DVD Review: Splice (by Dave Machado)

I always find it disheartening when certain types of movies are thought of as just brain candy. They get incorrectly labeled as superfluous distractions that may be entertaining but leave us with no real substance to digest. I'm typically a big fan of these movies and find lots to chew over where many others find emptiness (see: Kick-Ass, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World). It's usually the "B" movies that get this unfortunate label as certain people are not able to see past the gimmicks and get to the heart of the story. Splice is one of the better examples of this that I have seen in a long time. While I fear some may be put off by the sci-fi elements of the story (which are fantastic), once you are able to get past that, you are rewarded with a rich story that wrestles with multiple philosophical issues while also being one of the best movies of 2010.

Splice centers on scientists Clive and Elsa (played by Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley) who are employed by a large corporation and tasked with creating organisms that will lead to important medical breakthroughs. To do this, they have successfully spliced together the DNA of multiple (non-human) organisms in order to create a new species that can be studied in order to possibly find the cure for all of life's greatest diseases. When they are told that they are to stop splicing and focus on getting the protein that is needed from their current specimens, they decide to go off the books and experiment on their own. By adding human DNA to their already successful organism, they are able to create a new life form that is both highly intelligent and possibly dangerous beyond anyones imagination.

If years of sci-fi movies have taught us anything, it's that all instances of humans playing God will end tragically and/or violently. Splice is no exception. In fact, the movie plays tribute to the original God of cinema, Dr. Frankenstein, by having the main characters named after actors from James Whales's 1935 masterpiece, Bride of Frankenstein. The new organism created in Splice ages at a very advanced speed, giving Clive and Elsa the idea to let it live so they can view the species entire lifespan in a short span of time. One of the great things about this movie is seeing how the creature, named Dren, evolves over a short period of time. At key points throughout the movie, we see that this creature has developed numerous defense mechanisms that make it very difficult to put down.

The best thing about Splice to me was that it was able to incorporate a surprisingly human subplot regarding the way victims of abuse tend to become their tormentor as they grow up, usually without even realizing it. It was amazing how they snuck that idea into an already overloaded movie without causing it to seem like the cast and crew bit off more than they could chew. Between philosophical debates about the obligation of mankind to do everything in our power to further our species, even at the risk of harming what cannot easily be described as other lifeforms, the movie takes a very smart left turn and grounds the story in some very human drama. It all unfolds in an organic way that to me never felt forced. It's amazing that Splice works as well as it does, which I think causes me to have more respect for it than other sci-fi movies that take the more expected route.

There were a few things I didn't like about the movie, namely the final act, which has a twist that is too easily telegraphed and causes the movie to delve quickly into a generic horror setup. It was disheartening to see such a smart sci-fi movie that deals with very human issues boil down to a "stalk and kill" climax. Luckily, the payoff puts the movie back on good footing, but for a while I was afraid the whole thing was going to implode. Certain characters become far too expendable and it seems they were almost shoehorned into the movie specifically for the final few "horror" scenes. These complaints, along with a bit of hammy acting from the supporting cast, are certainly not large enough to ruin the movie. 

I hope more people give this movie a shot. I get tired of always saying that, but typically the movies I love the most are the ones that need a bigger audience in the first place. Fans of sci-fi will love this movie unconditionally but I think even those who typically shy away from these types of films should give it a shot. Splice challenged my perception of right vs. wrong while also providing one of the coolest sci-fi creations (Dren) that I've seen in quite some time. Help celebrate unique and intriguing storytelling by seeing Splice. I have no doubt we will be singing it praises years from now as a true classic of the genre.

You're Welcome,

Dave

DVD Review: How To Train Your Dragon (by Dave Machado)

How To Train Your Dragon is the type of movie that 3D was invented for. Unfortunately for me, I missed the boat on the theatrical release and ended up seeing it at home on DVD. While I enjoyed the movie, I couldn't help but think I was missing the experience that made How To Train Your Dragon one of the best reviewed movies of the year. The story and visuals were consistently top notch but when the flying/fight scenes came into play, I spent more time wondering how great this would be in 3D and less time being fully immersed in the action. While I think that did slightly sour my take on the movie, I still believe it is a solid movie and belongs in the same group as this year's other animated achievements, Toy Story 3 and Despicable Me.

How To Train Your Dragon is essentially a "boy and his dog" movie, but placed in Viking times and with a dragon instead of a dog. We begin the story as the Viking village is being attacked. The voice over on screen goes through the list of dragon types as we see the village slowly destroyed as the Vikings try to mount a defensive attack. Amidst this chaos, we are introduced to Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel), the young apprentice of the local blacksmith (Gobber, voiced by Craig Ferguson). He is a small and scrawny boy who feels left out of the action due to his small stature. He has secretly built a contraption that can take out any dragon and during the confusion of the attack, is able to sneak away in an attempt to prove his device works. Naturally on his first try, he hits and takes down a mythical Night Fury dragon (we are told it is so fast, no one has ever seen one), said to be the most dangerous dragon of all.

Of course the dragon falls from the sky far away from the village and no one else is around to see Hiccup make the hit. During his victory rush, he mistakenly causes more trouble, forcing most of the dragons to successfully leave with the village's food supply. It's at this point that we realize Hiccup is actually the son of the lead Viking (Stoick, voiced by Gerard Butler). The next day, as Hiccup is finally allowed to attend Dragon Slaying Training (much to the chagrin of the other kids in the village, who view him as a loser), he tracks down the dragon he captured and finds him tied up in the ropes he shot at him. He can't bring himself to kill the dragon however and unties him instead. This slowly leads to a bonding experience between Hiccup and the dragon as Hiccup discovers that the dragon's tail was wounded in the attack and he can no longer fly for long distances. Hiccup then takes it upon himself to use his experience as a blacksmith to create a contraption that will allow the dragon to fly again. In doing so, he begins to learn more about the nature of dragons, thus helping him become his village's greatest dragon master.

One of my big problems with the movie was the decision to cast young American actors in the roles of the kids. It seems all the adult characters have a nice thick Scottish accent (which in itself is a questionable decision as I am not 100% sure that is historically accurate), yet all the kids simply sound like the celebrities voicing the parts (Jack Black, America Ferrera, Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, etc...). I guess in between Dragon Slaying lessons, they have a voice coach teach these kids to lose their parent's accents. I understand this is a pointless thing to complain about because from a business standpoint, you need known actors to sell an original kid's movie and you can't then hide the actor's voices behind fake accents. But it did take me out of the movie a few times as I spent more time trying to place the familiar voice with the actor behind it instead of focusing on the story at hand. My only other note regarding the voice acting is that I typically found Jay's performance of Hiccup to be too dry and sarcastic, especially in moments of danger. The character had a very monotone reaction to certain scary situations that left me rolling my eyes instead of being on the edge of my seat.

What the movie lacks in voice performances it makes up for in visuals and tone. The movie has some really beautiful scenes, specifically when Hiccup is flying on the back of his dragon. There were many times where in addition to being swept up in the action on screen, I was also thinking of how amazing a theme park ride based on this movie could be. Again, I'm sure these scenes were even more spectacular in 3D but luckily the sheer beauty of them still transfered well to a viewing at home. The movie also has a surprisingly dark tone and goes places I really did not expect it to. I'm thinking of one part in particular near the end of the movie that while a little too convenient of a way to mirror two characters stories, was still a very adult way to handle a kid's movie. It was very refreshing to see another quality kid's movie not rely on stale pop culture gags as a way to get kids interested in the story. Instead, it simply focused on a very mature story in a way that is easily accessible to a younger audience while not alienating the older ones. This is typically Pixar's golden formula so it was good to see Dreamworks continue to follow in their footsteps (after the very enjoyable Kung Fu Panda) and make an animated movie that is truly timeless.

I would have liked to see more of Hiccup's transformation from outcast to hero, specifically how the views of his peers changed over time. I had a hard time grasping how much time took place between the beginning and end of the movie as everything seemed to happen really fast. I get that animated movies are typically made for viewers with understandably smaller attention spans so the focus is always on having it be around 90 min, but I feel How To Train Your Dragon would have really benefited from a few more scenes here and there to give the story a better sense of time passing. Despite these minor issues, I still greatly enjoyed How To Train Your Dragon and am very glad it found a large audience this year. I hope the audience continues to grow and maybe we will even eventually get a re-release in theaters before the inevitable sequel so people like me can enjoy it the way it was meant to be seen, on a giant screen in glorious 3D. 

You're Welcome,

Dave

DVD Review: Greenberg (by Dave Machado)

I went into Greenberg not thinking I would enjoy it that much. I had seen mixed reviews and based on my mood yesterday, I wasn't sure I would be able to handle a dramedy that was a slow character study with an unlikable lead. I'm glad I stuck with my plan to watch it though because Greenberg is a very enjoyable movie that I am surprised has not gotten more attention. It's not a perfect movie by any means but it is well acted and contains very interesting characters despite some of my annoyances with their arcs. While I feel the movie may be a bit disposable in that I doubt I will ever have a need to revisit it, it's still a good movie that I recommend to people looking for a smaller and more intimate movie experience.

Ben Stiller, the star of Greenberg, does a great job as the lead. He plays Roger Greenberg, a 40 year old who is sort of wandering through life without a plan after having just spent a short stint at a mental hospital. He comes back to California from New York City as a way to wind down and is staying at his brother's house who is out of town due to a family vacation. He quickly begins a pseudo-relationship with his brother's assistant (played perfectly by Greta Gerwig) who was given instructions to help out Stiller's character with anything he needs. 

Roger is a very blunt and idiosyncratic character who is prone to random outbursts. It's a character who has never seemed to fully mature and continues to live in the past. This can be a very hard character to pull off but I felt like for the most part Stiller nails it. This could have easily been a very hammy performance but he reigned it in just enough to make the character fairly sympathetic. I've heard complaints that Greenberg (the movie) is not enjoyable because of Greenberg (the character) but I strongly disagree with that. I was intrigued by Roger and the cause of his actions. While the character may have some odd quirks only seen in indie films (He writes numerous letters of complaints to businesses throughout the movie.) it was still subdued enough to make you believe someone like this could really exist and not alienate everyone around him (Something Roger is constantly on the verge of the entire movie.).

Stiller's performance is also helped by the fact that the characters he has to interact with are equally well acted. As I mentioned before, Greta Gerwig was a perfect choice as Florence, the assistant that Greenberg falls for. She's a young actress who I had only previously seen as the friend in House of the Devil who I remember being impressing by despite the small amount of time she was on screen. She really blew me away in this movie though. If Greenberg is going through a mid-life crisis, then Florence is having what would constitute as a quarter-life crisis. She is 25 and has yet to find a real purpose in life. She is the assistant to Greenberg's brother but other than that we don't know much about her life other than that she is an aspiring singer. The movie largely depends on the chemistry of these two semi-lost souls and fortunately Stiller and Gerwig were able to pull it off in a manner that seemed effortless.

Greenberg is a movie that mostly succeeds due to the performances and not the story. I wonder what this movie would have been without two actors of this caliber. Say what you will about Ben Stiller but between this and the relatively recent Tropic Thunder, I still think he has a lot of talent that is typically wasted in broad comedies and kids movies. Anyone who disagrees should really check out Greenberg. It's a shame this movie didn't get a large audience because I fear it means Stiller will take less chances like this again in the future. If you can put aside some of the films non-subtle quirks, you'll find that Greenberg is a solid movie and one that you won't regret giving a chance.

You're Welcome,

Dave

DVD Review: Bronson (by Dave Machado)

Bronson is a superb biopic of infamous British criminal Michael Peterson, who is considered the most violent criminal in Britain based on how much chaos he has caused since he has been locked up. He makes it a habit to fight with guards and has spent his whole life bouncing from prison to prison (mostly in solitary confinement) as they try to find a place that can finally tame him. At one point in Peterson's life, he is released from jail and spends about 2 months free as a bare knuckle fighter. It is during this time that his promoter gives him the new moniker, "Charlie Bronson" after the Death Wish actor. The role of Bronson is played by Tom Hardy, who audiences will remember as the suave Eames from Inception. Seen here in a much more "unrestricted" role, Tom Hardy really shines and helps make Bronson one of the most energetic and unique biopics I have ever seen.

Raised in a normal family setting, Bronson always had a problem with authority. He would constantly get into fights and was never really given the chance at a normal life. He slowly graduated to more disturbing crimes (though never murder) and was finally placed in jail. The film never tries to really iconisize Bronson but you do feel sympathetic towards him as you see that he clearly had some emotional issues to deal with his whole life. Hardy does such an amazing job showing how unhinged Bronson really was, perfecting that certain spark of anger all psychopaths tend to have in their eyes. It's impressive to see how effortless his performance seemed as he disappeared until the role.

The reason Bronson is such an entertaining film to watch is the way it adds to the normally stale biopic genre. The film is mostly told in straight linear fashion, but is interjected with scenes of Bronson addressing the screen as if he were telling his life's tale to an audience. It's a fitting twist for a man who spent most of his life by himself in a small prison cell. To me, I saw it as a man's attempt at staying sane, simply pretending his life is a show so he can address some invisible crowd. Bronson even appears in clown make up occasionally on stage, simply adding to the illusion that his whole life has been one big circus. My only complaint is that these scenes seemed to occur more in the first half of the movie and unfortunately were used less and less as the movie went on.

For a movie about such a violent man, the movie is luckily infused with a fantastic dark wit. This could have been a drab movie focusing on the hate inside this man but due to Hardy's charismatic performance, excellent fight cinematography, and a sharp script, the movie pops off the screen with such ease. It's not that the movie makes light of what Bronson has done, but because the film is framed as being told by Bronson himself, it is expected that his actions would be seen in an almost heroically comic light. I highly recommend this movie as I feel it never really got the attention it deserved. If nothing else, it will allow you to see the greatest "dance party" sequence I have ever seen in a movie.

You're Welcome,

Dave

DVD Review: ThanksKilling (by Dave Machado)

I once was lost, but now am found, was blind, but now I've seen ThanksKilling. Words can't really explain what happens in the 60 minute long runtime of the epic ThanksKilling. In short, it is a movie about a killer turkey from the Pilgrim times who is raised from the dead and goes about killing all the white people he comes across. But really, it is so much more than that. If Orson Welles were alive today and was able to view ThanksKilling, he would finally witness Citizen Kane toppled as the greatest American movie of all time. He would also proceed to then eat an entire turkey.

The movie opens with a close up of a big (unclothed) boob. The camera pans out and we see that the boob is in fact a Pilgrim boob and it (along with the boob's owner) is being chased by the killer turkey. She is quickly slaughtered and we cut to present times, where an amazingly cliche group of friends are about to go on a road trip home for Thanksgiving break. They proceed to treat this like Spring Break ("Thanksgivng break! WOOO!") as they all pile into the jock's jeep to go home. Joining said jock are the dumb slut, the fat guy, the nerd, and the sweet innocent girl. These stereotypes are established very quickly and are then hammered into the ground for the rest of the movie. The best is that we know the slutty girl is a slut because the other girl claims "Your legs are harder to close than the Jon Benet Ramsey case!"

The rest of the movie isn't even worth spoiling here because the fun of it is seeing just how amazingly bad the story really is. But just in case I haven't convinced you to see this movie (Seriously!?), let me give you one more reason.  At one point, a character's father is killed by the turkey in his home as the group of kids are on their way to his house (The reason they are going there? "My Dad has a ton of books! One of them has to be about a killer turkey!"). So the turkey then cuts the father's face off (including mustache) and makes a little mask to put on his little turkey head. It's worth pointing out now that the turkey is normal sized and not a giant mutant turkey. When the group shows up, they proceed to talk to the turkey as if nothing is wrong, even bending down to give it little hugs. No one even notices that this is a turkey in disguise. If you are not running to go see this movie right now, you are dead to me.

In summary, watching ThanksKilling is like finding a lost text from the Bible. It changes your life for the better and you wonder how you ever lived without it to begin with. I'm sure some will say that this movie is a real "turkey" and for that, they should have their family kidnapped. I hope you all enjoy this movie as much as I did. I understand it may not be for everyone, but if you are looking for a great movie to put on for a laugh, I can't think of a better movie than ThanksKilling. It truly gave me something to be thankful for.

You're Welcome

Dave

DVD Review: Antichrist (by Dave Machado)

Antichrist is a movie that made me both thankful and regretful that I am not blind. It tells the story of a couple who are mourning the death of their only child, who in a beautifully shot prologue, falls to his death from their apartment window. The rest of the movie shows the couple trying to overcome their unbearable grief as they search for a meaning to go on. It is a cold, heartless movie that focuses on the evil of humans, specifically villainizing their dirty sexual desires. Antichrist is an extremely difficult movie to get through both physically and emotionally and there is nothing redeeming waiting for you on the other end as the credits roll.

I see Antichrist less of a movie and more as an art project. Granted it's art I would prefer never to see again, but I can at least acknowledge that the movie had some strikingly haunting visuals. There were scenes where it mattered less what was happening on the screen as my eyes simply admired the beauty that was on display. The plot is fairly easy to follow and you really get a feeling of the downward spiral these two descend upon as they slowly loose their grip on what's left of their lives. Once the husband (played by Willem Dafoe) decides to take his wife (played by Charlotte Gainsbourg) to an old cabin she is having nightmares of (due to spending the last summer with her son there), the movie delves even further into the abyss, thus becoming less interesting and more mean spirited. 

I think I have a grasp on what Director/Writer Lars von Trier was attempting with this movie, I just have a hard time respecting the outcome. The movie contains a fair amount of graphic scenes that were very uncomfortable to watch. I can usually deal with the worst gore a movie has to offer but when it is so devoid of humor or any spark of entertainment, I am quickly turned off. Obviously humor has no place in a movie like this so to see just how far he goes really made me question if I even wanted to continue watching until the end. This is not a movie you watch to be entertained, it is a movie you watch to experience the hell these characters are going through. 

The interesting aspect about the couple though is von Trier's decision to make the husband a psychiatrist. He (that's literally the character's name by the way.  The wife's name is She.) is a very distant husband and treats his wife as a patient as she becomes increasingly more unraveled due to their son's death. The pair come to embody the constant struggle between the mind and the body as she constantly throws herself at him for sex as a way to cope with her issues. We never see the couple before their son's death and it is implied they have always had this distance between them. Calling either of the two "sympathetic" would simply be a lie as the whole movie makes you despise these two characters almost from the very start.  An interesting decision considering the lack of any supporting characters to fall back on. I hope heaven, or any form of the afterlife, doesn't exist in the universe of this movie because their little boy has suffered enough and should never have to see the insane depravity of his parents.

The only experience I can compare this movie to was when I saw the Marina Abramovic exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. There were many people their admiring her work, which like this movie seemed to enjoy linking sex to death. As I walked through the exhibits, a sense of dread came over me and I needed to leave. I was left confused as to how anyone could view this objectively and enjoy it as art when it was so perverse. Antichrist left me with that same feeling and because of it, it was a movie I can easily say I got no enjoyment out of seeing. So if you are brave enough, good luck watching this film. You can't say I didn't warn you though.

You're Welcome,

Dave

DVD Review: Survival of the Dead (by Dave Machado)

George A. Romero's Survival of the Dead is his 6th entry into the world of the living dead that all started back in 1968 with the perfect Night of the Living Dead. Since then, Romero has become synonymous with the genre and has become an icon among a new generation of horror directors. Beginning in 2004 with the release of Shaun of the Dead and Zack Snyder's remake of Romero's Dawn of the Dead, the zombie genre has hit a new stride as countless filmmakers have tried to put their own unique stamp on the genre Romero perfected. While some have succeeded in this task, most have failed (including Romero himself with the sub-par Diary of the Dead). It takes a lot more than just brain eating ghouls to make a good zombie movie and Romero always knew that. He mixed his frights with the right dose of social commentary and pitch black humor that when it all came together, it made for amazing cinema.

Survival of the Dead is what happens when George Romero decides he finally wants to make a modern day western. It contains all the staples you need in a western such as dueling families, scores that need settling, a band of travelers, a secluded setting, and lots of moral ambiguity. All the action takes place on a little island off of Delaware where a generations long feud between two families has come to a head as they each take opposites sides on the philosophical argument on what to do with these newly risen zombies. Is it morally OK to shoot a loved one in the head if they actually are no longer your loved one but just a possessed shell that is out to eat you? I hope I never have to really worry about the answer to that question though it does bring up the discussion of brain dead patient rights.  I was a little surprised/disappointed that Romero didn't delve into that topic a bit more.

While I enjoyed the movie overall it took a good amount of time for me to really get invested in the story. It has a pretty short running time of about 90 minutes which I felt was a bit short for what it was trying to be. I would have loved to see a sweeping 2 and a half hour long period western zombie epic but I understand that financially that would have been a poor decision. However despite its short running time, Survival of the Dead still takes a while to get going.  The final act however is a great shoot out/feeding frenzy. Speaking of which, the low budget of the movie does show pretty easily in the use of cheap CGI blood splatter effects throughout the film. One of the best parts of the old Romero movies was the use of practical effects. Again, I understand why the movie had to go this route, but it did take me of the film every once in a while.

Romero luckily keeps the core cast pretty small but only gives a few characters really room to grow. Others are just there to take up space until a meaningful kill is needed. I never really cared for a lot of the characters, especially the whiny teenage character that was the perfect example of what old people think young people sound like. There was a point near the middle of the movie where the survivors end up in a small cabin and the teenager (I think he's about 17 or 18) finds a stash of records and quickly makes some frustrated remark alluding to the the fact that the appearance of them is the worst thing to ever happen to him. I had the same feeling the second he showed up on screen.

The movie doesn't cover a lot of new ground, but it was an interesting experiment in trying to mix two genres that Romero clearly has a fondness for. The final shot may be the best of the movie even it is a tad on the nose, but what else should you expect from Romero these days. This is the second Romero movie to basically go straight to DVD after a very limited release so it would be great if it can gather a big enough following to grant Romero the money to release another theatrical zombie movie with a bigger budget.  I hope people give this movie a shot and that they enjoy it as much, if not more, than I did.

You're Welcome,
Dave

DVD Review: Hot Tub Time Machine (by Dave Machado)

Hot Tub Time Machine is the best movie I have ever seen that features a hot tub time machine.  It's a movie that doesn't promise much which is good because it doesn't exactly deliver much.  All four leads do a pretty great job with what they are given and the movie creates a few memorable side characters as well.  The basic premise is that after an old friend (Rob Corddry) attempts to kill himself, his two friends (John Cusack and Craig Robinson) along with Cusack's nephew (Clark Duke) go to spend a weekend at an old ski resort that used to be the coolest place when they were younger.  However upon arrival they realize that the area is decrepit and no where close to it's awesomeness of yesteryear.  Trying to make the best of the situation, they decide to get wasted in the hot tub (time machine!).  Once they wake up from their night, they slowly realize what's happened and then they all split off to relive a weekend from their past.

That's pretty much the least important information about this movie.  The movie is at its best when the humor comes from the characters themselves but it does unfortunately dive into "OMG, the 80s were sooo funny!" type comedy a little too much at the beginning.  The movie really wants to make sure you understand they are in the 80s (giant cell phones!).  In fact, the first scene set in the 80s shows so many of these "clues" that it just becomes a joke (the bar they go to has roughly 7 TVs all tuned to defining 80s moments).  But that's only a small complaint.  I still laughed out loud a lot during this movie and it was mostly thanks to Rob Corddry.  He doesn't stray too far from previous characters he's played but he is amazing as the douche bag friend.  His character is summed up perfectly in the beginning by Craig Robinson when he states "You know how every group of friends has an asshole.  He's our asshole."  I still find myself quoting a lot of his lines a week later.  The rest of the cast is great as well but Rob gets the MVP star.

For a time travel movie, it obviously needs to set up some rules regarding the time space continuum.  I was actually shocked they took so much time to discuss the rules of time travel since it's really just a comedy and not a sci-fi movie but for what it is, it does a better job explaining some things than other "real" sci-fi time travel stories.  That's not to say that if you think too hard about the logic that your head won't start to hurt, but it doesn't really matter because you are too busy laughing at the nonsense happening on the screen.  I don't want to get into spoilers, but the ending brought up a big philosophical debate in my head which made me like the movie even more.  It's not exactly LOST or Timecrimes, but I was pleasantly surprised by the use of time travel in the movie.  If you want a fun (but raunchy) comedy, I suggest checking this movie out. 

You're Welcome,

Dave

DVD Review: Daybreakers (by Dave Machado)

This weekend marks the debut of Vampires Suck, the latest movie from the makers of Epic Movie and Meet the Spartans.  I've only seen bits and pieces of these movies but I've seen enough to know that they are, for lack of a better term, bad.  Not only are they bad in the sense that you should get no joy from watching it, they are also bad for movies in general.  Now I know that these movies have made less and less money as the audience luckily gets more and more skeptical, so simply continuing to pick on these movies is like picking on me when I was in 5th grade (the out of shape fat kid).  So until they call these movies "Confused Head Tilt Reaction Shots Due To Random Pop Culture Gags", I will try to pretend they no longer exist.  Having said that, I'd like to take now discuss Daybreakers, an actual vampire movie I saw recently thanks to Netflix that I think deserves a bigger audience than it originally received.

Daybreakers is a welcome entry to the collection of modern vampire myths. The story takes place in the not too distant future where vampires have become the dominant species and have either killed or turned most humans, causing their food source to be nearing extinction.  Corporations have sprung up for the rich where they will "farm" humans and keep them in cool futuristic looking pods (my favorite kind of pod) and basically drain the humans slowly enough so they last for years.  The less fortunate vampires who can't afford such luxuries begin to mutate when they are no longer able to drink human blood.  It may start as a simple elongating of the ears, but the vampires rapidly begin to mutate into a new form of crazed vampire that is more impulsive bat than human.  In an effort to curb the growing issue of these "super vampires", the corporate higher ups are trying to create a synthetic clone for human blood that will allow the vampire race to live long after the last drop of human blood has been sucked up.  For the humans that are still alive and on the run, they have a better idea.  What if instead of a substitute for human blood, they could instead develop a cure for the vampire disease itself?  

The one thing that struck me with Daybreakers is how well it sets up the world.  There is very little verbal exposition and the movie is able to tell a lot through visual clues.  I'm not saying using exposition is a lazy device for films.  I know a lot of people took issue with how much of it was used in Inception but I think that is an unfair claim.  Inception was dropping you into a world you've never seen before and had nothing to really pull from.  As a viewer of Daybreakers however, we are dropped into a world that is more or less familiar, the post-apocalyptic/vampire world.  We sort of know the rules and so the movie can spend less time going over what a vampire is and instead move the plot forward.  Speaking of movement, this film speeds along at a fairly constant pace and never seems to get bogged down or stuck in a boring subplot.

More importantly though, it wouldn't be a good vampire movie without some good old fashioned gore.  Luckily, Daybreakers does not disappoint in this department.  It's not an over-the-top gorefest but relies more on action/chase scenes than straight-up blood and guts.  But when the scene calls for it, there is no skimping on the carnage.  If you've ever seen a George A. Romero movie, you know that in most of his zombie films, there is always a scene I like to refer to as the "Bloody Mayhem" scene in which the zombies overrun the area and are filmed feasting in all their glory.  Daybreakers builds to this type of scene as well and I felt it was handled with the same fantastic touch that Romero himself gives those scenes.  

The only negative thing I could say about Daybreakers is that is does lay on the metaphors a bit thick at times (another comparison to Romero) but it's not too distracting.  We can all see the layers of social injustice being discussed here (rich vs. poor, foreigners vs. scared locals, science vs. faith, etc...), but it seems the filmmakers make an effort to really make sure you get it.  It doesn't even come close to ruining the experience of the movie, but in hindsight I felt it's worth pointing out.  Of course, I'd much rather have a horror movie with too much to say than nothing at all.  So despite all of that, if you are in the mood for a great modern vampire story, then I hope you give Daybreakers a shot.  Just make sure you don't see Vampires Suck...