30 Days Of Night Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
This is the story of an isolated Alaskan town that is plunged into darkness for a month each year when the sun sinks below the horizon. As the last rays of light fade, the town is attacked by a bloodthirsty gang of vampires bent on an uninterrupted orgy of destruction. Only the small town's husband-and-wife Sheriff team stand between the survivors and certain destruction.
| Josh Hartnett | Sheriff Eben Oleson |
| Danny Huston | Marlow |
| Melissa George | Stella Oleson |
| Ben Foster | The Stranger |
| Mark Boone Junior | Beau Brower |
| Mark Rendall | Jake Oleson |
| Amber Sainsbury | Denise |
| Manu Bennett | Deputy Billy Kitka |
| Megan Franich | Iris |
| Joel Tobeck | Doug Hertz |
| Elizabeth Hawthorne | Lucy Ikos |
| Nathaniel Lees | Carter Davies |
| Craig Hall | Wilson Bulosan |
| Chic Littlewood | Issac Bulosan |
| Peter Feeney | John Riis |
| David Slade |
7.00 out of 10 (10860 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Gripping,Quirky and Fun.
posted on 28 Aug 2009I am not a particular fan of Vampire movies, nor of graphic novels generally, let alone the one upon which this was apparently based.My high rating does not acknowledge a cinematic masterpiece, but a genre piece well made, well told.Much has been made about so called "factual" errors and plot "holes" 'which totally miss the point.You are invited to suspend disbelief. If you, do you will have a ball, if you don't it is a nonsense.Josh Hartnett, as Sheriff Eban Oleson, is the fulcrum of the tale and does a fine job carrying the film for a full 113 minutes, about twenty minutes longer than a film like this normally demands.Although generously strewn with verbal and situational clichés the stylish presentation and pacey editing keeps things moving.The vampires themselves owe more to the Zombies genre, than the Vampire one.Their sub titled incomprehensible language adding to a sense of mystery and menace.Producer Sam Raimi's hand looms large here. The core of the story plays on our fears of what happens when it gets dark, and we are all alone and our mind starts to run away with primitive fears, which is why it works so well. it is an Everyman story well delivered.I suspect that hardcore "Vampiristas" may be disappointed by this film which occupies a large chunk of the conventional horror/ Zombie/ slasher genres, which is of course what makes it successful. For there is enough for fans of all of these to thoroughly enjoy.
A very good end !
posted on 26 Aug 2009The movie was a masterpiece.Nothing ridiculous as i see on many horror movies,the main character Josh Hartnett played very good and during the movie time I was captured all the time, I don't blink a second.The vampires were made very good,they really looked scary!!The scenery man must to be a genius,I really appreciate the work that he did on this movie.Very good thinking !! Well done !! It is refreshing to see a vampire film that doesn't shy away from violence and that doesn't dwell on anything that can be even remotely construed as hokey. A new cinematic creature, 30 Days of Night's antagonists are ultra scary with their deformed appearances and their mercilessly gut-wrenching killing sprees. They speak in their own demonic language and have super human strength and speed, making them a Michael Myers fashioned juggernaut. High-pitched shrieks, blood-soaked visages and razor-sharp fingernails complete a frightening design of this force to be reckoned with.What impressed me very much, was the ending of the movie that was pure and simple stunning !! I really recommend this movie for the people who loves horror movies.
Serious Timeline Issues
posted on 24 Aug 2009I had some really serious issues with how poorly the timeline was established in this movie. All 30 days just seem to blend into 1. The director/writer had to know that they would face a challenge establishing the change of time when it is supposed to be dark all the time. Thus, they should have planned accordingly and done a better job of establishing the timeline in the film. As it exists, the first night, the time in the diner, the time in the attic, and the time in the factory, all seem like exactly the same night. There is one line that indicates that they were in the attic for awhile, something along the lines of "who knew we would make it this long?", but they only go to the market once before they go to the factory. What are they living off of the rest of the time? Why did the vampires seem to kill almost everyone in the same night and then linger on starving for the rest of the 30 days? How many days were they in the attic? How many days at the factory? This is handled very poorly and because of this the film lacks any sense of desperation and suspense that comes with being trapped somewhere for days. Only the one elderly man hints at that, but he is portrayed as more senile than stir crazy. I honestly was shocked when one of the characters said that the sun was going to come up again the next day. I seriously thought that they have only been dealing with this for like 2 days. Where were the vampires hanging around for the 29 days between when they killed 99% of the town and finally went after the rest? Production should have taken a tip or two from films like Anne Frank, where endless days are passed in one attic, but we feel the days passing in slow agony just as the characters do. The lack of attention to timeline completely ruined this film for me and made it quite amateur. Anyone in the business for any length of time should have been able to better address this. They really should be embarrassed.
Good vampireflick
posted on 24 Aug 2009Well, I read some of the comments before watching the movie (doh) and had a good feeling about it, so I was looking forward.And I must say I find this one of the best vampire movies I have seen , though I have to mention I normally hate them so it doesn't make this an oscarwinner.It starts of decent, from the first minute on one can tell this movie is filmed and directed by someone who has a good eye for it. Nice cameramovements, the right lighting etc. Then the mayem begins, the typical first victims who are clueless to what is going on and then the part where everyone is getting aware that 'theres something fishy' going on.I can cope with all that went down until they started hiding in the attic, after that, the storyline got pretty messy. They keep running back and forth and the joy I had watching it so far kinda went down the drain when I saw the huge leaps in time. If you had to hide days and days in fear for vampires it would get to you, but the characters look the same as on day 1.A lot of stuff obviously doesn't make sense, like if they can smell blood (as said in the movie) why didn't the vampires find them. One was in the same house and díd smell them, but then never came back. Also the fat guy surviving that blast was not very realistic and since he dies 20 seconds later I would have let him evaporate in the blast.And finally the last part, where he injects vampireblood in his arm, sigh. If he really got their strength minutes after receiving the blood then why didn't that guy under the house (forgot the name)who was also infected (..and stayed under the house for days in that weather?) also get so strong? And so useless.. 15 minutes after injecting himself, the sun is rising! Stella and the girl have to get away from the car otherwise they would burn. Uhm, It took a few minutes for that sunrise to kick in, they had way more chance when staying under the car and wait it out. Then he didn't have to inject himself.. ah well, you get my point.In short, not bad, good effects (overhead shot is cool) good start, lame middle and ending. Camera-work/atmosphere is well done.
No Good **Possible Spoilers**
posted on 22 Aug 2009Let me start by saying that I think the comic book 30 days of Night is one of the most overrated comic books in recent history. After reading it once I tried to give it to some friends of mine. After they read it, they brought it back to me, they didn't want it either.So when I heard Steve Niles sold the rights to his book for one million dollars to Sam Raimi's production company I was hopeful that they would turn it into something worth watching. Sadly they stuck close to the source material.I've never in my life seen a two hour movie that actually made me feel like I had been siting in the theater for thirty days. The problem is this movie takes itself too seriously, just as the comic book before it had. There are action scenes that fall flat, and emotional scenes that carry no weight. The actors all did an admirable job trying to bring their characters to life, but in the end the script just isn't strong enough. The biggest problem with this movie overall, is the score. It just sits there, doing nothing. There is a scene where one of the survivors drives down main street with a piece of heavy machinery running down and cutting through anything that gets in his way. Does the music pulse and thump? Does the music rise as the hero takes a stand and confronts the baddies head on? NO! The music just sits there. We get a few strings, a nearly inaudible tambourine, and an even more inaudible drum cadence. Why? Because the director thinks he's making a scary movie instead of a monster movie. Another scene like this is the final fight. The last stand. As the scene opens we have the hero making a lonely walk toward the center of town. As he begins his walk we get a rock snare thumping. Alright some music!!! Nope. He gets to the center of town and suddenly the drums disappear and instead we get quiet strings and what sound like someone running a drill over guitar strings. Exciting stuff let me tell you. The only reason this movie gets five stars is because the cinematography is really nice. There is one overhead shot near the beginning of the monster invasion that makes you feel like you're there, and helpless to do anything. Kudos to the cinematographer.
Pretty good.
posted on 20 Aug 2009Allot better than I thought. Had some pretty scary scenes in there from time to time. Sorta took the 28 days later feel with the quick attacking zombies that come out of nowhere. Which I like. Those old movies with these blood craving Zombies walking along at 1 mph, while the victims always seem to fall down and lay there till the monster gets them, always seem fake and stupid. At least here, you feel general fear with putting yourself in these peoples places. Acting was pretty good. Good scary feeling with this nighttime/cold snowy feel to the movie. If I had to have a grief, its the same with allot of movies- the ending. More realistic way to end the movie was to have these zombies realize the sun is finally rising, but have Hartnett stop them from going into hiding, or wherever they came from. But, I can deal with that. 90 percent of the movie is a good solid scare-gore fest..
Unique vampire flick with fast paced, compact story line.
posted on 18 Aug 2009Just saw this one last night in Castle Rock, CO. They cranked down the heat in the theater so it made the scenes of the arctic wasteland of northern Alaska even more bone-chilling. Compared to most horror movies today, this one has a more direct, old-school horror/drama feel. The acting is on par for this genre, although the female lead is a bit weak. It takes the viewer a good 20 minutes to really put together what's happening, but then builds to a continuously suspenseful, nearly 2 hour long movie. Minimal use of CGI with an even mix of on and off screen slasher scenes keep you toes curled. It's spine-tingling once you put together how the vampires actually get to this isolated region and how they move from one locale to another. The ending doesn't disappoint and leaves room for a sequel, but not blatantly. The only thing that disappoints is that the camera spends too much time on the vampires for the movie's own good. Collectively they can look like a crowd swept from the floor of an Eastern European disco at 3am after a hard night of Euro-trash style partying. Even in this movie, less would have made it better. Overall, the smooth, compact story line makes up for some cinematographic short-comings.
Visually impressive horror film is somewhat flawed in the script but it's certainly an well made film.
posted on 16 Aug 2009In the small isolated town in Alaska each month in a year. The town goes to total darkness for 30 days. Which most villagers decides to stay somewhere else for the month. When a mysterious stranger (Ben Foster) is been killing dogs and causing trouble in a small diner. The local sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) is trying to find out, where's this stranger came from. The sheriff's soon to be ex-wife Stella (Melissa George) finds herself stuck in this village as well. Now very strange things are starting to happen, when the villagers are getting attacked from the unknown. This stranger brings this eerie group of people. Which they are strong, violent and they are hungry for blood. Which they are vampires are attacking and feeding on these villagers for the whole month. They will not stop attacking until the whole villagers are dead. Now Eben, Stella and a small group of survivors try to hold on from hiding and fighting these unstoppable vampires until the sunlight comes back.Directed by David Slade (Hard Candy) made an extremely well-acted, well directed Horror movie with a few genuine moments of suspense and terror. Slade's visual style is the highlight of this film, which it's based on a graphic comic novel by Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith. Slade certainly echoes some of the style of the earlier films of John Carpenter. Even Mark Boone Junior, who had a small role as Vampire Slayer in the underrated Carpenter film "Vampires". The Vampires certainly has a presence in this, especially Danny Huston as "Marlow". Perphas the problems with "30 Days of Night" is probably not what some audiences or critics were expecting to be. I felt the script, could have been much better in places. But there's enough character development from the human characters and the vampires are kept mysterious enough in the film.Sadly, this horror movie was an box office disappointment. The reviews were certainly mixed, although "30 Days of Well" is possibly one of the most well received horror movie of this year by certain critics. The conclusion is certainly familiar to "Blade 2". There's also a few (unintentionally ?) laughs as well but there's strong moments of violence, gory and a few jolts as well. The production designs by Paul D. Austerberry (Resident Evil:Apocalyspe, Assault on Precient 13 "2005", Highwaymen) and the widescreen cinematography by Jo Williems are first-rate. I think, it's one of those films will be a cult favorite once it's release on DVD. It's one of the strongest "Vampire" movies in a while but certainly not one of the best in the genre. It's one of those movies that certainly looks good in the Big Screen. It's worth viewing. Screenplay by Niles, Staurt Beattie (Collateral, Derailed) and Brian Nelson. Super 35. (*** ½/*****).
Really guys? Did anyone screen this before release?
posted on 14 Aug 2009First, I was a fan of "Hard Candy," so I was expecting good things from "30 Days of Nights" edited by Art Jones. But, wholly crap... I hate it when you watch a movie that has obvious editing mistakes.I could tell when watching it for the first time where there were things that were changed in the time line and that was without pausing or rewinding. It was just THAT obvious. You can almost tell where they were SUPPOSED to be.Some examples: One of the characters asked about hearing shots when there were none. And they referenced a character helping patrol and then never showed him.There's a segment on God and beliefs when they just had a discussion about human beliefs with the crazy guy 2 scenes before. Obviously, it was supposed to go in a different order as they referenced the scene before it happened.There's also the problem that Harknett's beard changes when no time has gone by.Another annoyance is the bad guys walking around in bloodiness. Why were they clean in the beginning at all? Obviously, they don't mind not being clean.And finally, why are the bait people covered in blood but they didn't change when other characters get a scrape and turn? I mean... Really? The cut footage must have been horrid if this is what was left.
"What the hell is going on?!!".
posted on 14 Aug 2009Oh 30 Days of Night, how you hyped the masses. How you teased us thinking that your movie is the most original vampire movie in decades. Sure, your trailer looked unlike anything we've ever seen. But 30 Days of Night, you forgot one thing, you forgot the most important thing actually: deliver the expectations you so easily augmented. Under all that flashy cinematography and freakish looking makeup, lies just another mediocre vampire movie, with a pretty face and a bigger budget.Based on the incredibly drawn graphic novel, 30 Days of Night follows a group of people in an Alaskan community, that is under constant darkness for a month. An Alaska community under darkness, that is soon to be terrorized by Chinese looking vampires, who walk around in trenchcoats, and speak some sort of incoherent Latin babble. Sure, the presentation is somewhat exquisite, too bad we have some badly written characters, clichéd dialog and disappointing acting by a promising cast. The relationship between Harnett and George not only is badly realized, but it isn't fleshed out at all (And you can guess what happens to a divorced couple, that only reunite when screeching white men in fangs suddenly attack on their home. Original indeed). The Stranger played by Ben Foster is the coolest character in the whole movie, too bad the trailer showed EVERY scene he's in (except of course that ONE scene). And plot holes are horribly abundant (How did the Stranger know "They were coming?" Was he a vampire? Who knows? Apparently Slade and writers didn't give a damn, or maybe I just didn't analyze the movie that much. But analyze what? A lazily written vampire movie? Even I am not that stupid). The human characters? They can be summed up in one sentence: "What the hell is going on?!". When you're being chased by flying Asian men, that smash the car windows, and go jumping up and down on the roof of the car, I doubt you'll say something as stupid and as idiotic as "What the hell is going on?". Guess!! You stupid jackass. The characters are all clichéd, with cliché dialog that we've heard countless times: "I could've tried harder to save him, I could've!". The script is incredibly disappointing. The plot showed much promise, but what the movie lacked was proper execution.The acting? It was decent. Josh Harnett has talent, and it shows in this film, slightly. Melissa George was the most effective for me, even if her acting wasn't to shabby either. The rest of the supporting cast consist of good performances and bad performances. Danny Huston and Ben Foster deserve special praise from me, they made this movie, and the sad thing is that they don't get that much screen time.Now, onto the good stuff. The makeup and special effects by WETA Workshop range from great to decent. The vampire makeup is extremely well done, and the gore is good at times, and at others, not so much. Mainly because of the damned CGI. You can notice the "fakeness" that the CG leaves behind, which hurts the movie in the end. And that one scene with the little girl, hilarious. David Slade is known for his controversial movie Hard Candy and apparently, he wanted to strike a nerve or two to the audience by showing us a little girl getting beheaded by an ax. The end results are very bad. I admire when filmmakers show taboo material on a Horror movie (which believe me, it isn't done a lot), but the CGI and the way it was handled was very weak, and Slade's original intention, had turned into utter stupidity (kind of when the zombie kids in Resident Evil Apocalypse were shown running like drugged up kids on Kool-Aid; it was laughably bad). On a more positive note, the cinematography by Jo Willems was beautiful at times, and quite interesting to look at others. The techniques are very different and quite innovative.Overall: Mediocrity has hit the big screens yet again. I admire Slade for doing something different, but not when it is done like this. Slade knows better than to show us cliché characters, in cliché situations, on a cliché vampire movie. But he did make an awful lot of money, so I guess he knew what he got himself into. I just await for another movie that shows us (as in Hard Candy) his talent and skill. 30 Days of Night isn't horrible, but you've already seen dozens of horror movies like this. Dozens of horror movies were you don't care about the characters and the stupid things they do; or where the end tries to be deeply emotional. Or a horror movie were there is the ridiculous, sacrificial human being that decides to be the hero at a key point in the movie (unless you're a teen or whatever). It you are a vampire enthusiast, see it, by all means. If you wanna pass some time and there is nothing better to do, go ahead and rent this. Just don't expect something groundbreaking in the history of vampire Horror. A 5/10.
Losing Their Heads
posted on 12 Aug 2009As you have probably guessed, "30 Days of Night" is a vampire movie - which means it has elements of both terror and self-parody. Most of the parody comes from Josh Harnett's painful acting which probably accounts for that particular casting decision. It is very likely the year's best horror movie, coming from "Hard Candy" director David Slade. Nasty vampires methodically assault an isolated Alaskan town and theatre viewers rarely will find a moment to relax. Much like "Night of the Living Dead" and "Phantoms" there is a rapidly diminishing chance of survival in this world of perpetual darkness. Although vampire conventions are followed, Dracula-type wooden stakes and silver bullets are conspicuously absent. The film's gory visuals are not for the squeamish which is exactly what vampire movie buffs and fans of the original graphic novels will get off on. "30 Days of Night" captures the coolest parts of Steve Niles' graphic novel series on the big screen. Like the books it is filled with buckets of gore but manages to include a certain intelligence that fans of "28 Days Later" and John Carpenter's better movies are searching for but can rarely find. While some horror genre purists will be turned off by all the talking, there is very little actual character development and enough action and suspense for most everyone. There is even a geography lesson as we learn that Barrow, Alaska is the northernmost city in America, and even more isolated and alien during its annual 30 days of continuous darkness. During this period the vampires (who apparently have just discovered this vampire paradise) suck the blood of most everyone in the town. The exception being a small group led by Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) and his ex-wife Stella (Melissa George), who must wait out the horrifying 30 days of night. The pairing of Hartnett (who has no discernible acting skills) with George (who is quite talented) could have been a disaster, fortunately neither part is particularly challenging so the skill disparity is not too obvious. And who watches these things for the acting anyway. Also fortunate is the casting of Danny Huston as the vampire leader, he sells his character (i.e. monster). Much like "Day of the Dead" and "Jumanji" the band of survivors do things to which the average viewer can relate. They raid a supermarket and hide in an attic. It's best to stay vague with even the setup for this movie because it takes so many turns, at first seeming to be one kind of horror film before events move the characters in other directions. The surviving neighbors fight back with some degree of success. Watch for the town outcast who uses "bulldozers for bazookas", in the style of Sigourney Weaver operating that forklift robot thing in "Aliens". . Screenwriters Steve Niles, Stuart Beattie and Brian Nelson craft characters that don't make stupid decisions and a plot that doesn't turn on unrealistic coincidences. Those who didn't read the graphic novels might find some of the intricate plot turns a bit too cerebral for a mindless night out at the movies and detailed explanations are hard to find. But at least the filmmakers aren't trying to insult your intelligence. It is nice to find a vampire film that is uncompromising in its violence and yet extremely subtle about its moments of self-parody (insert the Hartnell acting for a few laugh-out-loud moments late in the film). It's even nicer to find some effort put into realistic action sequences, not the fake fast cut nonsense that lesser directors use to mask their inability to shoot action scenes. Adding to the terror is having the vampires converse in a demonic language of their own (subtitles are thankfully provided). The vampires move at lightning speed but have little going for themselves in style or culture (there is no "Underworld" sophistication here). There are be-headings, animal violence, the slaughter of children, and a "Gremlins" inspired use of a snow plow. Get it on guys. Overall the film is well made, nicely filmed, and competently acted (even with the sometimes painful Hartnett factor). Obviously this sort of thing is not everyone's cup of tea but is great Halloween fare for those who get off on this kind of stuff. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
The Vampires are tired and want to go home.
posted on 12 Aug 2009Having lived in Alaska for years it is hard for me to get over the ridiculous inconsistencies that were really for no good reason. If you are a fan of the comic then you have some plot background. Not so with the film. It seemed like they edited with a butcher knife to make it fit the genre slot. I was actually excited about this film, which may be why I am so disappointed.New Zealand is the generic world setting these days and if you aren't sure where it was filmed odds are it was in New Zealand.I do have to give them credit for creating a pretty decent "Barrow' atmosphere, and the filmography was good. I just wish they would have worked the plot together better because now I am sure that I don't have to worry about vampires, these ones just were not believable. If you were only going to feed once every so often wouldn't you be a little less sloppy and wasteful? One more case for the "Vampire Genre" being a tired, rumpled old hat.
Not great. Just decent.
posted on 10 Aug 2009A lot of people have been saying that this is, by far, the best vampire movie of the year. To some extent, that is true. Vampire movies have been rather few for the past couple of years so I do think that for the genre, this movie is a success.First of all, let me just say that Vampires don't scare me. I find them more cool and amazing than scary. That being said, I was kind of happy that the vampires portrayed in this movie did not change my perception of them as being cool and amazing creatures (Well, it was altered a little but not too much). There were a lot of spectacular scenes that are worth remembering. But of course, with spectacular scenes comes a handful of annoying and unnecessary scenes as well.Get this: why is it that whenever I watch a survival horror/thriller film, there's always this character that acts so stupid? I mean, when a group of people are put into a similar situation, would they really act that way? I do understand that that character was necessary so that the director could thrust in a good kill scene but heck! It's just annoying.Several things I didn't like about the movie were the ending, the final scenes (what the main character did was like "WHAT THE HECK!?"), the way the vampires communicated (cool for some but gibberish for me) and the realism of the characters' conditions (when the movie says "Day 17", the characters don't seem to look like they've been on that hiding place for 17 days. You get what I mean?). And, oh yeah, the constant camera close-ups on Josh Hartnett's face (It's like they're trying to make him the next Brad Pitt-esquire superstar).Anyway, these are but minor issues that can be easily disregarded. It's a horror/thriller/action flick. Better yet, it's a survival flick. So just enjoy. Be scared. Bring your friends, family and sweethearts. Disturbing scenes were obviously removed for the Cinema (Note to self: buy DVD). However, some scenes might still be really disturbing for some people. All in all, a very decent vampire movie. Not really the best of all time but still arguably the best of the year.
Not enough gratuitous violence and no nudity
posted on 08 Aug 200930 Days of Night is a standard vampires-attacking-a-remote-town movie with the gimmick of the far-northern Alaskan setting that provides the condition of the title. See, because vampires can't exist in direct sunlight - bet you didn't know that - so thirty consecutive days without sunlight would be like heaven to them. But that's about it as far as originality for this by-the-numbers gorefest, although the thick arched eyebrows of Josh Hartnett provide some measure of entertainment.Barrow, Alaska is the northernmost point in the United States, and as previously noted in Insomnia, that area of the world is plunged into darkness for an entire month of every year. This is useful for the purposes of the story here, because it provides an deadline for the denouement - the vampires have to be out of there before the sun rises again. So our intrepid hero and his motley gang of scruffy, bundled-up citizens have a full month to deal with their vampire infestation.Sheriff Eben Oleson (Hartnett) is the small-town Johnny Law whom everyone knows and likes, although he keeps his feelings close inside, as most squinty-eyed, jut-jawed heroes do. On the last day of actual sunlight, he's busy making sure everyone's doing okay and is prepared for the coming darkness. Then he runs into a weird man known only as The Stranger (Ben Foster) who obliquely warns everyone that "they" are coming that evening, when night falls. Who are they? Superstrong vampires, that's who, and don't think they'll stop until they consume every last drop of your blood, or turn you into one of them. (The last part didn't make a lot of sense to me - why create someone who'll just be competition for food?) No hero is complete without some love interest, so we get Stella (Melissa George), Eben's ex-wife. They're attempting a separation, but naturally Stella - through hopelessly contrived events - is unable to depart the town before the last plane leaves. (How come no flights can arrive or depart the airport when it's dark out? The town has electricity. Maybe they can, but the plot wouldn't permit it.) So she and Eben are stuck together, arguing over who gets to save the town. Seriously. On more than one occasion, Stella says, "I'm coming with you!" - no way she's gonna let him do it alone! - and most of the time Eben overrules her, but not always, because he's a Thoughtful Hero as well.And to underscore Eben's emotional ties to the community, we're also introduced to his kid brother Jake, who looks to be young enough to be Eben's son. True to the genre, Jake desperately seeks the approval of his successful (to a point) older brother, and he tries to save the town as well. But no, he's not old enough, and Eben is responsible for him, and darned if some kid's gonna be the hero instead of him! So there's that.The movie leans rather heavily on its setting to move the plot along; the special effects are rather ho-hum, and the acting is weak. And it's not that Hartnett can't act - he's actually developing into quite the fine thesp - but here he's just sort of drifting along like a windblown snowpile. George is cute and perky and occasionally serious, but she too isn't quite up to the task. And that's perfectly okay if your leading man is charismatic or if the special effects wow the audience so much that they don't notice the wooden performances, but here that's not the case. You wind up turning your eyes to the gore that you'd expect to see in a vampire movie, but the gore isn't even especially interesting or vicious. Some scenes are disturbing, though; turns out the only way to kill a vampire is by beheading it, as guns apparently have little effect on them. Which doesn't stop at least one suicidal maniac from shotgunning several bloodsuckers in order to give his fellow humans some cover.Bottom line: Good, interesting concept, dreary execution. The movie's based on a series of graphic novels, and my assumption is that the novels themselves had more character and pizazz on the page than this movie does on the screen.
TERRIBLY WRITTEN w/ awesome vampires
posted on 04 Aug 2009OK. The guy before me said this: "the realistic reactions from the characters made me feel like i wasn't watching some trashy cheesed out horror flick." What the f***. Apparently we weren't watching the same movie. I went to this movie expecting a grisly blend of 300-style cinematography/action sequence and 28 Days Later-style plot/atmosphere. I was incredibly disappointed. Apparently Steve Niles has never left his home, because he has NO idea how real people speak or behave. In terms of dialogue, this is the absolute WORST movie I've seen in a very long while. I laughed the whole time. Shame on Sam Raimi for attaching his name to such garbage. On the bright side, the cinematography was incredibly well done, and the vampires were damn creepy. However, this simply could not make up for how horribly written the entire movie was. The best part of the whole damn show was when some kid fell when he got up to get popcorn. DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY.
Much better than I expected.
posted on 04 Aug 200930 Days of Night starts out with a fascinating introduction to its fascinating setting, Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost city in America. A quick look at Google earth with reveal this to be true – Barrow is very near Barrow Point, the northern tip of North America. I have a strange fascination with places like this. I'll probably never make it out there, but when I hear of places like that it always makes me want to visit them. For now, however, I'll have to settle for this vampire movie, which in many ways is better than average, but is less than average in many other ways. Josh Hartnett plays the town Sheriff, Eben Oleson, who spends his days crossing the t's and dotting the i's of his job, often just keeping up the formalities or other times in order to make the citizens, even the ones living alone out in the frozen wilderness, remember that they are all part of the town. You see, it's a pretty quiet life that they lead up there in the far north.Before long, however, some Strange Occurrences start taking place, with increasingly mysterious implications and circumstances, and then animals and people start turning up brutally killed. Structurally the film is pretty routine, but it's location adds a new element to the genre, and some of the photography is outstanding. There are a few aerial shots of the carnage, for example, some while the killing is actually taking place, which are some of the best shots I've ever seen in a vampire film. Similarly, the vampires themselves are impressively performed, despite your occasional overacting. The special effects and make up come together for an impressive affect that reminds me of those unbelievably creepy Asian schoolgirls in that LFO music video called "Freak." I recommend it, it's crazy.Before long, as is to be expected, you have a core group of the townspeople, the only survivors, we can presume, holed up somewhere sleeping in shifts, taking turns on watch out, rationing food, etc, and of course there is somewhere that "if they can reach it they'll have enough food to last a month." This has all been done who knows how many times, but there is something added to the personality of the vampires that I hadn't seen before. There is an interesting hierarchy to them, they are stratified with a leader and his minions followed by I imagine an army of lower level vampires that obey orders. In order to achieve motive for the screenplay's need for the whole town to be exterminated, the leader actually makes a clever statement, telling his followers that it has taken them centuries to make people believe that they were just a bad dream, so the humans all had to be destroyed to prevent the escape of any eyewitnesses. Evidently he's unaware of the real world response that a group of people would get from the rest of America if they were to come forward and claim that a horde of vampires had wiped out the entire population of the country's northernmost city. And one thing that I have to mention, the ending of the film (which is generally the worst part of most horror movies) is outstanding. Sheriff Oleson, in order to save the rest of the survivors, infects himself with vampire blood and then battles the vampires on his own before he fully transforms into one of them. There is, of course, going to be the standard complaint that the sun doesn't "set" one day and then lead to 30 days of darkness, but I should think that such a thing is irrelevant to a movie like this. In reality, think of it like the sun rises lower and lower in the sky as winter approaches, finally doing sort of a ring along the horizon for some time during winter, at which time it's never really daytime and never really nighttime. I've always wanted to see that. Although the movie is not without plot holes (there is an eerie shot of a ship ominously approaching the shore in the opening of the movie, which one of the vampires watches with some mixture of fascination and fear, and yet we never find out anything about it), the last shot in the movie is the perfect ending to the story, and the movie also, by the way, has what might be the most graphic beheading I've ever seen. If you're into that, don't miss this one!
The Best Vampire Movie Since Blade 2
posted on 02 Aug 2009Based on the acclaimed graphic novel of the same name, 30 Days Of Night utilises a premise so obvious that you wonder why it's never been filmed before. A small Alaskan town is plunged into darkness for thirty days of the year and a small army of vampires decide to make use of the lack of light to indulge in a feeding frenzy.The vampire genre in the celluloid world has become somewhat tired over the years and the familiarity we have them has lessened their impact. However, 30 Days Of Night goes some way towards refreshing things by portraying vampires as primal creatures which run around in packs ripping out throats with rows of needle-like teeth and spraying blood all over the place. Make no mistake; these aren't your Anne Rice vampires. These things are lethal killing machines with more in common with a group of wild dogs than human beings. They don't want to seduce you. They want to suck your veins clean as quickly as possible.This is a bloody movie - and rightly so. A wonderful scene early in the movie shows the impact of the vampires' rampage throughout the town as the camera flows overhead following trails of red which glisten upon the pure white snow. These things are messy eaters you see - imagine thirty days of gorging on blood and never wiping your face, and that's what these vampires look like.That's not to say that these vampires have no personality. The lead vampire in particular (played by the wonderful Danny Huston - an actor whose performances I've enjoyed in Children Of Men and The Constant Gardener) is an identifiable character dripping in menace whilst peering at his victims with soulless black eyes.The human characters are well cast here and each gets their own moment to shine. I've never really been a big fan of Josh Hartnett but he does a good job at portraying a man whom others look up to. As the town's Sheriff, the job of protecting the few survivors falls to him and you can see the pain and grief on his face as those around him are gradually turned into slabs of bloody meat. That this is David Slade's second feature length movie after Hard Candy is certainly impressive. Every shot captured by the cameras is a thing of beauty and manages to translate the soul of the graphic novel to the screen. I enjoyed the fact that the story gets moving almost from the first scene. You won't have to sit through half an hour of character back-story - the town's attack is already in motion by the time the opening credits have rolled.30 Days Of Night is, without a doubt, one of the best horror movies of 2007 and I look forward to seeing Slades' next feature, whatever it be.
Not a vampire movie
posted on 02 Aug 2009The thing about vampires is that they're human monsters. The human part of them is what makes them more creepy, and attractive. I agree with a previous comment - these are more like fast moving zombies than vampires. They certainly devoured people more like zombies than vampires. The vampires in this film were just monsters, and not particularly scary either - they were a bit creepy, but their screeches were annoying and over-used. The made-up language wasn't the best idea either - what, you learn a new language when you get turned? Hm.The human characters were pretty good, but there wasn't much depth to them so it was hard, I thought, to be that bothered when they were killed or turned. I also saw a lot of things coming in this movie, which is shocking because I hardly ever see things coming. As soon as that big grindy-choppy machine was shown, near the beginning, it was plain that someone, and/or part of someone was going to fall in to this at some point.I thought this movie was exceedingly average, and I think it's going to disappear into cinema history without much of a trace. The reviews I've read claim that this is a 'genuinely chilling horror' and that the vampires are 'genuinely scary'. I disagree on both counts. Using the long nights of the poles was a good excuse for a movie though, almost surprised no one's thought of it before actually.Chalice
Very good vampire movie since long time
posted on 31 Jul 2009The suspense built-up and the first half of the movie was quite good. It will hold your attention till the end and overall it was a good movie. Sound effects, acting, direction and cinematography was impressive. Some of the sequences are very gore, which actually adds up to the quality required for this kind of thriller. Camera angles in some of the sequences are awesome. It is actually a very good vampire movie in a long time. Go watch it in the cinemas to feel the tension built by sound effects. Very well done...!Surely it is 7 out of ten.
Not For The Romantic Dracula Fan
posted on 30 Aug 2009Looking for love from the Ol' Toothy Guy? Want desirable vampires that women can't resist? If that's your take on Dracula, you best look elsewhere. This is a true, blood-and-guts, horror film, so that's what awaits you when you pay for your cinema ticket for 30 DAYS OF NIGHT.Director David Slade of HARD CANDY fame is becoming known for the psychological aspects of his films. The aforementioned Hard Candy was shockingly excellent, with the story turning the tables again and again on a pedophiliac relationship that made viewers squirm in their seats.And here, again, Slade shows us that he can jump into an old legend and put a new spin on things. Vampire movies are a dime-a-dozen, most of them severely romanticizing the toothy villains. But Slade gives them no sway. In 30 Days Of Night they are brutal, strong, extremely old, and after only one thing: fresh meat to satiate their insatiable hunger.The unfortunate victims of their bloodthirst is the Alaskan town of Barrow. Anyone who knows anything about geography and oil knows that Barrow is at the "top of the world," cradled on the edge of the arctic ocean where the Alaskan pipeline is the dominant feature. It also means that this little shanty-ish town is well above the arctic circle, a place where the sun disappears entirely for many winter weeks. Sounds like a buffet brunch for the ancient fanged cohorts, no? I mean, they don't have to worry about the sun, and there are hundreds of these weak humans running around in the dark. What's not to love! Problems quickly become evident as Sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett, LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN) runs into a sudden rash of crimes. All of the cell phones in town are discovered burned on a hillside. Every last sled dog is found murdered. The sole helicopter in town is found dismantled and destroyed. And a lone Stranger (Ben Foster, HOSTAGE) wanders into town with gloom and doom surrounding him. This Stranger runs afoul of the local constabulary and is rushed to a jail cell ...which is when things really start going downhill for the people of Barrow.The last day of sun comes and goes, and a Russian ship sits idly in a hidden bay. Off this ship comes pure trouble. With no need to hide from the sun, these ancient vampires are free to roam and kill at their leisure. The people of Barrow are easy pickings.During all of the ensuing chaos, Sheriff Oleson is also battling a separation from his wife Stella (Melissa George, DARK CITY), who is forced to stay in Barrow after having an unfortunate car accident. It is her, her husband, and a small band of survivors who are the final holdouts within Barrow. Discovering that the only way to kill these vampires is to behead them, the Sheriff and his shrinking townspeople are forced to do the unthinkable, sometimes to friends who have been "turned" into vampires.The ending is a bit sappy but filmed pretty well. The psychological aspects of it are impressive considering what the Sheriff is forced to do in order to save the town and the wife he now loves again (who needs marriage counseling when you've got human-devouring bloodsuckers to worry about?) But this film isn't without its problems. From the very beginning, it is obvious that the film makers spent zero time researching how the sun sets above the arctic circle (it doesn't come straight down onto the horizon but slants into it at an extreme angle). And the sun doesn't stay up for long during the last day before it vanishes. It's probably up just a few moments before it sinks below the horizon again and is NEVER up very high in the sky.The acting is so-so with Hartnett pulling in an okay lead performance. Ben Foster as "The Stranger" is creepily menacing and filthy, enough to send a few shivers up your spine. The vampires themselves were the most interesting, their communication often being more of a clicking sound than words, and some of them looking almost neanderthal-ish, giving them a very ancient appearance.But the film is good in that it doesn't spoonfeed the audience any information. We're not exactly sure how old these vampires are, nor exactly how many are left (although it appears these are "the last of their kind"). We're also never privy to the Sheriff and his wife's marital difficulties, it being internalized by the characters and only felt via them (which was quite refreshing ...we didn't need to know this information, only how they were going to survive for a month against these monsters).This is a gore-fest, too, with plenty of crimson for the hardcore horror fan. But it doesn't go over the top. Only one beheading is truly shown and it was a powerful scene meant to shock you. And, like the movie, it's an assault on your senses. A good assault, that is.