My Life to Live (Vivre sa Vie) My Life to Live (Vivre sa Vie)
Oct
19
2007

30 DAYS OF NIGHT review

Posted by Jim at 12:01am.

Posted in Film & DVD Reviews , Thriller, Cult, Horror, USA & Canada.

Similar to the trembling refuges of Barrow, Alaska as portrayed in the film, horror fans have been long waiting in a state of uncertainty about “30 Days of Night”.  Rarely has an anticipated genre film such as this had as many apparent plusses as obvious red flags.  On the plus side, the source material is a highly acclaimed comic book series from horror icon, writer Steve Niles.  On the negative side, the star is Josh Hartnett, who has never improved any project he’s been associated with.  Likewise, promising newcomer David Slade, of “Hard Candy” fame, directed the film but Sam Raimi’s production company, Ghost House Pictures, which has yet to prove itself in any meaningful way to horror fans, (which, granted, is still relatively new,) put the film together.  Well, those fans can breath a sigh of relief, as “30 Days of Night” is one of the most solid cinematic bloodbaths in quite some time.

Another major check on the plus side of the film is its novel concept, kind of an “Insomnia” in reverse, with vampires.  The story takes place in the perpetually frozen town of Barrow, Alaska, a completely secluded slow-capped town that annually must endure a month of solid darkness.  Upon the eve of this extended sundown, most of the town’s families take the last plane out, leaving behind only 158 individuals to keep the place alive.  But come sundown, the horde of vamps who descend upon Barrow have opposite plans for its citizens.  Dressed in bloodied suits of black and white, these vampires are all business as they prowl the dark town like drearily determined Black Friday shoppers, their insatiable feeding frenzy fueled by their determination and sense of entitlement.

The local sheriff, played by Hartnett, and his small, well-bundled band of family members and co-workers are all that stand to pathetically oppose the invaders.  The unfortunate reality of this situation is that the humans do not stand a chance against the vamps, so logically, they spend most of the time hiding in silence.  It is this element that sets this film apart from most every other vampire film, in that it is essentially a survival tale.  As far as the horror genre is concerned, this film has more in common with zombie films such as “Dawn of the Dead” than your garden variety “Dracula” adaptation.  Lots of gore, plenty of blood, and purely apocalyptic.  Only, unlike the zombies of Romero, these antagonists are completely unsympathetic characters in their evil deeds, emphasized by the film’s first half hour, in which preparatory evidence of this premeditated attack (all communication and means of escape are cut off) baffles the locals in this typically quiet town.

In terms of vampiric cannon, “30 Days of Night” has its cake and eats it too.  Without explanation, certain traditional rules apply while others are disregarded.  Most obvious is the vampires’ fatal aversion to sunlight, which is what brings them to Barrow in the first place.  But this sunlight weakness is directly related to the traditional vampiric aversion to the Christian iconography of the cross, which the film never acknowledges.  Granted, Barrow is presented as a godless world of perpetual hopelessness, an idea further verified by the ghoulish lead vamp that at one point chillingly informs a panicking victim that there is no God.  Perhaps that is enough to explain the film’s worldview to the audience, but it does not explain why the core characters, which do in fact come to refer to these creatures as vampires, with an understanding that they simply must wait out the thirty days until sunrise, never try pulling crosses or holy water on these guys.  If “30 Days of Night” has a glaring weakness, this is it.

This is not to say that the film is ineffective – far from it.  Director David Slade has crafted a unique horror film that will no doubt stand the test of time.  The way his vampires prowl the rooftops in the backgrounds, often just out of focus, and sometimes opting not to strike, affirms his painstaking attention to visual detail.  Slade’s ability to torture an audience in the best possible ways (as evidenced in “Hard Candy”) is put to great use, even in the face of some very blatant set-up and payoff sequences that would render a lesser film utterly predictable.  Despite the noted presence of Hartnett as the leading man, the casting is 100% solid.  This solidity is not immediately evident, as Hartnett is saddled with a few oddball stand-alone lines of dialogue, but soon he settles into a John Wayne-esque persona of a lone man with a code.  He is surrounded by other broken and suffering individuals, an aspect of their lives made all the more pronounced by the sudden onslaught of horror that breaks Barrow’s sleepy spell.  Even the subplot of a romantic relationship on the mend is not as trite as it seems.

“30 Days of Night” is a solid whole accentuated with visceral scenes of hardcore action and some absolutely terrifying moments.  Thirty days may not be a long time under ordinary circumstances, but in this film, the characters and the audience alike feel the eternity it takes for the sun to rise.  The only difference is that the audience ultimately is engrossed by the darkness and subsequent terror it brings.  Here’s hoping that Slade and Raimi’s company are game to adapt the many sequel comic books that Niles and company have released over the years, maintaining and even transcending this level of quality craftsmanship.

- Jim Tudor

  • Digg This
  • Stumble It!
  • Reddit
 

Reader Comments

  1. Tuan Jim 10/19/2007 @ 1:50am

    I’ve picked up nearly the entire canon of 30DoN books in individual issues and TPBs but come to think of it, I can’t remember off the top of my head if they ever addressed the same shortcoming you mentioned in any of the books themselves.  On the flip side, in the books at least, a good shotgun blast to the face will take out almost any of them—none of the special silver and garlic bullets necessary from Blade.

  2. Kurt Halfyard 10/19/2007 @ 6:05am

    Question:  Better or Worse than 28 Weeks Later??—because much of that review seems to echo the strengths and weaknesses of that film.

  3. Jim 10/19/2007 @ 6:58am

    I haven’t seen either of the “28 Days/Weeks Later” movies yet, although I know I definitely need to ASAP.  So I have no idea how this stacks up against “Weeks”.  But I’ll certainly keep the comparison in mind when I do see it.

  4. Grady Hendrix 10/19/2007 @ 2:16pm

    I really didn’t like 30 DAYS OF NIGHT. It felt repetitive and every line of dialogue and almost every situation felt like it was lifted from another movie. There was one great overhead shot of the town in crisis and one nice set-up with a person used as bait to draw out the survivors, the gore was nice and sticky, but I spent the rest of the movie groaning and rolling my eyes. And all I could think of at the supposedly tragic ending was, “Mmm...smells like bacon.”

    Also, there were huge gaps in logic that really ruined the movie for me: sometimes the survivors can’t move an inch, sometimes they can stroll around with no problem, the town is completely overlit for a place with no power and no sunlight (it looked brighter than aisle six at Wal-Mart most of the time). It just felt sloppy and mechanical, not at all as organic as 28 WEEKS and 28 DAYS both felt to me.

  5. fell 10/19/2007 @ 11:37pm

    I have to totally disagree with your review. The movie on its own is merely mediocre. But as an adaptation of the comic series its awful. The alterations made to the original plot/sub plot make no sense whatsoever.

    Why was the sub plot of the elder vampires being invited to barrow removed? Why was the sheriff divorced? It did nothing to add to the story or plot and WASTED time that could have been dedicated to the removed sections of the original story. Why add a dozen new characters and dilute the depth collectively of ALL remaining characters? Why in gods name are the vampires speaking vulcan? Why were the vampires reduced to insect monsters. While in the comics they were definitively inhuman but not insectoids. And the elder vampires arriving to the town was a central plot point. No backstory at all for the vampires?!

    The movie dragged for a good 20 minutes in the middle and if the comic material had not been removed for pointless additions it would have made a much better movie. That said the movie isnt awful on its own merits but as a fan of the comic it has glaring flaws. Its definitively not an instant classic. I really like the effects and artistic protrayal of the vampires and the violence.

    They should have stuck to the source material ala sin city and to a lesser degree 300.

  6. The Visitor 10/20/2007 @ 3:25am

    i can’t be arsed about changes made to plot or characters in a movie adaptation of a comicbook. film is a different medium. why should the filmmakers stick faithfully to every detail in the book?

    as such, i am very interested to see the movie and what additions they may have made. the comicbook was a one-idea trick pony with a paper-thin plot and cardboard characters. i was so disappointed with it. to me, there’s nothing “groundbreaking” about the book.

    at least the movie clips and trailers i’ve seen look promising. but i’ll reserve comment till i see it.

  7. fell 10/20/2007 @ 12:11pm

    Well the movie is the comic book with all character development and plot removed. So if you think the comic was paper thin and a one trick pony i can only imagine your opinion of the movie. But your opinion is based on promising “movie” clips so i will forgive your ignorance.

  8. Michael Guillen 10/20/2007 @ 12:25pm

    Grady’s spot-on with this one.  The overhead shot of the town in crisis was the best shot.  And the lapses in logic undid the film for me as well.  As with EASTERN PROMISES, I likewise appreciated the East European cast to the vampires, in tribute to the days of yore.

  9. The Visitor 10/20/2007 @ 10:14pm

    i based my opinion of the comicbook on my reading of it. i based my opinion of the movie clips and trailers on my seeing them. i reserve comment on the entire film until i see it.

    do tell, how is it that i am ignorant?

  10. fell 10/21/2007 @ 2:00am

    I suppose calling a comic that spanned 3 issues as having a paper thin plot and a one trick pony seems informed and logical.Yet for some reason a film with infinitely more time to spend elaborating on these things provides LESS of all of the above. Source material spans 3 issues. Movie has removed every element of the comic book except the setting and that there is vampires. Sooooo we have a movie with LESS plot LESS character development LESS backstory. Magnifying all of your before stated faults by a factor of a million yet you find that a good thing? So i guess you aren’t ignorant exactly so much a moronic.

  11. The Visitor 10/21/2007 @ 2:27am

    Fell,

    show me EXACTLY where in my comments do i say the movie is better than the comicbook. show me.

    i hv stated TWICE that i would reserve comments about the film until i’ve seen it. TWICE. missing it both times is indeed “moronic.” :D

Post Your Comments

You must be a registered member to post comments.

If you have a Twitch account, click here to sign in.

If you don't have a Twitch account, click here to register. Don't worry, it's free!

Launch The Twitch Video Player

Stuff We Like

Shop at our affiliated sites and support Twitch while feeding your pop-culture addiction.

Our Latest Film & DVD Reviews

More Film & DVD Reviews...

Our Latest Interviews

More Interviews...

Recent Contests & Featured Content

Recent Comments