Review: “Daybreakers”
I’m not the vampire flick kinda guy. I mean, I like it, but I didn’t rush to the movies to see “30 Days of Night” even though my friends said it kicked ass. But with “Daybreakers”, ever since the first teaser, I was definitely excited because it finally gave us the promise of something new in the genre. Sure, there’ve been other movies with different points of view on the “myth” behind vampirism, but this is one that really goes all the way into asking: “what if it really happened”?
Now, if you remember, there has been a series of movies about vampires that thought the best approach to the subject was to sacrifice some mythical vampire rules in order to achieve proximity to the audience. Heck, even “True Blood”, the hugely successful series, takes a lot of liberties, like different rules as to how a human is turned, blablabla… And I am all for it, but “Daybreakers” sticks to the classic rules and, from one storyteller to another (or not) it seemed to me that classic is the new fresh. Vampires came from Bats, hate sunlight, LOVE human blood and, one of the coolest gimmicks in the film, they don’t have a reflection. And instead of ignoring this to bring the subject closer to our reality, it uses these “silly” elements to intensify a frightening reality where vampires have taken over our world. Cars don’t have personal mirrors, but instead have micro-cameras with small LCD screens so that vamps can fix their make-up, cars have a day-driving mode where all the windows are blackened down, etc. It’s really cool.
Were it only for the successful creation of a believable world for the movie, I’d already have liked it. But “Daybreakers” offers a convincing cast of characters and an entertaining story, that while being sort of a let-down for those expecting a highly moralistic plot, it still stands above most of what horror-movies can offer today mainly because, while offering a concise plot and believable characters, it’s remains fun, bloody, gory and everything else you could wish for as a horror fan.
The movie does feature a great cast, with Ethan Hawke as the reluctant vampire hemo-whatever (scientist working on a blood-substitute, since most humans are already dead/dry) being the least inspired of the main-characters. Sam Neil scares the crap out of everyone as the CEO of the company that supplies blood to the vampire-population, but it’s Willem Dafoe who steals the show as an ex-vamp who was “miraculously” brought back. And that’s where my biggest grudge with “Daybreakers” comes from:
The trailer promised a frightening vision of a future ruled by vampires who need humans to live, and treat us like a sub-species, not much unlike the Nazis. The vamps were both portrayed as the evil-doers, but more importantly, it showed that most of them didn’t have a choice (like Ethan Hawke’s character)… That, the actors involved, and the beautiful rendition of “Running Up That Hill” by Placebo made me believer, or at least want to believe real hard, that this would do for vampire and horror-flicks what “The Dark Knight” did for comic-book adaptations. It really looked like a slick, noir-ish vision of the genre with solid performances and a deep, convincing, moralistic plot… What it delivered was one of the coolest horror-flicks in recent memory, but still not achieving that next step.
Popularity: 1%
It’s a rare thing, to read a movie review and know, for a fact, if you’re gonna like this movie or not. Movies have existed for over a century now, and with all the changes in techniques and styles, older movies have become irrelevant as a reference for the modern public. Movie critics have become overzealous of their knowledge in cinematic history and forgotten the fact that most people watch movies just to have a good time.
