Vampire Movies Needed More Dafoe

Coming up with original content for this blog is a lot harder than I thought it would be. I guess my problem is that I just haven't come up with anything meaningful to say. Here's hoping that I'll be able to come up with something soon, because this is the MSX's milestone 900th post. Yeah, no kidding, this is number 900. We're a hundred posts away from a thousand. It's weird thinking that I've been running this goofy little corner of the Internet for over eight years, and I'm just now getting near quadruple digits. Maybe I should put some more effort into this bad boy.

Anyway, I'm going to take a detour for now and head into my bread and butter, movie talk. I headed out earlier this afternoon to see a matinee showing of Daybreakers, which I'd been aiming to see all month. Turns out today is the last day it's playing at the two theaters I usually go to, so unless I wanted to wait until May or June for the DVD release, I had to take my shot.

So what did I think about it? I liked it. I thought it was cool. But was it flawless? Sadly, no. The plot isn't as developed as it could have bee, to the point that the movie almost feels hollow. There's a subplot involving the daughter of Sam Neill's character that feels not only rushed by tacked on as well, and its final result could have probably been done better if handled differently. And those occasional jump scares with the bat that flies by the camera? Those weren't necessary at all.

I know I've been complaining, but I honestly did think Daybreakers was a cool movie. The acting is solid and the direction is slick, plus the vampires aren't the whiny, glittering losers that have become popular lately. So that's a plus, right? Anyway, I'm going to give the movie three stars on the Five-Star Sutton Scale and a thumbs up. Go check it out if you're a vampire fan and it's still playing near you.