I can't believe all the nitpicking about this movie. I initially did not go to see this because of what I read. I thought it was a very interesting story....a new twist for a vampire story. It was very well done from start to finish.......quality acting, well known and interesting actors. I read one comment that Sam Neil's daughter added nothing. Wrong again, it added horror and pathos to the story. I enjoyed this movie more than "Sherlock Holmes". This held my interest where Sherlock started to bore me. I recommend this movie to anyone who is a horror fan.… Expand

Daybreakers: Everything is a Little Better With Some Sunscreen I’m going to be honest here; I cannot wait for the vampire fad to die out. Not that I don’t enjoy a good vampire movie now and again, but when it becomes a commodity and a staple in society and entertainment, I can’t do it. It’s all because the imagination has but so much to work with and it’s all confined within a certain frame of vision. Thus is the issue with the latest addition to the collection, Daybreakers, (starring Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill and Willem Dafoe). It took the normal elements we know about “vampirism,” utilized all of the components, but then fell short in the attempt. This story is one that has been rehashed over and over again: a virus infects the wide majority of humans and turns them into vampires, leaving the rest as simple “V-8 juice boxes.” The catch is that humanity has run out, which means the blood supply has as well. It’s Edward Dalton’s (Hawke) job to try and find a viable substitute to both keep the vampire population from dying out and for company mogul Charles (Neill) to distribute. Yet Ed is an oddity in the vampire world, as he is a human-lover, and wants to find a standing cure. This is where Elvis (Dafoe) steps in with an alternative. The writers and directors of this little piece were the brothers Michael and Peter Spierig. They kept the story pretty basic by following the most fundamental vampire truths; no sunlight, no reflection; a stake to the heart will eradicate a blood-sucker, and of course immorality. They kept away from less commonly-known stuff, like the extended strength and senses, which adds to the idea that these are people who are trying to live and be as humane as possible -They just happen to have an addiction to an endangered species. So, they have to forgo humanity in the process. This works splendidly, particularly when you add in the subversive context of how we ourselves have become so dependent on non-renewable resources. With that being said, Neill does a fantastic job of portraying the big-business tycoon who’s only worried about the dollar signs. He personifies greed and insolence, which, just by a simple glance, is perfect. Dafoe and Hawke also settle into their roles, giving their characters substance and backing. Hawke, the whole movie, seems plagued by the fact that he has never wanted to be a vampire, and refuses to hurt a human. Dafoe, on the other hand, is the simple mechanic that has the concept form point A to B. He’s ready to get the job done and, being from the other side of the tracks as it were (he was once a vampire, now holds the cure), is ready to face whatever may come. With a simplistic yet stylized story and controlled cast, where does it go wrong? It’s all in the execution. The Spierig Brothers begin to rely on shock scares throughout the movie, to give the audience some unneeded anticipation and fear while still telling this dramatic and dark story. They could have gotten away with making this a fantasy-horror piece, a film noir for vampires, but they just chucked in ridiculous spurts of gore that would even make most of the most diehard blanch. What’s more, the last fifteen minutes of the movie seemed so rushed and disconnected that you find yourself thinking that none of it was necessary. can smell the potential here, permeating through the gore and begging to shine through the shaded and grisly world that is 2019. If only the Brothers Spierig had taken a second glance and truly nurtured the concept. However, it got sloppy and in a world where there’s nothing left to snack on, you can’t go back and get seconds… Expand

Terrible. Couldn't make it to the halfway point. No further comment is necessary.

If all that can be delivered in Daybreakers is a metaphor of oil/blood, it has little going for it. Costumes and special effects warrant a fair kudo; ditto for action sequences. Beyond that, this film is replete with gratuitous violence, overindulgence in bloodletting as if its audience thirsts for hemoglobin with their popcorn. Add vomiting to that and we have a better metaphor for the reaction of intelligent viewers. In sum, the film sucks; ditto for the vampires. Looking for the best vampire movie? Rent Nosferatu--1979.… Expand

Style over substance. This movie is like a Corvette with a moped engine. Looks cool and small snippets are visually stunning but overall the movie is a simple Meh on the scoreboard of fun. I didn't really want to see this movie because I did see these directors first movie "Undead" which is probably the worst zombie movie ever created. Dafoe's role as "Elvis" and Niel's role as "the bad boss guy" both felt contrived. The characters were so 1 dimensional you probably could guess what they were going to say before they said it, I guess cliche' would be a good way to describe. I was overall hoping that the transformed vampires deprived of blood would be more bad ass but instead they were simply caught and killed by the vampire army like it was no big deal. The story of Sam Neil's daughter was completely unnecessary. I would wait to rent it or better yet for TV.… Expand

This movie had a halfway decent premise, and absolutely refused to deliver on it. The thematic premise posed during the opening scene is only vaguely related to the themes explored in the film. It seems to only be there for shock value. In regards to the actual thematic premise, whether to find a blood substitute or a cure for vampirism, it is addressed in only the most shallow fashion. Also, the idea that the world could completely change to the one depicted in the film in the span of only 10 years is ridiculous. Ultimately though it is character that counts and Daybreakers has some of the most thinly drawn and comical characterizations you can imagine. This would be fine if the film was pure satire, but it takes itself way to seriously and makes the viewing all the more painful. Oh and there are gratuitous scenes of violence throughout. Stay away. Far away. You'll be a better person because of it.… Expand

Wow... blown away by terrible screenplay and terribly developed characters. NOT WORTH THE MONEY. Maybe watch it in 3 years on cable television if you are trapped at home and it is somehow the only thing on tv.

There are a lot of strong new concepts in the movie, it's brought down a little by a few over the top bits and a ending that goes for the cliche rather than something more troubling. ...and personally I loved the bat ;)

A pretty bad film.

Going into this movie I had low expectations and so was therefore not let down by what I saw. It was entertaining enough to keep me interested, but not so grand where I'd have to see it again. It was a cheesy B film that was predictable yet fun. I would liken it to Resident Evil 3 in terms of enjoyability.

This movie suffers from many things: First of all, it didn't know what kind of movie it wanted to be. It wasn't scary, it wasn't gory (by today's standards), so its not a thriller. Bad Directing: There were times that the only reason i knew what was going on was because the movie followed so many tired tropes that at any point in the film, you can accurately predict what will happen next. Bad Acting: Some of the actors were so bad that I was excited to see them get mauled, only to have my hopes dashed by this disappointing, meandering, BORING film. Heck, even the ending was left open, as if they were thinking of a sequel.. Who are they kidding?… Expand

Like most people today, I am growing tired of vampires. The point of this film was to bring the science fiction fans into the world of vampires. However, this movie was not exactly the right choice. I'm not saying that the story was ludicrous. It has an interesting premise, but it was done in the most horrible way possible. The characters were one-dimensional, the movie was rushed, and the plot line to save humanity was weak. And that's not the half of it. The action sequences are dull and uninteresting, the visual effects gave me a headache, and the horror elements are invisible to the five senses. I found Beetlejuice more frightening than this film. Not to mention that this movie will most likely disappoint the action goers craving for an intense ride, but it will also push away teenage girls that go crazy over sexy, vexed vampires. I suggest you take your date to go see Avatar again, because this movie will only ruin your night.… Expand

I don't see why so many people are complaining and giving this film a 1. If I ever gave a film a 1, it would have meant I got my money back after 30 minutes in...and I know these people on here did no such thing. I felt like this was a decent vampire film that featured a lot of new concepts to the vampire mythos. I went into this film with the idea of it probably being a cross between blade runner and a john carpenter film...and guess what - that's EXACTLY what it's like. The only thing I wish they would have focused on was the origin of the vampire disease and how it spread so quickly. One reviewer on here pointed out that it is "ridiculous" to even suggest that in 10 years time our world could reach that point. Really??? A decade is a long time...do you know how long it takes for people to catch the ebola virus? Pretty quickly upon contact...now imagine if the ebola was a walking, living thing (now THAT is scary!). However, the film concentrates on one city in a world supposidly taken over by vampires...who knows how the rest of the world is in terms of human resistance. Anyways, to sum this film up - acting was okay overall - i would have loved to have seen more from the great Sam Niell, but they did a great death scene with him at the end. Go into this movie without expectations, expect some nice concepts and you'll enjoy it. Cliche bats jumping out and such - only things I hated about the film.… Expand

This was an enjoyable film along the lines of so many dark stylized films. The movie goes into detail and comparisons onto today's situation and where we may be heading when it comes to resources. It may not be a masterpiece, but it is a really fun way to spend a couple of hours where you can walk away with the experience and the filmaking. Ethan Hawke I feel really delivered and although Willem Defoe was really cheesy, it was the kind of performance that brings a smile to your face. Sam Neil, really played his part out however and made you feel like you were part of this world. Overall, not a terrific film especially when it comes to the ending, but it made the world believable and made you root for the protaganists in a dark and gritty world with a sense of heart....and blood.… Expand

A good idea splattered along with the rest of the tons of fake ridiculous blood in the movie. Really a shame, faulty story, bad acting, and what on earth is wrong with the brother??? i mean seriously!!

Even though "Daybreakers" is pure fantasy........it would help if the premise it was set in was halfway believable. In less than 10 years we are led to believe that humans have virtually been wiped out and replaced by the vampires. But not even the black death,The Spanish flu, AIDS ,small pox couldn't come close to decimating the human race to such epic proportions as depicted in "DayBreakers". If Daybreakers was set 100 years from now then you might just have a more credible setting......but set just 10 years from now........not very credible at all. The action was okay.....but nothing not seen countless times before, but what let the film down most was the TERRIBLE.....TERRIBLE script......not even Sam Niell or Dafoe could improve things. There is most likely going to be a sequel......but please please employ somone that can write a decent script next time!… Expand

I thought the detail of the Vampire society was very good. The acting wasn't as bad as I've been reading, aside from some pretty cheesy lines. This isn't going to be a deep story to begin with so I had no real problem with, "the cure", even though I can see how someone who wasn't enjoying the first hour could be turned off by it. If your in the mood to see a good horror type movie, and don't go into it wanted to pick it apart I think you'll be thoroughly entertained.… Expand

This movie could've had better and more entertaining ways of killing vampires, I kind of thought it sucked to with everyone a vampire and the sun was the cure to convert you back into a human lol, usually it's used to kill vampires lol, I didn't think it was the best vampire movie, From Dusk Till Dawn was way better the one with George Clooney and Qintan Tarentino not any of the other sequels though lol.… Expand

It's an all too obvious metaphor, the CEO of a billion dollar corporation as bloodsucking vampire, but that's exactly what Charles(Sam Neill) is, quite literally. The company he runs, Bromsley Marks, seems benevolent enough; this company, a major supplier of human blood, wants to solve the world's dwindling reserves by developing a blood substitute. But just like any business, it's all about profits. The fact that human lives would be spared(the agenda which drives Edward(Ethan Hawke), a hematologist in charge of the program), becomes a secondary matter to the corporation, which shouldn't surprise this humanitarian(despite being a vampire himself), or anybody who knows how big business works. "The Daybreakers", in spite of its silly storyline, does make a salient point about diseases and cures, or rather, the conflict of interest that may get in the way: best exemplified in the crucial scene where Charles admits to Edward about vampirism being good for business. This rampant greed, so symptomatic in the corporate world, makes the moviegoer wonder about cancer, or AIDS, and what the drug companies would lose if such afflictions were remedied by some medical breakthrough. The film itself alludes to vampirism as a disease when Charles talks about his daughter, who had characerized this condition of post-death dynamism as such, before she went underground with the other humans. It's this same underground that Edward joins, a cell where he pioneers a conversion process requiring wine fermentation tanks, like something out of Ken Russell's "Altered States". Predictably, "Daybreakers" gets bogged down by the requisite need for action. To allow such action to take place, the film invents an alternative way to transform back to human, which doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, but is, admittedly, more cinematic than standing in line at a wine fermentation tank.… Expand

If I'm entertained for the entire length of a movie, then that movie is a success for me. This movie was entertaining. If you don't like gore, however, stay away. I thought the gore was funny and found myself laughing when heads and bodies were exploding. The directors love gore so much they had a slow-motion scene in the movie's goriest moment showing bodies flying through the air! Hilarious! I do feel, however, that the movie would have benefited from someone other than Ethan Hawke in the title role. He was too one-note and looked on the verge of crying the entire movie. A good "B" film!… Expand

This film was bearable. Mostly because my girlfriend gets scared in horror movies and clings to me the whole time, which is nice. Other than that, the film itself is a complete flop. Most notably, the supposed cure for vampirism is the most idiotic deux ex machina cure I have seen in a movie in some time. Also, if there are light proof military suits, then are there never any vampires out during the day? Don't they understand that it would be better to hunt humans when they would actually be outside? This movie does not verge on idiotic, it IS idiotic.… Expand

I honestly really enjoyed this movie. but i just felt that it couldve been better as a television series on a channel such as hbo or showtime so that way it could keep the gruesome vampireness but also add to the story maybe flesh certain things out a little more and maybe stretch the original plot of the movie out a little to maybe make a first season as i felt like the movie kindave moved to fast without really explaining certain things to just move on to the next scene. also WHY THE HELL IS THE MAIN CHARACTER NAMED EDWARD! I WANTED A REAL VAMPIRE MOVIE NOT A HOMAGE TO A SPARKLY POSER!… Expand

Interesting premise, absurd fix. How does the sun cure their vampireness? Maybe I didn't pay enough attention to the movie, but I liked it as a vampire movie up until that point. And to think, I thought Willem Dafoe would only improve upon this one.

I wanted to see a real vampire movie because of the Twilight invasion. And I loved it. Very hard to pick out what's bad about this movie. Finally no more embarrassing sparkly skin when in the sun. They stayed out of the sun, because they would catch on fire if they were in the sun. Interesting premise, intriguing story, Great acting, a real vampire story, and its an entertaining story and its fun. Its a bloody good time.… Expand

Takes a bit to get into but it was actually rather good for the most part. I enjoyed it. The cast was decent ,I expected better, and the action was good. Its one of those films where you either like it or you dont and I liked it.

the movie is enjoyable but the plot is alot weaker then i though going to see it ,the acting is not to good not much to scare you the vampiers dont really act like vampires whitch is where i though the movie really diapointed me the most. If it is a boring raining day this movie will keep you enterained for a couple hours.

In this movie vampires have taken over and the human race is almost extinct leading to a blood shortage, if a blood substitute or a cure isn't found soon the vampires will turn into even more horrible bat like creatures, yeah it's as goofy as it sounds, and it ends up being an ok movie that most vampire maniacs will enjoy but for everyone else, it's an ok movie from beginning to end.

WHAT IF… I think Hollywood movies always begin with WHAT IF… Thiz time, what if all humans on thiz planet already became vampires. They drink blood for their daily meal. The crisis starts when blood resources dwindled. The real flesh and blood human are near extinction. Thiz alternate world directed by Michael and Peter Spierig. Ethan Hawke played as Edward, the hematologist tried to discover synthetic blood. The premise is good but the execution is on question mark. Thirty minutes in the beginning of the movie was excited but downhill until the end. The actions were on B-Class level. The direction and editing were out of date, it looked like 80s or 90s movies. Beside Hawke, the other Casts are: Willem Dafoe, Sam Neill, etc. Hawke was not on his bests. His moral interests which helping human or defending his own kinds could have been develop more intense. Dafoe just fills The Rock N Roll character in thiz flick, although he is bringing a good comical and fun character. It is Neill who gave a better vampire appeal as cold-hearted CEO. There is something bother me in thiz flick. There is too much smoking scenes. During thiz two decades (since 90s), Hollywood movies have been reducing the smoking scenes. Personally, I strongly oppose these smoking scenes to bring back to the screens. Tell me, not all of us already turn out be vampires. And tell me, not all of vampires named Edward. Visit My Blog on JONNY'S MOVEE : http://jonnyfendi.blogspot.com… Expand

I liked it. Nothing special but worth the time spent. I can`t possibly deny the good try that was made with the story. I must say I haven`t seen anything like it. In times when everything about vampires is 'been there done that', this flick surprised me. I also appreciated the way in which the story got by. Make no mistake - there`s lots of blood and brutality in this thing. The special effects are cool, the idea about the de-evoluted vampires also got portrayed well. Ethan Hawke and Sam Neill did a good job, with Willem Dafoe one class above them. The drama and character development behind it are as shallow as they can get, although this did not cause the film to get boring in any way. The ending is not easy to forsee but is a little dissapointing. First of all original, good action movie.… Expand

I watched Daybreakers rather reluctantly due the average critical reception it received at release and after watching last night I indeed can confirm how average the movie was from its production values to its entertainment value. Daybreakers has onboard some good actors with a some what different take on the future of vampires, but unfortunately neither the actors nor the story premise are very interesting to watch. The characters are pretty one dimensional and fail to make us care. Was there a love story between two characters in this movie? Was it a friendship? I after watching I'm not sure. In the end of the movie did I care to the outcome of the characters dilemma? Kinda i guess, but I wasnt sure. As the screenplay plays out it feels awkward and muddled; and some of the editing during scenes feels unnatural. The vampire theme in movies has been used a lot now, A LOT, and as I mentioned earlier the premise seems interesting at first but the film makers don't do a lot with it and in the end isn't particularly bad but hardly memorable either. I give Daybreakers a 5/10, it does exist, it is watchable, but is average - not particularly bad, but not good either.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Daybreaker’s is a fresh and interesting idea on the vampire genre. It is the year 2019 and vampires are now most of the population and humans are becoming extinct. As humans continuing to disappear or go into hiding, the vampire’s source of blood is diminishing and there is a need to have a blood substitute. Currently vampires are getting their blood by a corporation that harvests humans. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a vampire hematologist who has been working on this substitute for years and has always come up short; he also tries to cling onto his humanity as he feels his existence is not what it’s supposed to be. We are even given his brother, a hardcore vampire soldier as the night and day comparison of what vampire “compassionâ€� should look like through Edward. One night Edward is given the chance to help humans after he has gotten into a car accident with a bunch of refugees. He shows them he is not the bad guy and is then brought into their circle of trust where he meets a man who was once a vampire, but through a freak miracle has been cured. This sets up the rest of the movie as the cure is tested and the humans/Edward fight for survival. As the blood supply shrinks, we see what will happen to a vampire that does not get blood. This part of the movie is something that I thought was creative and pulls it apart from the other vampire movies. Here we see that a vampire can never truly die, but will de-evolve into something that is a vampire bat thing that has lost its intelligence and just seeks blood from something, even other vampires. The other well-played idea is that of the cure itself involving the sun. Is this a well acted movie? It’s not the best, but I don’t think it tried to go that way. Everyone seems to be tired but I think that was how they tried to make it look for this type of vampire movie. This was more a movie trying to entertain and put a twist on a genre that has done this subject to death and I thought it came out right. Conflicted characters are always interesting and Ethan Hawke’s character comes across that way. Can you or should you hang on to humanity when you have lost your own? It’s always good brain picker material. Great themes of sacrifice and redemption through the film, especially through what is seen to be a very jilted character in the brother who fully embraces his vampire side. This is an entertaining movie with some great camera shots. It’s always bothered people, with few exceptions, when they watch a movie with me and I blurt out, “That was a great shot.â€� This has many and I recommend it for those of you who like that type of thing in their movies.… Expand

DAYBREAKERS is a gory, well-acted and well-directed film that is quite interesting and visually impressive.