Daybreakers (2009) Reviews

• Could have been a genre-defining one, but still good...

  ijenuse-12010-01-07

  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

• Creative film with a lazy ending

  Cujo1082010-05-09

  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.

• A strong premise that regrettably becomes pointless.

  amesmonde2010-03-31

  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.

• Bloody Good time

  gregsrants2009-09-13

  No creature in the history of film has been represented more than vampires. Hundreds and hundreds of films dating back as far as 1909's Vampire of the Coast have explored the undead that sprout fangs that walk among us at night. Over the past years, vampire film and television production has gone into high gear. From Twilight to The Vampire Diaries to True Blood, if you are looking for bloodsuckers, you don't have to search very far. The challenge most writers and filmmakers are faced with therefore is making a vampire film seem fresh and inventive. The Blade series did a good job in the 1990's pitting vampire against vampire. 30 Days of Night was genius in having the vampires travel to the one place on earth where the sun doesn't appear for months at a time. And Let The Right One In was a foreign gem that surely ranks as one of the genres best. But writer/directors Michael and Peter Spierig (The Undead) had a new idea. What if in the future the world is dominated by vampires instead of humans. And what if, with so few humans left, the blood supply that vampires need to survive becomes scarce. Enter, Daybreakers, the new film by the Spierig brothers that stars Willem Dafoe, Sam Neill and Ethan Hawke. Daybreakers takes place in the year 2019. The world is not all that different from what it is now. People still drive cars and go to work. There are businessmen, policemen and even homeless (with signs around their neck asking for people to donate blood). What is different is that all these professions and people are vampires. Humans are in short supply and when captured, they are harvested for their blood. Humans are so scarce in fact that they account for less than 5% of the population and the blood supply that vampires need to survive has less than a months left in reserve. If a vampire begins to starve he turns into a hideous creature. A monster that cannot reason or communicate and preys on humans and vampires alike. Scientists are hard at work trying to find a synthetic blood or solution to their problem. Lead by Edward (Ethan Hawke), the team is on the brink of solving the international shortage. Edward is a conflicted vampire. As both a scientist and a human sympathizer, Edward wishes for the simpler times long before the vampire outbreak. By chance, Edward crosses paths with a group of fleeing humans lead by Audrey Bennett (Claudia Karvan). After Edward helps them escape their vampire stalkers, Audrey introduces him to Elvis (Williem Dafoe) – a former vampire that has miraculously converted back to human. Just how Elvis was able to adapt back to human form takes about a quarter of the film wherein Edward works with Elvis to understand and then to do a vampire trial on the process found successful. All the while, the vampire police, army and the conglomerate lead by Charles Bromley (Sam Neill) that wants to harvest the humans are quickly in toe with only daylight stopping them from their ultimate goal. Daybreakers was good, intelligent fun with blood splatter and jump-out-of-your-seat moments that are lacking in horror films today. The Spierig brothers have done an exceptional job of taking the conventional vampire film and turning it into something new and fresh. They have plenty of moments where they go for the jugular, but if you were to take their story and replace human blood with oil, you can argue it is a social commentary on how humans would react when cut off their most valued resource. Plenty of action – including some cool car chase scenes – and at least 10 jump-out-of-your-seat moments, Daybreakers delivers on bringing a bloody good story packed with severed limbs, chopped off heads and (of course) the burning of vampire skin when exposed to sunlight. Those horror conventions aside, Daybreakers brings air to the deflated genre and keeps the Spierig brothers as two to watch in the upcoming years.

• The pieces are better than the whole

  dbborroughs2010-01-18

  Plague has turned most of the population into vampires who have taken over the world and begun feasting on the remaining humans. The trouble is that the human population is running out and unless they can find a blood substitute they are going to starve. Ethan Hawke plays the chief vampire hematologist who harbors a soft spot for humans, and who stumbles upon a way of possibly saving everyone. Directed and written by Michael Spierig and Peter Spierig who turned out the great looking but dramatically messy The Undead about a meteor that turns a small town into zombies, we're once more into the great looking but dramatically odd territory. Much of the film looks like a vampire film noir. It looks like a Sam Spade will come wandering in at any moment. The horror sequences are bloody and frightening, the action is often amazing. The problem here is the story. While its not all over the place like the directors' earlier film it does have plot holes and at times lurches from things to thing in a none too natural manner. I was frequently wanting to stop and ask questions about why and how since little seems clear unless you just take it all on faith. I couldn't do that because the film was asking me to believe too many impossible things. the result was I was loving the pieces but only kind of liking the whole. I'd wait for home video.