Daybreakers Movie Review


Either you go see the movie or cop a pair off of someone you know that went to see the movie.

I dont think the 3d effect will work on a bootleg copy of the movie though.
Tell me this brother doesnt think you can just slap on a pair of those ugly ass shits and just use them at the crib like reading glasses on some shit.

Nigga thinking he signed up for the 3D experience gonna come out with a got dam migraine wondering why his head feels like a got dam bullet is lodged in his brain.:smh:



Btw- Thanks for the spoiler warnings too fellas. I hate when people just post that shit without notice.
 
Film noir? :lol: No my brother. Apparently, you don't even know what film noir is. :smh: You might wanna look it up.

The movie was not film noir but I think he was referring to the films lighting style,mood and (1950's) style of clothing and makeup. It also definitely shared some themes from film noir movies.



That's your imagination at work, because the films writers and directors never suggested that that was how the "cure" worked. Now if they had taken the time to even present an explanation such as yours, it would've helped a little, but they didn't.

More holes in that film than swiss cheese. Daybreakers should have been a twilight zone episode. :smh:

I liked that they didn't explain it.

I actually like to think and use my imagination but I've learned that alot of people don't want to do that when they're trying to be entertained and that most need their hand held.
 
Last edited:
Tell me this brother doesnt think you can just slap on a pair of those ugly ass shits and just use them at the crib like reading glasses on some shit.

Nigga thinking he signed up for the 3D experience gonna come out with a got dam migraine wondering why his head feels like a got dam bullet is lodged in his brain.:smh:

Are you referring to me or to the other poster I was responding to in the first place?

I'm fully aware of the issues pertaining to the usage of 3D glasses thank you very much. :hmm:






































:lol:
 
There was much more money in making a synthetic version of blood and selling that to the general population, while saving what's left of humans to sell to the highest bidders.

Make no mistake about it, this movie isn't about vampires so much as it's about corporate greed.

Think of the humans as oil. We run through oil without giving it much thought, and are very greedy as a society when it comes to oil. We don't move away from oil because the money is in just that, the oil.

:confused:

That makes no senese. They said, explicitly, that they were down to their last drops of blood (30 days). I understand searching for a supplement, but you don't allow the current blood supply to dry up before you have the supplement designed. That would make sense if they showed that that corporation was purposefully rationing out blood supply to drive up price. But that's not the case, they were genuinely running out of blood.

And your oil analogy is terrible. We don't need oil to live, they needed blood to live. Humans are like food. It's cheaper to make synthetic, or processed food than to breed livestock naturally. If you want to pay the premium for all natural meats, you can go to a place like Whole Foods. Regardless, we wouldn't allow livestock to dwindle to the point where we only had a month of food left.
 

I actually like to think and use my imagination but I've learned that alot of people don't want to do that when they're trying to be entertained and that most need their hand held.
[/B]

BINGO. 95% of BGOL movie watchers don't have or use it. That's why every fucking movie sucks to them. Nigga's can't even think on their own.
 
I liked it halfway until it jumped the tracks near the end. Fuckin Vampires on some romero zombie shit. One thing bothered me after watching this; why couldn't the vampires start using the blood from other animals? Ethan hawke's character never drank human blood (as he said to his brother) so what was he drinking? There was no synthetic blood yet so it couldn't have been that. However if the vampires already drained all other species (I doubt it) then how were the humans able to stay alive? They were on the run alot so I doubt they had time to grow crops/make synthetic food. That shit right there killed it for me. Also in the end, they claimed they had a cure, but how are they gonna put it thru without gettin drained themselves?
 
I liked that they didn't explain it.

I actually like to think and use my imagination but I've learned that alot of people don't want to do that when they're trying to be entertained and that most need their hand held.
[/QUOTE]

Robot vs. Lion:

It's OK for a flick not to give you a clear explanation for a specific plot device when it's appropriate. There are times, like with this movie (Daybreakers), where it is not appropriate.

If certain things are not explained then shit has to make sense, generally.

Let's take Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" for instance. Romero never really explained why the dead came back to life, BUT through inference and exposition through dialogue, the movie going audience was able to intelligently speculate on a REASONABLE explanation. We got the idea, as suggested, that the dead came back to life because of some sort of radiation, and I was good with that.

But with Daybreakers, (SPOILER ALERT) don't sit there and tell me that a limited, external, and topical exposure to sunlight would be the fix for an internal and blood-borne pathogen that caused vampirism. It's so farfetched that it comes off as inane contrivance.

I don't need my hand held, but I like to be pointed in a direction that makes some sort of sense. If the filmmaker wants me to "fill in the blanks," with my imagination, the parts that surround the blanks have to make sense.
 
I liked it halfway until it jumped the tracks near the end. Fuckin Vampires on some romero zombie shit. One thing bothered me after watching this; why couldn't the vampires start using the blood from other animals? Ethan hawke's character never drank human blood (as he said to his brother) so what was he drinking?

He didn't drink 100% pure human blood, but he did drink human blood. He was drinking that same shit they were selling at the coffee stands (remember the blood percentage level kept dropping, and at one point the FDA was limiting it to 5% and the people started rioting).

Pure blood was more expensive (possibly illegal, since the FDA was limiting %). Notice they had it in that fancy looking champagne bottle...like it was something you only broke out for special occasions.

Oh, and I'm no Vampire aficionado, but I don't think they can drink blood of other animals.
 
He didn't drink 100% pure human blood, but he did drink human blood. He was drinking that same shit they were selling at the coffee stands (remember the blood percentage level kept dropping, and at one point the FDA was limiting it to 5% and the people started rioting).

Pure blood was more expensive (possibly illegal, since the FDA was limiting %). Notice they had it in that fancy looking champagne bottle...like it was something you only broke out for special occasions.

Oh, and I'm no Vampire aficionado, but I don't think they can drink blood of other animals.
Reply With Quote

I guess it depends on the source. I have seen tv shows and movies where vampires were feeding off of animals, because they didn't want to kill humans. however, the argument was that the animal blood never was good as the real thing.
 
But with Daybreakers, (SPOILER ALERT) don't sit there and tell me that a limited, external, and topical exposure to sunlight would be the fix for an internal and blood-borne pathogen that caused vampirism.

But they did sit there and tell you that. What, do you want them to break out chemical equations and biological explanations? Hell the characters themselves didn't know WHY it worked, they just knew that it did. It wasn't scientifically explainable, and it may've taken years of research to fully understand WHY...they didn't have years to do that research. :hmm:
 
[FONT="Franklin

If certain things are not explained then shit has to make sense, generally.

Let's take Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" for instance. Romero never really explained why the dead came back to life, BUT through inference and exposition through dialogue, the movie going audience was able to intelligently [B]speculate [/B]on a REASONABLE explanation. We got the idea, as suggested, that the dead came back to life because of some sort of radiation, and I was good with that.

But with Daybreakers, [B](SPOILER ALERT)[/B] don't sit there and tell me that a limited,[B] external[/B], and topical exposure to sunlight would be the fix for an [B]internal[/B] and blood-borne pathogen that caused vampirism. It's so farfetched that it comes off as inane contrivance.

I don't need my hand held, but I like to be pointed in a direction that makes some sort of sense. If the filmmaker wants me to "fill in the blanks," with my imagination, the parts that surround the blanks have to make sense.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DimGray"]This is completely understandable but I also agree with what Rawness typed.

I have to add that there are lots of stories (modern and classic) where things that where important to the plot were not always explained.
Not having an explanation to something doesn't always make it a bad story or movie. I think they wrote it so that they would have room to make more movies and possibly improve the story over time. Instead of crowding everything in one film.
Still for me the movie was excellent and I'd even go for a second viewing.
 
I'm late as hell, just watched this shit... it was :dunno:

just something to watch really, I didn't put any serious thought into it. I'd rate it a C
 
I'm late too, not bad, but not all that either. This isn't a horror film at all, more like a drama dressed up in sci-fi duds. Interesting take on how corporate consumerist culture has turned all of us into vampires. Also, a reference to the failed swine flu outbreak and what would happen if a food shortage crisis occurred.
 
Back
Top