Daybreakers (C+ or 2.5/4 stars)
Vampire movies all are the rage right now. Most disappoint. Having said that, though this film doesn't live up to its early promise, 'Daybreakers', written/directed by the Spierig bros., brings more ideoligical & allegorical ideas to the vampire genre than most other films have done in a long time. Vampires - you know we love 'em. We've grown up learning that garlic keeps them away, that they don't like their reflection, that they can fly in bat form, that stakes through the heart kill them & that the sun is their ultimate foe. Like other recent vamp flicks, those rules don't really apply here. Though, none are as asinine as Twilight's vampires sparkling in the sunlight. No, this film has a little more to say. The premise is fascinating: what would happen if a vampire epidemic overtook planet Earth; and humans became an endangered species (5% of the population)? How would they conserve?
Early in the film, we see how society could emerge in this situation (with military, technological, political, & economic ramifications). Also, allegorically, the premise could be speaking about what it means to be human/vampire, & the morality involving ethnic cleansing. So you see, this isn't just some standard order, re-telling with gothic romance & non-stop gore. The story is as follows: It is 2019, and Dr. Ed Dalton (Ethan Hawke), a reluctant vampire, works as chief hematologist at a blood bank/pharmaceutical firm; tasked with developing a synthetic hemoglobin that would meet the vampire society's needs. Blood supply is dwindling, so the remaining humans are being farmed for their blood in a vast compartment space (awesome to look at). The dominant race (vampires) is fractured. Vampires attacking other vampires results in mutations. And some vampires are committing suicide (a young girl sits on her lawn when the sun comes up - to incinerate her. She'd rather die now than turn into a grotesque bat-like creature - which is what happens when there's no blood in the body).
So, to avoid all of this, the CEO of said blood bank, Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), sees dollar signs not only from selling artificial blood but also to sell it for connoisseurs willing to pay a higher price. Ed, however, won't drink human blood on principle. Instead, and averse to the likings of his soldier bother, Frankie (Michael Dorman), Ed survives on a product engineered from pigs. Ed's life changes when he encounters a small posse of humans led by Audrey (Australian actress, Claudia Karvan) & a redneck named Elvis (Willem Dafoe). Sympathetic to the human cause, Ed agrees to help them ... but knows not what lies ahead. Elvis, a human-turned-vampire, is now human again(!), & has unintendedly discovered a cure to vampirism; but has no idea how to scientifically duplicate it. It's up to Ed to figure it out, & if he does, he becomes the biggest threat to Charles Bromley's vampire dominance. Furthermore, there's yet another twist to this new vampire 'cure' that even Ed hadn't yet noticed. Can Ed & his covert group of humans cure the vampires with their remarkable cure(s) & save the human race?
I hoped that 'Daybreakers' would live up to its early promise - it doesn't. It's not as good as, say, 28 Days Later, but it's better than the Twilight movies of recent years. From a visual standpoint, there's brilliance in some of the details. Small things, like: the girl letting the sun hit her so she won't morph into the bat-creature; the Starbucks-like coffee corp. that substitutes blood for half-&-half, etc. The design of the bat-creatures is cool (in a gothic/horror way). The color schemes throughout the film are shocking blues & greens. The blood is near-black. I loved seeing how vampires adapt to staying away from sunlight (their cars have special tinting & mechanisms that shield them). The main problem(s) is: the characters are paper-thin, there's a general lack of fun, & the dialogue is atrocious (in spots) - at one point, a character faces an awkward silence & exclaims, 'This is one fuc*ing ugly room' - problem is, it is said without a hint of sarcasm, or irony. It's said 'straight', and the comment falls flat on its face. I felt embarrassed for the Willem Dafoe character.
Speaking of him, no one in the cast really impresses. I'm particularly disappointed in Sam Neill's business tycoon portrayal; as his villainry was brilliant in The Tudors. As far as any blood-soaked action goes, it's all pretty self-congratulatory, & the climax felt way too obligatory. Also, I mentioned earlier how superior in ideas/narrative this film is to the 'Twilight' films, however, what this film lacks that that franchise HAS is red-blooded intrigue btwn. the 2 leads (Bella & Edward). But overall, I'm giving 'Daybreakers' a mild pass because I liked more in it than I didn't. The production is impressive. There are some genuine scares. The 2 cures for vampirism are as equally fascinating as they are absurd. And the initial premise goes a long way. But really, in the end, the plot disappoints, as does the action, & all you'll think is 'That was better than expected', 'The exploding bat-creatures were sick!' or 'Ethan Hawke is aging well'.
Early in the film, we see how society could emerge in this situation (with military, technological, political, & economic ramifications). Also, allegorically, the premise could be speaking about what it means to be human/vampire, & the morality involving ethnic cleansing. So you see, this isn't just some standard order, re-telling with gothic romance & non-stop gore. The story is as follows: It is 2019, and Dr. Ed Dalton (Ethan Hawke), a reluctant vampire, works as chief hematologist at a blood bank/pharmaceutical firm; tasked with developing a synthetic hemoglobin that would meet the vampire society's needs. Blood supply is dwindling, so the remaining humans are being farmed for their blood in a vast compartment space (awesome to look at). The dominant race (vampires) is fractured. Vampires attacking other vampires results in mutations. And some vampires are committing suicide (a young girl sits on her lawn when the sun comes up - to incinerate her. She'd rather die now than turn into a grotesque bat-like creature - which is what happens when there's no blood in the body).
So, to avoid all of this, the CEO of said blood bank, Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), sees dollar signs not only from selling artificial blood but also to sell it for connoisseurs willing to pay a higher price. Ed, however, won't drink human blood on principle. Instead, and averse to the likings of his soldier bother, Frankie (Michael Dorman), Ed survives on a product engineered from pigs. Ed's life changes when he encounters a small posse of humans led by Audrey (Australian actress, Claudia Karvan) & a redneck named Elvis (Willem Dafoe). Sympathetic to the human cause, Ed agrees to help them ... but knows not what lies ahead. Elvis, a human-turned-vampire, is now human again(!), & has unintendedly discovered a cure to vampirism; but has no idea how to scientifically duplicate it. It's up to Ed to figure it out, & if he does, he becomes the biggest threat to Charles Bromley's vampire dominance. Furthermore, there's yet another twist to this new vampire 'cure' that even Ed hadn't yet noticed. Can Ed & his covert group of humans cure the vampires with their remarkable cure(s) & save the human race?
I hoped that 'Daybreakers' would live up to its early promise - it doesn't. It's not as good as, say, 28 Days Later, but it's better than the Twilight movies of recent years. From a visual standpoint, there's brilliance in some of the details. Small things, like: the girl letting the sun hit her so she won't morph into the bat-creature; the Starbucks-like coffee corp. that substitutes blood for half-&-half, etc. The design of the bat-creatures is cool (in a gothic/horror way). The color schemes throughout the film are shocking blues & greens. The blood is near-black. I loved seeing how vampires adapt to staying away from sunlight (their cars have special tinting & mechanisms that shield them). The main problem(s) is: the characters are paper-thin, there's a general lack of fun, & the dialogue is atrocious (in spots) - at one point, a character faces an awkward silence & exclaims, 'This is one fuc*ing ugly room' - problem is, it is said without a hint of sarcasm, or irony. It's said 'straight', and the comment falls flat on its face. I felt embarrassed for the Willem Dafoe character.
Speaking of him, no one in the cast really impresses. I'm particularly disappointed in Sam Neill's business tycoon portrayal; as his villainry was brilliant in The Tudors. As far as any blood-soaked action goes, it's all pretty self-congratulatory, & the climax felt way too obligatory. Also, I mentioned earlier how superior in ideas/narrative this film is to the 'Twilight' films, however, what this film lacks that that franchise HAS is red-blooded intrigue btwn. the 2 leads (Bella & Edward). But overall, I'm giving 'Daybreakers' a mild pass because I liked more in it than I didn't. The production is impressive. There are some genuine scares. The 2 cures for vampirism are as equally fascinating as they are absurd. And the initial premise goes a long way. But really, in the end, the plot disappoints, as does the action, & all you'll think is 'That was better than expected', 'The exploding bat-creatures were sick!' or 'Ethan Hawke is aging well'.