“Daybreakers” is an above average vampire movie because this one takes vampires seriously. This one has no antiquated vampire mysticism or silly vampire romance. Vampires are often portrayed as a romantic interest, but there is nothing romantic about the military industrial vampire complex.
I love movies that stick to their premise, even if that premise is ridiculous. The funny thing is, if you accept vampirism as an infectious disease, the rest of “Daybreakers” pretty much writes itself. We humans make the false assumption that natural resources are limitless, and a world of vampires make the same false assumption about their food supply. If everyone infected with vampirism infects someone else, and so on an so one, eventually everyone is a vampire. Whose blood are they going to drink then? “Daybreakers” is nearly a vampire disaster movie.
Preventing a vampire disaster, which incidentally means the end of human kind, means creating a human blood substitute or curing vampirism. In an odd twist, curing vampirism makes the former vampire not only more courageous and bad-ass, but also dressed like Han Solo.
Of course, if clone troopers couldn’t stop Han Solo, the vampires don’t stand a chance.
The actors in this film deserve some extra kudos. Their contacts meant to give them vampire eyes were clearly given them trouble. Plenty of stunt men were also set on fire. The casting of William Dafoe was a treat in itself, considering he once played a particular memorable vampire. Nicely, though, there were no clearly fake computer animated vampire mutants to annoy us.
Our world isn’t plagued by vampires, but it is full of terrible movies about vampires. “Daybreakers” is no two star wonder. It’s a solid three star genre buster. It’s a cure for bad vampire movies.