Vampires are done. That’s the conventional wisdom, and it’s wisdom with which I more or less agreed before I saw Daybreakers, the closing night film of the 2009 Fantastic Fest. Directed by the Spierig Brothers (the fellas behind Undead), Daybreakers
steps boldly outside of the usual vampire boundaries and does something
unique and fun, and it creates an entire world that is guaranteed to
intrigue you and leave you wanting more.
The set up is simple: it’s 2019, and it’s been ten years since the
vampire plague hit humanity. Now over 95% of the Earth’s population are
fanged bloodsuckers who don’t have reflections and who are afraid of
the sun. But as the vampire population explodes, their food source
dwindles; unwise management of natural resources – in this case, the
human population – has left the vampire world on the brink of serious
disaster, as they only have about enough blood to feed the world for a
month.
Vampires that go without blood don’t die – they devolve into horrible
bat creatures called Subsiders; the bestial Subsiders lurk beneath
subway tunnels and in the ghettos, and as the film opens they’ve begun
coming into even the suburbs, and even suburbanites have started to
become Subsiders as blood supplies dwindle.
At the center of all this is Edward (Ethan Hawke), a hematologist
employed by industrialist and blood magnate Charles Bromley (a
delightfully sinister Sam Neill) to find a blood replacement. For
Edward, who was turned into a vampire against his will, this is a
chance to stop the farming and murder of humans. For Bromley this is a
way to replenish human stock and to offer 100% natural human blood as
an expensive delicacy. But since there seems to be no replacement that
works – one trial leads to a wonderfully messy detonation of the test
subject vamp – it all seems like there’s no hope. That is until Edward
runs into a band of human resistance fighters who may have discovered
the cure for vampirism.
The main joy at the heart of Daybreakers is the scope of
the world the Spierigs have created. They’ve thought this through, and
while there are a couple of holes or places where you might question
logic, the world feels complete. As a young nerd my favorite part of
pen and paper role playing games was the world building – I loved
modules that included history and government and culture of the
fictional land in which our characters were adventuring. I liked
immersing myself in the worlds as well as nitpicking at the reality
created by the writers; the Spierig Brothers have outlined a world that
would have made that young nerd ecstatic with its fullness and reality,
the tangible details they have included that make this feel like a
place, not like a cobbled together set.
Part of what makes that world tick is the way the Spierigs have
approached vampires the way so many filmmakers have approached zombies
– they see an opportunity to discuss real issues with vampirism, to
create a society that mirrors and comments on ours. The way the
vampires have mismanaged the human population is obviously a reflection
of our own current and impending crises with natural resources, and the
Subsiders represent the poverty underclass that sits invisible in every
Western nation. The fact that suburbanites are becoming Subsiders
echoes the mortgage crisis and the death of the middle class. And to
their credit the Spierigs don’t make a big deal out of these things –
they just present aspects of the vampire world and allow you to draw
your own conclusions, or not. This film isn’t a polemic, but it also
isn’t just an action movie with fangs in its mouth.
But my favorite bit of social commentary may be the most subtle: it’s
the arrogance of the vampires. The vampires have been on top for a
decade, but they all but wallow in their immortality. They have no
vision for the future beyond the moment, and they don’t realize that
living forever is a very daunting thing. They’re the ultimate
Americans, not realizing how young their empire is, assuming it will go
on forever as it has gone on for the last few years and steadfastly
refusing to look beyond today to see the coming calamity.
I don’t want to oversell the commentary of Daybreakers,
but it’s a huge part of what made the film work for me. The main story
– Edward trying to find a cure – is clunky, and there’s a side story or
two that never quite gel. For those less enthralled with the world the
Spierigs have created, these stunted stories could be deal-breakers.
But for me they’re more than made up for by excellent action scenes –
many of which are wonderfully wet – and strong character work by a trio
of seasoned actors. Ethan Hawke does a lot of his Ethan Hawke thing –
wounded, quiet, greasy – but for me it works in the role. More
interesting is Sam Neill as the bad guy with a slight conscience, and
Willem Dafoe as the human survivor who holds the key to the future.
Dafoe has made a weird choice to play his character with a Southern
accent that comes in and out, but that almost feels intentional. His
character calls himself Elvis, and has an affinity for old muscle cars,
so it’s easy to buy that the accent is a put on. Neill’s corporate
baddie, Bromley, is one of those great bad guys who always keeps his
cool, and who is always one step ahead of the heroes. I wish that Neill
and Dafoe had scenes together, since they’re coming at their characters
from such opposite ends, which I think would have created something
really explosive.
While the Spierigs have computer effects in their veins – they did FX on this film, much as they did on Undead – they wisely keep much of the monster and gore stuff practical. Watching Ninja Assassin at Fantastic Fest I was completely thrown off by the torrents of digital blood. In Daybreakers
the blood is almost always real and physical. The Subsiders could have
been done with digital effects, but instead they’re guys in big badass
latex suits, and it helps create the reality and the menace of the
monsters.
To me Daybreakers is incredibly impressive for a second
feature. Ambitious, smart and unique, the film proves that the Spierigs
have a real future as interesting genre filmmakers. And while I look
forward to whatever they do next (currently planned to be a scifi
remake of Captain Blood), I’m hoping they get a chance
to revisit the world they’ve created here and explore it further. I’m
ready to go back at any time.





29 comments
As a vampire fan (TWILIGHT excluded as those aren't what I refer to as "vampires") I've been really disappointed with the subgenre for awhile now. I was on-the-fence on this one, but I believe I shall find myself in theaters this weekend checking this one out. Good stuff, Devin.
The reason why I stopped reading this review is simple: the words "leave you wanting more."
When is enough, enough anymore (or is it enough?). Quite honestly, I'm sick of entertainment that has to have a follow up just because someone wants it. Do we need it? No.
Want it? Probably for about five minutes after seeing the film or listening to the album…
C'mon, why can't we just leave things alone when they're good and move on to something else that may be imaginative or creative or ORIGINAL?
@2 Um, that is not what that sentence means or even implies. It has absolutely nothing to do with the filmmakers. He is saying it will leave viewers wishing they had more of the film (or the world that it inhabits) to explore/watch/digest. It speaks to the quality of the world the brothers created, not an intent to cash in with a sequel. Fail.
@2, Why would you stop reading a review over something so completely stupid.
Personally, I wasn't sure if I wanted to see this film, but after this review I'm probably going to give it a go.
Devin, I'm sold. I need a grand vampire film indeed. I still watch Near Dark once a month. Vay! Rob
This is one of those ideas hovering at the edges of every vampire movie, so it's nice to read that these guys have followed through on it faithfully. Looking forward to witnessing the wetness and uh, greasiness…
The true villain in this movie is Ayn Rand
I saw it myself today, I certainly wasn't disappointed. The only part that sort of bothered me, which turned out not to be a real issue, was that it seemed like it wanted to go into sequel territory for a long time. It was almost like how the first 2 LotR movies were winding down. Thankfully, it pulled a good sudden ending. Also, I kind of thought it was going for the goriest Jesus allegory west of The Passion of the Christ… with multiple people… and the way their innards painted the inside of the lobby. Great movie.
I'm hyped for this. A good friend of mine watched it last night sitting next to Willem Dafoe and the current Miss America, at some premiere of screening in NY. I kind of hate her for it.
Just came back from this, was a pretty fun flick. I liked how even when things were breaking down (such as in the coffee stand incident), those relatively nearby were still treating things as routine. It wasn't in your face, but worked with the subtle themes mentioned by Devin.
Saw it last night. The Piranha and A Team trailers definitely gave the audience a ball tap, because most people didn't know what to think. After that point.
I liked the movie, a little goofy at times, but Defoe had some pretty amazing one-liners. There is much more I would like to know about some of the stuff in the middle of the movie, but in terms of a story about how vampirism might actually go down in real life, this is a pretty good guess.
worth seeing i guess, but this movie bored the shit out of me for about the middle hour or so. and the cure is fucking retarded.
It was a pretty good take on the vampire sub-genre. I thought the cure was a little lack luster, but it still worked. Especially with the idea that vampires were unnatural. Overall, a good movie with plenty of social commentary (if you're into that thing) that will also please the everyday horror fan.
This wasn't an 8.5 movie. Sorry, it just wasn't. Wasn't bad, but felt fairly average.
I liked it. I laughed at the slow motion scene. It just seemed like it didn't belong. But I found it enjoyable. I love Sam Neil.
awesome idea, generic and cliche execution. i love that cars still blow up for no reason in silly movies!
I typically agree with you, Devin… but this time, I've got to cry foul. I just couldn't enjoy this flick. I dug the premise, and at times it seemed as though things should click with me… but I left the theatre standing by the wisdom that Vampires, for all intents and purposes, should take a vacation alongside Zombies and Buddy Cops.
you had me at big bad latex suits, to hell with CGI characters!!! I'm still uncertain about the lack of sparkles.. should be an 8.5 vampire movie, maybe a 7 movie movie..
Your right! World building is fun and nice to see it taken seriously in art.
This review solidifies the theory that Devin is on Lionsgate's payroll. Let Nick write the reviews from now on, fatso.
8.5???! The one thing about social commentary in horror film is that it is always so damn thin…It's like an editorial cartoon in a newspaper, where everything is identified so you get the point right away.
The film gets lots of credit for setting up a great world – but world building is not enough for an 8.5. The story was b-grade, the acting horrible, the characters paper thin, a cure that can only be described as lazy and a roll-your-eyes bad ending. The world itself make it worth seeing, but when you walk out of the theater, you'll just be disappointed by what a let down the rest of it is.
Devin's review was spot on, but he failed to work in the prerequisite Before Sunrise reference.
Saw it yesterday… expected a lot based on this review..
it was pretty under-whelming. the ideas were "interesting" and "intriguing" but nothing ever came to fruition. blah. 6 out of 10 at the most.
"A sci-fi remake of Captain Blood? I'm skeptical, but intrigued at the same time. I hope the space pirates can hold a candle to those in Space Truckers. And I'm serious.
Wow. This movie sucked. "Interesting" ideas, maybe, but this narrative was so not compelling, and it reaffirmed my dislike for Ethan Hawke, who's character was a total pussy, and he has absolutely no charisma to carry a film with his dead eyes.
I was hyped about this movie too, I thought it looked badass, and I was pissed I paid $13 bucks for it when I hadda go get a coffee for it in the second act (thank god Union Sq. sells espresso at the concession)
I for one, enjoyed this film thoroughly. Finally a film that does not think its audience are Podunk retards. No lame explanations of silver arrows and bullets, sunlight, and wooden stakes to the heart; the film goes down a path that has a logical vision to what would happen if a fantasy vampire pandemic would take place in our real world. The visuals were captivating enough to hold me over, and I'm glad they included a sub division of vampires (subsiders) that even the main society of vampires find vial and disgusting. For those of you who find the story dull, predictable, and overall nothing special, what did you think of Avatar? We all can talk about how amazing it was, but that storyline was childish, and so easy to put together it was like a connect the dots puzzle. Buying into the world is what got people into Avatar, buying in the world of Daybreakers just might make you think it actually is an 8.5 movie.
Well said, Ford. I for one have been searching for a vampyre film with which to erase the residual 'Twilight' memories my mind hadn't managed to block out. Having a main character named Edward {albiet a far more believable and likeable character than that other one} was just icing on the cake for me. I can totally see where all the complaints're coming from as I seemed to enjoy Daybreakers a lot more than many of they people I went to see it with, but I feel that's mostly because I actually enjoy thinking during movies (an activity which my friends do not find appealing). Personally, I find the second version of the cure to be more interesting {not to mention highly symbolic if one chose to think about it for half a moment}.
My quest for self-improvement continues! Here I kinda slam 'Twilight' and, though I myself have some problems with the film, I also think it's sorta low of me to bash the thing from the safety of an anonymous keyboard. Undoubtably, no one really cares (heck, [I] barely care and I'm the one sitting here writing this!) but, nevertheless there's something about insulting someone's work from behind the veil of imagined anonymity. Rubs me the wrong way so I intend to cut that out.
Here here brother… Another dead on review.
Specially the bits about Ethan Hawke & the CGI
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.