johnlink ranks DAYBREAKERS (2009)
I feel like every movie I review that was made in the last year or two starts with ‘I heard some bad things about this movie, but I’m watching it anyway.’ I guess that is the era of film making we are in. Whether due to crappy movies (and some of it certainly is) or due to a heightened criteria to which we hold our new movies (and this is true too… just look at some of the ‘classics’ of the 80s to see how our expectations have risen), we now live in a time in which it is difficult to have a movie which the consensus finds almost all good. That’s what makes INCEPTION even more impressive. DAYBREAKERS, though? Not exactly INCEPTION. But this turned out to be one that was killed maybe a little more than needed.
I watched DAYBREAKERS (2009) on 7.24.10. It was my first viewing of the film. TRAILER HERE
I think the reason this movie got panned so badly has to do with a) the first special effects shot and b) the general lack of action.
The first CGI shot at the top of the movie is tremendously bad. In fact, much of the stuff that gets computerized is pretty weak throughout, but the first shot sets a bad tone. The makeup effects are decent, the blood and gore stuff holds up, but the budget just wasn’t there for good CGI.
This movie has a few new ideas about the vampire genre. That’s not a small statement in this world of TRUE BLOOD, TWILIGHT, and every derivative possible. So while there are few big action pieces, the dialogue and storyline has a new twist to bring to the table. I was able to get into it enough that I could overlook some of the flaws (like the coincidental and predictable father/daughter storyline).
I thought Ethan Hawke was good enough in this. Nobody was asked to do too much, so the performances were pretty straightforward and untaxing. Sam Neill and Willem Dafoe got to do their thing. Relative unknown Claudia Karvan was successful enough as the female lead. All in a all, we have an above average cast working from a relatively average (dialogue-wise) script.
I’m not trying to insinuate that this is an all time horror classic, by any means. But its terrible reviews prepared me for a train wreck, and instead I got a highly watchable, if somewhat flawed, vampire flick.
SCORES
FILM: 4; MOVIE: 7; ACTING: 5; WRITING: 5 (What is this?)
4+7+5+5+0=21
FINAL SCORE: 5.25
johnlinkmovies 