Most disaster movies begin with the first signs of a zombie/plague/vampire/alien apocalypse and then work their way forwards. How will this small band of unlikely heroes fight against impending disaster and avoid becoming their worst nightmares? Daybreakers starts after the human resistance has, for all intents and purposes, lost. A vampire plague has swept through the world’s population, turning everyone into immortal yellow-eyed blood eaters. The small population of humans that remain mostly exist in “farms” where their cardiovascular systems are pumped for vampire food.
I like my vampire’s non-sparkly and traditional and, for the most part, Daybreakers sticks with tradition. The world’s population has changed to account for the new “args! THE SUN!!!” factor, by becoming nocturnal and cutting wood out of their décor. They've organized themselves, however, into the same society that existed before the epidemic proving that boring saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same. There are still senators, still those who have and those who have not. Our hero Edward (the name similarity is not lost on me) is a vampire businessman whose evening commute involves a subway ride and a cup of blood coffee. The opening sequence showing this new normal is the film at its best and most interesting.
To say it goes downhill from there gives the film some disservice. The problem is that after an interesting beginning and set-up, the film gets pretty predictable. When our vampire hero expresses some doubt and guilt about how things are turning out, you pretty much know who he’s going to unexpectedly run into. The dwindling blood supply can’t mean anything good, and the possibility of a cure (I know--the story’s one betrayal of traditional vampirism) propels the story forward to its second half.
Take away the story and the characters and just look at the film itself and it’s pretty visually stunning. I know that I’m a sucker for movies that have the crisp black and gray shades and the futuristic feel about it all--but Daybreakers is just more interesting to look at then something like, say, the Swedish vampire movie Let the Right One In. It has the long shots with no dialogue as cult-favorite Let does, but it also has just more to look at (the skyline of futuristic New York City for example) then a snow covered bridge. What makes this all even more interesting is when night becomes day, as it tends to, the black, grays, and reds of the vampire world are replaced with warm browns and yellows of a human world. Revolutionary, no. Obvious, yes…but pretty cool.
The supporting cast includes the like of Willem Dafoe (or the Green Goblin, which is what I called him for the majority of the film), a woman who really looks like the Jean Grey actress, and Sam Neill (also known as the man who elevates any movie or television show he’s in. See also The Tudors). Ethan Hawke (Edward) remarkably lets himself be less than attractive for a great portion of this film (we should give him props for that) and only makes about ten really stupid decisions (we should give him props for that too.) Some of these characters, Neill for example, even have some interesting, if not predictable, character moments.
In the end, there’s nothing spectacularly wonderful about Daybreakers. The less-then-stellar special effects are mainly hidden behind that alluring, crisp black look. The story gets both predictable and uninteresting towards the end. The acting (besides Neill) is so-so. The message (you know, the whole immortality is a problem thing) isn’t done too well. But at least it’s a vampire film that brings back real vampirism and creates an interesting world. Will I watch it again? No. But hey, I watched the whole thing once.
Show to Watch: Buffy the Vampire Slayer
0 comments:
Post a Comment