Now this is what I'm talking about. I was never a great fan of classic, romanticised vampire stories. They only became interesting when films and TV started exploring how vampires really would survive in a bustling, modern, contemporary world. Movies like Blade and television like Buffy and Ultraviolet either built the monsters into a contemporary setting, allowing the creatures to interact like normal, everyday people. Or, add a scientific perspective to vampire lore. Daybreakers, the new film written and directed by talented Ozzies The Sperig Brothers, does this too...taking the concept to the extreme.
Daybreakers presents a world where 95% of the population are now vampires. The remaining 5% of humans are hunted down for food...where they're inserted into mechanised farms to 'milk' every drop of blood from them. However, with humans now in short supply, vampires face a food crisis...or they face devolving into animalistic, bat-like bipeds. Vampire, human sympathiser, blood scientist Ethan Hawke searches for a blood substitute...until he encounters some human refugees who think they may have a cure.
I loved this film. It's a great premise for a science fiction film. The Sperig's explore their world in a cinematic way with minimal dialogue, showing how the world has adapted to a population that can't go out in sunlight and feeds on blood enriched foodtypes. The rules are slowly laid down; vampires still don't cast a reflection (even in the scientific world), they can exist is shadow...just not in direct sunlight, and vampirism is spread via the bite of the attacker.
It being science fiction, there's room for much social commentary and metaphor in the subtext. Oil and food is represented by blood in the Daybreakers universe...were running out of both fast and in the next decade we ourselves face a crisis unless we can find more sustainable substitutes. There's political references to Iraq along with a criticism of the Corporate world...not looking to solve the shortage of vital resources...but rather profit from it. After all, why make something free when someone is willing to pay for it. It's stuffed with little details like how the third world and lower classes suffer first, in such catastrophes. It's such a good premise, it's a wonder it hasn't been explored before.
Plot wise, it's a little by the numbers...but does contain enough attention to character, whether it's Hawke's with his bother, or vampire corporate baddie Sam Neill's relationship with his, still human, daughter Isabel Lucas. The film looks good with the steel and neon of the vampire's urban world contrasting nicely with the natural hues of the human's country life. There's some cool digital matt paintings to expand the vampire cities, helping to explain how their town works from day to day while the Sperig's themselves provide some gory makeup (gotta love it when Mr Neill meet his demise).
A great little movie, that's far more serious in tone than I'd expected (the Sperig's last movie was Undead, a Raimi-esque zombiefest), but with all the quality in writing direction and acting that I'd have hoped. Only thing is, where do you take the modern vampire film now?
2 comments:
Yeah, good little flick with some cool ideas playing with vamp mythology and metaphors for current world woes. I thought the best stuff was the 'world building' and all the details of how the world has adapted to vamp (not) living. The main plot itself was ok but fairly run of the mill. Sam Neill and Willem Dafoe were both great. Everyone else was adequate. But for on $20m budget it sure did look great. The fx were all pretty nifty and the design and photography was spot on. Good stuff!
Rob - You are consuming movies on a mass level. WTF!!!!
Post a Comment