Hey, it’s The Movie God here.
As you all might be aware, we at Geeks of Doom like to do a little thing called Spoiler Talk from time to time. It is basically a forum where one of us presents a bunch of points about a movie — sometimes good, sometimes bad — and you the reader sound off with your thoughts in the comments section! This is where you can scream at the top of your lungs (as hard as your little fingers can scream) about what you liked, hated, or weren’t too sure of.
Today’s Spoiler Talk brings us Daybreakers, the new futuristic vampire tale that stars Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill, and Willem Dafoe. The movie takes place in the year 2019 and and in a time where most humans have now become vampires as natural evolution would indicate were vampires to actually exist. Because most are now vampires, a crisis is realized when it becomes apparent that there is only enough blood to sustain them for a short time longer. With rations cut thin, the vampires who eat the least begin to develop a much more aggressive nature before actually transforming into evil, wild creature-like beings. It is left up to Dr. Edward Dalton (Hawke), a hematologist, to find a way to create a synthetic blood substitute that can save his people before it’s too late.
Not that it needs to be said…but just in case, this is nothing but spoilers people, so if you don’t want it ruined, do NOT click over!
Without further delay, continue on to our Spoiler Talk, presented by Kevin of Nine, and share what you thought of Daybreakers!
[SPOILERS]
- First of all, what the hell happened that turned 95% of the population into vampires? It was referred to in the movie as an outbreak, but was it a plague or what??? I want to see that movie.
- It occurred in the year 2009 and the current year of the movie is 2019, which means in a matter of 10 years the vampires went through most of the human blood supply. They are trying to find a suitable substitute for blood so that they can survive.
- From what I can tell, the vampires don’t seem to have any special abilities besides immortality. They do have a few limitations, such as sunlight and the hunger for blood. Another weakness is that if the vampire doesn’t get the human blood he needs, they begins to transform into a subspecies that loses their reason, physically become monsters, and become more violent, attacking anything human, vampire, or animal.
- Apparently there’s a cure for being a vampire, discovered by accident, which involves water, being exposed to the sun, in a vacuum (???????). That will turn a vampire back into a human, and restore life to the undead.
- Not only that, but once you are restored, your blood now is a cure for vampirism. One of the last scenes in the movie is a bunch of soldier vamps, attacking one of their troops who was turned human. They rip him to shreds, and turn human. After that the other troops attack these former vamps and transform back. This happens till the majority are dead and about four are left human, body parts all over.
- I really liked the gore in the movie but the story was pretty lame. What really sucks is that it had a great cast (Ethan Hawke, Willem Defoe, and Sam Neill). The story did have some potential but it all fell apart and the scene with the soldiers was completely ridiculous. I definitely didn’t enjoy it as much as I would have liked.
What did you think of Daybreakers? Is it an unworthy addition to the vampire genre?
Daybreakers was laughable. Literally.
Me and the entire theater of movie-goers giggled through the bulk of the movie.
The story may actually have been written by a 4-yr-old orangutan.
And the acting… OH, THE ACTING…
Sam Neill stayed very busy chewing up scenery.
Willem Dafoe appeared to be doing a comedic Christopher Walken impression.
And Ethan Hawke needs to stay away from acting for good and just focus on trying to cultivate the lame-ass beat poet image he’s tried to create for himself the last few years.
Bad.
Not even funny-bad.
Cringe-inducing bad.
Just bad bad bad.
I really wanna talk about this but I haven’t seen it yet. Bad geek! Bad Geek!
I was just happy to see actual vampires, and not sparkly a$$ fairies.
I thought that the concept of the movie was good and I liked the twist with the cure, but I thought it needed a bit of work as far as the story. I did like it, but not one of my favorite vampire movies. It definitely had potential and it didn’t live up to my expectations.
How about this, I didn’t even realize the movie was out already! Judging by what people have been saying about it, it would seem that missing thise one wasn’t such a bad thing. I’ll catch it on DVD, as I’m mainly curious to see how the cast is.
It was an interesting twist on the vampire genre, but the ending plot (the cure) wasn’t so great.
The sub species (aka subsiders) were super creepy, and they should have used them more throughout to shock and scare the audience. I did find it overall an entertaining movie to watch, I got to see it on cheap night, and so it was worth it.
Daybreakers is worthwhile despite the flaws.
I really believe the blame lies with the directors. The concept presented is excellent and unique. (Kudos to the script arthor.) The society has depth that begs to be further explored.
The directors wanted to make their one point (Society is burning through it’s resources without thought to the future.) without consideration for the content movies potential depth. They were handed an excellent idea (Overall the script is well written.) and played it out for the one punch line. In the hands of more thoughtful directors this could have turned into a great series of films.
It’s worth a matinee but I’m not sure it’s a fim I’ll revisit.
Look people it is a freaking horror vampire movie…Does everything have to be the frakkin “English patient”???
Suspend your disbelief already….it’s fantasy …NOT reality! I heard a lot of grumbling about the “dumb” way to cure Vampires came up. I went to the movie to be entertained not get a science lecture on sanguine experiments. Stop being so critical and enjoy it for what it is…a campy horror Vampire flick.
I liked it overall. I wish it was based on a book or graphic novel, or had been successful enough to get a sequel.
The cure idea is clever, but the ending with all the bodies was over the top. It also presents a problem: Since it’s clear only a handful of newly human beings will be left standing in these pre-cure feeding frenzies, won’t the cure actually end up wiping out most of the population?
Also, it was a scary scene, but just how did the “subsider” or whatever get in Ethan Hawke’s apartment??? Did I miss that?
I have to say, I quite enjoyed it. The ‘cure’ was a little strange (and by the way, it didn’t have to be in a vacuum, it just helped to put out the fire – although the fire didn’t seem to harm any of the plastic heart monitor thingies). And the fact that a ‘cured’ vampire also carried the cure in their blood I quite liked too.
And agree with Sam, at least these vampires were actual monsters, not some pathetic romantic target for loser goth chicks.
What really didn’t make sense though was the end. “We have the cure…. and instead of taking advantage of this blood factory that we’re in, we’ll drive off into the sunset instead.” What the – ?