Daybreakers Reviews

I liked it just for the fact it was a completely different approach on the genre than i was use to. Coming from fairly new directors Ill give them leeway on any plot holes and or mistakes made. overall i enjoyed it.

Vampirism has spread throughout humanity to the point where they vastly outnumber the normal humans who have been turned into livestock to replenish the rapidly diminishing stocks of blood. Daybreakers was a really nice surprise. In the seemingly endless parade of pointless vampire films it has a really fresh feel to it as it puts a different spin on the idea rather than rehashing the same old schtick. Ethan Hawke has made a career out of playing off beat, vulnerable anti-heroes and Sam Neill and Willem Dafoe bring their usual dominating presences to the screen which combined with some really nice production design and a smart script makes for a refreshingly different fang flick. My only reservation was with the open ended conclusion which made me think that the Spierig brothers were more interested in angling for a sequel than presenting the audience with a satisfying conclusion to the story, but as a whole it's easily one of the best vampire films I've seen of late.

In a world run by vampires who farm humans for their blood, a hematologist discovers the cure.
I liked the film's unique take on the vampire genre, the idea that with all their extraordinary powers, it's unlikely that vampires would live in an Anne Rice level of hiding and self-despair. By extension, it's unlikely that vampires would abandon human vices like greed and a power-hungry obsession with controlling others, so the Sam Neill character was an excellent villain both thematically and in the actor's performance.
Ethan Hawke may be trying to be understated and soulful, but mostly, he looks weary and disinterested. What motivates Edward's care for humans? Why does he find himself and his predicament despicable? The Anne Rice level of existential despair should at least make a mild comeback if he's going to be the film's protagonist. As an actor, Hawke often makes the mistake of thinking that his brooding looks and absent demeanor do all the character work necessary to keep us interested, but when he's partnered with a personality as big as Willem Dafoe's, Hawke shrinks into the scenery. I also thought that some of the plot twists in the third act were predictable.
Overall, the ideas necessary for good science fiction are actually here, but the story and Ethan Hawke's performance kept Daybreakers from being a stronger film.

This horror action-thriller follows the premise of a virus turning the majority of humanity into vampires by 2009, with the thirst for blood turning humans almost entirely extinct ten years later. When a hematologist discovers the resistance during his search for a blood substitute, things get messy. You gotta give the film credit for using all the classic vampire tropes (sunlight, no reflection etc.) and yet feeling really fresh. It works because the ingredients do: the acting is decent, the cinematography really great, the plot remains unpredictable and keeps you on the edge of your seat. There are also plenty of shock effects and some graphic splatter, but the humor isn't neglected either. An all around fun and exciting ride, even if the ending is probably a tad too open for the majority of viewers.

After over a decade of either stylized action or mushy romanticized vampire films, audiences have been given a movie that pumps new blood into this undead genre. This film looks at a world that is dominated by vampires, and then sheds some light our own human world. When a young sympathetic hematologist meets a rare human, he discovers a cure for vampirism, but is a cure wanted? Daybreakers is intriguing, dark, aggressive, and adventurous. And with fresh twists and marvelous symbolism, it does well for the eyes, and the mind.

Thanks to the current "pussyfication" of vampires - I'm looking at you Twilight - Daybreakers seems like it's coming out at a time where it's too old school to really connect with an audience. I really hope that's not the case, because this simply is a great film. It is a wonderful example of a genre film done right, mixing horror and action together with some intriguing subplots and a subtle sense of humour.
The Spierig Brothers wrote and directed this film. They've obviously put a lot of thought into their script and it shows. Their attention to detail in creating the vampire world suggests that vampires live pretty much the same lives as humans when they're not feeding on them. The central conflict reveals just how reliant on humans vampires really are, and in a world without humans to feed on, the vampire population would die off.
Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, Sam Neill, and Isabel Lucas all create very sympathetic characters. You wouldn't think a horror film would boast great acting, but Daybreakers combines an ensemble cast who all put in a lot of effort. Without spoiling the plot, which never gets too convoluted or cheesy, Daybreakers takes wild twists and turns, creating a world that is both authentic and believable. The action scenes will excite you, the scary scenes will make you jump, and the comedic scenes are hysterical. What more could you want from a genre picture?

I actually enjoyed this vampire movie. It had a very well made plot and acting. The concept is a very smart and good one. I felt it didn't explore the concept enough with it being very short. Out of all the crappy vampire movies ive seen, this movie is a fresh breath of air from the crap we usually see.

This movie was not so great. The best thing about the movie was the blood and gore effects, but that's it.

The first 20 minutes are great, but the film gets worse and worse throughout.

Grade: C-

A new twist on a vampire story. Just to see a new twist on the traditional vampire movies makes this a fun movie to watch. Knowing why no Oscar nominations were given but none the less an enjoyable way to kill a dull evening.

I really enjoyed this interesting modern spin on the ancient tale of the vampire.

I loved the mythology they created and found the story and visuals to be very creative and extremely interesting. Especially all of the cool "vampire-tech" stuff.

I have only two complaints:

- found the music to be off putting and slightly inappropriate, almost an after thought.

- I found the world that they created SO interesting...that I would have enjoyed seeing the whole story told in more detail as perhaps a miniseries.

In these times so saturated with vampires, we now get Daybreakers, a film by the brothers Spierig. The filmmaking duo shows a dystopian society in the near future, in which vampires have become the predominant species. Ethan Hawke plays the main character, Edward (a character that shares a name, but not much more, with the hero from the inferior vampiric saga, Twilight). It's actually nice to watch Ethan Hawke onscreen since he's been mostly absent from it for a while.

Portraying a vampire yet again is Willem Dafoe. Sadly, his "Elvis" is such a loathsome, clichéd, weak character you can't help but feel sorry for the talented actor forced to utter his strange lines, which is even sadder because Dafoe rarely disappoints. Ben Nott's cinematography, along with all the futuristic visuals is a strong asset of Daybreakers, vaguely reminiscent of Timur Bekmambetov's Nochnoy Dozor and Dnevnoy Dozor.

Despite the numerous plot-holes and some poor performances, Daybreakers is very entertaining, especially in the gory, violent action sequences, perfectly set to Christopher Gordon's score. The film sometimes overstates the obvious, while failing to fully explain other more complex aspects, which may confuse the viewer. The orgiastic final scene is just plain ridiculous.

I'm still of the mind that movies should be entertaining first. This one misses that basic boat. Not even funny either -- which is what something this inane needs most. If there were ever a good candidate for a Jay and Silent Bob walk-through, this would be the one. How does Sam Neill continue to get work? Talk about a charmed life. Brother , , ,

Friends said I had to see this movie. Have to admit it turned out to be pretty freakin' good. Great story and Ethan was super hot in this movie.

Wow. What a clever/great idea for a vampire flick. It's not just another vampire movie, that's for sure. There's so much blood, gore and many creeps. I wish there was more of the crazy blood thirsty vampires, so I hope they make another one. More zombie vampires!! I loved the movie, it was a good ride and Willem Defore is awesome! There is a lot more blood and blood drinking in this movie, more so than any other, I thought.

I thought there could be hidden messages in the movie.. yes to indoor tanning, maybe blood is oil and there's a shortage. I don't know.

A joy from start to almost middle...but then the film looses it touch. When I say looses its touch, it sorta jumps off a bridge and goes out of its way with dark twists and silly explanations on what "The Cure" is.

Erratic and sometimes illogical "Daybreakers" misses the mark.

I really loved this movie. had lots of gore and I just loved the whole story and everything. it's a great vampire movie. A-

Although "Daybreakers" has a lot more to do with science-fiction than horror, and is somewhat derivative of another Australian movie "Thirst" from 1979, it really was a refreshing change for me to watch a vampire film that didn't completely suck.
"Daybreakers" follows very much in the tradition of "Blade" in that it has a lot of action. It also brings back most of the traditional vampire mythology with something new which I won't spoil for you.
Unfortunately it also follows the style of "Gattaca" so it's all very futuristic and stars Ethan Hawke again. I'm not really sure what to make of him as an actor as he never seems to show much of a range of emotions in any of his roles. Here he was just as sombre as usual. If he really is a barrel of laughs in real life then I expect that makes him a very fine actor indeed. He was more than acceptable as the scientist Edward Dalton so I have no complaints.
There's nothing remotely comical about "Daybreakers" though apart from some light-hearted lines delivered by the real star of the show, Willem Dafoe. He has a kind of "Whistler" role although he is also what Blade wishes he could be become. His character, "Elvis", was a vampire once but has been changed back to human through a combination of sunlight and water. How exactly it happened and how the effect can be reproduced is the turning point in the whole story.
Ultimately "Daybreakers" is yet another "virus" story where one character has a cure that will save everybody else but the powers that be don't want it to happen. There have been so many of these movies lately that I wonder if they are a designed social commentary or just coincidence. It's a bit like how in the 1950s when America feared invasion by other countries, everything seemed to be about alien invaders, and, when not enough babies were being born in the 1980s, 9 out of 10 movies were about little kids. If I was into conspiracy theories I would say that the movie industry is being used to tell us something.
Of course, "Daybreakers" is also just a very good action movie albeit full of as many clichés as possible. It has everything from characters preferring to die than be changed to self-sacrifice for the greater good. It's a formula that we've all seen many times. I think it shows a real laziness on the part of the screenwriters and absolute contempt for the audience by the producers. As much as you can thoroughly enjoy "Daybreakers" on a superficial level, the glaringly obvious set pieces do detract from the overall effect.
There is also a lot of CGI thrown into the action scenes which you'll either love or hate. I thought the effects were done really well but maybe I've just got used to them now. Things have moved on considerably from when CGI looked like a computer game. I'm sure it's cheaper to make a movie this way but I do wonder if the actors find it harder to respond to the invisible things which are added by the computer whizzkids in post. It would certainly explain a few mediocre performances.
It has to be said though that Sam Neill does a really restrained job as the villainous vampire boss, Charles Bromley. There was every opportunity for him to go overboard and into some kind of "Dr Evil" mania but he kept it in check. I've always liked Sam Neill as an actor and can't understand the hate that some critics seem to have for him since "Jurassic Park" or even "Event Horizon". It's true that he often gets sucked into these larger than life characters and can make you cringe with overacting when he wants to but then so did Vincent Price and nobody seems to hate him.
Yes, even "The Last Man on Earth" gets a bit of an homage here and there with "Daybreakers". Every vampire movie ever made is thrown into the mix it seems but that's no bad thing.
I really think that it's time to stop with the virus/zombie/vampire movies now though as, to be brutally honest, if you've seen one, you've seen them all. If, like me, you've seen them all then you've already seen everything that "Daybreakers" has to offer too. But if you've got a bit tired of the sparkly vegetarian vampires in the "Twilight" saga then this really is a must see.