The Worst Film Ever

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

An original vampire flick? Impossible! Yet, the Spierig brothers managed to flip a typical clichéd vampire story on its head to create something as fresh as human blood. That doesn't prevent the overall production from feeling inexpensive, but it maintains your attention throughout. A vampire hematologist is tasked with researching for a blood substitute as the remaining human population dwindles, meaning vampires will have no blood left. Just the originality alone is enough to quench our bloodythirstiness, considering it was released during a period of genre saturation (no thanks to 'Twilight'). The Spierig brothers fortunately managed to perpetuate a sense of intellectual world building, particularly in the first act. Immediately, this dark futuristic world is thoroughly explored, from the degenerative "subsiders" to the laboratory farms that harvest humans. Retaining dark gothic aesthetics without requiring towering spires and grand cathedrals. The story, whilst executed basically, illustrates the desperation that the vampire race is facing. Humanity faces extinction and the chic vampires face degenerating into psychotic bat creatures. There was just enough meat in the plot to keep me invested. Hawke is consistently decent as always, same can be said about Dafoe, both giving convincing and moody performances. Neill was perfect casting as the corporate antagonist, exhuming a menacingly calm demeanour. The visual effects however, were B-grade at best. So horrendously cheap looking that the production value deteriorated instantly and, on multiple occasions, took me out of the film. Laughably poor. The final act loses its intellectual plot and succumbs to mindless action with blood gushing everywhere. Whilst I appreciate the practical effects during these sequences, it just lets the overall narrative down. All that build up with minimal payoff, ultimately leaving a metallic aftertaste. For what it is worth though, the innovative premise, world building and performances converted me.

With the vampire genre it is very difficult to engineer something original and unique. That's why I really appreciate Daybreakers; it is a new look at a world of vampires. What if the majority of the world were vampires? That's exactly what Daybreakers explores. A virus breaks out and turns many people into vampires. Those not turned by the virus are either turned by other vampires or are farmed as a food source. But even this sun-less utopia has its flaws. As more and more humans become changed less and less blood is available for the masses. As hematologists work feverishly to find a blood substitute, humans work feverishly to survive. The story in itself is very captivating. Everyone has their reasons for the path they chose and they're all with merit. Some chose to be vampires out of fear of death, others for strength, while others never had a choice. As for those that remain human for the most part they saw the vampirism as a disease and not the next step in evolution. The story has equally good subplots to make the entire story more layered. The action is moderate though there is a lot of blood. Not the bloodiest movie ever made but there is a fair share. This is a vampire movie after all.I really enjoyed the movie and the conflict within the main character, Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke). He is a vampire that is unwilling to succumb to his human blood lust even if it means his eventual demise. He also happens to be a hematologist so he is desperately hoping to discover an alternative to human blood, if not an outright cure. The actors were good as was the story. This was a nice addition to the vampire genre.

This appropriately grisly, reasonably intelligent horror / sci-fi tale stars Ethan Hawke as Edward Dalton, a hematologist in the year 2019. Edward is also a vampire; thanks to a catastrophic plague, blood suckers now comprise the vast majority of the Earths' population. The remaining humans are often farmed for their blood. Edward, however, is humanistic enough and compassionate enough to regret the possible extinction of humanity. Then it comes to his attention that there just might be a cure for vampirism, as he joins forces with a human woman, Audrey Bennett (Claudia Karvan), and a former vampire, Lionel "Elvis" Cormac (Willem Dafoe), who holds the key to the cure. People like greedy corporation bigwig Charles Bromley (Sam Neill) naturally aren't really interested in any cure.Written & directed by brothers Michael & Peter Speirig, this offers a fair amount of fun, as well as a generally interesting and compelling story, one that works on a couple of levels. (For example, one can easily draw a parallel between Bromley's company and the real life greed of big pharmaceutical corporations.) The Speirig siblings offer up lots of bloodshed, a solid forward pace, some hilariously over the top death scenes, decent action sequences, and a good visual approach. The music score by Christopher Gordon has a grandiose, operatic quality. The bad news is that it's also a pretty predictable story, one that's likely not going to linger in ones' mind for long. Engaging performances help quite a bit. Neill has fun with the bad guy role, Hawke is fairly intense as usual, Dafoe is a scene stealer with some of the best lines, Karvan is a good, strong female lead (albeit one that does need rescuing more than once), and Isabel Lucas (as Bromley's daughter), Michael Dorman (as Edwards' brother), and Vince Colosimo (as Edwards' co-worker) comprise a capable supporting cast.By no means a great addition to vampire cinema, but certainly a good and thoughtful one.Seven out of 10.

Reviewed August 2010The movie starts with a little girl vampire committing suicide by exposing herself to sun cause she is unable to cope up being a vampire. The story is set in 2017 when most of the world's population are turned to vampires (who are still functional in all professions in the society) and a huge pharmaceutical company trying to create an alternative for the increasing demand for blood simultaneously harvesting humans for the current supply. There are 100 reasons why it should have worked and only one why it didn't. Treatment. It has lots of thrills and gore for a horror, decently thought out science fiction, an interesting premise for a vampire genre and a plot line though a bit generic had potential. The narrative introduces and sets itself well and most performances are apt. But by the end, it becomes a second rate thriller and Willem Dafoe acts like a third rate sidekick. The production values complying to sets, costumes, cast and the world itself is decent but the visual effects could have been lot better. Anyone interested in the genre may not be too disappointed since we all know how the mainstream vampires of recent times sucked. The makers wanted to make a good movie but falters by trying to induce too much morality and also tries hard to increase the scope of it's audience segments. Falls slightly short on both attempts.