(Long Island, N.Y.) Man, vampires are popular these days. I’ve been a big fan of ’em too, be it the gothic horror depicted in old Hammer Studio’s Dracula films or Neil Jordan’s excellent adaptation of Anne Rice’s novel “Interview with the Vampire.” There’s just something cool about vampires. Or at least, there WAS something cool about vampires- thanks to the recent “Twilight Saga” phenomenon, the image of the stately yet horrific creature that stalks the night in search of blood has been transformed into that of a whiney, self-absorbed twit, filled with teen angst
and just as likely to start crying as drink your plasma.
Another problem is the fact that, due to their place in popular culture, vampire movies have been done to death and beyond. It’s rare when an original take on their lore comes along, but directors Peter and Michael Spierig (of 2003’s low-budget horror flick “Undead”) have done just that. The existence of so many vampire movies where the bloodsucking fiends have tried again and again to take over the world begs the simple question so many filmmakers have overlooked: “Well, what if vampires DID take over the world?” Well, the Spierig brothers finally answer that question with “Daybreakers.”
And the answer is far less complicated than you’d expect. No, the world hasn’t been transformed into a series of castles surrounded by ever-present thunder storms while their vampire owners brood, read Milton, and await the comfy new velvet-lined casket they ordered on Amazon.com. No, once an unexplained plague has transformed most of humanity into the bloodthirsty undead, things…actually go on pretty much as they had before. Vampires take the train to their 9-to-5 job, sip gourmet blood-laced coffee (“I’ll take an Iced Single Vente, 7 pump Peppermint, Caramel Sauce Top and Bottom, Light Ice, No whip, Mocha, 2 shots AB Positive, thanks!”), and all the other mundane things you and I do on a daily basis (well, except the blood drinking part). It’s a tightly-run society, but the problem is that with Vamps in the majority, the remaining shreds of humanity are being hunted for their hemoglobin to the point of extinction.
Realizing that the supply of real blood is growing ever more finite, Charles Bromley (Sam Neill, who was born second only to Udo Kier to play an evil vampire lord), owner of a pharmaceutical company that farms humans, has tasked his head researcher Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) with finding a blood substitute. Alas, all of Dalton’s efforts so far have only produced a serum that has the unfortunate side-effect of making its recipient explode. Um…that’s bad. But unbeknownst to Bromley, Dalton has ulterior motives for discovering a non “boom boom” causing blood substitute- the guy just hates being a vampire and pities the poor humans in hiding, to the point that he lives only on pig blood (the vampire equivalent of the 37-cent cans of “Potted Meat Food Product” you find in Wal-Mart). A working blood substitute would negate the need to hunt down the rest of humanity and possibly bring a truce between the two.
However, time is running out for the vampire race. Despite extreme rationing, blood is scarce and those who are deprived of it long enough are turning into creatures called “sub-siders,” which are mindless, bat-like mutations that attack other vampires. The hunt for the remaining humans is ramped up, and fate (in the form of a random car accident) brings Dalton together with a rag-tag bunch of humans on the run, led by Lionel “Elvis” Cormac (Willem Dafoe) and Audrey Bennett (Claudia Karvan). Realizing that discovering a simple blood substitute will not deter his vampire masters from still bleeding humanity dry (“There will always be someone willing to pay more for the real thing,” quips Bromley), Dalton absconds with Cormac and his crew, hoping to solve both race’s problems by curing vampirism itself. But with the vampire world delving into chaos as their food supply disappears, will the possible cure help anyone on either side, and does Dalton have the time to discover it?
Daybreakers was a pretty good example of my willingness to give points to a film based on an original premise. Presenting our modern society filtered through the lens of vampirism, the Spierig brothers had a chance to put some interesting spins on the overdone vampire film genre. Cars have tinted windows and video camera systems, allowing
daytime mobility (the vampire Special Forces soldiers wear armor incorporating the same technology); homes and apartments have steel shutters that close at dawn; undead-related advertising is splashed everywhere; and the underground is dominated by a complex series of
“subwalks” that allow vamps to travel on foot at any time. Clearly a lot of thought went into how vampires would cater society to their unique needs, while keeping things realistic. As a result, the world of Daybreakers feels organic and believable, which is vital for any sci-fi/horror movie.
But aside from the attention to detail, Daybreakers is still a good effort, albeit slightly flawed. The cast is as solid as can be- while I thought Ethan Hawke was a tad bland in the lead, he was more than made up for by Willem Dafoe, whose human resistance leader character “Elvis” was pretty much off his rocker and generated a great deal of the laughs in the movie. But the real standout to me was Sam Neill as Charles Bromley. Neill was just so INTENSELY smug and evil, while still managing to convey just a bit of his lost humanity at the same time. There’s a side-plot regarding his missing human daughter that is resolved in a rather sad and shocking way, and it was one of the higher points of Daybreakers’ narrative. Claudia Karvan as Audrey, Elvis’ right hand woman, was a great addition to the cast as well, being tough yet sympathetic at the same time. You actually end up feeling for a great many of the characters in Daybreakers, and this empathy is magnified by the fact that this movie isn’t afraid to kill off people you might normally expect to make it to the end credits. It’s a nice bit of unpredictability that most movies lack nowadays.
Daybreakers ain’t perfect, however. The pace starts off brisk but flounders in spots, and while the story is interesting and thoughtful, the finale drops most of that in favor of action, gore, and exploding bodies. Now I normally like action, gore, and exploding bodies, but the #1 problem most filmmakers seem to have recently is balancing it with their stories. Most directors seem to simply use their plots as a disposable set-up for cool fight/explosion scenes later in the movie, which is a shame in Daybreakers’ case. It doesn’t end as intelligently as it begins.
So, give your 17th viewing of Twilight: New Moon a pass and give Daybreakers a shot. Sure, there’s no 150 year-old vampires romancing 16-year old high school girls or Native American steroid junkies running around in the woods in their Daisy Dukes, but that doesn’t mean that it still can’t be a decent movie, right?
Seriously, though, Daybreakers is good, original film. Go see it.
