How does a vampire go for a drive in the daytime?
It seems that every year movies get worse and worse, stretching from the films that get nominated for Best Picture, the summer blockbusters, to the films you see that make you go "What the hell was that?" Granted, out of all the films that have ever been made, how many of them were good (or bad) enough to be remembered? The answer is...not many at all. A relatively small cross section ever make it out of the decade in which they were originally made. As time has passed by, in my opinion, filmmakers are stretching themselves for original ideas, or at the very least a fresh take on an old topic. More and more, these same film-makers are taking the cinematic version of the easy way out, churning out a slew of remakes, re-imaginings, and un-necessary sequels.
Now, don't get me wrong here...Hollywood has been taking advantage of the idea of making a sequel to a success film since the glory days of old King Kong, for which was produced a little little known sequel called "Son of Kong" which itself has been largely forgotten these days. There's also the little known fact that the version of "The Maltese Falcon" we're most familiar with today was actually the third talkie version created by Hollywood. As such, to see a movie these days that instills a sense of originality is no easy feat, not to say that its impossible by any rights. My review for this week comes from one of these recent films, a vampire actioner known as "DayBreakers"
Written and Directed by the Spierig brothers, and starring Ethan Hawke, Willem Defoe, and Sam Neill, it was released in early 2010, and recently was released on DVD. I wasn't going into viewing this film with much resembling high hopes, and suffice to say, I came out of it pleasantly surprised. Based in a "not too distant future" in which mankind has become afflicted by a disease which turns everyone into vampires, and in which human beings are, much like the Matrix, kept simply as food for the dominant species. The similarities to the Matrix don't end there, as the visual style of the film, a color pallet consisting mostly of metallic grays, blues and blacks is reminiscent of the now legendary Sci-Fi actioner. This style lends itself to the visceral splashes of red that frequently wash the scenery, making them stand out more than they would in more traditional colors. That is practically where the similarities end.
What really stood out to me about this film was the level of thought the creators must have put into imagining and designing a world in which the vast majority of its population are blood feeders who can't withstand extended bouts in the sunlight. To answer the question I posited at the beginning of the review: They get behind the wheel of a car and drive. Not just any car, mind you, one specially designed with UV blocking windshields and camera based viewing systems. This is also how the vampires see themselves, secondary images reflected from video cameras (since they can't see themselves in the mirror). This is just the beginning of how the film answers these questions, though I won't get into some of the others, although I can say I was personally impressed with some of the small details they thought of.
What about the actual action? There's quite a bit, and an equal amount of spilt blood. This is no Blade, however, in which vampires are dealt with hand to hand. The human Drac crackers all pack crossbows, while the Vampire Police mostly carry either tranquilizer guns or your run o the mill future machine guns. Nothing truly groundbreaking here, mostly shoot'em up sequences punctuated with the somewhat satisfying "pop" of an explosion whenever a vampire gets crossbowed. Don't see this film if you're expecting oodles of explosions although there are a few small ones to liven up the action.
Much like the action, the acting won't be winning any awards. Standard performances from all involved, though its hard to not enjoy most of what Willem Dafoe does, as he tries to make the best of sub-par to average writing, which was a definite low point for the movie. Corny lines, bad dialogue, out of left field explanations for why certain things happen or completely forgetting to explain why certain things happen. Not to spoil, but I was left scratching my head as to just...how...controlled exposure to sunlight served as a cure for vampirism. Does it "burn" away the disease that causes the vampirism? Same goes for what I consider the most obvious plot hole, the fact that the plot's driving problem is the dwindling food supplies for the world's vampire population. Why don't they just let the captured humans breed and multiply like the world dominating machines in the Matrix? Do they simply not have the technology or the control tactics necessary? Did they just not think about it? All questions left unanswered.
To close out my feelings on the movie, I would have to give it a recommendation to at least rent. Watch it once or twice to get the gist of what's going on, but try to shut your brain off for some of the plot points, and the gaps that occasionally grow between them. It reaches for a unique presence, and in some cases, it reaches those heights of originality, but in others, it suffers just like the world in the film itself, bled dry and lacking just a little something.
Final Review: 6/10 - Slightly above average sci-fi action film with some interesting ideas, but in the end, nothing you can truly sink your teeth into.
