Jonathan: My main gripe with Daybreakers is that it kind of wanted to be a meditation on what humans do when confronted with desperate circumstances, but it was ultimately a B-horror movie that didn’t want to be taken to seriously. It couldn’t decide what it was. Andrew: The set up is that pretty much everyone on earth is a vampire now, so humans are farmed for blood to near-extinction and all the vampires turn into nasty bat monsters without their blood chai lattes. It takes this high brow idea and doesn’t really do anything with it, besides throwing a lot of loud noises and exploding chunks at us. Jonathan: Yeah. I thought it was pretty funny how even the vamps are slaves to their latte orders of choice. Much like that girl ahead of you at Starbucks is so adamant about her soy milk. I thought the beginning in general was pretty strong with a lot of tight, well-edited sequences. The homeless vamp pandering for blood, and the first scene at Ethan Hawke’s house come to mind Andrew: The film has a very slick look and the Spierig brothers, who direct, know how to make a pretty shot. I also appreciated that the vampires who turn into monsters were guys in suits, not ridiculous CG concoctions. From a horror/action standpoint, the movie has a lot of visual flair to spare. Jonathan: Yeah, although the last shot we see of Sam Neil’s daughter (Neil playing the evil blood company CEO) was a little ridiculous. Unrelated, were people laughing a lot when you saw it? Andrew: It definitely suffered from corniness, especially at moments that obviously were supposed to be dramatic but came off campy. It’s just plain funny to watch a battle between humans and vamps with tranq darts and crossbow bolts flying everywhere. Are we really supposed to feel that this vampire world could exist? They don’t go to any real lengths to show us vamp society or culture. Jonathan: That’s true, but with the various subplots, like between Ethan Hawke and his brother and Sam Neil and his daughter, I felt like the film was trying to make some bold statements. I felt like the directors were sort of trying to align themselves with films like “Children of Men.” But by the time we get to the final major sequence, with all its unrestrained violence for the pure sake of gore, I enjoyed the film for what it was. Andrew: I was sitting there asking myself, is this good? Do I like this? And I finally settled on, yeah… Willem Defoe chewing scenery as a strange human called Elvis really worked for me. He makes the flick’s saggy middle at least watchable and by the time heads start to roll at the end, I’d forgotten nearly all about the lame human resistance cell crap that took place Jonathan: He was definitely having fun with it. That main woman from the resistance was just so boring. Andrew: She conveniently owned a vineyard… with the one contraption that can turn vamps back into humans… yeah, ok. Also, she was an attractive woman, so I wondered to myself, do vampires in this movie world have sex? Jonathan: They’re way too famished for the sex. Andrew: But I want some True Blood style sex-capades! Jonathan: I was waiting for Ethan (his character being Edward… oh Twilight) and that woman to get together. To no avail. They could definitely take a lesson from their bon temps friends. I also just appreciate the film as a solid attempt to reclaim the vampire genre from chastity-laden Twilight land.Andrew: I love a good b-movie and Daybreakers is much slicker than the average vamp slaying flick. There are some awesome deaths to behold and no wimpy teen drama. Dudes explode, vampires get staked, Ethan Hawke mopes around. You could do worse with your $8.50. Jonathan: So mopey. Also interesting to note is how well Chrysler is doing in our vampire-dominated future Andrew: They’ve got that high-tech video screen system for went the sun comes out. What vampire wants a BMW if he’s just gonna burst into flames?