“Daybreakers” Not Twilight. YAY.

Genres: Drama, Science Fiction/Fantasy, Suspense/Horror and Thriller
Running Time: 1 hr. 38 min.
Release Date: January 8th, 2010 (wide)
MPAA Rating: R for strong bloody violence, language and brief nudity.
Distributors: Lionsgate


Director: Michael Spierig & Peter Spierig

JJ Rating: B+

Vampires rule the world like a bad disease gone good for immortality. One vampire, Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke), feels that human blood isn’t that yummy and questions what the hell they’re all doing harvesting humans. Charles (Sam Neill) sees what they are doing as necessary. Edward (hahaha…) apparently doesn’t like being pale and wanting blood any more so he looks for something that’ll help him out and he runs into a reformed vampire that goes by the nickname of Elvis (Willem Dafoe) and a blood bath ensues. Daybreakers.

I think it’s hilarious that the main character’s name is Edward, but he doesn’t sparkle. Sorry ladies. It has been a while since I’ve seen Ethan Hawke and I don’t think I particularly missed him. I think he did a good job in this film, but this film was very story driven more than character or actor driven. No stand out actors in this film. They all did what they needed to do to make the story work.

Now the story was pretty good and interesting. Corporate greed playing a major role in the entire film and it apparently overrides any family ties. I liked how vampires turned into a zombie like form if they didn’t get the human blood they need to keep functional. The farm was a bit creepy. There was a lot of blood and guts and it really started falling out towards the end of the film. Daybreakers is also really loud, like ear-piercingly loud. When there was an ear-piercing screech that came from the movie there was an equal ear pain scream from a few females in the audience. It has the potential of causing a headache.

Daybreakers had great shots. There is a scene where Edward (hehe) is under a tree in daylight and he’s hopscotching to bypass all the rays of light. It’s pretty awesome looking. It is simple, but very neat to see. Then there is the speeding car and the accident and a flying body into the water. Then there's the dark scene that sort of mirrors how vile humanity can be towards their own that do not look as they wish them to. It was a very serious scene with artistic twist. There were a lot of great visual aspects to the film that I appreciate that were far simpler than Avatar.

Avatar is good and done as far as I am concerned. The movie season is all year around. There shouldn’t be such a thing as Crapuary. It’s a good thing that Daybreakers is decent and entertaining. I would have been royally pisssed if I had to sit through another Leap Year like film or, for that matter, Twilight like film.

Daybreakers has a unique story. It’s not awesome, it’s just good. The end is interesting in how it pans out even if you do figure it before it happens (I did). If you like vampires then this will probably interest you and it might make you feel better after being said that Twilight has made all the girls think that vampires are cute and cuddly. Daybreakers will totally shred that idea into a torrent of blood splatter in every direction and a few guts and brain matter as well. It is the anti-Twilight. That’s one anti we should all embrace with a stake in one hand and a cross in the other.

6 comments:

merebear said...

If it's going to be the anti-Twilight, then it should be a better movie. I mean it only made $15mil the first weekend. Can't it just be it's own thing without being compared? I agree that the tree/sun hoping scene was cool, but it doesn't make up for soooo many out of focus shots and horrible sound mix. And when are you going to come out of the closet with you Twilight love. I know it's there! ;)

J_Jammer said...

Rated-R movies do not tend to make a whole lot of money. That is why some films fight to keep the PG-13 because that's where the big bucks are. Plus that could be why they also decided to have Ethan Hawke in the lead. A good actor, just not a high priced one nor a well known one any more.

Unless the sound is way off, I won't particularly pay attention to it. This is interesting because I read an article that was on The Last Samurai (with Tom Cruise) and it was BASHING it because of historical inaccuracies. I love history but I also love movies and I can differentiate just fine. That article had a lot of great information but in the back of my head I couldn't stand to think what it would be like to see a movie with this person. I would freakin' kill him. Anyone that allocates a film with reality via history wise is an idiot.

Like 1776 is a great musical but the founding fathers didn't go around singing. Other than that the film is very accurate on how it portrayed the events.

I don't ever want to be that nitpicky that I can't enjoy a movie for what it's worth.

I also didn't notice the out of focus shots....I just noticed the overbearingly loud moments that were a bit ridiculous but only fun because it made people scream.

And Twilight...I think it's accurate adaptation--because I've heard how terrible the writing is in that book (by people who are not love sick females) and it would seem the movies are neither better nor worse. I only realized that the main character here with Ethan Hawke had the same name as I was writing the review. Didn't even dawn on me during the movie. Good thing...I was enjoying it. Wouldn't want to have disturbed that. ha. =P

merebear said...

Just like loud sounds can be overbearing, an obvious out of focus shot can take me out of the moment. Regardless of my feelings later, I can enjoy cheesy movies, but being taken out of the movie moment is not cool. Average movie goers don't notice it, but I'm no average movie goer.
I can enjoy highly inaccurate historical movies just like the person. I know everything about King Henry VIII, his six wives and Queen Elizabeth I. Even knowing what I know, I can enjoy The Tudors and Kate Blanchet as Elizabeth despite its numerous inaccuracies. Not really sure why this was brought up. Yeah, it's a movie, not history channel.

Oh, and you've heard about Twilight and it's writing, but haven't experienced it yourself. What a surprise. It's not a well written book, but it's not bad. I've read worse. Yet I still enjoyed it. I may not be some single "love sick female" that you describe (god forbid), but I am a romantic. And if you had read the books, you would know that the movies are better. Melissa Rosenberg, head writer for Dexter, can actually clean up some of Stephenie Meyer's mistakes. As well as cut down on the length. But of course, why would you trust me on this subject? I'm just the one that knows what I'm talking about in order to discuss it intelligently.

J_Jammer said...

I do not like pretentious moviegoers. I don't like nitpicking about focus and lighting and anything like that. It is one reason I cannot stand reading many people's reviews. So when someone comes to me complaining about a film and they get nitpicky about what is going on in it with all the technical things I don't care to listen.

It's like going to a stage play with children and then complaining about the sets. It's unnecessary.

merebear said...

Is the reason you don't bring up the technical things because you wouldn't know what to say? It's nothing like a childrens play. They're children, they don't know any better. Anything they do is cute. These are professional adults we're talking about. So remember that. They're professionals being paid to do a job. What you're doing is more like looking at a novel and saying, well isn't that cover pretty. You're just scratching the surface.

And I hate when people try to talk about what they don't know. So I guess we both have things we hate. Once again you avoid the Twilight comments. You hate people who get technical when it comes to movie watching. And if that bothers you, then I understand. It bothers me when people blindly judge. That's why I have problems reading their reviews.

J_Jammer said...

Then you shouldn't read anything ever....since everything anyone ever writes is practically judging. Even your comments would fall under the thing you just said you don't like.

In award shows no one cares about who wins sound or editing, for that matter. Why? Because those are boring awards unless you're in that category or like that kind of stuff. When the award shows are done people don't clammer around the "water cooler" (or now it's Twitter) about OMG did you see who won for best sound, editing and even (sometimes) cinematography is not cared about.

They care about best actor, actress, director, picture, screenplay, adapted screenplay, song, music....everything else is just fodder and only makes the awards last longer than they care to watch.

That is one reason why award shows don't get fantastic ratings not only are their movies they have not seen nor care about...the categories bore them.

I understand about lightning, focus and all sorts of things. I don't discuss them because they are boring unless there is something outstanding about them or there is something terrible about them---anything in between is not worth talking about.

I don't care to read about Twilight because the story doesn't interest me, I am not a girl, I do not care to read about love affairs with vampires and werewolves if they are not decimating humans and books of that nature are almost always boring. Twilight is bad because it's convincing little girls and teenagers that males actually act like that.

People think it's terrible to fill little boy's heads up with violence and gun play...and totally ignore filling little girl's heads up with faux romance and things real males will never live up to. It's almost as if there should be label on top of it that says, "Warning: Males in this book are not based on anyone on Earth, do not go looking for an Edward or Jacob. Though Jacob is more of a probability than an Edward."

I appreciate that you notice things that are off that I wouldn't care about. But it often does not totally factor into how much fun I have watching a movie. The other reason I dislike reading many people's reviews is because they are far more cynical and they totally forget why movies are made (outside of profit).

Hollywood Dump on Facebook

In addition to the articles we post here, we also link to stories we think are interesting and post them to our Facebook page. If you're on FB, become a fan!