Search
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
7.6
Rate It
Movie Watch
Paul Newman, Tim Robbins and Jennifer Jason Leigh star in filmmakers Joel and Ethan Coen's darkly...
Bird (1988)
8.0
Rate It
Movie Watch
The year: 1946. The event: Oakland's "Jazz at the Philharmonic." The music streaked into the...
Olympknits: Knit Your Own Team of Medal-Winning Athletes
Book
Knit your own team of Olympic athletes and be a part of the blockbusting sporting event of 2012!...
Body Bags (1993)
7.0
Rate It
Movie
Three short stories in the horror genre: the first about a serial killer, the second about a hair...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
In the not too distant future, the majority of the population are vampires and the world has been modified to adjust to the daylight. Remaining humans are "farmed" for blood, but the supply is running thin and the human race is on the verge of extinction. Dr. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a hematologist that works at Bromley Marks, the empire of Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), and is put in charge of finding a blood substitute, but has come up empty handed up until this point. Dalton is convinced that the vampire race has its work cut out for them with the blood supply being so low. He runs into a small group of humans one night at work and is eventually introduced to Lionel "Elvis" Cormac (Willem Dafoe), a former vampire who has something better than a blood substitute; a cure. Now Dalton finds himself risking everything on an experimental treatment that could be the key to saving mankind.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
Cult of the Deep
8.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
You are a cultist, trying to establish your faction's rise to power. Fight over rituals and mythical...
JT (287 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Brilliant cinematography (2 more)
Great score
Fantastic central characters
A stunning film which hits hard both physically and emotionally
particular emphasis on cinematography. The World War I film is made to look like one continuous shot by director Sam Mendes whose one-shot opening of Spectre gave us a taste of things to come.
The film swept awards season with the film winning Best Drama Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, not to mention cleaning up at the BAFTAs. This was a strong indication that Mendes might have a hand on a couple of Oscars.
1917 tells the story of two Lance Corporals, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) who are tasked with hand-delivering a message to another battalion who are inadvertently walking into a trap – Blake’s brother among them. If they fail then 1,600 men will lose their lives.
Blake and Schofield have been through a lot. When we first meet them they are relaxing beneath a tree, taking a break trying to enjoy the peaceful surroundings.
Without so much as a thought the pair salute General Erinmore (Colin Firth) and start the first part of their harrowing journey crossing no man’s land. The film is gripping in every sense of the word and you feel as if you are making the treacherous journey with them.
The scenery is devastatingly realistic, particularly the trip across no man’s land where charred bodies are buried deep in bombed-out craters of mud, their faces starring out in a look of shock.
The cast is limited to a few big-name cameos which aren’t blink and you miss them. Joining Firth is Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch who make a significant impression in key scenes. The film flows incredibly well and never takes a back step, quite literally.
This is a journey that rivals Saving Private Ryan for it’s impactfulness, and why the memories of those who fought in the great war should always be forever remembered as true heroes.
The film swept awards season with the film winning Best Drama Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, not to mention cleaning up at the BAFTAs. This was a strong indication that Mendes might have a hand on a couple of Oscars.
1917 tells the story of two Lance Corporals, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) who are tasked with hand-delivering a message to another battalion who are inadvertently walking into a trap – Blake’s brother among them. If they fail then 1,600 men will lose their lives.
Blake and Schofield have been through a lot. When we first meet them they are relaxing beneath a tree, taking a break trying to enjoy the peaceful surroundings.
Without so much as a thought the pair salute General Erinmore (Colin Firth) and start the first part of their harrowing journey crossing no man’s land. The film is gripping in every sense of the word and you feel as if you are making the treacherous journey with them.
The scenery is devastatingly realistic, particularly the trip across no man’s land where charred bodies are buried deep in bombed-out craters of mud, their faces starring out in a look of shock.
The cast is limited to a few big-name cameos which aren’t blink and you miss them. Joining Firth is Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch who make a significant impression in key scenes. The film flows incredibly well and never takes a back step, quite literally.
This is a journey that rivals Saving Private Ryan for it’s impactfulness, and why the memories of those who fought in the great war should always be forever remembered as true heroes.
The Autobiography and Sex Life of Andy Warhol
Book
Village Voice and Interview cofounder John Wilcock was first drawn into the milieu of Andy Warhol...
The Lost Detective: Becoming Dashiell Hammett
Book
A 2016 Edgar Award Nominee Before he became a household name in America as perhaps our greatest...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Jan 30, 2020 (Updated Jan 30, 2020)
Pride and Prejudice. Zombies. That's it pretty much!
The book was released a fair while back now, and it's a shame that a film adaption took so long to materialise - by 2016, countless 'quirky' zombie movies in a similar vain had saturated the market, and what we're presented with is a film that tries reasonably hard to be something 'out there' but ultimately feels uninspired.
The main issue I found with PPZ was the actual zombie side of things! The zombies themselves looked great, the make up used is gruesome and effective, but the scenes of horror are seldom, and just quite boring. The final act sees a massive horde introduced into the narrative, but said horde probably gets less than two minutes screen time.
The actual Pride and Prejudice side of things felt way more fun.
The cast is pretty strong, even if a few of the characters are insufferable. Lily James is a great lead as Elizabeth Bennet. Her and her sisters make for a strong band of kick-ass zombie slayers. Sam Riley as Mr. Darcy took a (really) long time to win me over, but I actually ended up enjoying him as well.
Lena Headey is entertaining as a badass eyepatched version of Lady Catherine, and it's clear in moments like this that PPZ is just a bit of fun horror comedy fluff that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The undisputed highlight of the cast is Matt Smith though. His comedic timing is on point and got a few genuine laughs out of me.
Another thing I found frustrating is the story that we weren't being told...the film opens with an animated story book style flashback of how the zombie apocalypse came to be, and what happened in the ensuing chaos. Even the soothing tones of Charles Dance can't distract me from the fact that this exposition dump sounds like a far more interesting story!
Couple that with the fact that we only get glimpses in the distance of a zombie infested flaming London completely surrounded by a massive concrete wall, and you can't help but feel that the film is a bit of a missed opportunity.
Oh well - here's hoping we get a Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters adaption somewhere down the line!
The book was released a fair while back now, and it's a shame that a film adaption took so long to materialise - by 2016, countless 'quirky' zombie movies in a similar vain had saturated the market, and what we're presented with is a film that tries reasonably hard to be something 'out there' but ultimately feels uninspired.
The main issue I found with PPZ was the actual zombie side of things! The zombies themselves looked great, the make up used is gruesome and effective, but the scenes of horror are seldom, and just quite boring. The final act sees a massive horde introduced into the narrative, but said horde probably gets less than two minutes screen time.
The actual Pride and Prejudice side of things felt way more fun.
The cast is pretty strong, even if a few of the characters are insufferable. Lily James is a great lead as Elizabeth Bennet. Her and her sisters make for a strong band of kick-ass zombie slayers. Sam Riley as Mr. Darcy took a (really) long time to win me over, but I actually ended up enjoying him as well.
Lena Headey is entertaining as a badass eyepatched version of Lady Catherine, and it's clear in moments like this that PPZ is just a bit of fun horror comedy fluff that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The undisputed highlight of the cast is Matt Smith though. His comedic timing is on point and got a few genuine laughs out of me.
Another thing I found frustrating is the story that we weren't being told...the film opens with an animated story book style flashback of how the zombie apocalypse came to be, and what happened in the ensuing chaos. Even the soothing tones of Charles Dance can't distract me from the fact that this exposition dump sounds like a far more interesting story!
Couple that with the fact that we only get glimpses in the distance of a zombie infested flaming London completely surrounded by a massive concrete wall, and you can't help but feel that the film is a bit of a missed opportunity.
Oh well - here's hoping we get a Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters adaption somewhere down the line!