30 Days of Night
Directed by:
David SladeCinematography:
Jo WillemsComposer:
Brian ReitzellCast:
Josh Hartnett, Melissa George, Danny Huston, Ben Foster, Mark Boone Junior, Mark Rendall, Amber Sainsbury, Manu Bennett, Joel Tobeck, Elizabeth Hawthorne (more)VOD (2)
Plots(1)
In a small Alaskan town, thirty days of night is a natural phenomenon. Very few outsiders visit, until a band of bloodthirsty, deathly pale vampires mark their arrival by savagely attacking sled dogs. But soon they find there are much more satisfying thirst-quenchers about: human beings. One by one, the townspeople succumb to a living nightmare, but a small group survives - at least for now. The vampires use the dark to their advantage, and surviving this cold hell is a game of cat and mouse - and screams. (Columbia Pictures US)
(more)Videos (3)
Reviews (11)
I liked Hard Candy, but 30 Days of Night almost took my breath away. Why almost? Because the ending was not very believable and the last scene doesn’t fit the film at all. But I have no complaints about the first half: perfect atmosphere, terrifying vampires, effective jump-scares, sharp axe… One of the best horror films of the year and a well deserved 85%.
()
"30 Days of Night" is a film that captivated me with its intimate atmosphere, a relatively simple yet powerfully developed story, and scenes that have engraved themselves in my memory. It doesn't matter how many times you see a similarly terrifying little girl, it always gets to you. At least that's how it works for me. Within the realm of action horror movies, this film consistently stands out as exceptional, thanks in part to its genuine ability to be considered a horror film.
()
David Slade high-fives Sam Raimi, takes a compelling comic book premise, makes us forget about his tragic first film, and serves up arguably the most impressive "A" horror hit of the season. After the ridiculous attempts over the last few years, when vampires were put into latex, etc., predators finally appear on the screen, finally giving us sheer terror. The work with the initial tension and the subsequent massacre is a perfect example of how to effectively build up not only the scene but the film as a whole. The two-hour runtime perhaps deserved more careful script treatment (the occasional lapse in logic or plot deafness), but the unpleasant chills make up for it. Josh Hartnett has finally become a man, the citizens of the backwoods throw out a sharp catchphrase here and there, and the ride with the milling machine is now part of the golden fund. And although horror history won't be radically rewritten via this film, a good few lines of it are sure to be memorable. If only for the fact that most of the people sitting in the movie theater only started eating their popcorn as they were leaving.
()
The comic book of the same name became a literary event of the year in its genre, not thanks to its average script that relies on a single clever idea, but thanks to the blurred original artwork of Ben Templesmith, which elevated the work to art. His graphic style is economical, and surrealistic, relying on readers' imagination and focusing on striking, unpleasant details that evoke a sense of hopelessness and cruelty. I have the comic book at home, and it is one of my favorites. I was curious about how its film adaptation would turn out, especially since the book can be read almost like a film script and has great film potential. Thus, my disappointment was even greater when I saw the result. True, a certain visual resemblance can be traced between the film vampires and the ones from the comics, as well as the original idea and basic story being adopted. However, while the comic monsters exude sinister majesty and demonic characteristics, the film ones resemble sick creatures infected with Ebola and rabies at the same time. The villains from the comic can be brutal murderers in one second, only to transform into polished companions in the next moment, who perversely play with their next victim with an elegant smile on their faces. The film versions emit only inhuman screams and evoke pity. Increasing tension, fear of the unknown, and isolation emanate from each comic panel, later followed by the brutality of a brutal massacre and the hopelessness of the survivors. Comics can advance the plot and evoke a lot of emotions with just one full-page image of a snowstorm - it is impossible not to think of the long shots of a snowy landscape in Carpenter's cult classic The Thing, which, along with a simple musical motif, managed to create unpleasant tension. The film lacks what made the comic famous - atmosphere. Atmosphere is is what is originality in a film, as well as accurate work with sound, cleverly shot scenes, and visually impressive camera shots. Because David Slade lacks aesthetic sensitivity and especially a sense of composition, he tries to create an impression only with techniques typical of music videos - that is, masks, fast cuts, and frantic camera movements. This may be enough for those who grew up with music videos and video games, but probably not for connoisseurs familiar with the film classics. I don't mind that Slade's film lacks artistic depth. That happens very rarely, and most viewers don't expect it or need it to be satisfied. What bothers me is that 30 Days of Night has stupid, unimpressive filmmaking that can satisfy only fans of B-movie horror and splatterpunk in this form. I saw the film only on a poor pirate copy (thank God, because I would have regretted spending money on such a thing in the movie theater for a long time), but even so, it was clear that not a single interesting and memorable scene appeared in it. I don't need to turn to film legends, for example, in the unambitious and purely television "Kingesque" film The Night Flier, I can recall five of them... In this context, the film Alien is worth mentioning. Before it, dozens, if not hundreds, of bad films about bloodthirsty creatures from space were made, which damaged the genre and majorly discredited this prop. Then one clever director came along, along with one original artist, and they proved that there are no "noble" and "debased" genres, only good and bad movies. Alien became a film event, but I highly doubt that 30 Days of Night can claim the same. Overall impression: 35%.
()
(less)
(more)
It was the tenth of January, just about the time most folks are learning to live comfortably with all the New Year's resolutions they broke, and there was one hell of a northeaster blowing outside. Six inches had come down before dark and it had been going hard and heavy since then... Thus begins King's phenomenal vampire story One for the Road. And why am I quoting it? Because it fully captures the atmosphere that abounds in Thirty Days of Night. In the first few shots. Slade made it quite raw and atmospheric. Moreover, the Saw-like cheapness in terms of the violence depicted is simple and all the more impressive because of it. It looks good and the whole introduction until the city is taken over (the bird's eye view scenes - you will understand when you see it) is absolutely perfect. But after that, the creators are no longer able to resist the shortcomings that stem from the mediocre comic book source, which managed to attract attention perhaps only because of its unconventional imagery. These are mainly plot faux-pas: excessive abbreviation, inconsistency of fragmented narration, and utter ignorance of the psychological impact of the situation on individual characters. The closer the movie draws to the end, the lower down the ladder the quality becomes. The only thing keeping it within the bounds of a decent film, are Josh Harnett and Slade's efforts to embellish it with some juicy scenes here and there. Overall, it is undoubtedly a solid achievement, which benefits quite a bit from the fact that we haven’t seen anything this in a long time. As much as Thirty looks alright, and is enjoyable in its own way, it cannot escape the stigma of simplicity and the dull mediocrity of the comic book despite all its efforts...
()
Gallery (50)
Photo © Columbia Pictures
Ads