Ever since the preview was released, I have been eager to watch this movie. Vampire stuff is definitely "in" this season. However, they say the more you expect, the more you are disappointed, and unfortunately, that applies to this movie.

The end of the world comes in this movie. Vampires have replaced human beings. They rule the world. The coffee shops are now blood shops. (They still drink coffee, but the main ingredient is human blood.) At least the vampires aren't hunting any more.

Ethan Hawk, the main character of the movie, is the head of a lab that is using modern technology to find a replacement for human blood, as the amount of it left in the world decreases every day. Finally, he discovers the cure. The cure is rather bizarre. I expected something really abnormal or something that surprises you. Nope. It did not happen like that.

The story is really abrupt and not very well-written. Plus, all the excitement that typically comes with vampire stories, such as blood, violent actions and sexual appeal, is not present in this movie. There's no major love-hate-love-death story line between major characters. If they are trying to be creative and make something new out of it, it was not successful at all.

This movie definitely should be picked up off the shelf at the Movie Gallery, because it's not quite worth 10 bucks of cinema experience. Plus, it would be a good time between friends to watch this movie at home and laugh all about it. That is definitely something you cannot get from watching it in the cinema.

Source - marcolian.com

Daybreakers is an interesting entry into the vampire genre, basically throwing up its hands in the face of the recent rash of vampire films and TV shows and saying, "Fine. Vampires… you win. You can have the world, but good luck figuring out how to survive after you kill all the humans and run out of blood."

It's 2019, vampires are in control of everything, and the remaining humans not being farmed for their blood are on the run and in hiding. Using corporate greed vs. the betterment of society as its catalyst Daybreakers offers some interesting concepts, but is only satisfying on the most basic of levels. Primarily due to the fact its concept doesn't far enough and all the surprises are pretty much telegraphed throughout the picture.

The story follows Ethan Hawke, playing a vampire blood doctor working for the world's largest blood supplier, and as the amount of human blood remaining is on the decline he and his team have been charged with developing a synthetic blood to ensure the vampires' survival. ("True Blood" anyone?) As it turns out, a lack of regular blood causes normal vampires to turn into gruesomely deformed beasties. As things become dire, Hawke joins forces with a group of humans who claim to have a cure for the vampire virus, which means instead of causing the extinction of the human race and relying on synthetic blood, vampirism can be eliminated altogether.

I'm a fan of Hawke and I think he is always watchable, whether it's in one of my personal all-time favorites Before Sunset, the Oscar-winning Training Day or even the remake of Assault on Precinct 13, which itself is similar to the B-movie fare we have here with Daybreakers. He's a cool cat and he plays his characters well, rarely stepping into that region of over-acting.

Daybreakers also gets a great performance out of Sam Neill playing corporate head-honcho Charles Bromley, an upper crust-vampire you may find turning the pages of "Cigar Aficionado" and he fills the shoes perfectly. However, the best casting may have been the decision to bring in Willem Dafoe and not cast him as a vampire. I hear vampire movie and Willem Dafoe and I automatically think he'll be the big dog leading some pack of vampires to destroy any and all humans in his way. No sir. Instead he plays a member of the human resistance who goes by the nickname Elvis. It's a pleasure watching the old dog work.

The film was written and directed by Michael and Peter Spierig (credited as The Spierig Brothers) who last directed Undead in 2005, a film that delved into similar territory focusing on an Australian village overcome by zombies as a result of a freak meteor shower. Considering that film enjoyed distribution in a whopping 13 theaters I would say things are looking up for the brothers, but I can't say they their overall direction here necessarily wowed me.

The human farming facilities were better thought out than the makeshift design of those in Blade: Trinity and the vehicle mods used to make a car suitable for a vampire to drive in the daylight were actually quite cool. But some choppy editing and scenes that just didn't need to be included, or at the very least could have been cut down, made what is otherwise a sleek futuristic vampire tale a little bumpy along the way. However, while some have been complaining about the third act resolution to the story, I actually thought it was rather inventive even if it wasn't handled with the utmost dexterity. It certainly made for the most gruesome scenes in the film, but the gore at least served a purpose, which is hard to say for most horror films hellbent on blood-letting and decapitation.

Comparisons to Avatar have already been made and I think this film owes a debt to the Terminator franchise and the previously mentioned Blade: Trinity as well as HBO's "True Blood" or at least the novels the show is based on. It's also interesting how often the depletion of resources in films can almost always be looked upon as a commentary on our current state of affairs involving oil. Whether intentional or not, it's fascinating how a vampire film can satiate our need to see pools of blood all while making a legitimate social commentary.

As with most films, Daybreakers will certainly be more enjoyable on the big screen, but I imagine you will get just as much out of the story on DVD or Blu-ray while missing out on a few of the effects, mostly having to do with the sound as tranquilizer darts zip passed your ears and one specific scene, meant to feed your appetite for gore, drenches everyone involved as gobs of goo thunder against the viewing glass. There's some fun to be had and it feels unique, but Daybreakers lacks an overall "wow" factor making it hard to suggest it as a necessary theatrical viewing.

Source - www.ropeofsilicon.com

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.

Source - geeksofdoom.com

Among the many pleasures of “Daybreakers” is its reminder that vampire movies can function as more than just metaphors for teenage celibacy. Written and directed by Peter and Michael Spierig (the Australian twins who brought us the ebullient 2003 zombie caper “Undead”), this impressively styled thriller envisions a world where vampires rule, and humans run. Those who don’t are likely to find themselves transformed into Ready Meals and stored in a giant corporate larder: a futuristic Costco with only one product.

But with the undead outnumbering the living, starving immortals must find a blood substitute or mutate into crouching, bat-winged marauders. Enter Edward (Ethan Hawke), a vampire hematologist with human-friendly goals and a weary-undertaker wardrobe.

Convincingly cadaverous, Edward is thrilled to encounter a small band of humans whose leader (a rangy Willem Dafoe) professes to have found a cure for vampirism. Now all they have to do is convince the bloodsuckers that immortality is a long time to be counting calories.

Imagined in loving detail — reflected in a car mirror, Edward is no more than an empty, bobbing suit — “Daybreakers” throngs with yellow-eyed commuters and homeless vamps panhandling for O negative. The narrative may flag, but the doomsday atmosphere and George Liddle’s production design remain vivid until the final, blood-splattered reel. “Daybreakers” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Exploding heads, suppurating pores and plundered veins.

Source - movies.nytimes.com

Vampires turn into high-tech blood farmers in Daybreakers, a futuristic film set in a world where the human population has been decimated by hungry hordes of undead bloodsuckers.

The futuristic hemoglobin factories (pictured) look like something out of The Matrix: Humans stacked in a nightmare installation have their blood sucked out for vampires’ consumption. (Apparently nobody’s invented Tru Blood, the drink of choice for mainstreaming vampires in HBO’s popular True Blood series.)

It’s a promising premise, and the new Daybreakers stills and trailer look intriguing. See the trailer and several photos from the movie below.

Hands up if you thought the zombies would inherit the earth. Turns out you and George A. Romero were wrong. It's the vampires that shall wipe out most of humanity.

In their belated follow-up to 2003's Undead, which received its U.S. premiere at Fantastic Fest, Australia's Michael and Peter Spierig takes us a decade into the future to present a world that is on the verge of losing the last vestiges of the human race. Vampires reign supreme years after a plague turned billions into the undead. The remaining humans receive an ultimatum by the ruling majority: grow some fangs or give us your blood.

After years of sucking the human population dry, the vampires fear for their future when their source of nourishment dwindles to the point of extinction.

Enter Dr. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke), a hematologist working for a powerful pharmaceutical company. Dalton's charged by his boss Charles Bromley (Sam Neill) with the task of perfecting a synthetic blood substitution. What happens when a vampire succumbs to blood deprivation? They mutate into hideous, malevolent bat-like creatures known as Subsiders.

For reasons that stem from his transformation into a vampire, Dalton refuses to consume human blood. He limits himself to pig blood, but even that's in short supply. He's already showing signs of mutating.

Dalton just wants to end the blood shortage; a human, Audrey Bennett (Claudia Karvan), then out of the blue presents him with a cure to vampirism. Elvis (Willem Dafoe), a bloodsucker that reverted back to a human, is living proof that vampirism is reversible. That's all well and good, but Dalton knows the bottom line-driven Bromley will stop at nothing to prevent a cure from being presented to a thirsty public willing to pay top dollar for a drop of blood.

The idea of a vampire like Bromley feeding off the misery of his own kind is an intriguing one. But the Spierig brothers never truly commit to dissecting the economics of supply and demand during a time of crisis. Then again, it's just one of many ideas pursued by the Spierig Brothers that are never fully realized.

How about the allure of vampirism being too strong to resist? You don't age and you live forever. Hey, I understandable why a girl would rather burn to death in the sunlight than remain trapped for eternity in the body of a 10-year-old year child. But why would Dalton - 35 (again for the 10th time) and upwardly mobile - resist being a vampire when his human-hunter brother Frankie (Michael Dorman) embraces it? Dalton's actions reveal that vampires do not completely lose their moral code when their humanity is sucked right out of them. So what gives? Don't look to the Spierigs for any insights. They like to think they are making a treatise on the human condition, but they're actually too busy concocting new ways to kill off everyone in sight.

Then there's Bromley's attempt to reconcile with his daughter, Alison (Isabel Lucas). He cannot abide the notion of his only child being human, and remains deaf to her demands that she remains such. No real thought is put into the dynamics of this friction-filled father-daughter relationship other to reaffirm that Bromley's unfair and inflexible.

Perhaps this could all be overlooked if the Spierigs gave us vampires we had never seen before. Instead, they stick with all the old traits - sharp fangs, an aversion to sunlight, no reflection - and consequently their vampires lack any mystery. As for the Subsiders and their webbed forelimbs, you haven't seen sillier humanoid creatures since Resident Evil: Apocalypse's Nemesis.

I couldn't tell you the process of transforming a vampire back to a human works even if I wanted. It's one thing not to get caught up in scientific mumbo jumbo, it's another thing not to even attempt to offer whether the vaguest of explanations. You just have to take on faith that the process works; after all, we're not talking about a cure for cancer.

If it weren't for Hawke, you would wonder whether Dalton's the right man entrusted to save the vampire nation. Dalton barely says one sentence that reveals him to be a man of science. But the typically broody Hawke knows how to make Dalton seem as smart as he's supposed to be. Still, you get the sense the indie staple thinks he's above it all and would rather be working on Richard Linklater's latest chamber piece.

How could Dafoe have a blast as a former vampire named Elvis? His one-liners, which roll off his tongue with a Southern drawl, are priceless. My personal favorite? You'll know when you hear it. An urbane Neill does his devilish best, but the underwritten villainous role demands more than he can give.

Daybreakers isn't entirely a lost cause. The Spierigs concoct some adrenaline-fueled showdowns against the human survivors and their vampire adversaries, all set in a distinct blue-and-gray retro-futuristic backdrop. A confrontation with a blood-crazed Subsider speaks volumes about where the estranged Dalton brothers stand philosophically, while an attack on a kiosk that sells heavily diluted blood ably sums up the chaos that grips the vampire population.

Alison's eventual fate may not move her father, but it does have a profound impact on one major character that is in a position to influence matters. This moment of clarity comes at a time when the Spierigs condemn a civilized society for shunning its physically and mentally ill rather than trying to alleviate their pain and suffering.

As Daybreakers draws to a close, something odd happens. The Spierigs become inspired. They want to make amends for what's come before. We think they have painted themselves into a corner by concocting a vampire reversal process that seems impossible to implement. But the Spierigs find a clever way around this cumbersome procedure to not only wrap things in logical fashion but also lay down the framework for a sequel that could find the hunter becoming the hunted.

But the last electrifying 20 minutes prompts just as frustration as it does admiration. Daybreakers boasts a terrific concept that's poorly executed. The Spierigs sadly prove that two heads aren't always better than one.

Back in 2002, the Spierig brothers brought the beloved zombie movie Undead to the Toronto International Film Festival's Midnight Madness gala
. This year they are back with their take on the vampire genre. Brothers Michael and Peter Spierig have once again created an original take on a timely monster that is sure to have genre fans excited and happy since they most certainly do it justice. This time with a bigger budget and bigger stars, the likes of Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill and Willem Dafoe join the brothers in Daybreakers a vampire film where the vampires are the civilians and the humans are the minority.

The day after the successful premiere of the film at TIFF, I had a chance to chat to the very exhausted Michael and Peter about who came up with the idea first, a potentially fatal disease the cast and crew got and what we can expect next from the duo.

ShockTillYouDrop.com: Who came up with the idea for Daybeakers first?

Michael: Well, perhaps it was I who came up with the original idea. We were just chatting about vampire films and I threw out there, well, what if we turn the tables a little bit and the whole world has been dominated by vampires. And instead of it being post apocalyptic vampire film, let's put them back in their homes and have them try to live as normal vampire folk. The fun in that is we can add vampire modifications to lifestyles like driving during the daytime with blacked out windows and using video cameras to see where they are going.

Shock: Are they shopping at Prada stores too?

Michael: [laughs] Well no, we didn't get their sponsorship. Well, not yet!

Shock: Now, we got two writers and two directors and one movie. Is that difficult when actually being on set and filming?

Peter: Not really. We did have a lot of ideas that were thrown out but that wasn't because we didn't like them we just simply needed to focus on the story and the characters. There are just so many possibilities and a lot of which didn't end up on screen. There is no tug of war and if Michael is passionate about something and if he can convey why it's a good idea or it's not then, yeah…

Shock: You wrote Daybreakers in '03. With the new hyper popularity of vampire films and shows were you guys worried at all about the film being dumped in with the rest of them even though you had this well thought out before hand?

Michael: There have always been vampire films. It's not like they have gone away. Even if you think back to a couple years ago, you got Buffy and Angel and what was the other…

Peter: The Blade films…

Michael: It's not like there's more now. There's just more attention on them or something because there has always been a lot of vampire films. I just think there is a new audience now with Twilight, which I guess is drawing in teenagers who have never really seen this genre before.

Shock: Willem Dafoe. He's credited as Elvis. Elaborate, please!

Peter: He's a big Elvis fan! He used to design and build custom cars. His character discovers something pretty substantial in the vampire world and it can make a pretty big difference to their lives. I'm not gonna tell you what that is! You got to see the movie!

Shock: You had WETA working on the special effects here. I know you two are very hands-on with effects so did they have full creative freedom on this?

Peter: Steve [Boyle]. It was Steve's show. Absolutely his show. He worked heavily with us and with concept designers and they gave us a lot of options.

Shock: What can we expect from them in their appearance?

Peter: They have a bat-like look but they are also different from [Bram Stoker' Dracula] or any of that iconic vampire stuff. They are slightly different.

Shock: I heard some interesting things happened on set while filming. Anyone got a good story they want to share?

Peter: We had an outbreak of a virus called Shigella, which is this horrible bacterial disease, and it causes death in third world countries. We had 50 people on our crew and cast go down with this thing. It was horrendous, you would turn up one day and it would be an entirely different crew because they would have all been wiped out by this virus. Our leading lady was sick, it was really difficult to deal with, especially since you don't get any second chances to go back to a set or whatever if your actor is just, passed out!

Shock: They were all okay though in the end?

Peter: Oh yeah, but it was just horrendous. Michael got sick twice.

Shock: As I mentioned before...zombies, vampires, I'm sure you have something written for your next feature. Can you shed any light on that?

Peter: Well, we can't really mention much about it, but we can mention a project we are developing with Warner Brothers called Captain Blood. It's based on the Rafael Sabatini novel and it was also a film in the ‘30s with Errol Flynn. This is a new spin on it, it's going to be a science fiction movie.

Shock: I was hoping you would say that.

Peter: It's something really quite different. It still follows the classic story but puts it in a new light.

I love a good vampire movie. Give me one with a new twist on the mythology (synthetic blood!) or a classic stake-through-the-heart chiller and I'm usually sucked in, just don't crap it up with a lot of romance... or moody teens.

"Daybreakers" (in theaters January 8, 2010) looks pretty slick. I like that the earth is  now bloodsuckers only (nice twist) who are faced with a dwindling blood supply. The wealthy and powerful scheme for their survival while a small group of less-evil vampires — armed with a cure — prepare for battle. Sure, the renegade fearless vampire killers device has been done to death, but that's what I love about the genre. It takes a village... to kill the undead.

In any warring vamp flick, you need a bad-ass crossbow-slinging, quip-tossing, dusty old vet like the iconic Whistler (Kris Kristofferson) or Jack Crow (James Wood) to lead you into combat (with lots of gadgets of course). In "Daybreakers," Willem Dafoe fits that bill nicely, Billy D. does no wrong in my book.

Regarding the rest of the team, I'm always excited to see who gets to play the super dweeby computer genius (Remember Patton Oswalt in Blade Trinity?) and also pick out which expendable members will be killed early (overly brazen always leads to buried) and which favorite will sadly be killed near the end doing something selflessly heroic to save the others (pretty sure Ethan Hawke will eat it in the end of this one, hopefully his goatee will survive).

Yes, it's all quite expected and a tad predictable, but I crave it. FYI, If I was part of the team, I would spend most of my time putting together a real cool outfit (lots of zippers and pockets for antidotes, knives and snacks) and of course, looking for places to hide.

Source - usedwigs.com

The Time is right for Daybreakers given the growing popularity of Twilight, but are vampire lovers ready for vampire virus outbreak? The Twilight Saga media frenzy has been steadily chugging along toward the New Moon release date for November but another vampire film is jumping into the Twilight limelight, as Daybreakers hopes to take a bite out of the box-office jugular.

Written and directed by German brothers Michael and Peter Spierig, Daybreakers is a vampire tale with a different twist, with layers similar to Danny Boy's scarefest 28 Days where zombies take over the world after a virus outbreak and few humans remain to repopulate the earth. Daybreakers stars Ethan Hawke, Sam Neil, William Dafoe, and Isabel Lucas who is the new paparazzi darling after her breakout role in Transformers 2: Revenge of the fallen. Lucas is also well known in her native Australia for her role as Tasha on the soap Home and Away.

It's a battle of wills in Daybreakers as the vampires try to farm the remaining humans to maintain their food supply while, Edward , played by Ethan Hawke, a scientist looking to find a cure to help save the human race, Elvis (Dafoe), and Alison (Lucas) try to find a way to save the humanity from extinction. To large degree, Daybreakers is a cinematic race for survival with humans and vampires dying to win.

Can the soon to be Twilight saturated movie world handle yet another vampire-themed film? Apparently the sub-genre hasn't been sucked dry (pun intended) completely since movie-making creatives are continuing to churn out anything that resembles human entity with fangs. New Moon will be released in theatres on November 20, 2009 but Daybreakers won't take a bite out of the big screen until January of 2010.

When looking at release dates and box-office success, timing is everything in the film world. Interestingly, Daybreakers was filmed in 2007, a full year before Twilight even hit theatres. The Twilight Saga is paying off in more ways than one.

Source - thedeadbolt.com

There is alot of speculation on whether or not Ethan Hawke is going to play a Vampire or not in the upcoming DayBreakers movie. So we decided to go right to the source Ethan himself to find out the truth. Is he or is he not playing a vampire in the film? The answer... Yes! Quote:

Day after tomorrow I’m going to Australia to do a vampire movie. It’s called "Daybreakers.” It’s a terrific script but nothing like anything I’ve ever done before. These two brothers (Michael and Peter Spierig) from Australia. They wrote an incredible ‘vampires as allegory’ story. It takes place in the future when we’re all vampires but we’ve consumed all our own resources – humans -- and so it’s a whole world of vampires.

He told us he is playing a vampire and has already been fitted for his prosthetic teeth!

Source - moviesonline.ca

The synopsis for the film is as follows: Vampirism has spread like a plague in ten short years and only 5% of the population remains human, an endangered species being hunted and farmed for their precious life-source. Two brothers, one who believes in the Vampire Cause, and the other who still mourns his lost humanity, are on opposing sides of the fight. The two must ultimately face-off in a deathly struggle that brings the key to saving the human race and salvation to a dying vampire population.

Source - horror-movies.ca