Daybreak (1993)

The good news...Gooding is good. That's it, nothing else. The bad news... almost everything else. Obviously this was a play/movie written about the US with the specter of AIDS in mind. In 1993, it might have been horrifying. But one of the yardsticks by which to judge works of art is durability... I can still watch Metropolis and marvel at its perception. This work makes me marvel that it was even released. So, it's Sci-Fi? When is it supposed to be happening? Looks like 1993 or earlier to me. Well, as far as I know, bush wasn't president then and all this fascist drivel was not being dished up by Clinton in 1993. It's hard to tell which is more inept, the govt. or the insurgents. The insurgents seem to have little ability to plan and the govt. couldn't catch a cold. Every time they get near the insurgents to capture them, everyone starts running around like KeyStone Kops and the "terrorists" get away. Gooding is good, but Kelly is not (although she can be.) Her lines are so sickeningly sweet, one feels he's been globbed by a honey pot every time she starts one of her love chats. Everyone else is just predictable. If this was supposed to be a projection of what might happen if no cure for AIDS was found and they started quarantining, I suppose it was worth the effort. It does depict people as having few morals except for self-preservation. That's accurate.

While the movie is interesting, this is as close to propaganda filming as I have seen this late in the century. If michael moore made dramas, this would be one. The US is a crumbling third world country, and the local street gangs are part of the government's fascist enforcement. Can you say Nazi? If this were a blog, they would have envoked Godwyn's law and be done with it.OK, so Cuba gets sick and has to go to a "camp" where the government will make him very comfortable while they look for a cure. But everyone knows thats not what happens. Can you say "Concentration Camp" and "AIDS"?This movie was made to make a point about how AIDS is killing people and the government is not doing enough, but instead it comes off like the psycho nut liberal fanatic at a party that you wish you hadn't started a conversation with. That said, it is certainly memorable, and the movie, while intentionally frustrating, is interesting enough to watch... if you can keep from rolling your eyes ever five minutes.

Being a big fan of Sci-fi films I expected a much better film. The storyline sounded like heroes would be saving the world in a futuristic "not-so-good" city. However, starting well with good time spend on the lead women, and making it interesting enough for you to sit and watch, it died out as it went along. It's very strange, it's like the first hour of the film is preparing you for some action, like they are building the story line up for some big scene at the end. But the film dies out and leaves you completely hanging, not knowing anything more as to what happens to the main characters, or even what they were fighting for most of the time. I recommend that people stay well away from this one, as Cuba Gooding Jr. has sooooo much more to offer.

I, too, thought that this was an excellent film; the first time i saw it I was on the verge of turning the TV off for lack of anything good. Although it's genre is listed as sci-fi it's not immediately apparent that it's sci-fi, which allows you to concentrate a little more on the people and production design. The grittiness is very well done, much like Max Headroom, and the characters are very thoroughly developed throughout the first two thirds of the film. The ending is particularly good - the viewer feels genuine empathy for both Moira and Cuba's characters and is left with the feeling that these are real people in an imperfect future.