Daybreakers

Daybreakers is a superbly fresh and entertaining vampire experience. The film takes place in a dystopian future only a decade from now in which an outbreak in vampirism has turned the known world on its head. Contrary to the typical vampire film setup, vampires make up the majority of the world's population here and humans, who are either being framed for blood or are in hiding, make up only around 5%. In a way, the setup somewhat reminds me of the film Equilibrium, with vampires added into the mix.

The film finely balances sci-fi, horror, and action and I also really appreciated the utter desperation present in the film. So many action movies go so over-the-top in their action heroes that you never feel like their in any danger of being defeated, but here all odds are against our protagonists and, as events unfold, their situation grows gloomier and gloomier.

The entire cast--which includes Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill, William Dafoe, and Claudia Karvan—is on top of their game here and play the material straight, which is very refreshing. Especially Sam Neill, whom I've always been a fan of since I saw Jurassic Park as a kid, is great here and he really manages to steal the show in his scenes.

Also refreshing is the amount of bloodletting and thematic material present here. Make no mistake, Daybreakers is a "hard 'R'" and full of violence and grotesque sites like starving vampires turning into monstrosities that are hard to look at. The film also had ideas and much to say about a struggling society in the face of low supply to meet high demand.

I wasn't a huge fan of Undead, but the Spierig Brothers have truly crafted something special here. I do wish the film was a bit longer as I wanted to know more about the society the story took place in, but that's a testament to the film itself. If you're seeking a more adult vampire film with enough substance to excuse its style, I recommend Daybreakers.

Related Recommendations: Equilibrium, Gattaca, They Live, Aeon Flux , Blade, Blade II, The Matrix

Some films contain better ideas for another film. That is exactly what we have here in Daybreakers. In the future, we are all vampires. Only this isn't I am Legend. We walk, talk and do as we used to do. The major difference being that we must obviously drink blood and avoid the sun. Thus any and all humans are captured and farmed for blood until the day they die. We have found a way to do these things and maintain the semblance of our day-to-day. This is the film I so wanted to see. A function society of vampires living in a world built for humanity. Sadly, we don't get enough of it.

What's left of humanity survives by day and dodges at night. Hematologist Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke…wow its' been a while) is sympathetic to their cause because he does in fact still possess his humanity. His boss (Sam Neil) simply wants capital which should have far less importance in a world where blood is the only real necessity. Dalton's goal is to find either a cure for the disease (never explained) or a substitute to replace human blood which is dwindling fast. If the powers that be can't find a solution we will all change into a creature resembles a mutant bat and Mickey Rourke's face from The Wrestler. Dalton stumbles upon a group of humans who have found a way to cure the disease. This method is explained so simplistically it's stupid to think another vampire or two wouldn't have stumbled upon it by accident too. Among this group is Audrey (Claudia Kraven) and Elvis (Willem Dafoe…here setting a precedent for cliché' sadly). Elvis has been cured thanks to his love of fast cars. Don't ask. I'll only groan.

Daybreakers is far from a bad film but it's certainly a stubborn and frustrating one. There is such a fantastic idea here that is tossed aside because we are supposed to identify more with the humans than we are expected to be fascinated by this vampire-urbanity. The action scenes are rather clunky as well and not at all thrilling. That's quite peculiar because some shots in the film look so stellar you'd think they are from a different budget. Characterization is also at a bare minimum. Dalton for example has a soldier brother who serves simply as someone who can move the plot along, he doesn't have to provide any real emotion. Neil also has a daughter (Isabel Lucas last seen as chick-bot in Transformers II) whose screen time and presence in the film is really an utter waste. I suppose it provides Neil some motivation later on in the film but again, this only serves the plot. It doesn't make the film any better which can be said about most of the scenes here.

A lot of folks…scratch that a lot of DUDES will like Daybreakers simply because it is not New Moon. The vampires actually bite things, are dangerous, act like they are vampires and not CW stars, and the blood flows freely (the last 10 minutes may be the goriest since Planet Terror). I didn't make this comparison as the two films only have the term vampire in common. Instead I saw a film that used a genius premise to set-up a rather boring, dull and far too conventional 2 hours. I wish there was more to elaborate on but truthfully any mediocre film will make you say this: I don't care to.

Saw 'Daybreakers' at Piccadilly today. Been curious ever since i saw the trailers and being an Ethan Hawke fan decided to check it out anyway. The film started out on a bloody brilliant note. The scenes conveying the near-extinction of the human race and how the vampires are taking over and how the vampires themselves are threatened by the blood shortage issue was done rather effectively and the audience seemed to love it. There is a sense of foreboding throughout the film which can be expected in the genre, but nevertheless is very vital to it as most films fall short here. Daybreakers is not your typical cliché-ridden vampire horror. There has obviously been some sensible writing involved here. But towards the end the screenwriter tends to lose his grip and throws in some regular scenes just for the sake of cheap thrills and gore. This for me did take a bit away from the essence of the film especially considering the rest of the film was great,

But nevertheless I would recommend this film, as there is much to be enjoyed. The cinematography and colour combos and contrasts have been created masterfully. Even most of the cgi seems credible enough. Ethan Hawke is his usual intense self and Sam Neil re-surfaces into the mainstream with a Batman-sounding villain character. But its William Defoe as one of "the folks with the cross-bows" who gets the best lines in the film. Sample this- " a human in a world of vampires is about as safe as barebacking a five dollar whore!"

Could have been a great vampire flick, a genre defining one, but is reduced to merely a good one. But that isn't too bad considering the amount of vampire dung we were dished out for the entirety of 09. This one is the best of the lot! Cheers

A vampiric corporation sets out to capture and farm the remaining humans while researching a blood substitute.

Daybreakers has a captivating promising start, the is year 2019, a plague has transformed almost every human into vampires.

Directors Michael Spierig and Peter Spierig give the viewer an awe-inspiring vision of the future, the cityscape is amazing. It's also packed with excellent make up effects and nicely executed CGI. The film reflects some great parallels of today's social structure and struggles.

Sam Neill is the perfect vampire leader and Ethan Hawke is good as the trouble vampire who feels pity on the remaining humans.

However, sadly the film takes a turn for the worse when the usually excellent veteran actor Willem Dafoe turns up. From then on the film stumbles until the end credits as it stomps on the great idea's and visuals that came before, with bad dialogue and corny premises. Once the action moves from the city to countryside it's as if the producers turned a switch to- 'mediocre', with echoes of John Carpenters Vampires (1998).

An engaging strong intellectual start, regrettably becomes a futile unoriginal drip by the end.

Daybreakers is about a plague that has transformed most every human into vampires. Faced with a dwindling blood supply, the fractured dominant race plots their survival; meanwhile, a researcher works with a covert band of vamps on a way to save humankind....but you already knew that. Like putting a plastic bag over some one's head, things quickly get violent and out of control.

Special effects: Moderate, not much was needed for the movie. The death of the vampires were a little more violent than usual, however the entertainment behind it balanced it out.

Plot: "Find a cure or we all die" has been used frequently before, and there wasn't much of a twist.

Setting: The setting was a dark futuristic setting, Imagine Las Vegas at night...with all white neon. Perfect setting for this movie. Worth seeing? Yes. Not worth sprinting to the theaters, however it is worth seeing. I'd give it a 7/10.

This movie is such a relief from the romantic necrophilia of the Twilight series. It's good to see scary vampires again.