Daybreakers

Vampire films. I'm a sucker for vampire films, especially when they receive a glowing review in The Globe and Mail. The Spierig Brother's Undead was a solid horror flick so I was pleasantly surprised to see that they crafted Daybreakers as well, this time with a significantly larger budget. Within, vampires have taken over the earth and humans have become farm animals, brutally supplying their eternal masters with a bountiful supply of blood. But humans have become scarce, and, without their abundant blood supply, vampires are turning into bat-like creatures known as sub-siders, more animal than humanoid. Modest vampire Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) (who refuses to drink human blood) searches for a blood alternative but his experiments come up short as time begins to run out. Enter Lionel 'Elvis' Cormac (Willem Dafoe) and partner Audrey Bennett (Claudia Karvan), two tough-as-nails humans looking for a way to mass market the cure for vampirism they've discovered, much to Dalton's surprise. The three form a tenacious triumvirate of dedicated researchers avidly searching for an experimental miracle. Fighting them are the forces of Bromley Corporation, lead by Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), who prefers the taste of human blood and isn't that interested in finding a cure. In the end, there's a sensational showdown quirkily equipped with a blistering bloodbath, dramatically delineating the high interest stakes.

While generally entertaining, Daybreakers is seriously predictable. Didn't have to use much brain power to figure out what was going to happen next. I also didn't take to the plot twist involving Bromley's daughter Alison (Isabel Lucas) and thought it could have been replaced with something more subtle. Ethically, the Spierig brothers seem to be saying that if everyone wants to be part of the elite, eventually their blood supply, the working person, will run out, and the only cure for their unholy elitism will be to become human once more. However, that transformation needs to be slowly nurtured (as the scene where the soldier vampires devour one another indicates) for otherwise revolutionary chaos will ensue ala The Soviet Union. Of course the only people capable of leading this quiet revolution have no means of marketing their humanitarian solution, but at least they're aware of the problem and are trying to do something about it.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Kid movies made for grownups that can be appreciated by both kids and grownups: does it get any better? Wes Anderson's The Fantastic Mr. Fox was recommended to me by my niece and I had nothing to see yesterday evening so I figured I'd check it out. And much to my content surprise did I discover that not only is it the new Wes Anderson film, but it's also my favourite Wes Anderson film since Bottle Rocket. All the trademark Wes Anderson motifs are present: a family experiencing difficulty as they learn and grow together; a cunning, sly, and exceptional traditional patriarch frustrated by the routine trappings of domestic life; a dynamic cast of colourful characters each with their own endearing idiosyncrasies; and a complementary fantasy landscape full of robust depth and life, detail after detail, potentially as envisioned by novelist Roald Dahl. Mr. Fox (George Clooney) suffers a mid-life crisis and decides to once again engage in the act of thievery to overcome his troubled financial situation and regain a taste of the good life. In order to do this he must rob three affluent farmers, Boggis (Robin Hurlstone), Bunce (Hugo Guiness), and Bean (Michael Gambon), while hiding his clandestine nightly activities from the disapproving Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep). Bean proves to be a formidable adversary and sets out to hunt down the courageous Mr. Fox once and for all. And the only way Mr. Fox's forest community can survive in the aftermath is to objectively support his rash, subjective behaviour.

On the one hand, the film is saying "don't fuck around," for if you do, you're fucked, because the powers that be are going to squash your little rebellion and uproot your traditional order of things. But on the other, it states "give 'em hell," for that's what they do, and the resultant transformed world is accepted enthusiastically (eventually) by its inhabitants. Then again, said inhabitants only enthusiastically accept their newly transformed world because they had no other choice. But they accept it so well and are so happy within that it's tough to criticize Mr. Fox to severely.

Sherlock Holmes

Enjoyed Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes. Within, Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Watson (Jude Law) are much more human than some of their previous imaginings, Holmes eagerly pit fighting and Watson trying to avoid gambling compulsively. Don't know what pit fighting and compulsive gambling have to do with being more human, but they certainly weren't borderline ideal. They are tasked with capturing the resurrected Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) who is attempting to 'cleanse' Britain's parliament in order to bring about a new world order. Professor Moriarty monitors the situation closely with the assistance of Holmes's former love interest, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams). And the conventional Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan) rounds out the cast, providing institutional relief, beguiled brooding, and unexpected assistance.

The plot's complex if not a bit over the top and the intellectual action is constant. Holmes comes across as a scatterbrained aloof eccentric who acutely, succinctly, and charismatically solves every presented problem. The dynamic between Holmes and Watson is playfully professional, Holmes trying hard not to hold back, Watson unafraid to physically express his discontent. Adler adds an additional layer of brainiacness whose sultry suppositions intensify the film's sensitivity. And Lord Blackwood's a creepy, maniacal, lunatic, whose particular brand of insanity is rationally and reasonably displayed. A definite treat for both its brains and brawn, Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes will likely enjoy a prominent position in the Holmesian canon.

Invictus

I may of missed the point of Clint Eastwood's Invictus, but I thought the first half was much stronger than the second. In the opening moments, newly elected South African President Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) must deal with his new occupation's complicated demands, many of which have arisen from the historic racial tensions between black and white South Africans. His approach to governing is unexpected: let's try and rebuild post-Apartheid South Africa as one nation, forgetting the gross injustices inflicted upon the black population and focusing instead upon what can be done to positively change the system's current composition. Considering the black population's grievances and the fact that Mandela spent 27 years in a prison cell as a result of his activism, this Ghandiesque position is commendable insofar as it prefers bonding to bloodshed. While dealing with the strains of office, Mandela takes a shining to the Springboks Rugby Team, captained by Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), due to the fact that South Africa is about to host the Rugby World Championship. Mandela's support for the Springboks is controversial insofar as they have been seen as a symbol of Apartheid by the black population for decades, South Africa's black residents generally cheering for the opposition. But Mandela sees the team as possessing the cultural power to unite South Africa's black and white populations, and believes that if they win the Rugby World Championship it will bring said populations closer together. This is the main point of the film and as it progresses it becomes the dominant focus, going so far as to show 15 to 20 minutes of the final championship match, which the Springboks win. I thought that Invictus would have been a lot stronger had it primarily focused upon the serious political demands of Mandela's first term in office, keeping the rugby match in the background for a longer period of time, and replacing scenes like the one where Mandela greets the entire team with others demonstrating the severity of the South African racial divide. This divide is mentioned, referred to, and recognized throughout Invictus's second half, but the manner in which it is showcased is far to warm and fuzzy for my liking, thereby minimizing the effects of South Africa's World Rugby Championship victory by overlooking the grim social realities that victory was symbolically supposed to overcome.