribution or not but I know it will, and when it does, check it out! The performances, the music, and the direction are very good for an indie film, and the story definitely struck a chord with me.

It has the look and feel of a bad high school play, where basic elements of pacing and plot were unknown to the producer(s). Even the name "Daydreamer" doesn't make sense in the context of the film. It's a confusing story that starts out muddled and gets worse as the movie goes on. There are holes in the story that aren't resolved, despite their apparent attempt to "wrap it up" at the end. The camera work is sophomoric to the point where I believe someone bought their kid a Sony DVW for Hanukkah and they suddenly thought they could make a movie. The actors are like so much of Hollywood today: models that look good on screen but can't act their way out of a grocery bag. This movie made my head hurt; not because it's nonsensical and hard to watch, but because someone actually paid money to make it.