Daybreakers

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.

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.

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.

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.