rockym93 dot net

archive · tags · feed

So we went to see Daybreakers.

05 February 201001:48PMreview

Hey! This post is really old. You should take it with a grain of salt.

And Daybreakers is satire. Delicious, exploding, blood-spattered satire. But satire of what, exactly? Let me put it this way... 'Daybreakers' is a recently made movie about a vampire called Edward.



I'm not even sure the movie was that good. I mean, it was an interesting take on vampires, and the whole farming humans thing was nifty, but it really doesn't go beyond what you see in the trailer, to the point where the same shot is used over and over to show the diminishing blood supplies, and that's really the only role the imprisoned humans play. It's not like they get rescued or anything, in fact, I'm pretty sure they all die.

Spoiler warning, by the way.

No, the real entertainment derived from this movie was seeing vampires the way they should be, as really quite horrible morally questionable beings, who delight in feasting on human blood, and burn when they're exposed to sun (and I mean burn), and explode violently into gouts of smoking flesh when staked, which is often. This, combined with a trio of badass ex-vampire humans wielding crossbow-shotguns and Rambo style bows liberally applying said pointed weapons to vampiric chests.

What I'm trying to say is, this movie is a palette cleanser for Twilight. Everything vampiric Twilight left out, this has in liberal amounts. Vampires don't sparkle in the sun like gay douchebags, they burst into pillars of fire. Vampires aren't angstily immortal (well, some are), they're very much still vulnerable to being, oh, I don't know, say, being ripped limb from limb? They aren't angsty and lovey, they're freaking bloodsuckers, in both senses of the word- if Dracula was a CEO, he'd fit right in to this movie (Sam Neill as just such an evil vampire CEO was absolutely brilliant casting). Hell, these vampires even have proper fangs. Like, actual proper fangs. Edward Cullen doesn't have fangs, cause that would make him creepy. These vampires are creepy.Like, really creepy. And they wore nice suits and hats, which always counts for style in my book.

Basically, as far as vampire clich├ęs go, everything Twilight insisted it wasn't, this movie reveled in, and actually managed to be a better movie for it. Really. I was surprised at how many and how well they'd twisted the tropes of a classic vampire into the setting they chose. They really are iconic as far as the vampire stereotype is concerned, while still working with the setting, which is what makes it so fantastic.

Normally at this point I'd go on about the technical whatsits, about the really not-so-subtle colour coding of Vampires=Dark-Matrixy-Green, Humans =Pastels-and-floods-of-warm-tones, or the cleansing symbolism of fire/water that is the initial form of the cure, or how (as James suggests) blood, and the running out thereof, could be a metaphor for any number of environmental crises (I think he said oil supplies, which also explains why the vampires burned so easily... :P). But really, that's not what this movie is about. It's about being a real vampire movie, about blurd-sucking emotionless bastards, and the people who shove stakes in their heart.

Because when you get right down to it, that's what vampire movies should be.

_Recommended for Fans of Twilight, Haters of Twilight, and anyone who likes a decent, moderately gory action flick. _


< Archaeology Time Travel and 'Journals'. >