Rating: 2.5 / 5
In a dystopian future, most humans have turned into vampires and only a fraction of the population is human. In order to survive, the vampires need blood, which they are running out of and which is why they turn into cannibalistic creatures. The scientist Edward (Ethan Hawke) works on a way to reproduce blood synthetically. One day he encounters an underground community of humans led by Elvis (Willem Dafoe) who are trying to restore their humanity to vampires.
It should be symbolic when the director brothers Michael and Peter Spierig stage their film with extremely rich colors. A latent green filter always shimmers through, romping between the bloodbath and the world of science fiction. But where you might have taken a role model from a Christopher Nolan, stays in Daybreakers something right from the start, which is actually crucial for evaluating a film. What is meant here is interest. The brothers stage this film in an almost provocative manner, which is just brimming with ugliness, be it sterile buildings, be it the expressionless faces of the characters or be it the absolutely ineffective splatter inserts, which should make you forget that you are watching a really ugly movie work sees. The entire scenario is so chilled that the aesthetics of individual moments are taken away and supposedly intense moments seem too smooth.
Moreover, the vampire genre as a whole has already been thought through up and down. From sexual connotations to symbolism about power, but also the balancing act between life and death, there is probably nothing that this genre can rediscover. And so suffers Daybreakers including being obsolete. If you follow the story of a systemling who now has to join the oppressed part of the population, then that is just as uninspired as the deeper interpretation of the work. Nothing comes together here that you haven’t seen somewhere before. At the same time, the hypothermia of the characters also has an effect on the acting of the actors. So it is above all Ethan Hawke in the leading role, who wants to give a high-contrast portrayal of a researcher for the best, but also fails due to the convoluted characterization of the screenplay. Some would mistakenly accuse Hawke of disinterest at this point, but it’s not. Hawke is much more overwhelmed with giving his character a believable characterization that can be justified in the screenplay, because the whole story here, for being actually quite banal, doesn’t really know where it wants to go.
Because a big problem, which the film simply has in this respect, is that lethargic and emotionless creatures are not suitable for characters. Sometimes it just gets really embarrassing and reminds me of whining vampires Van Helsing (2004) who complain that, mind you, established as a consciously emotionless being, they have no feelings. In the course of this, the film also takes apart its antagonist and lets him degenerate into a one-dimensional villain in the urge for power. Then there is a daughter who becomes the victim of all circumstances and is supposed to be a lesson for the antagonist. In principle, this is classic social criticism, which trivializes the given structures, but can always go into the core problem. Of course, the synonym of bloodsucker is not just one that would apply to vampires, but equally to any human who exploits, abandons, or degrades other humans for greed for profit.
It’s surprising that the Spierig brothers can fall back on such a great cast. Whether Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill, or Willem Dafoe, the film serves actors who are all masters of their craft. You don’t have to complain about that either, because even if Ethan Hawke struggles with the character drawing, he’s still quite moderate. There’s really no need to say a word more about Willem Dafoe, because the truth is that he’s the kind of actor who really enhances every film. A little bit of overacting is then done and a film already has a certain entertainment value. Here he seems mostly grounded and still wins every scene for himself. Best of all is Sam Neill, whose spitefulness expresses itself in a classic calm that threatens to escalate at any moment.
The action sequences are particularly exciting here. The big role model is very clear Matrix (1999). – Maybe even in a broader sense – because optically very clearly signs are scattered in this direction. It’s not usually deliberately stylized in an overly exaggerated way, but it’s strongly reminiscent of this phase of cinema. Then again, there are also one or two visual ideas when it comes to killing vampires, which actually vanish into thin air in a very charming way. So with the help of a spear. The addition of blood actually works relatively well here, because nothing is paired here and yet a certain form of supposed credibility – i.e. without endless fountains – is maintained.
Among all the stones lies in Daybreakers one of the most interesting genre combinations for quite some time. The symbolism becomes clear very quickly, but is always effective. At the same time, it is mostly the acting and the visual ideas that are convincing. Overall, however, the work suffers from too many clichés, really strange optics and the eternal problem of vampire films.
–
–
