30 Days Of Night

→ in
Tools    







30 Days Of Night Steps Into The Spotlight.


Ahhh the Vampire, that most noble of movie monsters, the suave one, the romantic deviant, the stylish claret hunter, the thinker's creature of the night. Pity the poor Vampire, for never has it seemed such an endangered species. Nowadays with the likes of 'Blade' to contend with, and the peaking popularity of its humble stablemate, the Zombie, is it curtains for the king of monsters?

On it's initial release I read alot of negative articles about '30 Days Of Night' and foolishly let them sway my opinion without even seeing the movie. Now I've finally gotten round to watching it, and despite some hang ups, my viewing experience was in the main a pleasurable one.

The plot here is simple, every winter the remote Alaskan town of Barrow is plunged into darkness for thirty days. A group of particularly vicious vampires decide to exploit this seasonal inconvenience, and use Barrow as a human buffet. What transpires is a cat and mouse game of survival with the remaining inhabitants.

'30 Days' is adapted from a graphic novel, and the first thing you notice about the film is that it looks fantastic. I don't usually like CGI (I loathe it), but here it's used sparingly to enhance scenery, weather conditions, and most strikingly, for an eye popping areal shot of carnage. The vampires are well realized, sporting a contemporary gothic look, that stays the right side of cheesy, whilst complemented by the icy setting. The gory action is also well handled, David Slade going for a pleasing balance of cut aways, wide shots, and Lucio Fulci style lingering gore close ups. Technically '30 Days Of Night' can't be faulted, indeed it's production values are delightfully glossy, but the film still has some glaring detractors.

The most unforgivable of these relates to the '30 Days' portion of the title, and the pacing/credibility issues it throws up. Slade deals with this by sporadicly adding a day number at the bottom of the screen, but all to often up to ten days elapse with no explanation. This saps away any tension, and left me scratching my head in puzzlement. It seemed a huge let down to me that a film revolving around a set time frame, couldn't effectively convey that very premise.

Secondly this is a film that hinges on us believing the heroes can survive for '30 Days' against an overwhelming enemy. Virtually no references however are made to them undertaking survival activities, this seemed very odd to me, as the film is basically a story about just that. Survival elements like them finding food (something focused on to great effect in Zombie movies) are never mentioned. Instead they constantly discuss where the best hiding place is, and how they can get there without becoming vampire brunch. That's all well and good, but when characters get separated only to miraculously appear later, already at a destination, frustration and disbelief come a knockin'.

Lastly and slightly more forgivable (this is a b-movie after all) is the acting and characterisation which never rises above wooden predictability. Unless you're a doe eyed young girl fawning over Josh Hartnett, you certainly won't give two hoots about who lives or dies. Infact the films pleasingly downbeat ending is a highlight, even if it is identical to 'Blade 2'.

I must point out at this juncture, that I liked the film despite its shortcomings. Indeed you could say it's 'mutton dressed as lamb', as underneath all the gloss, this is pretty dumb stuff. In some instances audience intelligence is totally disregarded, as gaping plot holes are left conspicuously unplugged. Strangely it still manages to be likable though, infact I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a cult favourite in years to come.

So there you have it '30 Days Of Night', an interesting if flawed little vampire flick, that's definitely worth a look. It certainly doesn't reach the heights of Kathryn Bigelow's classic 'Near Dark', but it's stylishly entertaining, and should temporarily sate vampire fan cravings.***Stars (based on 5 star rating).



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



enjoyed the movie, already a thread on it, too lazy to post a link
__________________
"A good film is when the price of the dinner, the theater admission and the babysitter were worth it."
- Alfred Hitchcock



A system of cells interlinked
In this case, the new thread is fine, Taxi. It's a full review, and I generally think it's fine if people don't want to bury their review pages deep in a thread.

That said, Future, if you plan on sticking around and doing more reviews, you may want to consider starting a review thread of your own. Chances are, if you stick with it, it will get pegged to the top of the review forum for easy access, with links to each review still appearing in the main review section, as they do now. Once a film has been out for a while, like this one, single reviews tend to sink into oblivion. The link is still present in the main review section, so the review will still get seen, but most of our long-time review writers tend to like organizing all their reviews into one thread.

It's up to you, really. I stuck to single reviews for a while, eventually pasting all my reviews into a thread (when I actually had time to write them that is). To be frank, the review section has just recently come together in its current form, and is still in a bit of flux. Chris did a bang-up job on the new section, and I believe we would like to get people looking there FIRST when they are looking for reviews, as it is much easier to navigate.

MoFo is about the forums first, and probably always will be, so, again I say, it is up to you how you would like to display, and have users access, your reviews.

Thanks

_S
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



In this case, the new thread is fine, Taxi. It's a full review, and I generally think it's fine if people don't want to bury their review pages deep in a thread.

That said, Future, if you plan on sticking around and doing more reviews, you may want to consider starting a review thread of your own. Chances are, if you stick with it, it will get pegged to the top of the review forum for easy access, with links to each review still appearing in the main review section, as they do now. Once a film has been out for a while, like this one, single reviews tend to sink into oblivion. The link is still present in the main review section, so the review will still get seen, but most of our long-time review writers tend to like organizing all their reviews into one thread.

It's up to you, really. I stuck to single reviews for a while, eventually pasting all my reviews into a thread (when I actually had time to write them that is). To be frank, the review section has just recently come together in its current form, and is still in a bit of flux. Chris did a bang-up job on the new section, and I believe we would like to get people looking there FIRST when they are looking for reviews, as it is much easier to navigate.

MoFo is about the forums first, and probably always will be, so, again I say, it is up to you how you would like to display, and have users access, your reviews.

Thanks

_S
Greetings Sedai,

Once again thanks for the advice, at the risk of sounding dumb could you tell me how to put all my reviews in one thread? I'm definitely planning on staying around (already in love with this site) and have written lots of reviews currently archived on my hard drive, that I'd like to post here.

I'd also like to add that popcorn rating system at the bottom of my reviews, but can't find an option to do so. Still getting to grips navigating round the site, so thanks for being patient with the newbie.

Cheers



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
[*rating]3[*/ratimg] =
if you delete the *s.
If you substitute 2.5 for the 3 above, it'll show
.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



A system of cells interlinked
Thanks Mark. Much appreciated.

Future - Just create a thread called "Reviews from the Future" or something, then create a new post within the thread for each review. Check out my review thread for an example if you would like. Once they are all copied over, and you are happy with the it, I can remove the old threads if you wish. Other members have some cool formating so make sure to check those threads out as well.



Will your system be alright, when you dream of home tonight?
Hey Sedai or Yods, want to move this discussion to his reviews thread
__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.
Originally Posted by Yoda
If I were buying a laser gun I'd definitely take the XF-3800 before I took the "Pew Pew Pew Fun Gun."



Thanks Mark. Much appreciated.

Future - Just create a thread called "Reviews from the Future" or something, then create a new post within the thread for each review. Check out my review thread for an example if you would like. Once they are all copied over, and you are happy with the it, I can remove the old threads if you wish. Other members have some cool formating so make sure to check those threads out as well.
Sedai - Phew, ok done all that, let me know if I've done it right. I've been adding my reviews as replies, not sure if that's the correct way to do it.

how do I make at review appear at the top?
Would also like to add a contents page that stays at the top...

UF.



Will your system be alright, when you dream of home tonight?
how do I make at review appear at the top?
Like the way I do with the review in my sig? (go there, click the on all)

Well when I first post a review, it takes you right to that post right? When this happens, copy the URL at the top, then right in your signature "New Review: movie title" highlight it, then click the the button with the thing that looks like Earth with the bar on the bottom. Past the code and then save.



The trick is actually to make the first post in the thread a table of contents, and then go back and edit it as you add them. Since the first post is a review, I'll have to hop into the database backend real quick and wedge a post in before the others.

Just post a table of contents anywhere in here and a little later, I'll change it's time to look as if it was posted just before your first review above.
__________________



The trick is actually to make the first post in the thread a table of contents, and then go back and edit it as you add them. Since the first post is a review, I'll have to hop into the database backend real quick and wedge a post in before the others.

Just post a table of contents anywhere in here and a little later, I'll change it's time to look as if it was posted just before your first review above.
Thanks Yoda,

could you also tell me how I make my most recent reviews appear right after the contents page?

Plus now I've added all my reviews to the 'Reviews From The Future' thread, please feel free to delete the loose ones.

Lastly, when I add a new review to my 'Reviews From The Future' thread, how do I make sure people know about it?

thanks for your support,

Used Future.



A system of cells interlinked
I will take care of getting rid of the loose ones when I get a chance (most likely tomorrow), as it was my idea to consolidate. Chris, if you can take care of the back-end stuff, that would rock.



could you also tell me how I make my most recent reviews appear right after the contents page?
There isn't any way, unfortunately. Posts appear in the order they are posted, and it would take some serious mucking about with that to pull this off. Even then, it'd be pretty confusing given how the board generally operates.

Now, people can choose, on their Edit Options page, whether or not they want posts to display newest first, or oldest first, but that's up to each individual user. The default, of course, is oldest first.

Lastly, when I add a new review to my 'Reviews From The Future' thread, how do I make sure people know about it?
Well, any thread with new posts shows up as bold to each user, and shows up when they click on "New Posts." Most of your reviews (we may miss a few) will be tagged for display in the User Reviews area, as well. And obviously anyone who subscribes to your thread will receive email notifications when it's replied to.

Other than that, it's up to you; the most common and straightforward way is to make note of your latest review in your signature. If you post quality reviews on a regular basis, lots of regulars will take notice, and it'll only be a matter of time before your thread is among those singled out for display at the top of the Movie Reviews forum. Also, our newsletter (which we send out every 4-6 weeks) sometimes higlights a particularly good User Review in the User Review Spotlight section.



There isn't any way, unfortunately. Posts appear in the order they are posted, and it would take some serious mucking about with that to pull this off. Even then, it'd be pretty confusing given how the board generally operates.

Now, people can choose, on their Edit Options page, whether or not they want posts to display newest first, or oldest first, but that's up to each individual user. The default, of course, is oldest first.


Well, any thread with new posts shows up as bold to each user, and shows up when they click on "New Posts." Most of your reviews (we may miss a few) will be tagged for display in the User Reviews area, as well. And obviously anyone who subscribes to your thread will receive email notifications when it's replied to.

Other than that, it's up to you; the most common and straightforward way is to make note of your latest review in your signature. If you post quality reviews on a regular basis, lots of regulars will take notice, and it'll only be a matter of time before your thread is among those singled out for display at the top of the Movie Reviews forum. Also, our newsletter (which we send out every 4-6 weeks) sometimes higlights a particularly good User Review in the User Review Spotlight section.
Many thanks Yoda,

I've now added a contents page to my thread, and would really appreciate it if you could make that my oldest post,

Cheers



\m/ Fade To Black \m/
Fair play this sounds a really good film really looking forward to seeing it
__________________
~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~

~When im listening to Metallica, Nothing else matters~

N3wt's Movie Reviews New DVD Thread Top-100



I just saw this movie a few weeks ago...I was a bit disappointed...
I can't get into 'goofy' vampires...
Vampires that are basically 'geeks' with fangs...

I'm a Decon Frost guy(blade)...now he was cool, in my opinion, or the Lost boy vampires, they had swagger...
The vamps in this movie just seemed 'stiff'...and to 'dumb' to have survived as long as they had...

Another cool vamp was Tom cruises character in 'Interview with a vampire'...

Some vamps are convincing...you can see and feel the aged wisdom in them, and other vamps your like 'Ok, how did it survive 500 years while making so many mistakes?'...



In my opinion one of the better Vamp movies.
Agreed. I did love the overall essence of the Vampire. In a time when our country is poisioned by the likes of Edward Cullen, the vegetarian romatic sissy of the vampire world, it's nice to look back and see how dark and evil they really should be.
__________________
Ladies And Gentlemen:
The New Orleans Saints are Superbowl Champions!
We are New Orleans
We are Louisiana
And WE ARE BACK!



I am typically not a great fan of vampire films. However,this movie is a new take on an old legend. The setting is fantastic and what could be more scary than 30 days of endless night when you are besieged by vampires. These are not your fathers vampires,nothing seductive or even campy about these guys. They are what the vampire was originally supposed to have been..SCARY! I think of all setting..an arctic or Alaskan frozen,isolated area is a great stage for horror and suspense. Movies like Howard Hawks "The Thing from Another World" and its 1982 sequel "The Thing" use the same setting with admirable results. Even the underrated Stephen King mini-series "Storm of the Century" uses the same cold,barren and isolated setting to create tension,despair and hopelessness. The acting is average,if not slightly above,and the mood and lighting are very good. All in all a movie that made you crave a little more when it ended..and that is what all movies strive for. Although it could have had a few improvements and should have provided a little more background for the story(things sort of just go to hell all at once),it is most definitely a film worth a couple hours of your time.



I am typically not a great fan of vampire films.
Do you like zombie films? I only ask because, as I've said a few times, I think this is basically a zombie film with vampires instead. That could explain why you liked it more than you usually like vampire films.