Daybreakers

Horrorphile

follow this blog

983 followers

4468 daily readers

rank of 1

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Daybreakers

January 20th 2010 03:47

We’ve been waiting some time for this movie. I seem to remember first hearing about production on this at least two years ago. I believe it was in post-production hell for quite a while, and it hasn’t done the movie any favours. Daybreakers (2010) tries way too hard and is ultimately mutton dressed as lamb.

Australian directors Michael and Peter Spiereg first came to attention with a low-budget zombie comedy called Undead (2003) which impressed some critics and minority audiences. It featured some inventive visual effects, but was too silly and pretentious for my tastes. The brothers background in visual effects carried over into their next feature when Undead, and their pitch for a science fiction-vampire tale, impressed Hollywood executives. But it took seven years to get the movie made.

Ethan Hawke as Edward Dalton

Daybreakers is set in 2019 (Blade Runner, anyone?), a grim future where almost everyone has been turned into a vampire (which began as a plague from infected bats) and the remaining humans are hunted and farmed for their blood. But the human race is dwindling, and megalomaniacal corporate nastie Charles Bromley (Sam Neill) is only interested in a fake blood recipe being perfected, whilst hematologist researcher Edward Dalton (sounds like a cowboy’s name) is more interested in trying to find a cure.

Sam Neill as Charles Bromley

Enter Audrey (Claudia Karvan), a mercenary and part of a bunch of renegade humans armed with crossbows (a reference back to Undead methinks) and wily wits, keen to find more humans and keep the vamps at bay, and Lionel ‘Elvis’ Cormac (Willem Dafoe), a muscle car lovin’ mercenary who was a vampire, but now he isn’t, following a nasty car accident and the blistering rays of the sun. Then there’s Edward’s soldier brother Frankie (Michael Dorman) who plays by Bromley’s rules. He’s betrayed Edward once and he’ll do it again. Meanwhile Bromley wants his fugitive human daughter Alison (Isobel Lucas) found, so she can be turned.

Claudia Karvan as Audrey

The look of Daybreakers is a cross between noir and sf, but it’s no Blade Runner. I was reminded of Alex Proyas’ Dark City and Andrew Niccol’s Gattaca (two other fellow Australian directors), not just in the oppressive urban landscape, but also of the clinical atmosphere and overly earnest storytelling. The premise of the movie is intriguing and the prologue is commanding, but the unfolding of the narrative, the characterisations, and the acting is claustrophobic and pedestrian at best. It's a stylized, overblown parable on urban living, society dysfunction, and greed (hmmm, sounds like two other bros. team called the Wachowski's and the Pang's)

Willem Dafoe as Elvis

Ethan Hawke delivers the most consistent performance, followed by Sam Neill (who, it must be said, has a distinct porcine odour about him), and Michael Dorman. Claudie Karvan acts like she’d rather be somewhere else and spouts a dire attempt at an American accent. All the other Aussie actors in major speaking parts, chiefly Isobel Lucas and Vince Colosimo (who plays Dalton’s colleague) failed to impress me with a consistent American accent. I realise why it’s being done, but I’d rather have unknown actors who can deliver, rather than stars out of their comfort zone. (And was that Nicole Kidman as an onlooker hiding under the brim of a hat?? I don't think so, but it certainly looked like her!)

Michael Dorman as Frankie

The special effects are impressive (Weta Workshop), in particular the prosthetic design of the subsiders (the primal form of the vampires after they’ve been deprived of blood sustenance, which look similar to Gary Oldman’s primal Dracula form), but there’s also some great gore near movie’s end, with a stand-out demise of a major character (a semi-nod to Romero perhaps?). The chaos that explodes during the movie’s climax is memorable and a stand-out, but the open end spells Tinseltown sequel sell-out.

Isobel Lucas as Alison

There are some annoying continuity errors, such as the story being set in some unnamed American city, yet in one Subwalk scene a placard with Adelaide on it is clearly visible (I thought the movie was shot in Brisbane??)). At the start of the movie we see Dalton in his car side mirror, but all you see is his suit (revealing he’s a classic vampire without a reflection), but later he checks his elongated ears out in his rear view mirror and we see his reflection. That shit really bugs me.

A subsider invades the Dalton home

Daybreakers isn’t such a bad movie, but it’s not an especially good movie either, flawed by characters you couldn’t care less about, in contrived situations, dealing with a strangely elusive predicament. I wanted to like it much more than I did, and I think it has a lot to do with Australian filmmakers trying to emulate Hollywood, or trying to fashion a movie that will appeal to the wider American demographic. It’s certainly a lot better than the dreadful New Zealand vampire flick from a couple of years ago, Perfect Creature, but as I implied earlier, Daybreakers just doesn’t have the ferocious atmospheric that 30 Days of Night possesses, nor does it have the effortless poetry of Let the Right One In; two tales of vampirism that raised the stakes high.

Curiously this teaser poster is more horror than the science fiction of the main poster

Here's the trailer:

Vote

subscribe to this blog

follow this blog on Orble

start your own blog

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: movie reviews

Related Posts:

Relate This Post

[ Previous - Cronos ]

[ Next - BLOODY DISGUSTING'S TOP 20 FILMS OF THE DECADE ]

Comments

10 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by Matt Shea

January 20th 2010 06:47

20/20 Filmsight

Nice one, Bryn - I've been waiting for your opinion on this one. I too had high hopes, but may now wait for the DVD.

Comment by JohnDoe

January 20th 2010 18:27

Film & TV on DVD

Hi Bryn,

This one was high on my list with Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe in the cast. I missed it on the bigscreen here but will still check it out on DVD, despite your lukewarm review.

Nicely written by the way and fine use of the word "porcine" -

Sam Neill (who, it must be said, has a distinct porcine odour about him

Comment by The Master

January 20th 2010 19:04

. It’s certainly a lot better than the dreadful New Zealand vampire flick from a couple of years ago, Perfect Creature, but as I implied earlier, Daybreakers just doesn’t have the ferocious atmospheric that 30 Days of Night possesses

It amazes me that you actually preferred 30 days of Night to Daybreakers, no offense but that movie was one retarded blood fest and it made even less sense then Daybreakers did, true at the very least it depicted Vampires as they are in Legend rather than as the romantic Fabio types from the Novels but even then the plot was just empty and pointless.It had a lot of gore and scary scenes for those who are easily satisfied with blood and violence but it was kind of stupid. You might as well just watch my Bloody Valentine if you're into that kind of thing. But anyways I'll save that on a review of 30 Days of Night instead. As for Blade Runners and Gattica yeah they were interesting but this was far more interesting and entertaining I think. I never noticed the American accent leaving in the actors can you tell me when they did that? I think you were kind of harsh in this one too. I mean if you go into a Vampire movie expecting it to follow the same trends of others you'll always be disappointed. Daybreakers was much more of what I like to call the "Science Fiction Vampire Flick" which is a Vampire Legend seen through the eyes of a Scientist or even an Atheist, rather than Vampires being Demons from Hell they are, as in Richard Matheson's "I am Legend", Genetic mutations brought about by a plague so of course it wont be as scary as the Vampire of Legend where Vamps are Demons from Hell, because this is seen through the eyes of someone who uses they're logical mind and doesn't believe in Evil Spirits that lurk under your bed at night rather than a Peasant from 100's of years ago who allows fear and Superstition to cloud they're mind. And let's be serious, don't you much rather prefer this genre to the cry baby Emo Vampires first introduced by Ann Rice and then by Stephenie Meyer where all Vampires seem to be High School boys that brood intensely and are Ancient virgins? Hells yes! obviously when you use logic it helps to defuse fear. But most people make the mistake of thinking that logic will remove fear completely. After all, if some people were infected with a Vampire plague but retained they're intellect,unless they were evil prior to being changed would they really be Bloodthirsty Mass Murderers? Yes the movie says! because the movie shows that underneath all of us, the very nature of humanity is destruction as well as trying to do helpful things but we all seem to get a high from violence.In the movie you see how the same brainwashed Patriotic Nationalism we have in America where people worship Soldiers and view them always as heroes and never as villains is made even worse by becoming Vampires. American Vampire Soldiers hunt down humans as cattle to be slaughtered and even enjoy the violence and the high they get from it and it has nothing to do with them being Vampires because when they kill the primal Vampire creatures (Subsiders) they equally get a high from that too. And they are generally seen as "protectors fighting for the country" the way people in America do when Soldiers are out there killing Iraqis with families and most of the ignorant sheep praise them and tell them they are "doing a good job" and are "keeping us all safe". All the Vampire plague has done is made the soldiers in the Movie and the society that fosters them look like the monsters they really are.It reminds me of that quote from Nietzsche you have up there

“He who fights monsters should look into it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into the Abyss, the Abyss also gazes into you.”

They didn't need a plague to become monsters, they always were. The idealistic little brother of Edward Dalton who is a Soldier and hunts down humans saying he is "serving the country" ends up learning this lesson when he and other soldiers are ordered to drag the Subsider Vampires into the Sunlight and as they shriek in pain his fellow soldiers laugh and cheer and go "all right!" at the ghastly sight. People want to believe that Satan is out there like a Psychic bogeyman telling us to do all of the wrong things but that isn't true. Most of us choose to do the wrong thing and even some people like myself who try to live right do the wrong thing anyways because we lose control every once in a while and say "Fuck it all" now imagine if that was Eternal and never ending? It would be even worse until I wouldn't care about morals anymore and would just go killing to pass the time. Everyone wants to believe we are controlled by Demons rather than realizing we are the Demons we fear the most. And that is what is so messed up about the movie because anyone with an inch of common sense could tell the Society in the movie is the same one we live under. Even the regular citizen Vampires who know it's wrong to hunt down and exterminate humanity stay quite because they care more about saving themselves than other people and ultimately in the Movie since they are wiping out humanity, they are starving themselves and thus are they're own worst enemy because they become the Monstrous Vampires that they had the Soldiers kill to keep them all "safe". In the extreme case of the Vampires, logic doesn't defuse fear it all. Rather it fosters fear because we always assume logic will take away the fear we have from Superstition, but if they're no Superstition and all we have is logic then when we look in the mirror and take a good look at what we've become, will we really like what we'll see? Or scream in Terror. If you had a mirror that could show you what your Soul really looks like would you really want to see it? well that's just as scary as any Demon from Hell. I mean picture you going back in time to when you were just a cute little baby and seeing your Mother, what would you have to say for yourself? "Hi Mom! you'll be happy to know that I'm a bloodthirsty killing Machine that Mame's and violates people for fun, what do you think?" I know if I had a kid and he/she came back in time to tell me something like that I'd be so shocked and horrified I'd vomit from knowing I gave birth to that. That is far more frighting to me than any horror movie.So RECAP Daybreakers=the Death of all Emo Pussified "shiny" Vampires! It was surprisingly true to what a real Vampire is supposed to look like with the Emaciated skin and glowing fiery eyes.Not to mention the truly buffed up and out of control monster Vampires (Subsiders) in the Film..Although it fits into the Scientific Vampire genre it made me feel Nostalgic,I don't know, it just felt creepy and eerie like an old Dracula film or even more like a John Carpenter's Vampires in the Beginning when it showed the introduction and the constant use of Vampire bats flying through the air. Not to mention how dead the cities are in the Day time like Ghost Towns as if everyone in the World was gone (A hint of an Apocalypse style movie) even though the Vampires had modern Technology that allowed them to drive during the day by tinting all of the Car Windows and with tiny Computers showing the land and road outside (Daytime driving mode) which by the way

At the start of the movie we see Dalton in his car side mirror, but all you see is his suit (revealing he’s a classic vampire without a reflection), but later he checks his elongated ears out in his rear view mirror and we see his reflection. That shit really bugs me.

That wasn't a mirror at all, that was one of the computers that they have which is able to show the reflection of the Vampire since it's digital rather than an actual mirror, it's how they are able to see themselves and how they look when they want.The ironic thing is the name of the main hero Edward a Vampire who refuses to drink human blood and only drinks Animal blood.Sound familiar? but this Edward by far no matter how goody,goody,he is,is far more Badass than Stephanie Meyer's Edward Cullen.He's not so Emo though he is a nice guy generally seen as a non-violent person but at the same time fighting the power throughout the whole movie.In short he is a Rebel in the true meaning of the word,an outcast among the Vampire race because he sees the Tyranny and Exploitation of the American (and possibly Global)Political System of Vampires for what it is. And in the movie's end when he becomes mortal again, he really is a Revolutionary now because he'll be on the run hunted by the Governments of the World since he knows how to cure the Plague and they want to keep people as Vampires so that they can control them through the Blood addiction and then make profits off the sales and distribution of Blood. It shows 3 kinds of fears:the creepy Vampire fear from not only the Subsiders but even the "civilized" Vampires when you see how violent they get as the movie progresses letting out those horrible ear-splitting shrieks of when they're angry and then tearing into flesh with they're fangs close to the end of the movie tearing they're victims apart limb from limb,the fear of how that movie portrays the same society we live under,and finally the fear of what we might actually become like if we ever achieved Immortality,that Life would just lose it's meaning,that there is no change,no new high to achieve,nothing. Like in the beginning of the Movie when that Vampire trapped in the form of a little girl just offs herself because she doesn't want to spend eternity in a child's body. I mean who would want her aside from another child or adult Vampire trapped in a child's body or even a Pedophile? the very notion is disgusting. Which is why she killed herself because she might spend eternity waiting to find someone who can love her and accept her as she is and it might never happen. Is it really worth living forever just to be an empty shell not really living but existing? No, I'd rather just be dead then. And most people assume living forever we'll just become smarter and better and more advanced and civilized, says who? What if we just get stuck being the same stupid slobs that are satisfied watching TV for all Eternity and never going out or even worse the same shy guy always afraid to get near a girl so he is an Eternal virgin worse than Edward Cullen who does eventually get laid (100 years later) and finds love or even worse yet a person with Agoraphobia and is too afraid to leave they're house, if they live forever then they're own house becomes they're Eternal prison. Like that Episode of the Twilight Zone episode called "Long Live Walter Jameson " where the Immortal professor tells the man he's talking to that when he lived thousands of years ago he believed a man could only be happy if he lived forever so he went to Philosophers and Wizards and finally an Alchemist granted his wish but his Wife and Children died while he remained young, he constantly had to move from place to place changing identity, and every time he married, he had to leave his wives before they realized he wasn't getting any older.He didn't change, didn't achieve enlightenment as he thought ht would, he just stayed the same forever and he even though he knew he could die from a Violent death he was always too cowardly to actually do it which made his torment even worse. Under such a circumstance death would be mercy. So life becomes....... Empty,meaningless, and then maddening so now you have people killing each other for Fun like the Joker in the Batman comics. We might as well be dead if the World becomes the Playground for the Joker or Joker types.For Horror fans, you'll get the occasional scares and gore, for those who like a realistic portrayal of what Immortality might be like you'll also love it, and for those who think humanity and especially Americans are so civilized.Watch the movie,you will never see society the same way again and believe me that is a Good thing!

Comment by Bryn

January 20th 2010 21:47

Horrorphile

Dude ... have you thought about becoming an evangelist? No seriously, or a politician? You need to practice a little online grammar, meaning break your diatribe up into paragraphs, 'cos it overwhelms readers, and they'll not bother to read your rant when it's just one massive block of writing.

No offence, and you've got some very interesting things to say, although I don't agree with them all. I still think 30 Days of Night made for a more entertaining, potent, and visceral vampire movie. I found the ancient exotic animalistic curse more compelling than the studied, intellectual plight.

I actually really enjoyed Interview with the Vampire, and more so The Vampire Lestat, when I read them many years ago. I have no interest in the Twilight books, but then I'm a bit longer in the tooth now.

Okay, so why should the digital technology be any different than a standard mirror? How'd they come up with that one? Too convenient, like much of the movie. And if Elvis suffered serious burns to his body after a few seconds exposed to the sun (not to mention that he suffered no real injuries from being thrown through the windscreen at 100kph ), why didn't Dalton receive even worse burn injuries since he was exposed for even longer? Explain that one Master!

You didn't notice the bad accents?! They stood out like sore thumbs! But I must admit I'm a stickler for that kind of thing; acting is very, very important, and if I don't believe an actor - and this includes the accent - then I disengage from the storytelling.

I don't go into a vampire movie expecting it to follow the trends of others, just as I didn't expect Zombieland to follow other zombie movies. Please allow me a little more credit than that, I've been a horrorphile for a long, long time. It comes down to lazy writing again, just as Zombieland failed in the same way. Everything in Daybreakers happened too conveniently, there was no element of genuine surprise. While the basic premise was intriguing, the narrative became steadily more and more pedestrian and predictable as it went along.

I'll be the first to admit though that I'm more affected by a movie's overall atmosphere, mood, and tone than anything else. Which is why I love Blade Runner so much. It's a flawed screenplay, dramatically it peters out, but it is so rich in its atmosphere and textures, which appeals to me so deeply. 30 Days of Night works on that level for me. And if I want to get all existential then a vampire movie like The Addiction works brilliantly.

Oh, and for the record, My Bloody Valentine (1981), is a great little slasher flick.

Comment by sethtg

January 21st 2010 16:39

damn, you guys look like your trying to write a book, ^^ I like your take on this, still makes me want to watch it just to see if it can still dash my hopes. I just hope the ending is a little better than "30 Days of Night" I mean crying in his girlfriends arms as he burns to a crisp...didn't get into

Comment by Bryn

January 21st 2010 23:11

Horrorphile

seth, weak ending to 30 Days of Night, yes, but still an awesome vampire flick!

Comment by The Master

January 27th 2010 17:39

"Dude ... have you thought about becoming an evangelist? No seriously, or a politician? You need to practice a little online grammar, meaning break your diatribe up into paragraphs, 'cos it overwhelms readers, and they'll not bother to read your rant when it's just one massive block of writing."

Well I still stick to my motto of to each his own, this is just my take on it, I never claimed to be an expert but in the end my critiquing and ultimately anyone else's critiquing is pointless for the simple fact that we all have different tastes, just as I enjoyed zombie land and the writer of the Review didn't that's because we all have different standards and expectations. So don't you think it's a little unfair to compare me with with an Evangelist and saying my opinion is a rant just because you don't agree with it?

If I said Zombieland was the best Zombie spoof ever or something to that degree I'm sure you'd have a lot to say as well. I felt passionate about the movie and the basic themes and storyline so I defended it when I believed it got a bad or Lukewarm review for reasons I don't agree with. That's all and I don't write what I write for others to read it, I write what I write because when I find a review interesting or what not I like to add my 2 cents to it regardless of whether or not anyone reads it. And what would the point be in separating everything I said into paragraphs? Either way it's going to be long but I suppose it if makes you more comfortable I'll try and accommodate you in the future, but either way that didn't stop you from reading my "rant" now did it? As for on line grammar? I spell check everything I write so if there are mistakes take it up with the Microsoft word people not me. I'm already involved in Politics, I thought I stated that in the last review.

Well I can understand not wanting to hear about a Vampire's Intellectual plight all the time, that's why I've grown quite tired of all these sissy emo Vampires that are "like I love you, but I cant be with you and " blah,blah,blah. But if you're going to write about Intellectual plight, then Daybreakers is definitely the way to do it. I study the Vampires as they are portrayed in Folklore so while I was happy to see them portray Folkloric Vampires, the whole plot to 30 Days of Night in my view was badly written and the ending like Bryn said was totally stupid, I mean he killed the Master Vampire but he didn't think to wipe out the others before he let himself die so that they couldn't hurt anyone else again?

I know it was just one guy versus them all but if he had the strength to take out the Master then he might have been able to do it, and even if he had died in the process it was a hell of a lot better than just letting them go like that. Not to mention how did the Vampires even know about the 30 days of Night in Alaska? I mean did they just go research it somewhere and suddenly decide "Let's go to Alaska and have an all you can eat Buffet!"? I honestly cant picture them as being that Intelligent, maybe the Master Vampire but even that is effy, and how did they show up there? It's obvious by the way they talk they're not from around there because when the people of the Community were turned, they still talked normal so these Vampires came from some un-known Country. And if that is the case then again,how the Hell did they know about Alaska and how did they get to Alaska in the first place? They seemed too animalistic,so I doubt they'd have the patience to hide in an airplane or something else to get there and the whole time not feed on anybody.

Bottom line is I need more than just gore and violence to enjoy a horror movie, because if the Plot isn't that good or the ending is stupid I feel like Ive just wasted my time watching it. Like The Nun where at the very end they suddenly say that the girl had multiple personalities and was a killer even though the Ghost did things and was at places she couldn't possibly have been to when the Murders took place.

"Okay, so why should the digital technology be any different than a standard mirror? How'd they come up with that one? Too convenient, like much of the movie. And if Elvis suffered serious burns to his body after a few seconds exposed to the sun (not to mention that he suffered no real injuries from being thrown through the windscreen at 100kph ), why didn't Dalton receive even worse burn injuries since he was exposed for even longer? Explain that one Master!"

Actually that theory that Vampires can be captured on Digital photos and video cameras has been around for quite sometime. The belief is that the old devices for Photography and video used Silver chloride and since almost all Demons and even some Undead spirits of humans are killed or weakened by silver because it is a Warding charm (Sacred element of the heavenly gods to avert Evil) Vampires couldn't be photographed like this. Up until the Digital age even the more modern cameras had at least a bit of this substance. Of course the genre of the Movie is that of a Scifi Vampire flick so they would argue against Superstition and in favor of some more rational theory. I haven't heard it and honestly I don't see why they even have to. I mean little things like whether or not they're reflection can be caught by a Digital Camera seems relative to me. I find it more ridiculous that a vampire cant show they're reflection, so far I haven't found anything in Folklore to even suggest that, I might be wrong and maybe if I dig deeper I will find it somewhere but so far there isn't anything to suggest it isn't something that was made up by Hollywood.

As for why Elvis suffered serious burns and Dalton didn't, Dalton made sure it occurred in a controlled setting, I mean the tank he was in may have had a moist atmosphere,not to mention that when the flames were sucked out and the sunlight was closed off his natural healing abilities as a Vampire could kick in. Where with Elvis this wasn't at all the case, but even then with the nasty burns he received, it looks like he healed before he came out of the water so although he was covered in Blood, he was still physically all right. The point is I or anyone else could argue from 10 Million angles about why it did make sense,now if the supposed mistakes were way worse than that where no logic could defend it then I would be with you since I don't like that stuff either, but in this case I think we can chill out a bit and let that one go.

As for the bad accents? I don't know any Australians or have been around one long enough to know what an Australian accent should sound like or shouldn't sound like especially if they're trying to talk like Americans do. And really all Americans sound the same to me. I'm sorry if I offend anyone but they're English is realllllllllllly bad I mean,I dated an English girl so maybe that's why I think that. And I have a thick Cuban accent, but even I don't think they're grammar and usage of words in English is that good. So to me from my vantage point I honestly don't see the difference between an actual american accent and someone who just imitates them. I mean unless they're really bad at imitating them in which case I would notice. And Ive met some people here from different states with such radically different accents that it's amazing they all are only separated by a few states. I mean some of them talk so strange and garbled it reminds me of Afrikaans. Not intending to insult anyone of Afrikaner lineage since I'm sure my accent and way of speaking would sound the same to someone whose never been around a Cuban before.

"I don't go into a vampire movie expecting it to follow the trends of others, just as I didn't expect Zombieland to follow other zombie movies. Please allow me a little more credit than that, I've been a horrorphile for a long, long time. It comes down to lazy writing again, just as Zombieland failed in the same way. Everything in Daybreakers happened too conveniently, there was no element of genuine surprise. While the basic premise was intriguing, the narrative became steadily more and more pedestrian and predictable as it went along."

Again, just my point of view, I'm not saying you don't know what your talking about, far from it in fact. I'm just saying I think the movie has far more value then was given to it in the Review. And.............? Are you saying you're the one who writes these reviews? I haven't been with Horrorphile very long, the longest Ive been on here is when the Review for the new Saw came out. But that's about it. And even then I don't have an account on here, I just leave the comments on the Review I see when I get a chance and then I re-post them on Myspace in Bulletins, sometimes when my comments at the end, and always ask people to go and check out Horrorphile. So I have no idea who does or doesn't write these. So if it is you and you are going "wtf is wrong with this guy?" my apologies I had no idea you were writing them. And was the 1981 version of my Bloody Valentine better? I haven't seen it yet. Though unfortunately, I see the new one -_-

-The Master

Comment by Bryn

January 27th 2010 22:47

Horrorphile

Master,
firstly, yeah, Bryn is I, I is Bryn. I'm the sole writer, host and moderator of Horrorphile - Pleasure of Nightmares, and have been since I started it nearly three-and-a-half years ago.

I never claim to be the definitive word on horror, or "nightmare movies" as I prefer to call all the movies I review and discuss here, but I do purport to be an authoritative voice, simply because I've been a horrorphile for pretty much thirty years, and a film critic for more than fifteen. I'm opinionated, and I never shy from calling a spade a spade, however I'm also the first to admit that one person's high art is another person's deep trash.

I like to think I have a modicum of taste, but I also know I have guilty pleasures even I can't justify. I'm actually a cinephile, so my movie tastes run the gamut from drama to comedy, with the exception of musicals (as a rule). But I digress ...

I said you rant, because of the way you weren't breaking up your comments into paragraphs, which makes it less appealing to the general reader. That's what I meant about grammar, perhaps I confused the issue.

30 Days of Night appealed on so many more levels to me than Daybreakers. I'm not going to harp on about it. The vampires arrived in Alaska via sailing ship which you see trapped in ice at the very beginning of the movie and watched from a distance by the "Renfield" character.

I'll accept the digital camera vs. traditional mirror theory, tenuous as it is. And we'll leave it at that, but I'm a real stickler for accents in movies. I mean, if the filmmakers are going to use non-American actors to portray Americans, because the movie is meant to be set in America, then fer Chrissake get actors who can hold the damn accent! If the actors start slipping in and out, as pretty much all the Aussie actors did, with the exception of Sam Neill (actually a Kiwi), but that's because he's been doing them for years, just like Anthony LaPaglia (another international Aussie actor who frequently plays Americans), then I start to disengage from them, and once that starts happening, then I start to disengage from the storytelling. I rate acting as very, very important, especially in horror movies, perhaps more so than any other genre. Horror movies are about fear, and if I don't feel the characters fear, then the horror movie ain't working. If I don't believe the characters conviction, because I can see them acting, then the movie starts to fall apart. Perhaps this has something to do with my background; since my father is an actor and drama student ...

It amazes me how many Americans I meet who after I point out their accent, they become almost defensive, saying "I don't have an accent!"

I've always had a problem with Hollywood movies set in another time and place with a bunch of actors all sporting different accents. Take Troy or Alexander for example, dreadful movies for that reason (among many). But I digress once again ...

Master, I've never criticised your opinion, one of the reasons for this blog is to allow - and encourage - other people's opinions via the comments section (and I wish more of my subscribers and readers would do so, but many of them are simply too shy). I was only pointing out that when writing for the web you need to employ a technique which involves breaking up your writing into smaller paragraphs. Similar in some ways to newspaper writing. Narrower columns work well, which I've created for this blog.

Finally, yeah, the original 81 version of My Bloody Valentine is great. It's dated, but it's far more atmospheric, with some great special effects makeup, and a twisted last quarter.

Comment by The Master

January 29th 2010 17:14

Well first of all I feel really stupid not having known you were the writer of the Column on here lmao, that being said I suppose I understand where you're coming from if you have a background in Theater via your Father or even a bit of experience yourself, you'd see things someone else wouldn't see based on that experience alone so I understand, I still don't agree 100% but I understand and I really do enjoy your columns on here. Like I said I always re post them on Myspace with a link to your site on here for people to see it and leave they're contributions to the columns. But alas they're too shy as well. But whatever, I hope one of these days you swing by my Blog on Myspace and leave your two scents in there as well, I'm writing up a Blog soon on "Supernatural Vs Buffy" basically asking people which show is better. But anyways, thanks for your input and have you written a Blog on either show btw?

-The Master

Comment by Bryn

January 30th 2010 03:03

Horrorphile

Master, that's cool, all good. What's your myspace address?
No, I haven't done a review of either Buffy or Supernatural. Supernatural has never appealed to me, and I only ever watched sporadic episodes of Buffy (usually the ones with Faith). I might review the original Buffy movie one day though, for amusement.

[ Previous - Cronos ]

[ Next - BLOODY DISGUSTING'S TOP 20 FILMS OF THE DECADE ]