La hermandad

It's the year 2019 and the world has been taken over by vampires. Humans are being farmed for their blood, but there are fewer and fewer of them. Vampires turn feral when they don't get human blood. So the dwindling human race have real devastating consequences. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a vampire, but he's searching for a blood substitute. He wants to save the human race. That's why the humans want his help for the ultimate cure.

The concept is terrific. The execution lacks the required intensity. While it has great ideas, the movie just doesn't have the pace or the action to sustain it. Ideas are not enough. This movie needs better hands to squeeze more excitement out of the script.

The big acting names in this are Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, and Sam Neill. They give the movie instant credibility that's more than its B-movie roots. However to justify that credibility, they need to increase the drama.

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.

There is no shortage of on screen vampires these days. However 'Daybreakers' scores with a unique twist in what is becoming an overworked genre: What if the undead are the majority? In 2019, due to a plague, most of the world's population have become vampires and the few humans left are hunted down and farmed for blood. This topsy-turvy "new normal" is sharply and amusingly depicted as being eerily similar to current living with the important difference that the populace go about their business at night and enjoy shots of blood in their coffee. Aging, famine, and disease have been eradicated, however sunlight is lethal. There is also still a class system, with destitute vampires who cannot afford a regular fix of blood turning into violent, deformed creatures called "subsiders".

But there is a problem. The vampires' insatiable appetite for blood has driven the residual human population to the point of extinction and left the blood supply almost exhausted. Enter Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke), a scientist working for a massive pharmaceutical conglomerate headed by the evil Charles Bromley (Sam Neill). His job is to find a blood substitute to ward off mass starvation. Dalton secretly sympathizes with the remaining humans and hopes that his work will result in their persecution being halted. After connecting with some human survivors, he realizes that there may be an even more radical solution to the problem. However, not every solution is profitable..

From beginning to end this film is big, gory fun. There are some interesting and agreeable plot twists and the film's more metaphorical aspects (which are not exactly subtle to begin with) are upfront but not preachy. The special effects and action scenes are top-notch also, particularly a gruesome set-piece near the film's climax. The Spierig brothers also manage to insert some big scary jolts at regular intervals. All the cast are solid but special mention should go to Sam Neill who does not chew scenery as the main villain of the piece but definitely nibbles here and there. Willem Dafoe is good too, as always. "Daybreakers" also passes a key horror movie test: when you leave the theater, the outside world does not look quite as reassuring as it normally does. Well worth seeing.

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.

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