“ Genre: Horror / To Be Announced / Director: Peter Spierig, Michael Spierig / Actors: Paul Sonkkila, Willem Dafoe, Claudia Karvan, Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill ... / DVD released 2010-05-18 at Lions Gate Home Entertainment / Features of the DVD: PAL „
* Prices may differ from that shown
Directed by Michael Spierig and Peter Spierig
Written by Peter Spierig and Michael Spierig
Starring Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, Claudia Karvan, Sam Neill
Run Time 98 minutes
Daybreakers is a film in which vampires are the dominant species on Earth. Humans run scared, always trying to stay one step ahead of the bloodsuckers that will do whatever it takes to track them down and plug them into blood-harvesting machines.
Blood is running short and humans are also in serious decline, can a vampire doctor come up with a blood substitute or will vampires turn on each other and without human blood turn into deformed creatures?
An interesting concept is unfortunately to some extent wasted.
What can be said of Sam Neill? He's never really been an actor to really chew the scenery or act his ass off has he? He's the Australian cool guy, always at the top of the food chain, but a bit of a corporate suit. He was good in Bicentennial Man, but he just doesn't do much does he?
Ethan Hawke, he's had a mixed track record of films, Training Day? Lord of War? Assault on Precinct 13? Nothing amazing there and again as an actor he's sometimes a bit limp.
Neill and Hawke do nothing here to improve their standings in my book.
Willem Dafoe, now there's a real actor! The Spiderman films, he was fun in them, and then he has a really crazy actor side as well, Wild At Heart, Shadow of the Vampire. Even if a film is a bit ropey, if Dafoe is in it, he's likely to be the best thing about it. In Daybreakers to be honest, if anything he's let down by the script and a silly storyline.
So what's wrong with the storyline? Well it takes pretty much everything that we know about vampires and throws it all away and replaces it with a new set of 'rules'.
THE RULES OF VAMPIRES IN DAYBREAKERS:
1) Vampires are creatures of the night - it's what makes them cool and sexy. Not in Daybreakers. Now it's OK so long as they stay out of DIRECT sunlight).
2) Most vampire 'rulebooks' would have us believe that when a human it turned into a vampire that a demon takes over the body and the human soul is pushed to one side whilst in Daybreakers we are to believe that they are basically just humans with fangs.
3) Vampires always get 'the thirst' and love to feed on humans. In Daybreakers I think we only see one vampire attacking a human and turning them and drinking their blood. Yes blood is scarce but you'd think we'd at least get to see a vampire doing its thing! It's fairly sanitised by them drinking harvested blood instead.
4) Oh and let's not forget, in the world of Daybreakers vampires can be turned back into humans by 'careful' exposure to sunlight. What a load of old of complete rubbish!
SCRIPT / DIRECTION:
Writer and director team of Peter Spierig and Michael Spierig clearly direct with more panache than they write. The direction is pretty solid. The script as suggested already - is naff.
Overall despite my many complaints Daybreakers is not a terrible film. It's tried to give a new take on vampires and to turn the tables on the sort of story that we have become used to - vampires being hunted by humans. So it's a valiant effort, it's just not exactly what I was hoping for, or expecting.
Star - Ethan Hawke
Co-stars - William Defoe and Sam Neil
Run-Time - 98 minutes
Certificate - 15
Genre - Horror
Vampires, of course, are all the rage now, especially with young teenage girls, their increasing attraction to the undead somewhat odd, the Goth tribe growing faster every year at the alter of Robert 'Twiglight' Pattinson, as are the amount of vampire related films and TV series they can pick from, Daybreakers having the feel of both.
After really enjoying the thrilling twist on the genre from the brilliant Russian director Timur Bekmambetov with Night Watch and the sequel Day Watch, I was up for some more stylish vampire action, Daybreakers certainly looking the part from the likewise trailers and opening and inventive title sequence. Saying that I had the same positive feeling about the rather enticing '30 Days of Nights', only to see it tail off pretty quickly when I actually rented it. That neck biter and the Deep Blue Sea would win the best trailer to the most disappointing film ration of all time awards hands down.
Ethan Hawke ... Edward Dalton
Willem Dafoe ... Lionel 'Elvis' Cormac
Sam Neill ... Charles Bromley
Claudia Karvan ... Audrey Bennett
Michael Dorman ... Frankie Dalton
Isabel Lucas ... Alison Bromley
Vince Colosimo ... Christopher Caruso
Its ten years in the future and most of the world are vampires in human form, only ten percent of the population still human outright, laying low for obvious reasons, even the daytime not safe as the bloodsuckers move around freely in their UV controlled cars and security vehicles to round up any strays. But because the vampires have been greedy and converted most of the humans there is an acute shortage of human blood available in the blood banks, consumers having to settle for 20% proof blood drinks at all retail outlets. Time is short and those who cant afford the price of the exploding human blood cocktail prices are beginning to feed of each other for blood, the so-called 'subsiders', living beyond the law in the sewers and shadows, this increasing cannibalism producing wild feral vampires that are not in human form, rabid for blood and hated by both vampires and humans.
Haematologist Dr Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) mission is to find a blood substitute that will sustain the vampires, but so far no luck, his sadistic boss in chairman Bromley (Sam Neill) getting impatient. But like most vampires, he was human once and he too is threatened if there is no product created soon. His kid brother is also in the employ of Bromley, he a slayer of the subsiders and humans for Edwards experiments.
So enter pretty human underground resistance fighter Audrey Bennett (Claudia Karvan), who gets to Dalton and offers him an alternative, a possible cure for vampirism. A friend of hers was a vampire once but mysteriously seems to have changed back to a human after an encounter with the planets most awesome energy source. Risking everything he agrees to meet her and this guy (William Defoe) on their terms in the daylight. But if it is possible to find a cure then just how many vampires want to give up eternal life to go sunbathing again?
I liked this and a rare treat in the horror genre, a fresh idea with a likewise texture. Right from the opening inventive credits you know this is going to be something new and original, like when you first saw Blade. It's an interesting idea for a vampire film too, deeper social meanings sure to be buried in the film narrative by the writer and director, comment on our bourgeois capitalist society the most likely.
Set in the now saturated state of Queensland, as an Australian production it has that certain signature quirky feel to it, which, of course, insured fellow Aussie Sam Neil would be in it, taken over from Bryan Brown as the ubiquitous Aussie actor in Aussie films. But the real treat here is the production values, a visual treat delivered from brotherly directing team Michael and Peter Spierig, maybe Australia's answer to the Waschowski boys after this breakthrough effort. It looks great for its $20 million, the main reason why it did $51 million back. Cinema audiences love originality in a genre that has been done to death and Daybreakers is certainly that. It also has that suggestion of a film not only chasing a lucrative sequel but a TV series, the way the excellent Zombieland spawned the highly rated Walking the Dead. To be fair the concept would make a great HBO miniseries and we know there's the appetite for it from those pale necked teenagers. The dialogue is a little bit chunky as it's clearly aimed at a younger audience and perhaps it could have been a bit more cerebral. The biggest treat for the kids is the 15 certificate, the gore plentiful here and certainly putting a dripping R in the certificate rating, perhaps Aussie censors having better stomachs for it than Hollywood.
The Guardian - "While America continues to produce interminable undead dross ... Australia can now proudly announce itself as being home to two of the best genre auteurs working today".
The Melbourne Age -"Pointed social commentary using the vampire as a metaphor for an increasingly predatory bourgeois society has resonance".
The Daily Star - " Takes an idea that also happens to be a MESSAGE, in a genre that has been sucked dry, and still make something watchable. It's not the most brilliant vampire movie ever made, but it's the best one of 2010".
Paul Chambers, CNN -" A first-rate vampire flick with solid action and a story that's never been seen before. Go in with high expectations and you won't be disappointed".
Imdb.com - 6.5 -10 (35,546 votes)
Rottentomatos.com - approval rating of 67% (audience 50%)
Metacritic.com - approval rating of 57% (audience 47%)
In the not to distant future, 2019 the world has been taken over by vampires. There are a few remaining humans which are having to live in hiding as if they are caught they are used for harvest and farming to create new blood for the vampires to feed on. There s a crisis in the world though as the blood is running put and without the human blood the vampires change into grotesque monsters.
Edward is a vampire who is working hard to make a blood substitute but he is having problems or his won and he is relieved when he finally meets with humans who he decides to help and work with.
With the world in crisis can the vampires find a blood substitute before they all change into monsters and can Edward work with the humans to improve their way or life ad the cure they believe they have found?
This is not a film I would have chosen myself as vampires do scare the living daylights out of me, I have only just got brave enough to watch the Twilight films! But hubby really wanted to watch it so I gave in and sat and watched with him. I was actually quite surprised by the film as it did have a story which was quite good and it was not overly scary. The story was interesting and showed the vampires being the majority and the humans being the minority which is not always the case in Vampire movies. I found the way they handled the story and put it across was well thought out was very good. It did actually remind me a lot of the movie 'I am Legend' with the way we did not get to see lots of blood sucking or violent and brutal vampires and we only got glimpses of the grotesque monsters.
The acting was good and the lead role of Edward was played by Ethan Hawke. He showed a good strength in his role and I enjoyed seeing how he was prepared to go against his own race to help the humans and I thought he did manage to show some good emotions and did make me warm to him a lot. His appearance was good and I loved the mean and moody way he was at the start of the film. He was not a very deep character and I was always left with the thought that he was hiding something from his past. He worked well with the role of Audrey who was human and they showed a good connection on screen together. Audrey was another strong character and I enjoyed seeing how she defended herself against the vampires and how strong she had become since the vampires took over. She showed a lot of trust in Edward and it was a joy to watch them acting together.
We had some other very good role including, Lionel Cormac, played by Willem Dafoe, Charles Bromely, played by Sam Neill and Frankie Dalton played by Michael Dorman. They were a good mix of characters with some vampires and some humans and they each bought something different to the film and story.
The film is classed as a horror but fortunately it was not as bad as I was expecting. We did get to see blood sucking and people being ripped apart but it was done in such a way that was not scared by it. The few scenes where we saw the grotesque monsters, what the vampires turned into when they were deprived of human blood were only short flashes so I was able to cope with this. There were a few times when I did jump as something would shoot past the characters on screen but this only happened about 3 times during the film. The special effects which were used for the appearance of the vampires were amazing and very well produced. They all looked very real and still had human features and movements. They showed expressions and sorrow in their faces and this did actually make me feel sorry for them at times. We had a lot of special effects throughout the film other than for the creatures. The cars and the fighting scenes were full of effects and CGI and I thought they were also very well made. I was not at any point able to pin point anything which looked out of place or wrong.
I was surprised how light this film actually was. With the story being about vampires I was expecting it all to be set during the night and to be very dark but fortunately this was not the case and we had a good portion of the film set in daylight. Even when we were watching the night scenes we were easily able to see what was gong on as it was not too dark, as is the case with other movies when we struggle to see what is happening.
The music was good and fitted very well into the film. It was not amazing or spectacular but it did work well and help add to the tension and drama of the film. I was noticeable when something was about to happen or scare me as the music would change to the long orchestral string feel as it so often does in horror movies.
The DVD which we have does have a few special features which include, audio commentary by the Spierig brother and Steve Boyle and the Making of Daybreakers. I am not a fan of bonus features so I have not watched these so ma not able to make comment on them. We bought the DVD for just £6 from Tesco and I feel this is a very good price. The running time of the film is 94 minutes and I found this to be a good length with the story moving at a good fast pace throughout. The rate is an 18 and for me this is a little high and I think maybe a 15 would have been more suitable.
I am shocked with myself for giving this film a good solid 4 stars as I am not a vampire fan but I did find it entertaining and the acting was excellent and the story was actually believable and interesting. I would say that the fans of the film I am Legend will enjoy this film a lot. Well worth the £6 price tag.
It is the year 2019 and the world is besieged by a vampire plague that turned most of the population into bloodsuckers. The remaining humans are either on the run or being processed via huge blood farms. The vampires face a catastrophic problem when they realize that the human population is nearly depleted. Blood supplies become rationed and a state of anarchy threatens to engulf the cities. Meanwhile the poor end up consuming vampire blood and become deranged animalistic bat-like creatures known as subsiders. A top pharmaceutical company, Bromley Marks, headed by Charles Bromley (Sam Neil), seeks to hunt down the remaining free humans, including Bromley's still-human daughter, Audrey (Claudia Karvan), who leads a resistance group, whilst their main haematologist, Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke), seeks to find a blood substitute...
If, like me, you are sick of vampires being angst-ridden teenagers with American Christian undertones or hordes of unconvincing CGI monsters being fended off by a Lara Croft wannabe, then "Daybreakers" might be the movie for you. I think, along with "Let the Right One In" and the series "True Blood", it signals new hope for a genre that always feels like its last drop of originality is about to be drained out.
"Daybreakers" works using a creative slant on the horror/sci-fi formula established in Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend". Rather than having the grotesquely evil element in a story being a minority element set against an otherwise normal world, Matheson turned the whole horror concept on its head. He had the normal human as the minority fighting against a world of vampires. George Romero and many subsequent zombie apocalypse films were apparently inspired by this simple role reversal. However, what twin Australian filmmakers, Michael and Peter Spierig have done is score on many fronts. Creating empathy, politics and complexity in the ranks of vampire hordes is nothing new, but all this usually only occurs within a shadow organization or secret brotherhood of some sort (think Anne Rice or Brian Lumley's novels or the "Underworld" movies or the "Blade" comics or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" TV series). In this instance the shadow fraternity are the human resistance.
There are also some other interesting elements thrown in that add interesting twists to the storyline. What often makes for a good vampire story in recent times is the re-exploration of certain elements of the myth or interesting additions. "Let the Right One In" did this very effectively with the invitation-only part of the vampire myth. "Daybreakers" goes for an area that would seem absurd for most conveyors of horror: a cure. Vampire-cures are normally best reserved for children's TV shows and vampire-lite fiction. This then asks the questions how could this be achieved and whether or not vampires want to be converted back to humans. This part of the plot brings in former vampire "Elvis", played by the ever-reliable Willem Dafoe, as the obligatory voice of experience character. There is also the rarely asked question - I cannot think of a time when it has ever been asked for that matter - what happens when a vampire feeds on another?
The end result was a film that perhaps works best a science fiction thriller than a horror movie, but it is neither wholly predictable nor unfulfilling. It delivers in terms of character development, casting and outright action. Ethan Hawke takes the lead, but he is understated in his performance, allowing Sam Neil and Willem Dafoe to eat up scenes in same way as Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush did with Orlando Bloom in "Pirates of the Caribbean". The surprise performance of the picture is Claudia Karvan as the rebellious Audrey. Her character's relationship with the film's main characters drives everything and in each instance Karvan does an excellent job as foil, inspiration and colleague.
The Spierig Brothers definitely seem to be the current twins to look out for. Their other work includes the zombie movie "Undead" and their most anticipated work is their sequel to George Lucas/Jim Henson/Frank Oz's puppet magnum opus "The Dark Crystal". Why the odd title for this review? Well, it's the second film in the space of a couple of months I have seen that has a connection with Kate Bush's classic hit "Running up that Hill (Deal with God)". The first time was its inappropriate use over the end credits of the 1988 teenage drama "The Chocolate War". In this instance Placebo, normally a good band, did a rather drawn out and whiney rendition of it on the trailer.
Overall the film is strong contender in its genre, but that really isn't difficult given the dross pumped out in all things vampire. Unfortunately it doesn't have any standout moments or even any great dialogue. It's a good film, but it won't go down as a classic.
'Daybreakers' is a vampire flick with a slight difference, the difference being that in the film most people have turned into vampires (as the result of infection with a highly improbable virus) and it's humans who are in a (numerical) minority. As (in the film) vampires need to feed on human(?) blood and there is no such thing as a blood-substitute they can use instead, the few remaining humans are kept in - effectively - intensive livestock farms where they're 'harvested' for their bodily fluids.
So much for the set-up / backstory, which is mildly diverting and about the best thing about the film. In a different universe, somebody will have taken this background and used it to make a half-way decent - or even not-too-bad film. Unfortunately, in the universe we're currently inhabiting and in which I'm writing this dooyoo review of 'Daybreakers', from its tentatively promising start, the plot rapidly descends to a level of preposterous cliché and then -astonishingly - gets even worse, until by the end it's become something of an all-round masterclass in horrible film-making.
Every one of the characters - from the 'tortured vampire' / clinical haematologist male lead played by Ethan Hawke, to the 'big bad business boss' / vampire Sam Neill (who runs the blood-harvesting corporation) to the 'tortured vampire' / clinical hameatologist's brother-who-is-something-in-the-military - is a walking, talking cliché. Poor Willem Dafoe is also involved. He plays the staple wise-cracking older-male-figure for whom the film's audience are supposedly intended to feel an instant rapport. If he'd had more screen time, or even a marginally less dreadful script to follow this would've probably worked a bit better than it does in practice. Towards the end of the film we get some inexplicably lingering shots of the bodywork on this fellow's car, which turn out to be substantially more memorable than the Willem Dafoe character is, probably because the customized American-eagle air-brushed paint-job that someone's inflicted on the hood is so outstandingly awful.
A fellow I initially took to be Boba Fett's Dad, Jango Fett (but it's not the same actor after all) is also in the film. He plays a small role as a senator in the vampiric-American state congress, but he's a good-guy really and is secretly in league with a (groan) secret underground faction of the human liberation front. This chapter of the HLF is very similar to the HLF we've already seen in films such as 'The Matrix' only instead of operating from a secret subterranean cavern like they do in 'The Matrix,' in 'Daybreaker's the human resistance operates from a subterranean cavern conveniently attached to a Californian vineyard (seriously!). The operation turns out to be not-very-secret-after-all and (the character who looks a bit like) Jango Fett's head ends up getting chopped off quite early on in the film, after which we have to look at a bad rubber mock-up of it for a few seconds, just so it's clear what's happened to him.
The film is an 'R' certificate and contains a fair amount of vampires exploding which - just to reiterate - I found a heck of a lot less offensive than the unacceptably poor script / plot. I'm happy to say I rented this DVD for less than 25p due to an unlimited DVD rental / trial scheme that 'Blockbuster' are running, because if I'd paid the £8 or whatever you have to buy it in the shops, I'd have been REALY peeved off.
To conclude, imagine a bunch of 10-12 old boys playing a quickly improvised game of vampires crossed loosely with the plot of - oh, I don't know, let's say - 'Terminator: Salvation'. Every single thing they say in their game is based on things they've seen on TV cartoons or on DVDs, and I have chosen this particular age bracket of kids because at this stage the boys have not really started being interested in girls as yet, but they have noticed that for some reason, there's always a girl included in the TV cartoons / DVDs they like best. They've included a girl character in their game accordingly, but she doesn't get to do much at all because the lads are really more keen on (1) cars with snazzy custom paint-jobs on them and (2) playing soldiers ('AGHH! Now the vampire soldiers have killed all the vampires who took the vampire cure and turned back into humans!' 'GAH! But feeding on the humans has passed the cure onto the vampire soldiers and now they're turning back into humans too!' 'BAAAA! Annnd - a load more vampire soldiers have rushed in and now they're going to fight with the human, ex-vampire soldiers and they've got guns with loads and loads of ammo! NER-NER-NER-NER-NER! He's shooting them all dead!' etc.)
Now, imagine that there's somebody watching the boys playing (for entirely innocent, if potentially dishonest in terms of ownership-of-intellectual-property reasons, of course) from the bushes nearby, who is writing down everything the children have said and done during the course of their game. This person (if you want to be more accurate, it's actually more than one person, since the film was written / directed by some people calling themselves 'The Spierig Brothers) then sends the transcript of the 20-minute kids' game they've eavesdropped in on to Hollywood and gets it made into a script for a vampire movie. In my opinion, a film such as 'Daybreakers' can ONLY POSSIBLY have been the result of a process something like that.
The really scarey thing is that presumably at one time there was a very real possibility that they might make a sequel to 'Daybreakers,' as the ending is laid wide-open for that.
On a recent trip to Blockbusters I picked up a couple of DVDs to watch and noticed they had an offer of four new releases for four nights for £10, as it was going to cost me £7.50 to rent two I though I may as well get a couple more. After scanning the shelves I came across this one. I am a fan of most things supernatural and I have enjoyed lead actor Ethan Hawke's films in the past so decided to try Daybreakers.
It set around 10 years from now where vampires rule the earth very much in the way the humans did before them. The problem is humans have become hunted to the point of near extinction and the vampires are finding that a lack of blood is having severe consequences on their society.
I found the premise quite an interesting one because in most films vampires live in the shadows and never really make a mark on the human population. This films looks at the problems they have to deal with now that the have power and not everyone agrees on the best way to go about it.
Ethan Hawke plays Edward Dalton a scientist trying to engineer a synthetic blood substitute. H struggles with the idea of him immortality and also disagrees with the way human blood is currently farmed. His search takes a dramatic turn when he runs into a group of humans whose lives depend on his next move.
The way the world became vampires is only really touched on and it appears they are changed by just been fed from but that some kind of disease actually brought it all on. Although an in depth story would have been unnecessary, it would have been nice to know more about how the characters became undead.
The first half of the film was really quite exciting and it built up the story and the characters with just the right amount of action and emotion, however the second half seemed to dwindle off a bit almost loosing focus until it gets to its end goal 10 minutes before the end which was a shame.
Director Michael and Peter Spierg have created quite a believable world for the vamps to live in; they seem to have really thought out the details and there are some nice added extras that help to create the environment. I particularly liked some of the gadgets the vampires used in day light and although they weren't all totally unoriginal they fitted in very well.
Hawke played the lead well enough; he managed to portray his characters thoughts and feelings without making him to over emotional and I could empathise with his struggle between doing the right thing and giving into his nature.
Sam Neil played Dalton's bloodthirsty boss relatively well but I just couldn't understand certain aspects of his character. His relationship with his daughter was particularly hard to understand because the film leads you to believe one thing and then his actions did the opposite.
Willem Dafoe is a welcome addition to the cast as the born again Elvis who together with his side kick Audrey (Claudia Karvan) is trying to right the wrongs of the world. At times I wasn't quite sure they would have managed to survive this long as they didn't come across as overly resourceful but never the less they added a necessary dimension to the film.
Overall I found the story an interesting one, the characters easy enough to relate to although some more background would have been nice, the violence a bit gory at times and the action sometimes over the top, but all in all I enjoyed it. It may not be a film I would rush out and buy to keep forever but definitely well worth a rental.
OK, I thought this film would be good, what with all the big names involved, but it's a let down. It could have been so much more, but fell woefully short of a decent film.
The film is about the world after it has been tacken over by vampires. Human blood supplies are running dangerously low, and blood substitues fall short of expectation. Vampires are mutating due to blood starvation, and are being burned in the daylight to save the vampires. But, there is a way of reversing the effect of a vampire bite; a short burst of exposure to sunlight, followed by a dowsing in water. But as to why this works, I couldn't really say; it's the flimsyest plot I've come across in a long while!
This all sounds like it could be a good film. But it doesn't live up to expectations. It's a pretty bloody film. Maybe not over-the-top, but for some it's a bit much (at least, my girlfriend thought it was). But it's the story that gets me. The concept is promising, and the story has potential. It's just not realised. When the film ended, I genuinely did not believe it. I had to wait to be asked to leave the cinema after the credits! Theres certainly a start to it, then there's the beginnings of a middle, but it's missing the rest of the middle and the ending. The ending is such a let down! It's almost as though they were setting it up for a sequel, but it would have been nice to get some closure. It ends with them setting off on a mission.... but that's it. Seriously, if you write a movie, at least have the decency to finish it! Acting wise, the level is mediocre. Nothing that'll win any awards! It's filmed well though, but in in a pretty standard way. You may find yourself jumping at points. If you have a weak bladder, don't worry about leaving to use the toilets.... you won't miss much!
Overall, does not live up to expectations, and not particularly well executed. Leaves a lot to be desired, and doesn't finish the story off in any way. Nothing to set your world on fire, and I certainly wouldn't bother rushing out to get this on DVD. Poorly done I'm afraid.
This DVD was released 6th January 2010, which was written and directed by Michael Spierig and Peter Spierig.
The tagline for the film is: In 2019, the most precious natural resource... is us.
The film is based 10 years in the future, where the human population is
reduced to 5%. The supply of human blood is near to running out, so they decide to test a number of blood substitutes.
The vampires purposely deprive vampires of blood to see its effect. It results in them turning into wild creatures that attack anyone in order to survive. The one that breaks into the house of the main character was sucking the blood from his own writs. The vampires also concentrates on capturing and killing the creatures.
The main vampire crashes into a can with humans in. They find out where he lives and break in while he is there. They give him a location where he meets on of the main human characters. He tells the vampire that he used to be a vampire.
After researching the method of conversion, the main character is turned back into a human.
I really like the story to day breakers. It is well written and does not contain many jumps of the story missed like some films. This makes it quite easy to watch.
The effects in the film are also not too bad quality wise. I think some parts are a little obviously done on the cheap, such as when the creatures head is chopped off and when the main man at the blood company is eaten once turned back to human.
However, the effects of when the main character is being turned back to a human are quite good.
For a film that only cost $21 million, it is a very good standard. I would have expected the cost to have been a lot more.
Overall, I think the film is at quite a high standard. I would recommend it to anyone, but they must make sure they are not squeamish or jumpy.
This film has just come out on DVD and my best mate was straight down to her videostore to rent a copy. After a heavy and rather extra-cheesey pizza, it might have been fair to think that a horror was not the best idea for a film, but I don't believe in what they say about nightmares! So we had dinner and headed back to her place to watch the film.
This is a futuristic film, although it does not matter too much how far into the future it is set. The world's population has changed drastically following an epidemic, which has rendered most humans as blood-sucking vampires. Once caught, a vampire can turn another human into a vampire simply by biting them and leaving them to survive the bite. Standard, really. The problem is that so many people have become vampires that real blood is in short supply, whether human or not. Humans that refused to become vampires are hunted down and placed in blood farms. The thing is, I would have thought for these humans to be effectively farmed the vampires would encourage breeding - but it appears that instead they are immobilised and drained of their blood for vampire consumption, then dead bodies must be dumped. Silly old bats.
So, in these difficult blood-recession times, the race is on to develop a substitute for blood, or even better, a cure. Even if just to turn enough vampires back to continue feeding the population a little longer. Without proper blood, vampires are reduced to crazy bat-like creatures - even less civilised and more of a danger to society. Whilst most vampires still wish to keep their immortality, blood doctor Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke), was an unwilling convert who refuses to drink human blood and deeply regrets the change. His brother Frankie (Michael Dorman), the one to convert him, is the opposite, and happily takes up the job of hunting humans to capture for blood. When Edward meets Audrey Bennet (Claudia Karvan) a surviving human and Lionel "Elvis" Cormac (Willem Dafoe), an ex-vampire with information on a cure, suddenly their roles are directly in conflict. Brotherly love seems to keep them from destroying each other, but can they ever agree and work together for the best solution?
When I saw the advertisement, at first I thought it sounded very original. However, watching the film it did strangely remind me of the Blade series, except that the vampire population being so high, we are suppose to relate to them as the 'ordinary people' and humans almost like some lower class of society. It was hard to imagine, especially the idea of the human population being brought down so fast, but at least this made the film somewhat different to others of its kind. There are odd spots of humour in the film - albeit very dark humour - and I do wish there had been more of this as I really enjoy the mix of horror and humour. It won't be to everyone's taste I'm sure, and I would understand if many had moral objections to laughing at quite gruesome or horrific events. The pace of the story does flow very well, and if it sounds like your kind of film, it is certainly watchable, but as something new I was really expecting a less predictable storyline.
The volcanic relationship that exists between Edward and his brother Frankie will keep you wondering what is going to happen next, but this was more down to Michael Dorman than Ethan Hawke, who was, to be honest, quite a weak performer here. Other characters also have interesting twists, particularly Charles Bromley, who is played by Sam Neill. His behaviour towards colleagues, and more importantly, his daughter was quite sinister and showed another side to this actor's skills. For me, this destructive relationship really brought out surprises that the others did not, but it didn't seem to link into the main story quite as well as I had hoped. It would have been nice to know more about the original working relationship between Edward and Charles Bromley, and how well they knew each other personally or if they did before the outbreak. The character development was not bad but seemed a little out of the blue without a proper background history. Another intriguing contrast is found between the humans, Audrey and Elvis and it seems that the story mostly revolves around these three relationships. Willem Dafoe was brilliant and gave the film a little more 'zing', but again it would have been nice to know more about how these people ended up where they were. The connection between them is not so strong but nonetheless works, while they both seem so committed to the cure it is interesting to see how far they might go for it. This might be just enough to keep the film going and keep you on your toes, but it doesn't take too long to work out what they are all about and see where the story is going.
There are some incredible moments in the film that catch you off guard or build up tension pretty well, and with all the blood and gore of people being ripped apart, it does have the scare factor. Was I scared? Of course not! Sadly I am totally desensitised thanks to films like this, but horrors generally are addictive. I wonder if film has reached its limits and therefore our horror-film generation are no longer easily impressed as the previous generations were. Here it was all a bit too computerised where things like bodies being torn open and heads ripped off were shown completely, with all the detail as one might imagine it to be, yet somehow unrealistic.
The atmosphere of whole film is dark and gloomy, even in daylight scenes. Visibility isn't as bad as has been in other dark films in the past, so it seems they have found a happy medium here. I would not recommend watching this film when you are feeling even slightly low, though, because you will probably end up feeling ten times worse! Still, the appearance seems quite fitting, although I thought the old vampires in dark suits cliche could have been avoided in places. Vampires burn up in the sun, so there are only a few sunny scenes and somehow they make the land look surreal. I suppose as an audience we are supposed to feel that they are like a fish out of water in daylight so it should seem more sinister. This was especially effective where a group of blood-deprived vampires were being forced out into the sun to burn, although to be honest the way they moved and struggled actually made them look more like puppets on strings than monsters in chains. Perhaps that's the whole point. Even vampires are vulnerable to something.
I seem to be finding it hard to remember the physical appearances or even just faces of the main characters in the film, though I blame this more on following traditional appearances of vampires than the idea that the cast all look the same. Even Sam Neill, who has a naturally distinctive look, seems to blend in with everyone around him. Luckily there aren't too many characters to get to know, so it's not confusing.
The soundtrack is fairly tense, as you might expect, creating that sinister, unnerving mood that you often feel without noticing why. It seems a few decades dated in places, but is mostly so well blended into the background that you would hardly notice. Only a few scenes really bring it to the forefront, which is a shame as something more impressive could have been done here. Still, if it builds on the right mood, I guess it is serving its main purpose.
With such strong scenes of graphic violence and blood, how could this film possibly achieve any certificate lower than an 18? Well, the uncut version is an 18, but the cut version is 15. It is nice that this is possible as this really is more a film aimed at younger generations, albeit not exclusively. Still, the film I saw did not attempt to leave any gore to the imagination and so you really do see it all, just quickly. There was a scene of a head being ripped away and seemed to be particularly memorable, and also some rather explosive violence and burning scenes that may startle some viewers. This is about taste, and since most people are just becoming more and more desensitised by this sort of violent imagery it is hard to say who can and cannot see this film. I didn't really notice the language but would doubt if this film would be squeaky clean exactly. I suppose I've numbed to that as well! As well as the violence and dark humour, there are some scenes that people may find a bit distressing or upsetting, so bear this in mind for the more sensitive viewers.
I think this film is worth a watch, although it might have been more enjoyable with more of that horror-humour that has become so popular in recent years. There were actually one or two laugh-out-loud moments and some very tense or jumpy scenes, so you would be glued to your screen of you like that sort of thing. Both my friend and I agreed that we would probably not bother watching it again now that we have seen it, although I would love to watch my mum cringe at it if I was more cruel! So as it is out on DVD and very "now", it is worth renting if what have said sounds good to you, but of course it won't be for everyone. If you don't like blood, it goes without saying!
By the way, I didn't have nightmares!
The 2009 vampire movie written and directed by Peter Spierig and Michael Spierig.
A great cast of actors the most famous being Ethan Hawke and the ever creepy Sam Neill.
The story is a familiar one really a plague of sorts has turned the majority of the human race into blood sucking vampires and the film is set in the near future of 2019.
The plague was started by a bat strangly enough.
The remainder of the human race are bled dry at a high tec facility in order to feed the hungry blood suckers.
As the human population is slowly fading into oblivion the vampire scientists are trying to find a blood substitute.
I was looking forward to seeing this movie but will say I was just slightly dissapointed.
Yes there are some great grusome scenes in it but it just lacks the horror factor.
I thought it has some elements of minority report and dusk to dawn.
Sam Neill plays the baddy brilliantly as usual.
Is anyone else a bit fed up with same old same old movies being churned out?
Zombie and vampire have been done to death!
I would say it is worth a watch but dont expect anything different.
Available from Amazon U.K for £9.99 with free delivery.
94 fagtastic minutes.
Daybreakers is a movie where almost the whole of mankind has changed into vampires. These vampires live at night and have to survive on the last remains of the humans, but what if these are no humans left?
The story: Daybreakers
The story takes place in the year 2017, where almost the whole of mankind has changed into vampires due to a virus. This hasn't really changed that much and the vampires live their lives like they are still human, only now they live during the night and sleep during the day. The last few humans left on earth are being hunted down for their blood, but if they continue to hunt at this rate, soon there will be no humans left. The vampires are trying to make artificial blood as it's their only chance to survive. Edward Dalton is one of the researchers and also hates the idea of taking human blood. He hopes this artificial blood will stop the hunt of humans. One night he meets a group of humans trying to run away from the police and he decides to help them. This group it turns out that they might have a solution to save the humans and vampires, but time is running out. The blood supply is running very low and is not sufficient enough to feed all the vampires. The effects are noticeable and the vampires are getting more violent and desperate. Will this be the end for both the humans and vampires?
Ethan Hawke plays the part of Edward Dalton. He's a vampire who doesn't take any human blood and is against the hunt of humans. He does work for a company that uses people for their blood, but by doing research he's hoping to create artificial blood and this way save mankind. I liked Ethan Hawke as a vampire and he comes across believable in his acting that he really cares about the humans. Another actor who I liked was Claudia Karvan, who plays the part of Audrey Bennett. Audrey is one of the few humans left and is a leader of the survivors and has to try to survive each day, which isn't easy. I liked her and thought there was a good connection between her and Edward when they are acting together. In the movie you can see a clear difference between vampires and humans and especially the vampires who looked a little bit more dramatic, which really came across well.
I love vampire movies such as Blade and Night Watch. When I heard about this movie I just had to watch it right away. I just loved the sound of the story that almost the whole of mankind has changed into vampires and the last of the human population has to fight for survival.
The beginning of the movie starts off really well. You see the vampires living a normal life like they did as humans, only the main difference is that they are awake during the night. To survive they need human blood, but are desperately looking for a way of creating artificial blood. At the beginning they still have a few months until the blood supply won't be sufficient enough for all vampires.
The beginning feels very dramatic and starts of well, unfortunately its downhill from there. The movie spends a lot of time on Edward trying to find the answer in creating artificial blood and his battle in trying to save the humans, but at the same time he's a vampire and he needs blood to survive. When I read what the movie was about, I expected the movie to be more about the survival of the humans, but the movie is more about Edward dealing with being a vampire and how his race is on the edge of starvation.
I did enjoy the movie. I loved the way they show the change in vampires from the beginning all powerful to slowly getting desperate. It's like a normal human's society where the weak are feeling the effects first. You see these vampires living underground slowly changing into bat like creature because they can't get any food. This will happen to all, when there's no food left.
It's only the ending that left me a little bit disappointed and wasn't what I expected of the movie. It went all too quickly and suddenly it was the end. A shame really, because it left me in doubts if I really enjoyed the movie or not. I would say it's a great rental movie and maybe one to buy when it's on sale.
Running time: 98 minutes
Category: thriller/science fiction
Director: Michael Spierig
Country: United States
Ethan Hawke as Edward Dalton
Willem Dafoe as Lionel "Elvis" Cormac
Claudia Karvan as Audrey Bennett
Sam Neill as Charles Bromley
Michael Dorman as Frankie Dalton
Isabel Lucas as Alison Bromley
Vince Colosimo as Christopher Caruso
Daybreakers turns your usual vampire film on its head. Set in 2019 after a vampire outbreak, the world is populated by vampires, with humans being an endangered species and 'farmed' by the vampires as a source of blood. However times are tough as the human population is so low, and the vampire population so high, that it is only a matter of time before blood becomes too scarce. The vampires discover that if they are starved of blood too long, they begin to deteriorate into disfigured, mindless and dangerous vampires. With this knowledge, the vampires will do anything to find fresh humans. The story follows Edward, a vampire employed as a hematologist to develop a substitute to human blood to allow the vampires to survive. Edward still feels towards humans, and he soon finds himself discovering something completely different to a substitute.
I've never been the biggest fan of vampire films, they're usually not particularly scary and the stories tend not to go far. Daybreakers on the other hand is much more scary than usual, and actually has a good story to it. The main scary factor comes from the starved vampires. They look scary, and they tend to hide in dark corners, which can make you jump when you're not expecting it. As for the story, well like I say its more interesting than the usual...a few vampires slowly picking off a group of humans. Instead you have a world full of vampires, and what the humans have to do to survive and try and repopulate.
As for bad points I can't think of anything major. Not to spoil it for anyone but the discovery by Edward seems a bit silly...the writers clearly had an idea for what they wanted to happen, but then had to decide on how that discovery could happen. What they came up with was pretty lame, they could have thought of something perhaps a bit more, I don't know, scientific? Other than that it was just the usual really dumb things they do sometimes. For example a convoy of humans making their way to the safehouse...at night? Seems really obvious to me that you would go in daylight...although the vampires have daytime mode in their cars, atleast the humans could see the vampires coming a mile away. That kind of thing. Some of the acting was also a bit lack-lustre, but nothing to cringe about. Theres basically only 5 characters that speak much, and 3 of them are well known actors, so on the whole the acting was pretty good.
Overall, pretty good vampire movie, nice to see them thinking about a story a bit more
This film released in 2009 has a different take on your standard vampire stories and I think it was very interesting to watch how the story unfolded.
Daybreakers is a vampire film set in the year 2019 when there is only 5% of human life left in the world, the rest turned to vampires.
Normally with vampire films you see them turning humans into vampires or just killing humans for blood.
This film is different in the respect that the humans willingly choose to become vampires but as the blood runs low the vamps begin to starve and turn into demon type vampires which have to be killed as they cannot be controlled and kill everything in sight.
The actors played the parts extremely well and this film has become one of the best vampire movies I have seen.
I just love how the story is unusual to the rest.
Ethan Hawke who plays Dr Edward Dalton is trying to find a way to make a blood substitute before the human race runs out but instead finds a cure from a friend who was once a vampire and turned back human
My eyes were glued to the screen from start to finish but at times it was slow but got into the story in depth which kept it interesting.
I have always loved my horror and action films and I believe this is a mix of both it isn't really scary but with the amount of blood and gore I wouldn't recommend this for a young family
I did love the affects especially when the vamps went out into sunlight and turned to fire then dust.
Overall this is a great film and worth watching more than once and I would recommend it to any action/horror fan who likes vampire movies.
I give this film a 4/5 as it is very entertaining.
As of this review the film has not yet been released on DVD
In a world ten years from now, vampires have taken over the world and only a tiny minority of the human race remain in hiding. But with the vampires' food supply of human blood running low, the hungry vampires are becoming vicious creatures and are turning against each other in a bid to survive. Edward Dalton, a blood researcher at the world's biggest human blood farming company, stumbles upon a way to save the vampires as well as the human population. But his discovery means that he has to work with the humans and against his own kind and being an enemy of an army of vampires is not an easy way to survive.
~ Cast ~
Edward Dalton - Ethan Hawke
Charles Bromley - Sam Neill
Audrey Bennett - Claudia Karvan
Lionel 'Elvis' Cormac - Willem Dafoe
Alison Bromley - Isabel Lucas
I never used to be interested in vampire stories in the slightest but since the release of the Twilight series my interest has peaked quite a bit. This film looked to be similar to the True Blood series where vampires are common knowledge, but further along in time where the vampires end up being more dominant than the humans.
The thing that niggled me about this film, and I mean really irritated me so much that I was just nonplussed, was the fact that they named the main character vampire Edward. Why oh why would you name a vampire Edward when the most famous vampire around at the moment is also called Edward (from Twilight)? I just did not understand why they couldn't have come up with another name - it seemed so stupid to me. Anyway, that doesn't really have anything much to do with the actual film so rant over now!
Ethan Hawke was a great pick for the main part and for a vampire as he just looks the part from the off with his pale skin and long hair. Willem Dafoe brought quite a bit of comedy to the film when they live in a world that should be devoid of any humour. I love Isabel Lucas who was in Home and Away and I was looking forward to and expecting her to have a big part in this seeing as she is one of the main characters but it turned out that her part wasn't actually in it that much.
This is nothing like the timid and fantasy-like vampire movies that have come out recently. Daybreakers is full of violence, blood and gore and depicts a world that has simply turned into a bloody human buffet. There were parts that were just disgusting and I had to turn away from the screen in horror of what was going on.
I did think that it ended rather abruptly. It seemed that it could be left open for a sequel as the task that the character's were trying to complete hadn't been completed and in fact they only found out about how to solve their problem a few minutes before the end.
Despite all the violence and gore and the abrupt ending I enjoyed this film. It is very dark and violent and is pretty scary to think that, if vampires were real, this is a very truthful depiction of how the world could end up.
Running time: 98 minutes
Certificate rating: 15
Director: Michael Spierig, Peter Spierig
"Living in a world where vampires are the dominant species is about as safe as bare backing a 5 dollar whore."
Daybreakers sees the world in 2019, a world where a plague has changed the population of the planet into vampires. However, as humans are hunted and farmed for blood, the human race is slowly dwindling and the blood is running out. The chief supplier of blood is Bromley Marks, a company headed by Charles Bromley (Sam Neill). Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a haematologist who is employed by the company to come up with a viable alternative to human blood. Hawke runs into a cover group of humans who have discovered a cure for vampirism. This group's leader is Elvis (Willem Dafoe) and he was once a vampire himself - can this group and Hawke survive and find a cure for the plague?
I was quite surprised how violent this film turned out to be. I initially thought that it was made just to cash in on the Twilight franchise, and in some respects I'm sure it has benefitted from the recent vampire craze sweeping the world. However, this isn't a cutesy teenage flick; this is grisly and pretty nasty - especially in its final twenty minutes or so where there is an awful lot of blood letting.
Hawke's acting is very distant and he fails to make any sort of impact in the film in any capacity. More convincing are Sam Neill and Willem Dafoe. Both seasoned actors seem to relish their roles and understand that the film needs a good slice of ham - and both deliver on that front.
I liked the fact that the film was Australian and a bit funky. It also surprised me to learn that the film finished principal photography in 2007, but was not released until 2010. I'm not quite sure why this was, but the film is not without its flaws.
It drags on a bit, even though it comes in at around 98 minutes - it feels a lot longer. Some of the effects are still a little dodgy and the film relies much too heavily on immense amounts of blood and squelchy sounds for my liking. Hawke's central performance is poor and unconvincing. But the film is good fun all the same and was an interesting distraction on a Friday evening.
Daybreakers is worth watching even if you've had enough of vampires this year.