← Back to Reviews
in
DAY 18: September 18th, 2008.
30 Days Of Night
30 Days of Night is based on a graphic novel of the same name, it also involves Vampires killing people.
So, with that very bare minimum plot synopsis, if it does not sound like the type of film you would like, I would say skip it. 30 Days Of Night has something that other vampire flicks did not have, unlimited time. When I first heard about this film and heard that Vampires attacked a small village during these 30 days of night, I thought to myself. "How are these people going to survive...they have no daylight!!" Thus, the film peaked me interest.
The vampires (unfortunately) are not menacing enough. They look scary, but their actions are not. They have blood around their mouths, and mouths that look like a werewolf and not your every day mythological vampire. They walk around in dressy clothes and speak another language. They climb onto of buildings and hide in the shadows. It sure sounds scary, so why isn't it? I don't know, the atmosphere itself should have been one of the better parts of the film, but not once did I feel trapped nor did I fear for any of the characters. None of which are likable.
I will give props to the blood and gore department. I did not expect it to be as bloody as it was. Foster is the only character worth watching, while some think he tends to overact (3:10 To Yuma) I really dig him. He was the best part of Hostage for crying out loud. The lead should have been someone older as well. I did not believe Hartnett in this role for one moment. What made it even worse was the ending, how inane was it? What was going to be a decent flick, takes a horrible turn in the last ten minutes.
I did like the overhead tracking shot of the village though, very well done.
30 Days Of Night
30 Days of Night is based on a graphic novel of the same name, it also involves Vampires killing people.
So, with that very bare minimum plot synopsis, if it does not sound like the type of film you would like, I would say skip it. 30 Days Of Night has something that other vampire flicks did not have, unlimited time. When I first heard about this film and heard that Vampires attacked a small village during these 30 days of night, I thought to myself. "How are these people going to survive...they have no daylight!!" Thus, the film peaked me interest.
The vampires (unfortunately) are not menacing enough. They look scary, but their actions are not. They have blood around their mouths, and mouths that look like a werewolf and not your every day mythological vampire. They walk around in dressy clothes and speak another language. They climb onto of buildings and hide in the shadows. It sure sounds scary, so why isn't it? I don't know, the atmosphere itself should have been one of the better parts of the film, but not once did I feel trapped nor did I fear for any of the characters. None of which are likable.
I will give props to the blood and gore department. I did not expect it to be as bloody as it was. Foster is the only character worth watching, while some think he tends to overact (3:10 To Yuma) I really dig him. He was the best part of Hostage for crying out loud. The lead should have been someone older as well. I did not believe Hartnett in this role for one moment. What made it even worse was the ending, how inane was it? What was going to be a decent flick, takes a horrible turn in the last ten minutes.
I did like the overhead tracking shot of the village though, very well done.