Voting
Quality
Age
Show More...

Сomments

@pewkachu agreed!! One of the best ones. Fantastic movie.
definitely one of my favorite thriller movies and proper portrayal of vampires.
One of my guilty pleasure movies, great modern horror - filled with suspense and plenty of gore. Well worth a watch.
"A few minutes into the film we are immersed in quick, gritty violence and intensity and it never lets up until the climactic conclusion. "

Read the full review by clicking below:
I went to the Hollywood premiere on Tuesday night and I hated the movie. Maybe it's a sign of my age because films like this and the Saw series do nothing for me. I thought this movie had a great premise but was poorly executed.

I don't know why it's popular, but I dislike the "shaky" camera work that is used in a lot of current films. It doesn't draw me into the movie and instead just gives me a big headache.

The effects in this movie were good - when I was able to see them. Things go by so fast and there are so many quick cuts that the gore means nothing and doesn't have any kind of impact.

The acting was just average - anybody could have played Josh Hartnett's role just as well. An unknown actor with a much lower price tag would have probably done a better job.

Overall, there's no good reason to see this movie unless you are bored out of your mind on a Friday night and have nothing else better to do.

The best thing about the premiere was watching all the people in suits kissing each other's asses. Honesty won't get you anywhere in Hollywood. ;-)
As close to made for direct to DVD as a release can get...

I knew from the opening with the abandoned icebreaker and the renfield type fellow, I was in for some schlock. I could ignore all the problems with this movie if it were a scary gore slasher flick, but it fails to get there. The main villian vampire is boring. The constant screeching sounds made by the vampires is VERY distracting to the point that the only real fear in this film is that they may appear on the screen again and assualt your hearing with a sound that is much more annoying than disturbing.

OK, so lets go through all of the plot problems, first, this is not exactly and original work, the entire concept of vampires in the month long night of the artic has been done, I failed to see how this added to it at all.

30 days of night, well, you cant really tell if it is 30 dyas of night, or one night, it really came off as just one night, the actors clothes dont wear down, beards dont grow, makeup stays on the main characters although a few of the background players appear to get gamey towards the very end.

One reviewer says the action starts right from the beginning and doesn't stop. I actually looked at my watch, it was a full 17 minutes in before we get going, and it stops quite a bit as the love interests devote time to their failing relationship instead of the monsters waiting to devour them, seems they also do not find them that terrifying.

There are many plot, script and technical problems, but a movie of this caliber does not even rate pointing all of them out in greater detail. But here are just a few...
1- Where have these vampires traveling on a ship with a renfield been and what have they been eating
2- How could they afford to off Renfield, he was their daywalker
3- They say, "This is the kind of place we should have come to long ago ?"
Why, the sun is going to still shine there 11 months out of the year and there is only about 100 people which they eat on night one.
4- In a town of 500 about 1/10 of a mile long with 400 getting on planes and leaving for the month, Renfield manages in about two hours to steal all satellite phones and burn them and kill all the sled dogs, undetected, in the beginning of the film.
5- Lots of warnings about Polar Bears, yet in 30 days they never smell all the carnage and gore on the streets and partake of the free eats ?
6- Lots of blizzards during the 30 days of hiding, but the streets stay plowed and the sidwalks, roofs and cars are clear of snow.
7- People hiding in an attic for several weeks have no fear of being detected as they crank up portable lights 24 x 7 and peek out paper covered windows.

I could go on, but why bother, this schlock doesnt deserve any more detail

Only reason to see it would be there is nothing else to see and you just want to eat some popcorn in the company of others, well, you'll be able to eat the popcorn, might be lonely though.
This flick will nknock you socks off.
The best moments of this movie are the instances in which the cinematography emulates the comic panels of its source material. In these brief flashes, the filmmaker approaches art. This is most apparent in the shots of the vampires-where the subtly canted angles and the awkwardly leaning poses of the undead characters send the message of a world off-kilter. Otherwise, the images adequately represent the story, but they do not take us somewhere new.

The simple survival tale of the movie is decent enough for a wasted afternoon at the matinee, but the film suffers from the same problems endemic to the graphic novel. The inhuman monsters are slightly more interesting than the cardboard cut-outs who pose as human characters. And that's not saying much. Nobody human in either story is particularly likable, mainly because it is incredibly difficult to find much to like about such flat characters who are more like sketches than real people. While this sketchiness works with Ben Templesmith's sketchy artwork in the graphic novel, it leaves the movie feeling ultimately hollow.

Put a group of people in an isolated house, an orbiting space station or a remote mining faciltiy, any tight space and throw in a big bad and you have a horror film. Done right you have Alien or The Thing or Aliens. Done almost right and you have 30 Days of Night. The tight space this time is a town; Barrow Alaska winter pop. 153, which for 30 days every year experiences a month without sun. The Big Bad this time is a pack of Vampires and they are very, very BAD.

Let me starrt off by saying that I neither read nor heard of the graphic novel before seeing the film. In the long run that is probably better as I can't remember the last film adaptation that I thought did justice to the book/comic/commercial that I loved. I am left to judge the film solely on what is on the screen and not how well they treated the source material. That said I suspect the answer would be damn well. 30 Days of Night borders on great and with just a little more creativity in the script and the preformances (Human ones only) David Slade could have snuck this film clear across that border into the rarefied air of Near Dark and Aliens.

Visually the film is spot on; the monotone pallet captures the eeire lost time and isolation of Barrow, Alaska. And the Vampires; from the opening shot of the beached oil tanker Slade has taken the Vampire away from Rice and given him back to Stoker and we are all better off for it. He keeps the film firmly rooted in the concept that Vampires are evil sadistic creatures; gone is the poofery and "romance" of Lestat. These Vamps are bad dudes. They rip. They tear. They shread. They feast and they revel in it. They are feral with a whiff of Eurotrash; and they are fast. The Vampire descent on Barrow is truly horroffic. The vamps are a blur of talons and fangs and it is only when the camera gives us a birds eye view of the carnage can we truly appreciate the plague that has descended on Barrow. These Vampires are inhuman or no longer human; their faces are elongated, their eyes are black, they shriek and howl and speak in their own guttural language and they are led bya brilliant Danny Huston as a post modern Nosferatu. Quite simply they are everything that is right in this film.

And then there are our human heroes and that is where Slade gets stopped at the border. Josh Harnet is the stout lawman on the frontier; he is a poor mans Gary Cooper without the twinkle in his eye. There is his estranged wife Stella who missed the last plane out of dodge and must reconcile herself to spending the next 30 days in the dark with Josh Hartnet talk about scary.

It is after this intial descent on Barrow as Hartnett leads his rag tag group of survivors to an attic to spend a good part of the film that the movie stops dead. It is also here that Slade misses a great opportunity to develop his cast of survivors. Rather than give each character a voice as James Cameron did when deciding who would survive the first Alien encounter, Slade seems content to just have bodies in the room. Oh wait one guys got Alheizemers, another guy is a native american, another guy is a loner and then there are someother people who you couldn't pick out of a lineup. If you are going to pick a handful of survivors for us to follow around for half the film give us a reason to care about them...or hate them. Give us a reason why you picked these 6 survivors. Slade is able to create more character out of the vampires who speak in some weird german accented clucking and a myriad of blood curdling shreiks than anyone who speaks English. When the camera spends time with our humans the film lacks wit. The lone exception is when Ben Foster is on screen. He is Renfield by way of Near Dark. The man is all twinkle in the eye as he nudges his human captors towards the inevitable awakening that they are all doomed. He conveys more in the slight upturing of his lip then Harnet can in 2 hours of facial contortions

Whenever the vamps are on screen the movie is pitch perfect. If only David Slade gave his human characters as much life then you are talking classic.






Ok i don't ask for much from my horror movies... lots of gore, violence and a decent attempt to scare me. Not that it works, but at least the ATTEMPT.

One absolutely great thing about this movie: it returns vampires to the status of predator. Because get serious - if something existed that had to feed on humans to exist, that was super-human in strenght and speed, it would ACT like a predator. No more pity for the food. No more trying to feed while making it enjoyable for the prey and not kill them. Vampires would be like lions - fast, vicious and unrelenting. Thank you (to the graphic novel) for finally putting vampires back on the top of the food chain & thank you to the movie for not changing that.

Beyond that it's laughable. Really, the crowd at the prescreening were actually groaning in time to the cheezy dialogue. 'we have to move'... they tried really hard to do something wonderful with this and i'll probably burn the movie when it comes out on DVD... mostly just for the novelty of the unattractive, violent vampires and fairly good gore.
Report a problem