It starts off promisingly, with its stark, blood-red titles making me hope for a classic horror of sorts, or at least a tribute to them (à la Drag Me to Hell), but it quickly devolves into a generic, derivative mess. It's akin almost to Children of Men in the visual manner it sets up its world and the voiceover-less exposition, but there the similarities end. It's a solemn, serious work, one that forgoes fun (Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill's scenery-chewing performances notwithstanding) in favour of VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGES. References to the Great Depression and the Holocaust abound (no kidding), but make no mistake: this is a commentary on our times, and our energy crisis. As such, it's a dour, depressing work. A shame.

But will I like it?

Probably; you do have predictably mediocre taste.

I was the one who recommended Let the Right One In to everyone here!

But you also thought Cloverfield was better.

Hmm, indeed. Not necessarily better (though not wose either) but more rewatchable and more enjoyable.

Interesting ideas and some very gore-tastic scenes but the fun is seriously lacking. It could have used a less serious tone.

Grade - B/B- (haven't made final decision yet; it could drop in the C range).

An original and well-crafted vampire film. It does lose focus near the end, concentrating on Blade and The Matrix-style action sequences rather than the core ideas. Still, there is so much to admire here, including strong performances and several fun and inspired details (in a world of vampires, human blood has replaced cream and sugar in cups of coffee). This is sure to become at least a minor cult classic and could inspire sequels.

B+

Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce to you the first über-classic sci-fi of this new born decade...

Daybreakers!!!

It's certainly the most under-hyped perfect film to come along in ages. I hadn't even heard it was a sci-fi! Wow. This movie knocked my socks off - - it is so refreshing to see a story with such note-perfect internal logic.

Daybreakers is, simply put: a brilliant dark satire.

(...and how many dark satires are we even fortunate enough to get to see nowadays?)

The leading roles were most assuredly handled by old pro's Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill, and Willem Dafoe. They were joined by Claudia Carvan (though sadly heretofore little known to me) who matched them as the hottie human heroic milf.

Daybreakers will soon become a cult favorite. I predict that after a tragically low first run BO, that this film will skyrocket in popularity in the long run. I would certainly love to see a couple of great sequels based on the outstanding premise of this original story. In the first sequel, Daybreakers: The Vampire Strikes Back I just gonna be happy to check back in to Vampire-Earth and see how us humans are making out with the mass conversions cures. Of course, in the second sequel, I gotta see: Daybreakers: Return Of The Humans - - the big finale! (...at least until the prequels.)

All hail our new directorial overlords, the Spierig Brothers!!!


888 out of 5.

The above score/hyperbole is crazy enough to work as your big comeback post, but I wish you could have picked a more important movie to re-emerge with, ya know?

YAY!!! BRADLEY IS BACK!!!

Glad to have you back buddy! I have seriously missed your engrossing and ballsy reviews.

While I don't find this the masterpiece that you do, I still really enjoyed it for being a smart and thought-provoking flick.

Daybreakers is a decent entry in the vampire genre. The ambition is there to be great but some solutions are dealt with too easily (such as Hawke getting cured) and some situations just seem too bizarre to be taken seriously. Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, and Claudia Karvan do fine with the script they were given but never quite step out of the box given. The third act goes a bit overboard and a more simple solution to telling everyone about the "cure" could of made the film a lot better. Still the film is decent and probably something that can be rewatched on TNT or whatever station it ends up on once its syndication time comes. **

It was pretty good. Nothing special.

B-

B+


I liked the Spierig brothers' previous effort, Undead, probably up until its final 20-30 minutes or so (when they brought the alien nonsense into the film). Up until then it was a fun Braindead rip-off. Daybreakers doea away with most of the humor the Spierig brothers put on display in Undead and offers a more serious horror film that is just as much sci-fi as horror, though.

The concept of the world taken over by vampires and living in it is a great concept, but not one without flaws. On the whole, it just doesn't make an awful lot of sense. In the film it is mentioned that everyone was offered the chance to turn into a vampire. What was the thinking behind that? If almost everyone had accepted they would have run into blood supply issues much faster and would have just died (or become Subsiders). Considering the vampire society is presented as rather smart that just strikes me as a mistake (or glaring plothole, depending on how you want to look at it). Then there's their final plan of turning the vampires back into humans. Seems pretty stupid as it just ends up with a ton of vampires dead who could otherwise have been simply converted to humans.

Aside from some logical problems, it is a fine film that benefits a lot from its great visual style. The Spierig brothers never overdo it when it comes to blood 'n gore or stylistic action scenes, always giving the audiences just the right dose of each. The art direction is superb and I really liked the transformation effects work done on the Subsiders. The acting is fine. Ethan Hawke does a god leading man and Willem Dafoe as well as Sam Neill both ham it up, but it fits. The little subplot involving Sam Neill's character's daughter seemed rather unnecessary, though.

The movie does not reinvent the genre, but it is a cool ride that confirms the Spierig brothers are some of the fresh minds in the horror genre. Definitely looking forward to their next output and I hope we won't have to wait this long now.