(*Note: I had seen this film on the past weekend, but because I have been covering the ‘Toronto After Dark Film Festival,’ this was the only time I had to post the review. Sorry for the delay.)
I had been looking forward to ’30 Days of Night’ since the beginning of this year. It has been on my top five must see film list of 2007, and once I heard David Slade was directing, (director of last year’s amazing indie, ‘Hard Candy.’) I was ecstatic and counting the days until the highly anticipated vampire movie was released.
For the very few people out there who don’t know what the movie is about, it’s about a small Alaskan town which is going into their month of darkness. During this time, a large group of bad ass vampires arrive to the town to feast on an “all you can eat” buffet of locals.
So was ’30 Days of Night’ worth biting your teeth into, or was it another critical failure from ‘GhostHouse Pictures’? Read on for details.
THE GOOD
A lot of people were worried that Josh Hartnett was not right for this horror film, (even though he excelled in his performances in ‘H20’ and ‘The Faculty’) but he was able to give a solid performance as the strong Sheriff Eben Olemaun. He was also able to make me forget that essentially he was too young for the role he had to play.
The other actor that also stood out was Ben “scene-stealer” Foster, as the Renfield-like character that brings the mayhem to the small town. He didn’t have much to do, but when he was onscreen, all eyes were on him.
Now let me say, the vampires in this film are by far the scariest vampires I have EVER seen onscreen. The make up was amazing and quite impressive. Kudos to the people responsible for the special effects. They definitely exceeded all my expectations!
The best character however in the film was the small town itself. It provided a great and unique setting for a vampire film, (even though I had already seen this done in last year’s Swedish Vampire flick, ‘Frostbiten’) and I felt just as isolated as the characters for I knew that there was NO ESCAPE for them until daylight finally came.
Although the most bold thing about this movie was the minimal use of a score. (Something rarely done in mainstream horror films) The uncomfortable quietness throughout matched the somber and dark mood of the film, and made some scenes very unsettling to watch. (Particularly one attack on a couple in their home.)
THE BAD
For a movie that has possibly the scariest looking vampires ever seen on film, it sure was lacking in the “scares” department. In fact, the vampires were also revealed WAY too early into the film, which unfortunately took away any elements of mystery to them.
I wish the filmmaker had used the vampires to their full advantage instead of taking the easy route and polluting the film with many mainstream “boo” scares.
Also, a lot of the action sequences were a huge disappointment. Most of the sequences were shot way too fast, and the audience is only revealed truly great and effective “money shots” of the violence near the climax of the film.
Additionally, I felt the title of the movie should have been changed from ’30 Days of Night’ to ‘One horribly LONG night’ because that’s what it felt like. Several days pass off-screen, and the only change we see with the characters is Josh Hartnett’s beard (or should I say ‘neatly groomed goatee with slight stubble’) keeps getting thicker. We don’t see any effects or tolls the situation has been taking on the characters. Unfortunately, because of the lack of character exposition, I found it hard to feel for any of the supporting cast who eventually became late night snacks for the vampires.
OVERALL
’30 Days of Night’ is not a perfect film by any means, but it is by far one of the best (if not the best) vampire movies in the past decade. Despite its flaws, it still made for an enjoyable time in the theatres. I congratulate ‘GhostHouse Pictures’ for finally making a decent and solid horror film. Bring on the ‘Dark Days’ sequel! I give this film a rating of 7 out of 10.
