Daybreakers

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

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.

In the near future, a bat-borne plague has turned 99% of the human population into vampires. The remaining humans are hunted down and farmed for blood by a corporation headed by Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), an individual who views vampirism as a miracle since he was dying before the plague broke out. There aren't many humans left though, and when a vamp goes without blood, they turn into grotesque Nosferatu variants called subsiders. Bromley enlists his top hematologist (Ethan Hawke) to come up with a blood substitute, but an underground band of surviving humans has a different resolution in mind.

This film has a unique premise, and for the first hour or so, I thoroughly enjoyed exploring the world that Michael and Peter Spierig created. The opening scene shows one of the downsides of vampirism, as a girl takes her life rather than be stuck in a child's body for eternity. There were other fun touches thrown in too, like blood coming in wine bottles and being poured over ice. The film's storyline touches on themes of corporate greed taking precedent over the good of the public, and there is an underlying oil subtext that is less than subtle.

The second half turns into a clichéd mess. The ending in particular is really cheesy as a result. Truthfully, I would have been happy if the whole band of humans idea had been scrapped entirely. Surely they could've come up with something a little better. I mean, this is a pretty creative film. Other segments of the picture seem rushed, like the subplot involving Bromley's daughter. Speaking of Bromley, Sam Neill is one of my favorite actors, so it was great seeing him in a genre film again. His presence is the highlight of Daybreakers. I've never much cared for Hawke, and his performance here did nothing to change my mind. Willem Dafoe also pops up, and while I usually do like him, his character here is annoying.

As is, chalk it up as a movie that could've been more. Oh well, at least it's way better than the last work from the Spierigs, Undead. That was one of the rare films that I stopped watching halfway through. Quick note: I saw a father and two young teens leave shortly after an early scene involving a gory testing of the blood substitute. Guess they thought this would be another Twilight.

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.

Daybreakers (2009) is set in a dystopian society where almost every human has been turned into a vampire, this movie follows Edward Dalton, a vampire who works alongside humans to find a cure. I'm so glad I watched this film because I really enjoyed it and found it to be super gripping and engaging. The performances were a big standout and I ended up rooting for our protagonist!

I loved the cinematography in this film! It was very well thought out, and added a weird dream-like look to the movie. The colour palettes were really nice and the green and blue tints were great. It was a visually dark movie too, but I thought it pulled it off well.

The visual effects mainly haven't aged that well, however the gore still looked really good and I was impressed! Also, I loved the look of the vampires, it was so simple yet effective!

Ethan Hawke was likeable and iconic in his role, he was a great protagonist! Alongside him, Willem Dafoe did brilliantly, and Sam Neill made an intimidating and strong villain with a clear motive. The performances are helped by fun and engaging dialogue.

The score was used very tastefully, and was very subtle. The strings used were super fitting and added to the ominous and eerie atmosphere the film set. In addition, the sound design was effective too!

The film set an unnerving and weird tone, and had slow and steady pacing. It had a strange vibe that I really liked and was super enjoyable! The film is consistently interesting and full of tense and unique moments. Something I really liked was the cure, and how it was vampire blood. This was such a smart bit of writing and the reveal was great. The last 10 minutes were chaotic too, and a very satisfying climax.