Alright, yes, Daybreakers is a new take on the ridiculous Vampire sub-genre craze of the past 2 years; however it is, in no way, "fresh."
Daybreakers arrives to us by way for the Spierig Brothers. It's a simple reversal tale of the United States being primarily inhabited by vampires instead of humans. The poor human race is hunted out and forced into disgusting farm camps where their blood is harvested for consumers. But then there's a twist (that somehow isn't foreseen by the majority of the country): humans are becoming harder and harder to find and, even when they are found, there's only so much blood that can be taken before the Vampires have nothing else to feast on. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) sees this problem coming a mile away, but is also traumatized by the hellish and demonized nature of "farming" humans. His pharmaceutical research company, Bromley Marks, is the number one processor of human blood yet is trying to divulge a blood substitute that could be manufactured (think True Blood meets big business). The duality of Dalton's predicament leads him to frustration with his lifestyle, especially after encountering a Subsider, a genetically inferior devolution of a Vampire after they've been neglected blood for too long, in his own apartment. One night, he encounters a group of humans driving down a road who crash into his car and threaten him; however, he decides to help them by discovering a cure instead of a blood substitute. Once his military brother Frankie (Michael Dorman) finds out this plot, he becomes infuriated and stops at nothing to find these humans and bring them in for harvest.
The story seems like a good one, and it is nice to see someone trying to slap the Vampire genre in the face, but that is its only purpose. It's as if the film came out solely because it wanted to be a Vampire movie but better, capitalizing on the love/hate relationship we have with the genre. Ultimately, Daybreakers doesn't do anything new enough or creative enough to stand the test of time, and you're going to forget about it soon enough. Sure, it's pretty bloody and gory and the Subsider idea was actually pretty interesting, but that wasn't even explored enough. They were awkwardly played as villainous monstrosities only to try and ascertain your sympathy later on.
The characters themselves are just too boring to care about, specifically the Dalton brothers and also the human girl Audrey (Claudia Karvan) who has some awkward moments with Edward. Don't get me started on "Elvis" (Willem Dafoe); a cheesy rip-off of someone like Tallahassee from Zombieland with horribly blatant sarcasm, unfunny one-liners and that "badass" attitude that you really could care less about. And by the way, who the f*** named these characters? "Edward" and "Elvis?" Really?
Then there's the cinematography and general look of the film, which retained this very mellow, blue, tungsten filter feel to it...which I despise in most films. I just don't understand why the film looks so cold, other than the depressing demise of the human and/or vampire race, but it looks boring and mundane. In other parts, though, the cinematography and special effects mesh very well together, particularly in the much lower lighted areas. Overall, though, it's just plain lame.
Also, what was up with the cheap and extremely shallow "scares" this thing tried to pull? Honestly, just because a bat flies the screen and inexplicably screams doesn't mean it's scary, it just looks like someone thought they would try to make the audience jump for absolutely no reason. Honestly, it makes me upset when legitimate horror films try to use cheap scares like that, but Daybreakers is more of a thriller/suspense/drama/sci-fi kind of film, not a horror one. In no way is it scary in any other area of the film other than things randomly screaming and appearing (only 2 or 3 times).
So, all in all, Daybreakers is kind of original in its premise but not at all original in its approach. It falls prey, as most movies do, to typical dramatic narrative that becomes all too predictable. The characters are flat, the story overall is extremely shallow, the cinematography feels bland, the acting is sub-par, but most unfortunately, Willem Dafoe is extremely disappointing in his role. It's not really worth going out of your way to watch, but if you must catch a new vampire flick...or whatever...just wait till this is on DVD.
5.5/10
-Kyle Shelton
No comments:
Post a Comment