No one saw this? How strange.

Anyway, caught it last night, and it has all of the issues you might expect - drops the ball with the passage of time and the geography of the town, and leaves us cold (heh) and disengaged. It's also stylistically inconsistent. The hodgepodge of painterly compositions (which are admittedly beautiful) and rough shaky-cam aesthetics becomes tiresome.

Still, it's a brutal piece of filmmaking and is occasionally effective. If you are a horror fan, you could do a lot worse.

I saw it last night. It was ok, could have used quicker pacing as it takes its time getting to the good stuff. Hartnett is decent, Ben Foster is his usual memorable self in a small role. The vampires are okay even if they resemble zombies at times. Visually very good, as to be expected from director David Slade.

Grade - B

The best way I can describe this is that it's a beautiful disaster. When it's good, it's great. When it's not, it's terrible. The acting was awful from everyone, it was boring in parts (yeah, I have ADD), but at least it looked good.

out of

No, you don't have ADD. It is genuinely boring for inexcusable stretches of time. There is a lot of things to blame for that -- the one note execution, the lack of discernible or interesting characters, zero suspense.

I wouldn't say that the acting was awful from everyone. Ben Foster was entertaining.

Foster was significantly better in Alpha Dog and 3:10 to Yuma. And he was still the best part of this shit. Really, I think these may be the worst vampires in cinematic history. There's a few nice camera shots and deaths but overall it was just entertaining enough to not be completely awful. There's not a lot of films that can manage to have every single line of dialogue fall flat.

Hmmm... nicely done little vampire flick!

It contains the rare logical storyline for the genre - - I mean everything nicely explained in a way that fits the real world - - that's very rare in the vampire world...

Only thing wrong with this movie, is that it's 20 minutes too long. It wore out it's welcome, and stretched the story too hard. If this puppy had clocked in at around the ninety minute mark, it would have been an all-time classic, and rare Witherberry top ten status for a horror movie. But as it stands, it's great - - what an ending!!!

(Can't wait for the sequel!)

GREAT.

Your post means nothing without a grade damnit!

"GREAT" is his grade.

pffft what next .. people grading using a thumbs up sign?

Waaaah! So, they paved paradise and put up a parking lot. Get over it...

Okay Mr. Counting Crow.

I rate Bradley's new grading system 1 out of 5.

i give it 9 out of 5 .. which is 5 out of 5 on bradley's old scale, 2 out of 5 on a normal scale and a pffft on the new bradley scale.

Hee hee...

It's good, and definitely a visually great looking film, but it felt a little...empty in the end. It didn't really go above a typical vampire flick, other than a few really awesome scenes.

B

some parts were cool, but the vampires made me laugh more than get the chills...especially the one who looked like Adrien Brody. It's a step up from most horror films of today, though, and Ben Foster was great in his short performance.

C+

It's a boring, tedious, and silly film punctuated by some great scenes and a few brilliant moments. All notions of time, space, and logic are thrown away in favor of as much blood and gore as can be squeezed into an R-rated film. Occasionally it works - the tracking shot of the opening attack, with the blood-stained snow and the horrific screaming, is extremely effective - but the film soon grows tiresome and just gets stupider as it goes along. Of course, it's not helped by bland acting, moronic characters, and the lack of any real plot. You could do worse, but you could also do much, much better.

B+


I thought it was great. The best vampire flick in a while actually. The setting is perfect and I really think that David Slade got the style and the atmosphere down perfectly. That tracking shot above Barrow during the main vampire attack with ebing being slaughtered left and right was one of the best shots of the year. Aside from that, it had several very creepy scenes and general suspense was mostly high. The vampires were a mixed bag, in my opinion. At some points they looked really cool and terrifying...at others they looked like someone with a Down syndrome.

I think, 30 Days of Night is a movie definitely living of its atmosphere of isolation and fear and this part works very well. The movie also doesn't cut back on the gory and bloody parts as the vampire attacks are always very savage and brutal. Contrary to some other folks here, I really didn't find it to be boring at all.

The movie's major flaw that is impossible to overlook is that Josh Hartnett simply isn't good enough of an actor. He's not. He was playing a role that required more gravitas and charisma than he possesses and that hurts the film quite a bit. It's also lacking interesting characters in general, but really the main problem is Josh Hartnett here. With some really good leadi g man, I think this could have been an A-class horror flick.

You know trim away like 30 minutes and this would have been a great movie instead of a occasionally enjoyable one.

The Good

The first 40 minutes are really well handled, nice building of tension and the opening scene was aces

The central carnage shot (which Lecter also mentioned) was brilliantly filmed.

I like Josh Hartnett's performance, sue me!

Death by open Palm.

The Bad

After the central bloodbath we still have like 60% of the film to go!!! Jesus people cat and mouse doesn't work well on such a large time-scale

Speaking of time it acts like a drunken midget in this film, very annoying.

The Vampires speak in some Romanian-Eastern European mish mash language that gets annoying after 5 seconds. I was hoping the US air force would napalm the area at one point so I didn't have to listen to them anymore.

The characters produce as much empathy as a block of wood


Anyhoo its better then the reviews suggest but its no masterpiece. Sparodic flashes of visual brilliance in between the goofiness i suppose.

I'd either give this a B or B-. I'm not sure.

Are you kidding me?

D+

The idea of spending 30 days isolated with the vampires hunting you, is the only thing this film has going for it. The vampires aren't scary (what is Danny Huston doing in this film?), there are no scares to speak of, the good guys aren't worth caring for, and the ending is simply lame. And I like Josh Hartnett. He's a below average actor, but he's not bad overall. Here, he sucks. He's emotionless. The vampires showed more emotion.

*½

C+

Nothing happens pretty much for the entire film. Though its sorta creepy and the acting is solid.