Night of the Living Blog: Daybreakers--- I Thought Vampires Were Supposed To Sparkle?

Warning: The following may include spoilers for Daybreakers. If you haven't seen it yet, you may not want to read this.

It's refreshing to see some real vampires at the box office again. With Twilight and The Vampire Diaries turning vampires into sex symbols instead of feared beasts that feed on humans, it's nice to see a movie come out that at least attempts to bring the vampire back to its roots. A major criticism of the horror scene today is that everything that comes into theaters is either a remake or a sequel. Daybreakers, on the other hand, was as original of a horror movie as I've seen in quite some time. I can not think of another film offhand that featured a world overrun by vampires who have stabilized their society and replaced humans. Some might offer up I Am Legend, but anyone who's seen both movies will notice the glaring differences.

The originality of the movie is undoubtedly the biggest thing it's got going for it. Picking up the story in 2019 and using newsclips as a way of telling everyone how the bat-spread epidemic managed to turn most of the world's population into blood sucking vampires was a very nice touch. Seeing vampire senators, newscasters and police officers was surreal at first, but did a bang up job of setting up the actual plot and having you buy into a world where vampires have taken over.

One thing that was not original about this was the performance by Ethan Hawke. Holy shit dude. Have you played anything other than the dark, brooding, tortured, reluctant hero? I understand that sometimes actors get pigeon holed, but god damn, take a role that will let you crack a smile once. He is by no means bad in this movie, but his performance had a "been there, done that" vibe to it. On the other hand, Sam Neill was his usual terrific self, and Willem Dafoe was great while also providing some much needed comic relief.

As the movie went on it hit a stretch where it really started to drag. It had an awesome opening that really set the tone for what was to come, a beautifully shot scene of carnage to wrap things up, and a middle that just dragged the movie to a screeching halt. The subplot involving Sam Neill's daughter seemed designed just to show you how much of a prick his character was. But was that whole aspect even necessary? This is a man who is the leader of a company that hunts humans and harvests their blood. We were constantly shown the image of hundreds of humans being hooked up to contraptions that were draining their blood. We knew he was a bad dude. We didn't need to spend twenty minutes of the movie to really hammer it home.

One of my biggest issues is the fact that the Spierig brothers decided they needed a love interest for Ethan Hawke. At no point did they seem to have a moment that would lead you to believe they would have any romantic feelings for one another. Admiration? Loyalty? Friendship? Appreciation? Sure, yes, to all of those. But the hand holding scene? Very contrived.

Another issue I picked up on were the plot similarities between Daybreakers and the other Spierig brothers' film, Undead (2003). In Undead we saw space particles turn a town into ravenous creatures, until we find out that the aliens that are presumed to be the villains, are actually trying to save the humans. In Daybreakers we have a society that's been taken over by vampires, until fellow vampires try to save the humans. (major spoilers coming) In Undead, the acid rain that is falling is thought to be hazardous to all the humans, when it is actually the one thing that could reverse the infection and return them to their human form. In Daybreakers we find that sunlight, originally thought to only lead to the demise of vampires, can actually lead to them being turned back into humans under the right circumstances. It just struck me as odd that the two feature films I've seen that were written and directed by the Spierig brothers had plot twists that were very similar.

Now all this isn't to say Daybreakers is a bad movie. It's not. You've got some hilarious one liners from Willem Dafoe that will be in my personal repertoire for the rest of my life. Nobody, and I mean nobody, ask me if it's safe. Also, the gore was very well done, if slightly repetitive as the movie went on. There are a couple of massive feasting scenes that are especially grotesque. And despite the second act lull, the action scenes are fun as hell and there are a number of genuine scares. It's definitely the type of movie that you want to see at a theater, hopefully with a good crowd around you. I give it 3 out of 5 Lugosi's.