I'm shocked there isn't a thread for this already.  I've been wanting to see it and was worried it might be gone as of tomorrow so I gave it a look.

Wow, was I ever disappointed.  What a letdown!  Just not a good movie in any way.

Boring, dull, ugly, cheap looking, did I say boring?  Oh yeah, I did.  Basic problem for me was that whoever these writer/director brothers are, they told the wrong story and showed the wrong scenes.

It's tough to screw up a vampire movie, IMO.  Sure, it's done all the time, but it takes effort to really fuck up something so simple.  These guys were successful with teh ultimate fuck up.  What a waste.

You know, I kept trying to like it, even though I had a feeling very early on, just based on the opening and look of the film.  Wasn't going to be able to happen.  It's just a dumb movie and script that really makes no sense at all if you even think about it for a few minutes.

Sorry, but I've got nothing positive to say here.  I won't even say wait for the video.  I guess I'll say wait until it's playing free on some movie channel (in about 3 months), and make sure you're really wasted and ready to sleep.  It will help.

As ever, Jeff, we disagree on a movie.

Not one of the best out there, but I enoyed it. The future vision and imagery was generally pretty nicely done, but can see what you mean about the "cheap" complaints.

Part of the problem was with what felt like hackneyed religious subtext with the ending. It felt like the directors strived for something, but never quite articulated what it was.

Vampires running the world (filling our places, very eerie) and using human blood as a metaphor for our dependency on oil was nice. Greed was very clearly a theme explored and led Sam Neill to give up his own daughter, again a fairly deft touch.

The major problem really was the disconnect between a serious commentary and the outright gore that is demanded from this type of film. I think the brothers managed this well for the most part, and while there were a few issues, it largely provided for an entertaining and mildly engaging 'workout'.

I predict these guys will learn from this and come back with something better next time round. I think they're directors to look out for.

A decent and solid film, IMHO.

Andrew

Oh Andrew, how can it be that we seem to disagree on almost everything?  Amazing!


[bert's edit:  Ummm....like, gargantuan spoilers here, Jeff.  Label those things, dude.]




OK, help me out here.  A HUGE plot hole/problem was that we were told that the world's blood supply would be completely depleted by the end of the month...and they repeatedly showed that cheap looking "room" where all the humans were being drained of their blood, each time with less and less people hanging.

Was this supposed to be the source of all the vamp's blood?  That place wouldn't even take care of a single small city, let alone the country or world.  Yet, it was so cheap in showing us nothing else, around the world, other than some cheap news scenes taking place here and there.

Just downright foolish to have the period of time be less than a month.

Here's another one...so Edward meets these humans in a random meeting, then, the next day, the chick shows up at his place and asks for his help.  They've been working on this "cure" for who knows how long, yet the first night Ed hangs with them at the winery, he figures out exactly how to accomplish it.

Huh?  You kidding me?

And then, surprise, surprise, the humans are captured in a routine pickup situation, that very same night, and...surprise, surprise, the evil big boss's long lost daughter just happens to be 1 of the captured.

So then, still the same night, the vamps figure out exactly where they are (at the winery) and storm the place...just after old Ed and his new friends complete the experiment and turn him back into a human again.

Huh?  C'mon, man!  You're kidding me, right?  Nope, afraid not...that's how it went down.

And what about the ridiculous commando outfits the vamps wear?  Pitiful!  WEAK!!!

C'mon, man!

I have to say I really liked the first 10-15 minutes of this movie.  It had some very clever twists on the genre, what with the humans being farmed out for blood and the technological innovations.  I think I liked it right up until that guy exploded in the laboratory.  Then, things started going downhill in a hurry.

It seemed to be one incredibly convenient coincidence after another.  The accident Ethan Hawke has with the humans.  Hmmm..what are the odds.  Then that bat thing wanders into the house out of nowhere.  "That's the third home invasion this month" LMAO.  And I suppose I can understand Hawke's brother being part of the storyline, but Sam Neill's daughter?  Now you're in soap opera territory.

Yeah, you can see the limitations of budget in this movie.  Except, I'm sure Chrysler paid a bundle for those endorsements.  Quick!  Activate the Chrysler tire reinflate!

Anyway, a decent first act and then splat.  Also, hate that title.  Daybreakers.  Sounds like a friggin dance troupe.

I agree with Ryan.  i thought the first 15 minutes or so were great (I actually loved how the first 8 minutes or so had no dialogue), but after that it became one highly predictable chase sequence.

Sigh.  Just another in a long line of disappointments this year.

Quoted from Andrew As ever, Jeff, we disagree on a movie. Not one of the best out there, but I enoyed it. The future vision and imagery was generally pretty nicely done, but can see what you mean about the "cheap" complaints. Part of the problem was with what felt like hackneyed religious subtext with the ending. It felt like the directors strived for something, but never quite articulated what it was. Vampires running the world (filling our places, very eerie) and using human blood as a metaphor for our dependency on oil was nice. Greed was very clearly a theme explored and led Sam Neill to give up his own daughter, again a fairly deft touch. The major problem really was the disconnect between a serious commentary and the outright gore that is demanded from this type of film. I think the brothers managed this well for the most part, and while there were a few issues, it largely provided for an entertaining and mildly engaging 'workout'. I predict these guys will learn from this and come back with something better next time round. I think they're directors to look out for. A decent and solid film, IMHO. Andrew

I agree with this assessment...particularly the bolded part.

There were some really interesting ideas bubbling underneath the surface...far better than in most genre films, they just didn't quite have a grasp on what story they were telling.

The film also worked better in the slower scenes than in the action ones...some of the special effects were laughably weak (the man exploding at the start, Sam Neill's demise...etc).

The film ended up being about humans ovecoming Vampires...when the core of the story seemed like it was really about "humanity"...which was demonstrated by both sides.

Good effort though...a lot better than I was expecting given the relative lack of hype it got.

The only memorable part of this movie for me was a background news report.
A reporter states that vampire wildlife are causing forest fires. I LoL'd.
The idea of vampire chipmunks spontaneously combusting made me giggle.

E.D.

This'll be mostly a DVD extra features review as I often gain a better understanding of the craft & industry from these than by just watching the film alone.
Yeah, that means I often watch the movie twice: Straight the first time, unless it sucks, and a second time with director/producer/actor commentary.

FWIW, I thought the film was pretty boring. The directors can sing and dance "comic book" all they want but the story inconsistancies were just stupid.

On with the extras review...

- Knew Lionsgate was a big time distributor. Didn't know they also were a studio. They are, or were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionsgate_Studios .
Ownership of all kinds of properties changes hands A LOT! in this industry. (See review for THE CRAZIES).
- Based on the directors' previous work on their $70,000* "no budget" film UNDEAD, Lionsgate allowed them to pitch DAYBREAKERS in 2004 with 16pg treatment. Directors put together key elements of the story into animation to convince Lionsgate producers and lead actor.  * $70,000 to actually shoot. $1M total spent in post production.
- Two years of designing.
- Script meetings lead to script rewritings.
- Script is finished on last day of post-production.
- Initial shooting budget was for 55 days. Cut to & shot in 40 days. Consider the screenplay math ramifications of this. You could almost determine both a cost per shooting day and cost per screen minute.
$20M / 40 days = $500K/day.
$20M / 98 minutes = $204K/minute.
Consider if our writing warrants that expenditure.
- Directors changed between fluorescent lighting for vampire world and incadescent/sun lighting for human world. This is very similar to what the director did in STATE OF PLAY where Senator shots were digital and newspaper/reporter work shots were on film.
- Some scenes written in rehearsals.
- Directors go on and on about cheap effects but include them anyway.
- Again, consider the math of deleted and condensed scenes: If you write a 90 - 110 page screenplay and there are fifteen minutes of deleted scenes that means a good chunk of what we write is getting chunked. (Forgive me, but I foresee pretty consistantly hitting this point. Write. Rewrite. Rewrite again. Don't get married to anything. Story bones are key).
- SFX by Adobe After Effects and Photoshop.
- Director likes to get to the third act and the audience doesn't know how it's going to end. "How are they going to resolve this"?
- Actors would rather play villains, especially smart ones.
- Director states if you're shooting a <$5M film you can do whatever you want. If >$20M commercial considerations result in standardization of story often through budget considerations and trying to appease too broad of an audience. I think we can apply this principle to the construct of our screenplays.
- I noticed at the opening credits that it was funded by the Film Finance Corporation of Australia, and noted both Sam Neil as a New Zealand actor and Isabel Lucas as an Australian actress, but neither spoke particularly Australian. The directors are twin brothers of Australia, as well. But the film's sets and settings "looked pretty American" to me. Later, the directors sensibly explained that with a $20M budget the film had to appeal to a larger audience. Had it been made as an Australian film it would have had a considerably smaller audience. "Australians don't want to see Australian films" quipped one of the brothers. The English director of KICK A$$ said that the same consideration was made for it, set in NYC, even while using an English lead actor and shot in Canada and UK. More money = gotta appeal to more audience = The States.
- I observed the Toronto Film Festival audience is not the same as a regular/normal theatrical audience, meaning any "news" reports from festivals should be given token consideration. They're deliberately hyped up before the film is shown.

- New Cliche: "[I believe] that metaphore is so powerful"! ::)

Ray, I think you meant "Pre" Production, when you typed "Post" Production, right?

The bro's first film, Undead, is pretty good.  It has its issues, but for an extremely cheap film, it not only looks good, but it also is rather unique in its approach to zombies.

Not the case with this turd of all turds.  I've got such a bad memory of this abortion that I wouldn't even watch it again for free.  For those of you who enjoyed it the first time, give it another viewing and see if your mind doesn't change.

Ray "- Script is finished on last day of post-production."

Jeff "Ray, I think you meant "Pre" Production, when you typed "Post" Production, right?"

Unless I heard wrong or they mispoke: Nope.
That's the fun of being your own writer/director.
You can just make up sh!t as you go along.

Like you guys are probably sick of reading me whine and gripe about moving rice grains about the plate - any given "scene" is scripted one way, shot four to twenty times/takes, the actors keep changing not only the delivery of the lines but what is said and the director changes the lines, maybe even fundamental story elements, then the editor and director sit in the suite to cut and paste "whatever paces best" and then the studio puts in their five dollar's worth since it's their effin money.
Several times I hear the directors puff up over how the studio wanted them to change something but they demanded "integrity".
Pfft.
Whatever.

I probably need to pay attention to see if that's only for cr@p movies.
Just watched KICK A$$. Same thing. (Also not impressed with that, either.)

Nope.
POST-production. After they've edited it down to whatever compromises they can live with.
That's when the directors stated the script was finished.
Go figure.

Would be nice to get AJ & Rick in here to confirm or deny these allegations of rumors.
Politics and sausage.

;)

PS, I have ARMORED, GREENBURG, PRINCESS KUILANI, JONAH HEX and SALT queued up for this weekend & early week. GREEN ZONE already bagged & tagged with notes coming tonight, maybe.

Ray, I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult, but what you're saying doesn't make any sense.

Pre-Production is before the actual shooting.

Post-Production is after the shooting is complete.

Finishing the script on the last day of Post-Production doesn't make any sense...it's impossible.

I am well aware that scenes get cut out of the finished product, but that doesn't mean they just finished the script as it was being edited.

As far as I know, AJR is nothing close to a director, either.

PS  Armored and Jonah Hex are absolutely terrible!!!!  Especially, Jonah Hex.

Finishing the script on the last day of Post-Production doesn't make any sense.
Think of the "Script" as a "Transcript" and it'll make more cents.
Also, think of a movie like THE CROW where the lead was killed before wrap and the director had to finagle something in post.
Kinda the same I gather.

Believe me, I understand quite clearly your point, but I don't think "making it up as you're going along" directing is as far fetched as you're suggesting.

Also, factor in they could have just used the wrong word or term.
Ausies.
Kids, too.
I'm green with jealousy!   ;)

I'm a pretty good listener, but I'm likely NOT to go back just to verify.

Doesn't even really matter.
You and me both know the scripts get monkeyed with horribly from studio "locked" to screen, and that's the greatest take away.

PS  Armored and Jonah Hex are absolutely terrible!!!!  Especially, Jonah Hex.
I'm counting on it!
I want to deconstruct a disater to hopefully avoid one myself.

:)

I saw this film recently on it's DVD release and can't remember much about it -- what does that tell you?

...Not that I need to purchase Nintendo's Brain Trainer, that's for sure.

Only things I remember was that it...

1)  SUCKED
2)  CHEAP
3)  COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC
4)  BIG DISAPPOINTMENT

I hated the Sprieg Bros Undead. Just ouright despised it. Wasn't intested in Daybreakers. Rented in DVD last summer. Thought it was near great Then I read this thread.

I actually was surprised by the deleted scenes (Ray reads too much into them) I would have liked them back in the film myself. If there is one reservation, I would have liked to have seen more of the landscape, and more about the transformation into the bat-like vampires. I think it moved too fast even though I loved the film a lot.

To each his own.