User Reviews (355)

Add a Review

  • Saw 'Daybreakers' at Piccadilly today. Been curious ever since i saw the trailers and being an Ethan Hawke fan decided to check it out anyway. The film started out on a bloody brilliant note. The scenes conveying the near-extinction of the human race and how the vampires are taking over and how the vampires themselves are threatened by the blood shortage issue was done rather effectively and the audience seemed to love it. There is a sense of foreboding throughout the film which can be expected in the genre, but nevertheless is very vital to it as most films fall short here. Daybreakers is not your typical cliché-ridden vampire horror. There has obviously been some sensible writing involved here. But towards the end the screenwriter tends to lose his grip and throws in some regular scenes just for the sake of cheap thrills and gore. This for me did take a bit away from the essence of the film especially considering the rest of the film was great,

    But nevertheless I would recommend this film, as there is much to be enjoyed. The cinematography and colour combos and contrasts have been created masterfully. Even most of the cgi seems credible enough. Ethan Hawke is his usual intense self and Sam Neil re-surfaces into the mainstream with a Batman-sounding villain character. But its William Defoe as one of "the folks with the cross-bows" who gets the best lines in the film. Sample this- " a human in a world of vampires is about as safe as barebacking a five dollar whore!"

    Could have been a great vampire flick, a genre defining one, but is reduced to merely a good one. But that isn't too bad considering the amount of vampire dung we were dished out for the entirety of 09. This one is the best of the lot! Cheers
  • Daybreakers is about a plague that has transformed most every human into vampires. Faced with a dwindling blood supply, the fractured dominant race plots their survival; meanwhile, a researcher works with a covert band of vamps on a way to save humankind....but you already knew that. Like putting a plastic bag over some one's head, things quickly get violent and out of control.

    Special effects: Moderate, not much was needed for the movie. The death of the vampires were a little more violent than usual, however the entertainment behind it balanced it out.

    Plot: "Find a cure or we all die" has been used frequently before, and there wasn't much of a twist.

    Setting: The setting was a dark futuristic setting, Imagine Las Vegas at night...with all white neon. Perfect setting for this movie. Worth seeing? Yes. Not worth sprinting to the theaters, however it is worth seeing. I'd give it a 7/10.

    This movie is such a relief from the romantic necrophilia of the Twilight series. It's good to see scary vampires again.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Plague has turned most of the population into vampires who have taken over the world and begun feasting on the remaining humans. The trouble is that the human population is running out and unless they can find a blood substitute they are going to starve. Ethan Hawke plays the chief vampire hematologist who harbors a soft spot for humans, and who stumbles upon a way of possibly saving everyone.

    Directed and written by Michael Spierig and Peter Spierig who turned out the great looking but dramatically messy The Undead about a meteor that turns a small town into zombies, we're once more into the great looking but dramatically odd territory. Much of the film looks like a vampire film noir. It looks like a Sam Spade will come wandering in at any moment. The horror sequences are bloody and frightening, the action is often amazing. The problem here is the story. While its not all over the place like the directors' earlier film it does have plot holes and at times lurches from things to thing in a none too natural manner. I was frequently wanting to stop and ask questions about why and how since little seems clear unless you just take it all on faith. I couldn't do that because the film was asking me to believe too many impossible things. the result was I was loving the pieces but only kind of liking the whole.

    I'd wait for home video.
  • In the near future, a bat-borne plague has turned 99% of the human population into vampires. The remaining humans are hunted down and farmed for blood by a corporation headed by Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), an individual who views vampirism as a miracle since he was dying before the plague broke out. There aren't many humans left though, and when a vamp goes without blood, they turn into grotesque Nosferatu variants called subsiders. Bromley enlists his top hematologist (Ethan Hawke) to come up with a blood substitute, but an underground band of surviving humans has a different resolution in mind.

    This film has a unique premise, and for the first hour or so, I thoroughly enjoyed exploring the world that Michael and Peter Spierig created. The opening scene shows one of the downsides of vampirism, as a girl takes her life rather than be stuck in a child's body for eternity. There were other fun touches thrown in too, like blood coming in wine bottles and being poured over ice. The film's storyline touches on themes of corporate greed taking precedent over the good of the public, and there is an underlying oil subtext that is less than subtle.

    The second half turns into a clichéd mess. The ending in particular is really cheesy as a result. Truthfully, I would have been happy if the whole band of humans idea had been scrapped entirely. Surely they could've come up with something a little better. I mean, this is a pretty creative film. Other segments of the picture seem rushed, like the subplot involving Bromley's daughter. Speaking of Bromley, Sam Neill is one of my favorite actors, so it was great seeing him in a genre film again. His presence is the highlight of Daybreakers. I've never much cared for Hawke, and his performance here did nothing to change my mind. Willem Dafoe also pops up, and while I usually do like him, his character here is annoying.

    As is, chalk it up as a movie that could've been more. Oh well, at least it's way better than the last work from the Spierigs, Undead. That was one of the rare films that I stopped watching halfway through. Quick note: I saw a father and two young teens leave shortly after an early scene involving a gory testing of the blood substitute. Guess they thought this would be another Twilight.
  • Daybreakers is a superbly fresh and entertaining vampire experience. The film takes place in a dystopian future only a decade from now in which an outbreak in vampirism has turned the known world on its head. Contrary to the typical vampire film setup, vampires make up the majority of the world's population here and humans, who are either being framed for blood or are in hiding, make up only around 5%. In a way, the setup somewhat reminds me of the film Equilibrium, with vampires added into the mix.

    The film finely balances sci-fi, horror, and action and I also really appreciated the utter desperation present in the film. So many action movies go so over-the-top in their action heroes that you never feel like their in any danger of being defeated, but here all odds are against our protagonists and, as events unfold, their situation grows gloomier and gloomier.

    The entire cast--which includes Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill, William Dafoe, and Claudia Karvan—is on top of their game here and play the material straight, which is very refreshing. Especially Sam Neill, whom I've always been a fan of since I saw Jurassic Park as a kid, is great here and he really manages to steal the show in his scenes.

    Also refreshing is the amount of bloodletting and thematic material present here. Make no mistake, Daybreakers is a "hard 'R'" and full of violence and grotesque sites like starving vampires turning into monstrosities that are hard to look at. The film also had ideas and much to say about a struggling society in the face of low supply to meet high demand.

    I wasn't a huge fan of Undead, but the Spierig Brothers have truly crafted something special here. I do wish the film was a bit longer as I wanted to know more about the society the story took place in, but that's a testament to the film itself. If you're seeking a more adult vampire film with enough substance to excuse its style, I recommend Daybreakers.

    Related Recommendations: Equilibrium, Gattaca, They Live, Aeon Flux , Blade, Blade II, The Matrix
  • Riding the most recent wave of monster-dom, Daybreakers is yet another entry in the endless parade of vampire films to hit the market since the arrival of a little film called Twilight which I hear is somewhat popular. Breaking with recent trends however, Daybreakers is by far the best of the bunch; high concept and high reward.

    The year is 2019. After a plague sweeps across the globe turning men, women and children into blood-thirsty, pale version of their former selves another, larger threat looms. The remaining humans, who now mostly exist only in vast blood farms that recall the fields of The Matrix, are drying out so to speak. Blood shortages are common place and with the direction of a vampire haematologist named Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawk) they desperately search for a blood substitute. But complications lead Dalton to question his loyalties after he meets a group of humans led by a former-vampire turned vigilante (Willem Dafoe) and with the future of mankind resting in the balance, time grows more and more precious.

    The vampire world created by director brothers Michael and Peter Spierig is extensive and all encompassing. The attention to detail at every turn is the greatest reason to seek out Daybreakers even if script and some performances aren't quite up to the same standard. Take for example instances of how the vamps navigate during the daytime and what a double-double coffee now means. Many earmarks of vampire lore remain; death by sunlight, susceptibility to a steak in the heart, etc. But many details about the new world culture is left to viewer imagination which is a far better avenue to take then attempting to stuff the story with exposition and revelations.

    Amidst a sea of flashy set pieces, the acting takes a backseat. Hawk is merely there, Dafoe is entertaining enough and scores most of the laughs and Sam Niell shows up as the shady CEO of the blood farm and is sufficiently sinister. The real standout is Claudia Karvan as one of the remaining humans who actually manages to bring down her languid looking co-stars with her emotion and charm. Daybreakers features a number of requisite action set-pieces and do the job admirably enough but it is the story that is the real reason to see this film.

    If there is still blood to be drained from this waning horror genre I hope it is not fast-tracked to take advantage of the current craze. If we are to have more vampire flicks of this calibre then I would rather experience them while not being constantly swamped. Regardless of where these fright flicks tread in the future we are lucky to have Daybreakers, as an entertaining and thought-provoking film like this is always welcome amidst a sea of remakes, reboots and rehashes that have become a Hollywood staple.

    Read all my reviews at simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com
  • Warning: Spoilers
    While Daybreakers has great ideas and creates a very interesting world, it ultimately fails to delve very far into anything and feels more like it should have been the pilot episode of a new TV series.

    In the future, 95% of the world's population is vampires. How they got this way is only, ~very~ briefly, explained in the opening credits, through paper clippings that are only one screen for about a second. So basically, blink and you miss it. I would have liked if they'd gone more in depth on this and done more science, explaining ~why~ this happened, and having that information being used to create the 'cure' later on in the movie....but ultimately, no.

    The vampires are....well, not vampires. They're humans with very neat eyes who drink blood. If they don't get enough, they turn into deformed bat like creatures (which the only reasoning for is they did not drink 'blood' for about a month....however, many characters turn into these creatures much faster than a month throughout the movie) They don't move fast, they don't have super strength, holy water/garlic never enters into the picture....and they can survive in the shade. Yes....if they're just slightly covered from the sun, that's fine. Only direct sun causes massive burning/death.

    They heal very very fast....usually. One of the major continuity issues is when Ethan Hawke's character, in attempting to cure himself, is set on fire again and again, and each time, has no burns/scars/anything on his body right afterwards. Yet not a minute later, they show another vampire with his arm in a sling....from what is alluded to being a broken/dislocated shoulder. So....they heal fast....but, only when it's necessary for the plot to make sense.

    And on that note....the plot. Blood is in short supply. Humans, supposedly, are getting more and more rare and going extinct....and vampires keep gobbling up blood like it was some miracle elixir. Which, granted, is what vampires usually do....however, yet again, some of them seem to be able to resist/control these urges, while others can't. It flip flops.

    Essentially, this is a political thriller with a supernatural twist. Everything revolves around curing/fixing their resource problem. Truthfully....it's quite dumb. It's known that animal blood is drunk, and sustains the vampires....yet apparently that's not a solution. A substitute is apparently a solution though....but only because it would make the vamps pay more for real blood. Like I said....they're vampires, but they're still human. They are still greedy, conniving, scheming, power hungry people. Which kind of begs the question that should have been brought up in the first place.....why turn? Because apparently, many of them were given the choice to turn, or to reject it. Hence why there's still humans.

    There are many questions you'll ask yourself while watching this, and at the end, you'll sit there thinking "What was the point of all this, to end it like that?" And that is the movie's biggest disappointment. It had no point. It has no resolution to anything. It's essentially an over glossed story, simply to point out the new, ingenious way to cure vampires (which really is quite interesting, but shouldn't be the ~only~ good thing in the movie) In the end....it feels more like a TV show pilot, that they decided to give a huge budget and make into a film. It's bloody, it's got jumpy parts, the screeching will kill your ears, and you'll be sitting there wondering why you watched this movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Okay first the good parts.

    The vampire society is portrayed pretty good. The colors are well chosen and everything excluding some action shots and the exploding vampires looks good. The story starts of really strong, I was hanging on the edge of my seat wondering where the story would go.

    Alas, this is not the masterpiece I thought it to be. Once we are introduced to the humans this movie completely sh*ts it's pants and just kinda.... dies. It isn't worse than most vampire movies, it's not boring, or too ridiculous or whatever, it's just not what it could have been.

    And just to be clear; this could have been a GREAT movie. But it's not, everything ends in explosions, blood and flying guts. Such a shame...
  • gregsrants13 September 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    No creature in the history of film has been represented more than vampires. Hundreds and hundreds of films dating back as far as 1909's Vampire of the Coast have explored the undead that sprout fangs that walk among us at night. Over the past years, vampire film and television production has gone into high gear. From Twilight to The Vampire Diaries to True Blood, if you are looking for bloodsuckers, you don't have to search very far. The challenge most writers and filmmakers are faced with therefore is making a vampire film seem fresh and inventive.

    The Blade series did a good job in the 1990's pitting vampire against vampire. 30 Days of Night was genius in having the vampires travel to the one place on earth where the sun doesn't appear for months at a time. And Let The Right One In was a foreign gem that surely ranks as one of the genres best.

    But writer/directors Michael and Peter Spierig (The Undead) had a new idea. What if in the future the world is dominated by vampires instead of humans. And what if, with so few humans left, the blood supply that vampires need to survive becomes scarce.

    Enter, Daybreakers, the new film by the Spierig brothers that stars Willem Dafoe, Sam Neill and Ethan Hawke. Daybreakers takes place in the year 2019. The world is not all that different from what it is now. People still drive cars and go to work. There are businessmen, policemen and even homeless (with signs around their neck asking for people to donate blood). What is different is that all these professions and people are vampires. Humans are in short supply and when captured, they are harvested for their blood. Humans are so scarce in fact that they account for less than 5% of the population and the blood supply that vampires need to survive has less than a months left in reserve. If a vampire begins to starve he turns into a hideous creature. A monster that cannot reason or communicate and preys on humans and vampires alike.

    Scientists are hard at work trying to find a synthetic blood or solution to their problem. Lead by Edward (Ethan Hawke), the team is on the brink of solving the international shortage. Edward is a conflicted vampire. As both a scientist and a human sympathizer, Edward wishes for the simpler times long before the vampire outbreak.

    By chance, Edward crosses paths with a group of fleeing humans lead by Audrey Bennett (Claudia Karvan). After Edward helps them escape their vampire stalkers, Audrey introduces him to Elvis (Williem Dafoe) – a former vampire that has miraculously converted back to human.

    Just how Elvis was able to adapt back to human form takes about a quarter of the film wherein Edward works with Elvis to understand and then to do a vampire trial on the process found successful.

    All the while, the vampire police, army and the conglomerate lead by Charles Bromley (Sam Neill) that wants to harvest the humans are quickly in toe with only daylight stopping them from their ultimate goal.

    Daybreakers was good, intelligent fun with blood splatter and jump-out-of-your-seat moments that are lacking in horror films today. The Spierig brothers have done an exceptional job of taking the conventional vampire film and turning it into something new and fresh. They have plenty of moments where they go for the jugular, but if you were to take their story and replace human blood with oil, you can argue it is a social commentary on how humans would react when cut off their most valued resource.

    Plenty of action – including some cool car chase scenes – and at least 10 jump-out-of-your-seat moments, Daybreakers delivers on bringing a bloody good story packed with severed limbs, chopped off heads and (of course) the burning of vampire skin when exposed to sunlight.

    Those horror conventions aside, Daybreakers brings air to the deflated genre and keeps the Spierig brothers as two to watch in the upcoming years.
  • C-Younkin9 December 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    Screw team Edward and team Jacob, i'm with the team in favor of giving vampires back their balls. The Spierig brother's "Daybreakers" is one such movie, a bloody good time where people get ripped apart, heads explode and get chopped off, and we get a fairly decent action thriller that presents some cool vampirific ideas and some suspense to boot. It's the future. Vampires have taken over. Only the blood supply is dwindling. Ethan Hawke plays Ed, a kindly vampire/hematologist who likes the humans and is, for many reasons, developing a blood substitute so that Vamps will stop human hunting. Others at the blood distribution center he works at are less sympathetic, including boss Charles Bromley (Sam Neil).

    Willem Dafoe gives the movie's best performance as Elvis, a former vampire who managed to somehow be "born again" human. Ed eventually winds up working with humans to figure out how Elvis managed to do such a thing. The Spierig brothers film most scenes in either a darkly chilly blue or in a variation of lighting (in one scene, Ed is protected from sunlight because it's coming thru tree branches), both of which look great on film. And the creature effects are scare as well as thrill. Hawke gives a nicely understated performance and Neil again proves he's underrated as an actor. Newcomer Isabel Lucas, who plays Bromley's human daughter, does nice work as well. The flick has a few flaws. The screenplay has a real hollow middle (Neil could have used a little more oomph as the villain during this time) and it feels more like a ragtag bunch of subplots and different ideas. But the ideas are amusing enough and it doesn't go too long without being entertaining enough to recommend.
  • Meh.

    The deal-breakers in Daybreakers are the low-rent action sequences, splashy random gore, and cardboard characters.

    I've been spoiled by thirty years of action flicks that dish up first-rate fight choreography, even if they don't have anything else to offer at all, so I just can't handle a film that cheaps out on the action as well as the script. This film has the action equivalent of foam rocks. I expected to see a boom mic dip into the frame at any time.

    And we all expect a little gore in a vampire movie, but the gore in Daybreakers is absurdly exaggerated and outta nowhere. Yes, there is a Gattaca-esquire dignity to the film — but it is ruined at regular intervals by hosing the camera down with blood. Spraying blood around seem at odds with the otherwise earnest sci-fi scenario that inspired the film. I know that sci-fi has often played nicely with horror, but this was a failed attempt to merge the genres.

    The characters are all completely forgettable: I won't remember anything about any of them by the middle of next week. At first I thought I suppose be impressed that the lady lead wasn't just a sex object, but she wasn't anything else either. Despite a bunch of screen time, she mostly just stood around and looked worried, about as blah a character as I can imagine.

    The relationships between the characters are an even bigger yawn. The closest thing to an interesting relationship is the brother thing, but even that is barely there. There's just ... nothing.
  • cpbadgeman11 January 2010
    There is no shortage of on screen vampires these days. However 'Daybreakers' scores with a unique twist in what is becoming an overworked genre: What if the undead are the majority? In 2019, due to a plague, most of the world's population have become vampires and the few humans left are hunted down and farmed for blood. This topsy-turvy "new normal" is sharply and amusingly depicted as being eerily similar to current living with the important difference that the populace go about their business at night and enjoy shots of blood in their coffee. Aging, famine, and disease have been eradicated, however sunlight is lethal. There is also still a class system, with destitute vampires who cannot afford a regular fix of blood turning into violent, deformed creatures called "subsiders".

    But there is a problem. The vampires' insatiable appetite for blood has driven the residual human population to the point of extinction and left the blood supply almost exhausted. Enter Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke), a scientist working for a massive pharmaceutical conglomerate headed by the evil Charles Bromley (Sam Neill). His job is to find a blood substitute to ward off mass starvation. Dalton secretly sympathizes with the remaining humans and hopes that his work will result in their persecution being halted. After connecting with some human survivors, he realizes that there may be an even more radical solution to the problem. However, not every solution is profitable..

    From beginning to end this film is big, gory fun. There are some interesting and agreeable plot twists and the film's more metaphorical aspects (which are not exactly subtle to begin with) are upfront but not preachy. The special effects and action scenes are top-notch also, particularly a gruesome set-piece near the film's climax. The Spierig brothers also manage to insert some big scary jolts at regular intervals. All the cast are solid but special mention should go to Sam Neill who does not chew scenery as the main villain of the piece but definitely nibbles here and there. Willem Dafoe is good too, as always. "Daybreakers" also passes a key horror movie test: when you leave the theater, the outside world does not look quite as reassuring as it normally does. Well worth seeing.
  • It's the year 2019 and the world has been taken over by vampires. Humans are being farmed for their blood, but there are fewer and fewer of them. Vampires turn feral when they don't get human blood. So the dwindling human race have real devastating consequences. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a vampire, but he's searching for a blood substitute. He wants to save the human race. That's why the humans want his help for the ultimate cure.

    The concept is terrific. The execution lacks the required intensity. While it has great ideas, the movie just doesn't have the pace or the action to sustain it. Ideas are not enough. This movie needs better hands to squeeze more excitement out of the script.

    The big acting names in this are Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, and Sam Neill. They give the movie instant credibility that's more than its B-movie roots. However to justify that credibility, they need to increase the drama.
  • thefinisher_2324 January 2010
    Some films contain better ideas for another film. That is exactly what we have here in Daybreakers. In the future, we are all vampires. Only this isn't I am Legend. We walk, talk and do as we used to do. The major difference being that we must obviously drink blood and avoid the sun. Thus any and all humans are captured and farmed for blood until the day they die. We have found a way to do these things and maintain the semblance of our day-to-day. This is the film I so wanted to see. A function society of vampires living in a world built for humanity. Sadly, we don't get enough of it.

    What's left of humanity survives by day and dodges at night. Hematologist Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke…wow its' been a while) is sympathetic to their cause because he does in fact still possess his humanity. His boss (Sam Neil) simply wants capital which should have far less importance in a world where blood is the only real necessity. Dalton's goal is to find either a cure for the disease (never explained) or a substitute to replace human blood which is dwindling fast. If the powers that be can't find a solution we will all change into a creature resembles a mutant bat and Mickey Rourke's face from The Wrestler. Dalton stumbles upon a group of humans who have found a way to cure the disease. This method is explained so simplistically it's stupid to think another vampire or two wouldn't have stumbled upon it by accident too. Among this group is Audrey (Claudia Kraven) and Elvis (Willem Dafoe…here setting a precedent for cliché' sadly). Elvis has been cured thanks to his love of fast cars. Don't ask. I'll only groan.

    Daybreakers is far from a bad film but it's certainly a stubborn and frustrating one. There is such a fantastic idea here that is tossed aside because we are supposed to identify more with the humans than we are expected to be fascinated by this vampire-urbanity. The action scenes are rather clunky as well and not at all thrilling. That's quite peculiar because some shots in the film look so stellar you'd think they are from a different budget. Characterization is also at a bare minimum. Dalton for example has a soldier brother who serves simply as someone who can move the plot along, he doesn't have to provide any real emotion. Neil also has a daughter (Isabel Lucas last seen as chick-bot in Transformers II) whose screen time and presence in the film is really an utter waste. I suppose it provides Neil some motivation later on in the film but again, this only serves the plot. It doesn't make the film any better which can be said about most of the scenes here.

    A lot of folks…scratch that a lot of DUDES will like Daybreakers simply because it is not New Moon. The vampires actually bite things, are dangerous, act like they are vampires and not CW stars, and the blood flows freely (the last 10 minutes may be the goriest since Planet Terror). I didn't make this comparison as the two films only have the term vampire in common. Instead I saw a film that used a genius premise to set-up a rather boring, dull and far too conventional 2 hours. I wish there was more to elaborate on but truthfully any mediocre film will make you say this: I don't care to.
  • A vampiric corporation sets out to capture and farm the remaining humans while researching a blood substitute.

    Daybreakers has a captivating promising start, the is year 2019, a plague has transformed almost every human into vampires.

    Directors Michael Spierig and Peter Spierig give the viewer an awe-inspiring vision of the future, the cityscape is amazing. It's also packed with excellent make up effects and nicely executed CGI. The film reflects some great parallels of today's social structure and struggles.

    Sam Neill is the perfect vampire leader and Ethan Hawke is good as the trouble vampire who feels pity on the remaining humans.

    However, sadly the film takes a turn for the worse when the usually excellent veteran actor Willem Dafoe turns up. From then on the film stumbles until the end credits as it stomps on the great idea's and visuals that came before, with bad dialogue and corny premises. Once the action moves from the city to countryside it's as if the producers turned a switch to- 'mediocre', with echoes of John Carpenters Vampires (1998).

    An engaging strong intellectual start, regrettably becomes a futile unoriginal drip by the end.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Daybreakers is a slick action/horror that reminded me of the awesome Equilibrium in style, utilizing brand new technology to ease the life of vampires—the healthy ones that is, not those Nosferatu looking creepers starving for blood. The premise goes as follows: It is 2019 and most everyone has become a vampire. Their power and numbers become so vast that humans quickly go to the minority, hunted as cattle to use for sustenance and harvested for blood. Mankind has become extinct and although the government and scientists are working around the clock for a synthetic substitute, vampires are dying left and right. But before they do, the starvation process mutates them into winged creatures with pointy ears and shriveled skin, resembling those creatures of the dark we might have seen years ago; definitely not the refined ones as in "True Blood". I shouldn't use that comparison too much, however, as these vamps, while intelligent creatures "living and breathing" with the only difference from humans being their need for blood and fear of the sun, are more hybrids with the legends Hollywood has created. For example, early on we see our lead Hematologist, played by Ethan Hawke, mysteriously absent from his car's sideview mirror, a myth not true in the HBO series.

    Some of the population has become sympathetic to the plight of the humans—they were one once after all. Among these is Hawke's character, a scientist doing his best to create a way to stay alive without the need of the dying race. His hopes are that once an alternative is found, the humans will be able to repopulate and live in harmony with them, hunting no longer necessary. That's all well and good, but you can't tell a bloodthirsty creature to stop lusting for a kill, and the government, it would seem, doesn't want to either. Sam Neill plays the man orchestrating it all; I'm not sure if they blatantly call him it or not, but, for all intents and purposes, he is the President. Watching his numbers slowly devolve into uncontrollable beasts, monsters not even they can contain, his desire for a synthetic blood is at an all-time high. The necessity is so great that a trial is held prematurely, resulting in a great bloody mess, one the audience lapped up and cheered jubilantly for.

    Seeing that the vampires have lost all resemblance of their former selves, Hawke's Edward takes it upon himself to get out while he can, stumbling upon a band of humans, not surprisingly untrusting in his attempt to hide them from the authorities. When they see he is a man of his word and a friend to the cause, Edward is shown the holy grail of humanity's last hope for survival, a man that has become a man once more, changed back from the vampiric state that once consumed him. As subject zero, Hawke must use his body and story to figure out a cure to the plague that has ravaged Earth. The solution may no longer be a need for a blood substitute, but now a way to turn everyone back into humans.

    The story is strong and entertaining throughout despite its obvious ending and reconciliation. However, it is what makes up the duration that puts the film above the normal vampire action romp. I love the technology that has been invented, making life entirely vampire-proof. Every building in the cities have been fitted with connecting tunnels so people may move to and fro without the threat of sun, every window is equipped with a black out shutter, and cars are allowed to go into lockdown with front and side monitors for daytime driving. The brainstorming session to come up with these gadgets had to have been a ton of fun. I can just imagine giant white boards outlining each shortcoming to the vampire and then the multitude of ways to solve them. It is a decade of work by an increasingly growing population, so the fact that it all allows for the 24/7 travel of a vampire makes sense. They are the new humans, so a way to work long hours and not have to hibernate half the day away is key.

    Some problems do exist in the need to glamorize and make everything visually interesting. One scene in particular looks beautiful, but makes you question the validity of survival in that situation. It's a daytime meeting between Hawke, (who by the way plays the role perfectly; he does it seriously, a necessity for his Edward to be taken realistically as the Samaritan he is), and a rebel fighter played by Willem Dafoe, (again perfect, but so over-the-top that each one-liner met with rapturous applause, which could have also been because he was in the audience watching). Hawke is directed to park under a tree and get out to talk, deftly avoiding the rays of light peaking through the leaves above him. I guess only direct sunlight affects them. But hey, this is a horror film looking to entertain; one can't take those things too seriously. It's all about the exploding bodie, decapitated heads, and slomotion mass of humanity with biting, blood, and violence at the end—a truly stunning scene. The Spierigs play it right at every turn, making a helluva good time in a compact 98 minutes that could surprise the box office come January.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Ten years after a plague has turned most of the human race in to vampires hematologist Edward Dalton works for a corporate company that sells human blood . The vampire race are facing a problem in that the humans that the vampires rely upon are becoming more scarce and if the hematologists don't find a blood substitute quickly then the vampire race will die

    This was marketed in Britain as THE MATRIX meets 28 DAYS LATER but to be honest it resembles Richard Matheson's I AM LEGEND more than anything else with the vampires themselves not portrayed as out and out baddies , just merely as a species trying to survive . The idea that vampires are not the angst ridden teens of the TWILIGHT saga makes a nice change and it's fascinating that they're victims of Malthus doctrine of population that is causing them to become mutant degenerates called " subsiders " . DAYBREAKERS is absolutely compelling and thought provoking when it concentrates on the dilemmas facing the vampire race

    There is a massive spanner in the works and that is within the internal logic of the film it is far too convenient that it's only now with a one months supply of blood remaining the vampires only realise the problem facing them . It's also a bit too convenient that one of the vampires just happens to bump in to a character who was once a vampire who has found a way to reverting back to human form . The solution to this reversion back in to human is so simplistic it's impossible to believe that in the preceding ten years a population of several billion vampires haven't stumbled upon this easy cure

    This ties in with another flaw of the movie and that is the villains aren't really the vampires but corporate capitalism . In some ways it's a bit of a conspiracy thriller where the cure will affect a company's profits and therefore they think it's a better idea to keep everyone has a vampire rather than a human . It might be an interesting theory but the chief baddie played by Sam Neil is painted so broadly he stops being a cinematic character and becomes a cliché

    This is a great pity because DAYBREAKERS is a genuinely impressive stylish horror movie in parts that brings a new twist to the genre . I did actually suffer a couple of startle moments that caused me to jump and it's also a film that has a sharp and cold cinematography that suits the film perfectly but as is often said if a film is good it's down to the director and if it's bad it's down to the screenplay and the screenplay just falls short of making this a classic horror movie
  • Daybreakers (2009) is set in a dystopian society where almost every human has been turned into a vampire, this movie follows Edward Dalton, a vampire who works alongside humans to find a cure. I'm so glad I watched this film because I really enjoyed it and found it to be super gripping and engaging. The performances were a big standout and I ended up rooting for our protagonist!

    I loved the cinematography in this film! It was very well thought out, and added a weird dream-like look to the movie. The colour palettes were really nice and the green and blue tints were great. It was a visually dark movie too, but I thought it pulled it off well.

    The visual effects mainly haven't aged that well, however the gore still looked really good and I was impressed! Also, I loved the look of the vampires, it was so simple yet effective!

    Ethan Hawke was likeable and iconic in his role, he was a great protagonist! Alongside him, Willem Dafoe did brilliantly, and Sam Neill made an intimidating and strong villain with a clear motive. The performances are helped by fun and engaging dialogue.

    The score was used very tastefully, and was very subtle. The strings used were super fitting and added to the ominous and eerie atmosphere the film set. In addition, the sound design was effective too!

    The film set an unnerving and weird tone, and had slow and steady pacing. It had a strange vibe that I really liked and was super enjoyable! The film is consistently interesting and full of tense and unique moments. Something I really liked was the cure, and how it was vampire blood. This was such a smart bit of writing and the reveal was great. The last 10 minutes were chaotic too, and a very satisfying climax.
  • marinaant-3621723 March 2022
    Nice work on this one. I was hesitant to watch it at first since I'm not into vampire movies but it ended up being good. It makes it really nice the fact that it's futuristic. Ethan Hawk carried this film I watched it for him even though there were some others pretty known faces who did a really good job as well. I'm glad that it was full of action and I didn't get bored not even once.
  • I attended the World Premiere of "Daybreakers" at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival. Like many genre films being screened here, it's another fascinating hybrid -- let's call this one vampire sci-fi action adventure.

    This Australian horror film (is it something in the water?) was written and directed by brothers Michael and Peter Spierig, the very same filmmakers who closed down the legendary Uptown Theatre in Toronto with "Undead" in 2003. That made this a homecoming of sorts. In fact, it turns out they'd been working on "Daybreakers" since that very day.

    It's 2019, and there's been a role reversal -- the world is populated primarily by vampires. Humans are now a hunted minority and an essential food source -- think "Alien" meets "Soylent Green." Charles Bromley (Sam Neill) is the head of a mega-corporation which reaps hefty profits off the "arrangement." Ethan Hawke plays Edward, chief blood researcher. Later, we'll meet outlaw Elvis (Willem Dafoe). His role here becomes more pivotal as the story progresses but I'll leave it at that.

    All are up to the task but, despite the presence of veterans Neill, Hawke, and Dafoe, "Daybreakers" is still story-driven and would be less effective if not for an ingenious plot filled with unexpected turns and nonstop action that had me on the edge of my seat, literally. The script is laden with unpredictable twists and shocking reveals that will surprise viewers. Horrific mutant creatures appear out of nowhere with perfect timing.

    The brothers Spierig take a thorough hands-on approach, involving themselves in many of the technical aspects along with writing and directing. Ben Nott's sweeping cinematography and crisp editing by Matt Villa helps fulfill their vision of a dark world in which the protagonists are often difficult to identify.

    Groundbreaking visual and special effects often elicited cheers from the audience here. I was wide-eyed from start to finish witnessing some of the most jawdropping stunts and shocking "kills" I've seen in a genre film. The color palette is essential to the story as, of course, the undead can only come out at night. Since most shots are necessarily interiors or in darkness, pushing the blue reflects the bleak lighting conditions under which the population lives, as well as the washed-out appearance of what (we imagine) vampires look like. As in most genre movies, sound is as essential to the story as are characters, and composer Christopher Gordon's masterful score matches up with the brilliant work of the effects team to punctuate the many intense action sequences.

    Michael and Peter Spierig attended the screening along with Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill. The Q&A ran well into the early morning hours.

    (NOTE: "Daybreakers" was the runner-up for the Midnight Madness Cadillac People's Choice Award)
  • 'Daybreakers' offers a new twist on a familiar genre. With less than 5% humans remaining, vampires are the ruling species. As humans become extinct, vampires face extinction due to a shortage of blood. In the meantime vampires have human farms, draining humans of their blood.

    Hematologist Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) - who refuses to touch human blood - is trying to find a substitute for blood in order to ensure the survival of the vampire race. Depraved of blood, vampires eventually become hideous creatures, feeding on each other. A group of humans - and Lionel (Willem Dafoe) who once was a vampire, now work together with Edward to create a 'cure' for vampires.

    'Daybreakers' features creepy make-up effects, plenty of action to satisfy the action junkies, gore for the horror freaks, effective jump scares, and even drama elements to make the film all the more realistic. It has a clever script, good sound effects, and is highly entertaining. This is a vampire movie well worth a watch.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    OK I went to the cinema with high expectations for this film, with words like 'think matrix and 28 days later' emblazoned on posters, who didn't.

    So, Where do i begin??? Well ill start with something positive. then ill give you all the bits that i don't like and then ill end on a positive.

    The concept of the film is really original and is something i haven't seen in a film before. i like the fact that vampires have taken over, cos lets face it if there were such things in our world then they would probably rule over us.

    Now for some negative remarks. After the initial pacing of the first 45 minutes everything falls apart and feels way too rushed. The cure is found out pretty much halfway through the film and is, lets put it this way, week to say the least.***Spoiler*** Sunlight! a cure for vampirism is sunlight! This seems ridiculous to me. especially after the opening scene where there is a female sitting on a bench in front of her house waiting for the sunrise and as soon as it comes up she is on fire and is burnt to ash within seconds. so sunlight is a stupid cure if you are going to open your film with this scene.

    The introduction of one character (the daughter) is actually detrimental to the film. adding a story inside a story that wasn't at all needed. and added no depth, just distracted from the main story and took time that could have been better used to add mood and pace.

    Vampire lore is not followed at all really. The vampires aren't particularly strong like they should be or fast. they are just humans really but with the added fact they needed blood. And when did vampires start eating humans. i thought that they only sucked blood. But in this film they rip humans or other vampires to shreds and eat organs and intestines, this was probably just done to get the gore rating up. but really just makes you wonder what the writers were thinking.

    Then at the end your left wondering whether the cure is actually good for the world or bad because your left with cured humans, passing on the cure, but first to be able to be cured you need to devour a cured human. so surely this is a vicious cycle that will end in the devastation of the world. Makes you wonder whether the build up was worth it.

    The directors also go for some cheap scares, little silent jumpy parts that get the girls in the cinema yelping which i suppose is OK sometimes, but not every time.

    lets just say spierig brothers... watchowski brothers you are not!

    I said id end on a positive and i will. so.. The cast and acting is amazing. to see Sam Neill as a very convincing top dog is wonderful and sinister and giving Ethan hawke a go, is inspired in this film as he suits the vampire look. Willem Defoe again is just amazing and has some cool one liners which adds a touch if not enough humour to the film.

    All in all i wish i could say that i enjoyed this film, but i really really didn't. Better than the teeny vampire movies of the last 2 years but still way off for me to find entertaining.
  • Daybreakers is a super stylish, well crafted film, a film I thought stood out from the vampire films produced over the last few years. I loved how they managed to create a plausible society, with vampires, humans, and vampire monsters. The notion of falling human numbers was very clever, makes you wonder what would happen to Dracula if he had no more necks to bite.

    Fantastic production values, it is incredibly slick, sounds great, and has wonderful cinematography. The acting was impressive also, with some super performances, Ethan Hawke in particular.

    The vampire genre seems to have taken a nosedive in recent times, with the constant churning out of zombie movies. I felt Daybreakers was the start of something big, with sequels to follow, but clearly this lacked something for the mass audiences, I know the ending gets some flack, maybe that had something to do with it.

    Some good scares too, I feel films are now intent on just giving us gore, moments to turn the stomach. I appreciated the efforts that went into providing scares.

    Loved it. 9/10
  • Fantasy movie with vampires. A hypothetical future where vampires have dominated the planet and humans are only few left. Several of the people have been captured and are in a company that milks them for fresh blood and makes huge profit from it. But blood is not enough and vampires are starting to starve. Some vampires work on synthetic blood, but is perhaps the solution somewhere else? A pretty good and structured adventure movie in the genre, without catching a top spot, but it's definitely above average and with big names on the cast list. There could be a sequel. Recommended for fans of the genre.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I can say nothing worse about Daybreakers than that I'd rather have been watching Blade 4 (presumably "Blade 4.0" or possibly "BL4DE").

    Most recent vampire movies are utter balls. On the one hand it's all techno music, impractical clothing and farcical weaponry ("we've got glass bullets full of liquid sunlight", yeah... right, mate, whatever you say). On the other hand it's god-awful self absorbed teenagers blathering on about love and immortality and so on. Amazingly, Daybreakers manages to combine the worst of both worlds.

    What we have here is a slow boring film with little action and a script so tired that it's difficult to listen to. There are whole sections of dialogue which sound like:

    Character 1: Exposition, exposition, exposition.

    Character 2: Really? What about exposition, exposition?

    Character 1: Oh, that's exposition, exposition, exposition, exposition.

    The cinematography is washed out near-black&white and the vampire characters all wander around in slow motion a lot. Most of the time it feels like you're watching an over-long Armarni perfume ad.

    SPOILER

    It's twenty-past the future and vampires rule the earth. The rapidly dwindling supply of uninfected humans are captured and farmed for blood resources. So far, so Matrix. The problem is that the blood supply is running out and as the vampires starve they start to mutate into violent, brainless nosferatu style monsters.

    Ethan Hawke plays Edward, a haematologist who is frantically searching for a blood substitute to save the vampire race from total annihilation. Sam Neill's evil corporate vampire wants the substitute to ensure that his company makes even more money.

    Edward runs into (quite literally) the human resistance and, because he's a caring vampire is brought in to help them. He's introduced to Willem Dafoe who explains how his vampirism was cured and before you can say "wow, that's an unlikely cure" Ethan's been whacked back to mortality and has a plan to stop the evil corporate blood farmers.

    END SPOILER

    A few people have likened this to Gattica and yes, it'd be very like Gattica if you took away everything which made Gattica a good film and added vampires.

    I haven't seen any of the Twishite films but, dear God, I have to assume that the're better than this.
An error has occured. Please try again.