View Full Version : 30 Days of Night -- Thoughts?

Home - Discussion Forums - News - Reviews - Interviews

New reviews, interviews and news

New in the Discussion Forum

October 27th, 2007, 06:56 PM
Just saw 30 Days of Night... wasn't terribly impressed.

Spoilers below....

First, I didn't find it believable there were there for 30 days. It seems that everything happens in a night and then there is a caption reading "Day 7" -- what happened to the first 6?

Second, the vampires didn't drink!! ... they just killed. They kept talking about this thirst... perhaps if they actually drank they wouldn't be so thirsty!!

Finally... the ending was STUPID! Whatever! The guy injects himself with vampire blood so he can fight the vampires ... a full 45 min (if that long!) before sunrise on the 30th day... so he can fight the 8 or so remaining vampires. He fights the main guy and win and the other 7 or so just walk away. WHATEVER! Then -- of course -- the sun rises and he in his increasingly vampire state watches the sunrise with his wife and begins to burn in her arms. She holds him while he painfully burns and flakes of his burnt flesh swirl in the air around them. WHATEVER AGAIN!! It was *almost* poingnant... if it hadn't been so stupid!

Overall it wasn't bad -- but the last 10 mins kinda ruined it for me.

October 29th, 2007, 05:17 PM
The ending sounds pretty much as it ends in the comic book itself. Not sure about the time frame - again it is a little muddled in the comic book itself.

Still looking forward to it.

November 9th, 2007, 04:34 PM
I really, really liked it. Slade did a great job if you ask me. I love the way the tension built at the beginning of the film, with the slow burning escalation of terror. The Alaskan setting was fabulous and the imagery, like the ship lodged in the ice at the start, is emblazoned in my mind. The vampires were the best screen incantations of the classic monster we've seen for a very long time - feeding like savage dogs, speaking in a guttural language, moving with a graceful athleticism, slicking their hair back with blood, and making existential quips about the existence of God.

I agree with kalitara about the passage of time - always tricky to handle in film and not quite successful here. There were also some moments of incredible ridiculousness, like a man surviving a massive explosion or a young child walking alone through a vampire infested town for 27 days.

Despite the fact it's not flawless, it's still a damn good flick. And for an Angel fan from wayback, it was great to see Melissa George in a large Hollywood role. Growl.

Ranke Lidyek
November 9th, 2007, 06:41 PM
It's worth seeing, but I agree. The end fell short of the mark. I wanted more in terms of thematic resolution. Otherwise, despite some issues with credibility, it was a surprisingly effective movie until the last ten minutes. Even Hartnett wasn't bad.

November 9th, 2007, 08:20 PM
Despite the fact that it didn't quite build up to the end effectively enough, the final sequences still hit my "kewl nerve". I was actually moved by the final scene.

November 10th, 2007, 07:26 AM
I think it's one of the tightest vampire movies to hit cinemas in years.

One SF magazine in the UK commentated that it was the best reimagining of the vampire myth on film since 'Near Dark' (an amazing horror / western fusion).

There are some departures from the ethereal graphic novel source material. I'm sure purists will object to the jettisoning of the entire New Orleans vampire hunter subplot, but by and large the changes that they've made are for the best. This is a much more barrow-centric storyline.

I have a few quibbles, though. The vampires are initially introduced as an offscreen, almost subliminal threat, and they remain blurs and hurtling figures for the first few minutes. This is when they're at their scariest. Once they're introduced as sort of euro-trash russian gangsters, they're a lot less scary. I couldn't help but feel that the main bad guy looked a lot like Boy George (the current bloated version). While some critics liked the various existential stuff the vamps spew as they kill people ('there is no god' and stuff to this effect), I found it a bit naff, to be honest.

On the upside, it's a visually stunning movie, with genuine moments of suspense. Personally I liked Harnett / George pairing, there was a genuine chemistry to their failed marriage that is often missing in big-screen pairings.

December 6th, 2007, 03:40 PM
Saw this movie on the day it came out. I was pretty disappointed with it. I love vampire movies and this one did not make my money worth it.

Ratings: Don't waste your money. Borrow it from someone stupid enough to buy it!