And The First Review Of 2010 Is...

Daybreakers!

Where has this resurgence in vampires come from? Is it just Twilight? Daybreakers is as odd film because, while ultimately it didn't work for me, there is much to commend and admire in it and it attempts to bring something new to the vampire genre whilst simultaneously adhering to many of its conventions. It also attempts to remind us that vampires are meant to be scary and not, you know, mopey. Yeah all right I haven't seen Twilight so I shouldn't comment.

Daybreakers is set in 2019, ten years after the vampire plague has wiped out 95% of humanity. Of course this lack of humans means a lack of food for the vampires who, despite ruling the world, find themselves faced with their own extinction. In one of the nicest elements of the film, we discover that vampires who are deprived blood devolve into Subsiders, underground dwelling, bat-like monsters who, as the film opens, are growing in numbers and becoming more brazen about attacking the "civilised", suburban vampires in their own homes, so desperate are they for blood. The crisis has resulted in scientist Edward (Ethan Hawke) working to find a blood substitute for the company that seems to control the world's entire blood supply, run by creepy Sam Neill. One night Edward runs into a band of humans, one of the last, and discovers that they may have found a cure for vampirism. This sets him on a whole new path, working with the humans who are constantly on the run from the vampire military who hunt them down and farm them for their blood.

The best thing about Daybreakers is the world that the writer/director Spierig Brothers have created. There is a tremendous level of detail in the way that the vampires have organised their existence and the way they use technology to help themselves. Darkened windows with roof mounted cameras on the roofs of their cars to allow day time driving for example, mirror our own use of technology for our own ends in a nice way. The devil, as they say, is in the details and there are numerous small moments that work well to build a sense of reality to the world of the film, a spoonful of blood in the coffee for example, or an early shot where Ethan Hawke pulls up outside a building in his car and we see him reflected in the rear view mirror. It's the kind of shot we've seen in films a million times but, being a vampire, he has no reflection so all we see in the mirror is a suit with no head attached. This sense of the world feeds into what Daybreakers is ultimately about which is a commentary on and reflection of our own mismanagement of natural resources. For the most part this works quite well. The Subsiders in particular can be read in different ways and the way they gradually grow in numbers and encroach upon the suburbs (and the way they are ultimately dealt with) is an interesting notion of what people who are sufficiently desperate can become. Also noteworthy is the refreshing use of practical effects and sets with CGI used to enhance and augment rather than create from scratch. Even the monsterous subsiders appear to be guys in suits and, far from being a criticism, that works really well to give them presence and menace.

The problem however is that, having come up with this interesting parallel and use for the vampire legend, having thought through and then built this world, the Spierig Brothers don't really know what to do with it and the narrative ends up floundering. There are bits and pieces of different stories that don't really resonate or even go anywhere, Ethan Hawke's difficult relationship with his brother or in particular Sam Neill's estrangement with his still human daughter for example. The way Neill deals with her when they are reunited and what becomes of her should be one of the films key moments and emotional high points but, because she is introduced too late and because the way the two characters are reunited is massively coincidental, it fails to make an impact. Also, the various stories serve to jostle and fight for importance as well as for our attention rather than working together to serve the overall narrative and the effect of this is that they all end up failing.

Ethan Hawke is an actor I've never had great afinity for. Not terrible by any means, but just kind of missing... something, I don't know what. This actually works to his favour when he's a vampire but mid way through the second act he tries the new cure on himself and succeeds in making himself human again, though I was hard pressed to tell the difference. Way more problematic is the normally wonderful Willem Dafoe who hams it up as "Elvis", a crossbow wielding ex-vampire with an atrocious Southern accent who feels like he has wandered in from a different film. Indeed, there is a sense all the way through that the film isn't quite sure where to place itself. The success of its world building and its attempt to say something suggest a film of some intelligence. Willem Dafoe's performance and the clunky action scenes that pepper the film do not. By the time the predictably bloody finale arrives, you're way too bored to be bothered anymore.

In the end Daybreakers is a mixed bag. Part of me feels that a sequel could actually be a good thing because, having established such an immersive, convincing world, they could then use it to tell a really compelling story. As it is, characters of little interest wander through that world with very little to do.

5.5/10