DAYBREAKERS(2010)

(Directed by Michael and Peter Spierig)

"Apparently this was the original story to "Blade 3". Wow, someone sure fumbled there..."- Signed by MartialHorror.

Plot: In a future where vampires dominate the world, the blood supply is nearly run dry and it's up to one Vampire to find a substitute for blood and possibly save humanity in the process.

Review:

I keep hearing how "Twilight" has resurrected or saved the vampire genre, which is pretty much undead itself. The thing is, there hasn't been many vampire movies as of late. Of course there is "New Moon", but that's a sequel. There was also "Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant", but that flopped. Somewhere in there was some spoof film("Transylmania" I think it was called?). No one saw that either. Maybe there are T.V shows that it's inspired, but I don't watch a lot of T.V. Now we have "Daybreakers". If it was inspired by "Twilight", then it sure made a point to be nothing like it. For the last few months, I've had to endure being disappointed at films that were supposed to be great("Avatar"), but here comes a genre film I had notably low expectations of that somehow managed to be better than most of the films in 2009. What a great way to start the year!

Ten years prior to the plot, vampires took over the world, although I'm really not sure how. They're vague in the actual movie, but plot summaries state that it was some sort of outbreak. This, to me, is pretty weak. I mean, what are the odds that some disease creates vampirism as we know it. Would any disease cause you to have no reflection? Come on. I would prefer the mythical approach in that vampires have always existed, and simply overtook the population at some point. Our protagonist is Edward(Ethan Hawke), and I really hope that name isn't meant to be a homage. Edward is a scientist who has been charged with creating a proper blood substitute. You see, vampires need human blood and when they don't get enough, they turn into psychotic "Nosferatu"-esque monsters. Humanity is nearly extinct and Edward, who feels sorry for them, hopes that this substitution will save everyone. Soon, he discovers that the humans might have something better than a substitution, but now he has made an enemy of his own kind and must survive at all costs.

Early in my review I stated that I had low expectations. While I thought that the trailer itself was cool, I can't say I was enthusiastic about how the movie itself looked. For one, the plot looked way too familiar. I was instantly reminded of "Equilibrium", a film that is amazing on the first viewing, but loses its effect pretty quickly. But the movie surprised me for being fairly unpredictable at times. I liked some of its twists. Sure, other twists were pretty predictable, but I've seen a plot of movies, so I can't expect to be always caught off guard. The story itself is full of clever and inspired moments, which is better than most modern day films.

I also hated the films look(from the trailers). Is it just me, or is the whole bleak atmosphere trend already tired? To me, it looks lazy and I have to say that with the economy so bad, bleak is not something I want to watch. Hell, the whole reason I liked "Cirque du Freak" is that it's one of the few modern day movies that actually is colorful with the atmosphere. Luckily, "Daybreakers" shocked me again by delivering a very effectively bleak atmosphere. The art-design looks detailed and it's bleak for a reason. The vampires, while many seem to prefer their lifestyle or at least are content with it, never look very happy. They are used to being alive, used to immortality, and it's already gotten old to them. They live in eternal darkness, and the lights they use feel very phony, as if representing their fake happiness. On the other hand, the scenes with the humans during the day are very bright and colorful. They might die, but that just means they cherish life that much more. It adds emotional weight to the visuals. Charles Bromley(Sam Neil), Edward's boss, states that vampirism is a blessing and you truly do not know that unless you faced death(he had cancer before being turned). However, he has forgotten what it feels like to appreciate life because of it, and can't bring himself to cherish it. A villain who no longer knows a value of life can be a true villain indeed. But while it may have turned him monstrous, it also makes him a multi-developed character.

The directors, who had previously did the flawed-but-fun "Undead", show more skill this time around. The style is fluid and intoxicating, yet they also develop an atmosphere of dread and repression. The color-scheme is awesome and most of all: They use genuine suspense. It's sad that you don't see a lot of suspense in films anymore. If you liked "300" and "Ninja Assassin", you should like the over-the-top gore sequences that are highlighted with its slick use of slow motion. I also laud the fact that they don't whore CGI like so many modern filmmakers do. They often use practical effects, and only use CGI when it benefits them. In essence, these guys deliver everything I want in a film of this type. Yay!

Yet what do I love the most? The vampire iconography. I'm tired of the raping of the vampire myth(I'm looking at you, Stephanie Meyer). Vampires either sparkle under sunlight or it's passed off as a "28 Days Later"-esque disease where they are no more than limber, crazy-ass zombies. Here, the old vampire mythos is brought back, although there aren't any crosses or garlic seen here. But they add their own twist to vampirism, such as them transforming when they lack blood. They really combine two different sets of vampiric traits here, which is cool. I also love what they do with the sunlight. I won't tell you how it works, but it is ingenious in its execution. See? You can add to the Vampire myth and strengthen it, without ruining it. I never thought I would say this, but I can take vampires seriously again. Oh yeah, on a final note, the directors insert random scenes of bats here. It adds to the vampiric atmosphere, but it also works as a nice running gag. Sometimes they will jump out at you, which works because we jump, but also makes it surprisingly comical. Oh yeah, the film is pretty funny as well, using satire on modern day things that are used in the vampires world, such as toothpaste for vampires. I like that there are no jokes, no funny dialogue, yet the film managed to crack me up anyway.

If I have any issues of contention with "Daybreakers", it's that there are moments where common sense seems to be lacking and some plot holes arise. The most distracting bit for me was how the humans travel in the dark at one point. I really had difficulty buying that. Furthermore, there are some unanswered questions. When humans die, what happens then? The odd thing is characters will even point this out, but no one else really seems to consider this. Maybe that's the downside of being a vampire. The need to feed kills common sense. Maybe some of this material was cut out, because apparently the movie was made in 2007 but wasn't released until.....now. Something had to have happened behind the scenes.

With that said, "Daybreakers" was a superb experience. It has great action, great horror, great twists and turns, great gore sequences and an all around great atmosphere. I went in expecting something average and came out with something great. If you're a fan of the vampires old, as in Hammer Studio vampire old, then you should get a kick out of "Daybreakers" because it takes the old and creates something new out of it. Screw those pussy, sparkling vampires! We need some Daybreakers!

Violence: Throughout most of the movie, it's Rated R worthy but it doesn't become too graphic until the end. Yikes.

Nudity: Some, but it's not pleasant. You basically see a bunch of naked humans being harvested for blood.

Overall: "Daybreakers" was a great way to start 2010. Fans of REAL vampire movies, fans of sci-fi utopias, fans of bleak settings and fans of action-horror can rejoice. They have found a possible champion...for the year anyway.

3.5/4 Stars