movie reviews, movie news, dvd, and movie discussion
Reviews Upcoming Podcast Forums Tech

30 Days of Night - Review

30 Days of Night Movie Poster
Rated: R
Distributor: Sony Pictures
Release Date:  2007-10-19

Starring: Ben Foster, Josh Hartnett, Melissa George, Danny Huston, Manu Bennett, Mark Boon Junior, Joel Tobeck, Craig Hall

Directed by David Slade
Produced by Sam Raimi, Robert G. Tapert
Written by Stuart Beattie, Brian Nelson

Visit the movie's Official Site!

Reviewed by Josh Tyler : 2007-10-15 14:00:06
30 Days of Night is the latest entry in a long line of vampire horror movies. Vampires have sort of gone out of vogue in the horror world recently, replaced by decomposing, lumbering zombies. Director David Slade’s movie tries to get vampires back in the thick of the scare business, and he has a gimmick. 30 Days of Night takes place in an isolated Alaskan town which, since it’s so far north, spends 30 days of the year in complete darkness.

As gimmick’s go, it’s a good one. As the sun sinks toward the horizon for the last time, most of the tiny town’s 500 or so residents leave, preferring migration south rather than 30 days without sun. Some however, always choose to remain and the small town’s sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) marks the beginning of their 30 days of dark by adjusting their population sign to reflect its 152 remaining residents. Meanwhile, the vampires are already plotting. Someone has begun vandalizing key areas of the little village’s infrastructure. Satellite phones are stolen, and burned. The town’s helicopter is mysteriously damaged beyond compare. Something is afoot, but before Oleson can figure it out, the sun is gone and it’s game over.

The vampires come on the town suddenly, and in force. The power goes out, the phones go down, the internet is gone. The nearest town is 80 miles away, there is no sun, there is no hope, no chance of defense, no semblance of order. This isn’t a siege movie where the brave sheriff holes up in a police station with a group of survivors and defends them against an attacking evil. With the disappearance of light, the handful of residents left in the dark become rabbits, helpless scared creatures whose only hope is a quick death.

Except it takes them a few hours to figure this out. Meanwhile, the vampires' attack is an orgy of brutal violence and blood spatter as humans run out into the street brandishing weapons, mistakenly thinking they can actually fight. Each attempt at self-defense is marked by a red stain on the snow, and soon the defenders are gone and the vampires move on to crashing through houses and killing everyone else. By then Sheriff Oleson and the few people he has running with him have started to realize out they have no hope, and like the prey they are, go to ground praying that they can wait for the sun’s return.

They can’t. The vampires keep coming, keep killing, keep hunting. They’re an unstoppable force and Slade never makes the mistake of letting you think his human characters have a chance. He’s so good at it, that when something does go right for them you’re surprised. Even then, there’s always a horrible price.

The film goes extremely heavy on the gore; heads are brutally severed in extreme close-ups, blood drips through the snow leaving stains of death everywhere the camera goes. There’s an aerial shot in the middle of the film which will simply blow the mind of gore-hounds, as a camera sweeps over the town in the midst of the vampires’ most vicious, massive, killing frenzy. But what’s amazing is that gore isn’t what the movie is about. It’s intense and gripping, so intense that even though you’re watching one of the goriest movies you’ve ever seen, you may not even notice. You’re too caught up in what’s going to happen next. Are the vampires coming? Will they run? Will they hide? Will anyone make it out alive?

If there’s anything wrong with 30 Day of Night, it’s only in the final act when the movie’s dwindling supply of heroes make one of those truly bizarre decisions that people only seem to make in movies. And perhaps you’ll walk out feeling a little indifferent to Josh Hartnett, who’s not ineffective as the movie’s primary protagonist, but it’s clear that bringing heat to the cold just isn’t his thing.

Ben Foster however, shows up early in the movie to turn in his second great villain performance of the year. In 3:10 to Yuma he stole the film as a perfectly groomed uber-murderer, here does a 180 and plays a grungy, slimy, stranger who wanders into town and causes trouble. As he did in Yuma, he slips completely into the character until he’s almost unrecognizable. It’s unfortunate that they didn’t find a way for him to figure more prominently into the script. He leaves an impression.

Most of all though, see 30 Days of Night if you want to be scared. It’s so rare that a modern horror movie actually delivers that. Most seem to boil down to buckets of gore or cheap, easily spotted scares. 30 Days of Night brings the gore, but mixes it with a brutal, vicious, nail biting intensity that grabs you by the hair, drags you through the street, and cuts off your head when you least expect it. David Slade hasn’t revolutionized the vampire genre, but he may make you wet your pants.

Latest Movie Reviews:

Image Gallery for 30 Days of Night
 

 

Comment on “30 Days of Night”

Note: This website is not meant for use by minors. The views expressed in the comments section below are not our own. This section is intended for discussion of the topic in the post above. Disagreement is encouraged, however comments which attack, insult, or threaten the author in a personal manner won't be published. Similarly, comments that we deem to be poorly worded, or wildly off topic will also not be approved and may be mocked. For free, uncensored, unfettered, and possibly dangerous discussion visit our forum.
  1. Kris Says:

    Like Ryan Gosling, Ben Foster is one of the most underrated, ridulously talented young actors out there. Its a shame the way he is so underused... this guys just seethes intensity. Alpha Dog, especially, man its hard to beleiev that is the SAME guy who played Angel in X3... its crazy how good he is...
    With 30DON, I cant wait to see it...

  1. Kristina Says:

    I agree with you on Ben Foster! Love him! Very talented

  1. Doug Says:

    This movie sucked. Wet my pants? Maybe if I was four years old. Yes, the premise is good, and that's all. I love the little snippets of vampire philosophy that mean absolutely nothing throughout. Ben Foster's character goes nowhere. So he slips into the role. So what? It's not that good a role. Oh, and these powerful vampires, who can apparently run down a truck, and smell blood, can't find all the people in this tiny town? Movie logic. Go figure. And then they just let the woman and the girl walk off? Why? Just because their leader got killed they aren't hungry anymore. Yeah...stupid, stupid movie.

  1. Jeremy Says:

    This ties with Transformers as worst movie of the year. Scary? Oh god...please. This was embarrassingly NOT scary. Josh Tyler...COME ON, man. People pretending to be vampires pretending to be velociraptors? That's scary? They hiss the whole time. And you can NOT tell me the little girl saying "I'm done playing with this one" was a line you were creeped out by. Please. For the love of God. Take this movie down by 4 stars. Danny Huston...oh poor Danny Huston. When these stupid things "talk" it's absolutely ridiculous. It was an ingenious premise just absolutely murdered by a hack director, David Slade. And yes, "Hard Candy" was mediocre. Ellen Page was embarrassing in that film. Patrick Wilson was the only decent actor...and it wasn't with help from Slade. These vampires could have been so much better, but Doug said it best - STUPID, STUPID movie.

  1. JoshT Says:

    Transformers... worst movie of the year? You and I could not possibly have less in common. No wonder you hated 30 Days of Night. I bet you also hate Christmas.

  1. Gabe K. Says:

    Ok transformers was ok..thank god for Megan fox and her rockin body...section 7 guy? yeah not so much.

    30 Days of Night was kinda scary because of the loud noises but nothing on screen was terrifing. The gore was out of control. I dont know how anyone could miss it...I'm suprised that the whole movie wasn't filmed with a red lense because you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. When the other deputy got his hand chopped off and started to change and they chopped his head off up close and personal...I'm pretty sure you cant show that lol.
    As for them trying to make it personal and sad and emotional...really it just seemed cheap and flimsy and you just hoped that they would die to get it over with. Those scenes seemed out of place in this movie. I want to read the comics now though to get a better understanding of how the movie was supposed to be.

  1. Shea Love Says:

    This movie isn't even close to your star ratings. What in the world were you guys smoking? This movie offered no thrills, shocks or drama. It was way too long and the characters were simply boring. Apart from Gosling (3:10 to Yuma) no one stood out. I'm sitting there watching this movie dumb-founded by the main characters decisions (running from one location to the next) and those lame 'vampires', who all seem to have thier voice box ripped out. Enough with the stupid annoying 'shrieking' already!!! It was like watching a mash-up of: John Carpenter's "The Thing" (sub zero surroundings), Dawn of The Dead, Jurrassic Park ('vampire's veloraptor screams) and of course..."Underworld" (Josh Harnett become a super 'hybrid' vampire/human!!!) As for the totally cheeseylast scene at sunrise...Where did I see that ending before...Hmmm, ''Blade'' maybe.
    This movie was sooo dissapointing. Sucks.

  1. vj Says:

    Reffering to Doug and Jeremy 's comments ... i would like to know whats the best horror movie you guys have ever seen ..i'll give my feedback accordingly ...Good and entertaining ...i believe that's what we all expect in a movie

  1. Shogo C. Says:

    i dont know what you guys are thinking. The movie was awesome. Maybe you just have nothing better to do. It was an awesome movie. Josh Hartnett didn't need to be there, but it was a great movie.

    They just should've put Karl Urban as the sherriff. he would've been better.

    I think it's worth its stars.

  1. vicky Says:

    30 days of night, the title made it sound very interesting. plus the detailed summary.

    IT WAS RUBBISH.

    anyone could've bloody made this movie.

    vampires??? they weren't vampires at all. i could've been a better vampire than that.
    just some scummy goth with blood down his face eating some human flesh. not even scary.

    give it 1 star.
    doesn't deserve anymore than that to be honest.

    this film was like.. a good idea, which actually smacks you in the face to have watched it and realised it was utter shit, it was a waste of a couple of hours or whatever.
    it gives you that sick feeling of regret.

  1. Mr Cooper Says:

    I agree, this film was a let down! How did the vamps come about? where did they come from? How did the tramp stranger know about them? I had no attachment to any of the characters! And why oh why did the big fat man smash the truck into the pub? Surely he could have been more usefull!!!!

  1. Kelly Says:

    I really liked this movie! Some of you people are such critics...quit complaining!!

  1. Katie Says:

    Eh, the movie was somewhat watch-able, but not one that I'd recommend. The plot didn't seem to be properly thought out, as they kept running from one place to the next without any sort of explanation. It was extremely difficult to feel any sort of 'connection' with any of the characters, which made it impossible to warm to the 'love' story, which in turn made for a rubbish ending... (a complete rip-off from Blade, by the way!) ... Yes, it was definitely gory & the premise behind the story should've made for a great film, but some things just didn't make sense & it left me feeling annoyed throughout most of it! It's just a good job that Josh is so prettyful, otherwise I would've given up on it altogether ;)

  1. Mari Says:

    This was by far, one of the WORST movies I have ever seen in theaters; a complete waste of ten dollars. The vampires weren't the least bit frightening, in fact they were quite comical. I just had to laugh when these derranged Marilyn Manson-esque charecters hissed a growled thier way through the entire movie while mericilessly massacring everything in sight. The amount of blood and gore was definately unnecessary, it was utterly disgusting and not fightening at all. The acting overall was horrible, especially Josh Hartnett's pathetic younger brother who started weeping after killing a demonic vampire child. Describing this movie as "awful" even gives too much credit- it was beyond dreadful. How could you possibly give it four and a half stars?? I give it as many negative stars as possible.
    AND, the cheesey sunrise scene in the end was just the cherry on top of this pathetic horror film. I'm glad Josh Hartnett turns to ash and blows away with the wind as his formerly estranged wife holds him in her arms. He deserves to never see the sunrise again after staring in such an appalling movie.

  1. Anthony Says:

    The film was poo!!! It was so wooden!!!! Josh Hartnett gave us his usuall wooden performance you expect from him now. He was so wooden i thought he was a table in one scene!!!!! (Ok harnett fans sit down he was alright in lucky number slevin)

    The story was all over the place have to agree there was no great connection between the characters which was a real letdown. I walked into the cinema thinking this is going to be so cool and it just wasn't and it quickly turned from a horror film to something i actually enjoyed mocking for 1 hr and 53 minutes, and the final scene!!!! What the hell that was among the most chessyest moments in cinema history i had to let out a huge burst of laughter as did many others.

  1. Jujo Says:

    I thought the movie was enteraining to watch. I mean it's just a movie. I also thought the vampires were pretty cool. I mean....instead of the usaul fang vampires running around sucking on blood and having 3 somes. They gave a little bit of a twist to it. Plus... Ive seen some real conry vampire movies in my time...by far some were not even close to be scary. This movie wasn't scary but the plot to it was OK. I mean almost all horroe movie's thses day's are just plain wack. The only horror that I really considered good was DAWN OF DEAD (New). And that was like three or four years ago that movie came out. I agree the characters were lame i 30 days of night but the fact that you're stuck in a town with tons vampires with no sun for 30 days with no where to run and no to save you is pretty scary thought. I also agree that the ending was cheesy. Josh turning into a vampire and killing the the leader was just too much. Rememer people we go to the movies to get away from the real world. To let your mind rome free. If you like a more down to earth movie. Then go watch a drama. Don't complain that the vampires are so fake. When in realty they are fake.

  1. david Says:

    this movie was awesome! i cant stop watching it! danny huston did an amazing job nailing down his character. he has the perfect qualities of a vampire that a vampire should have. it must be hard as hell to even try to invent a "vampire" language on your own as part of your job. josh did a great job too. his acting was well performed. the ending leads us to believe that there will be a sequal?? (by the look in stellas eyes at the end) i pray that there will be a sequal since the movie only covers 30 days of a 65 day long night-time period. (barrow alaska stays dark for 65 days in real life. the sun only comes up a couple of times during that period and only for a few hrs.... so hopefully they will cover more of that in a second film.

  1. Paul Says:

    Loved this movie.

    Out of all the horror flicks I watched, this was by far my favorite and the best movie I watched in 2007.

    The cast, story, atmosphere and gore were incredible. It is hard to find a horror movie with a creative story and cast.

    SPOILERS




    The two scenes that stuck to my head were:

    - The overhead shot of the vampires slaughtering the entire town. Normally, you see victims getting plucked one by one. However, this scene was a complete massacre showing the majority of the town getting hunted down and killed. This particular scene gave me the feeling that how could anybody survive this?

    - The part where the vampires use the girl as bait to try to lure the survivors from hiding. This scene was very disturbing. Before the girl dies, she is crying and says "Oh God," as she is circled by the pack of vampires about to be killed. The leader stares at her with these unblinking possum eyes and replies, "God?" Shakes his head "No God"
    Normally, horror movies end with a quick kill and skips to the next scene. In this case, she is cut over and over very slowly.

  1. sara and emma Says:

    This was the most ridiculous movie we have ever wasted 5 dollars on! How was it even allowed to be released in theatres? i really dont undertand. I really dont understand where the 1st scene in the movie. The guy aimlessly walks around in the snow, looks at a boat, and walks up to the waht appears to be town. Yes i justdertand that is the guy that goes to jail, but what purpose does that scene serve. it tells us nothing at all.

    The actors were all shit except the messenger of the vampires, and the big guy who runs the plow thing into the building. other than thta, i could have portrayed a vampire better than that. And what was with the skreacking? was it really nessecary? if i was in theatres i would have been making the same noise back to them. it was so annoying.
    and the language? why couldnt they just speak english like the little girl? and why were the subtitles the same color as the snow? it take a genious to figure that out!!!

    There was no plot, why did they just keep moving? why didnt they just stay in the attic when the vampires ran over them on the roof, and walked around under them, without even noticing them? uh duh????
    i know there woouldnt have really been much more of a movie, but it would have been better off that way. i would have rather watched them sit in an attic than what was played out in the movie.

    and the rating? wtf? this guy gave this movie a 4 and a half stars? did he even watch the movie? or did he watch the trailor off of youtube that summed up the WHOLE ENTIRE MOVIE in 3 minutes. i didnt even need to watch the movie, after i watched the trailor. i thought that there would be more to it, but i seemed to be proven wrong!

    please dont ever make a movie, dont try and bring vampires back, that is what underworld was for. at least they do a good job!

    all i have to say is that this movie sucked ASS, and i will for now on look at the producer, and writer of the movies i watch and will never see one written by this guy again.
    and that is a PROMISE!!!

  1. sara and emma Says:

    This was the most ridiculous movie we have ever wasted 5 dollars on! How was it even allowed to be released in theatres? i really dont undertand. I really dont understand where the 1st scene in the movie. The guy aimlessly walks around in the snow, looks at a boat, and walks up to the waht appears to be town. Yes i justdertand that is the guy that goes to jail, but what purpose does that scene serve. it tells us nothing at all.

    The actors were all shit except the messenger of the vampires, and the big guy who runs the plow thing into the building. other than thta, i could have portrayed a vampire better than that. And what was with the skreacking? was it really nessecary? if i was in theatres i would have been making the same noise back to them. it was so annoying.
    and the language? why couldnt they just speak english like the little girl? and why were the subtitles the same color as the snow? it take a genious to figure that out!!!

    There was no plot, why did they just keep moving? why didnt they just stay in the attic when the vampires ran over them on the roof, and walked around under them, without even noticing them? uh duh????
    i know there woouldnt have really been much more of a movie, but it would have been better off that way. i would have rather watched them sit in an attic than what was played out in the movie.

    and the rating? wtf? this guy gave this movie a 4 and a half stars? did he even watch the movie? or did he watch the trailor off of youtube that summed up the WHOLE ENTIRE MOVIE in 3 minutes. i didnt even need to watch the movie, after i watched the trailor. i thought that there would be more to it, but i seemed to be proven wrong!

    please dont ever make a movie, dont try and bring vampires back, that is what underworld was for. at least they do a good job!

    all i have to say is that this movie sucked ASS, and i will for now on look at the producer, and writer of the movies i watch and will never see one written by this guy again.
    and that is a PROMISE!!!

  1. Endo Says:

    Horrible horrible film, all partys involved should be ashamed. Steaming pile of shit.
    There where so many things wrong with it - the vampires talking amongst themselves while us the audience sit in trying to guess what they're saying? The terrible acting, terrible script, terrible plot, terrible everything. Waste of damn time.

  1. GreatlyDissapointed Says:

    What the hell was this about. YOu wasted my time; even though I saw it free (pirated) online. I feel horrible for giving you my hours. You need to take some lessons from Steven King and the kids who wrote SAW.

    Well, I love the actor, he is really hot but the producer is full of shit, needs to go back to school. This was trash... You have completely made Vampires look bad. Why the hell weren't they able to smell the humans as they always do. No explanation, no story.

  1. Chad Says:

    I thought it was good. Halloween the original is the best horror film ever in my opinion (since that seems to come up on here often as to what was the best horror movie ever). The action was good in this movie, the setting is perfect as well. Id give it a 7 out of 10.

  1. Justicar333 Says:

    I greatly enjoyed the movie, and consider it one of the best vampire films in recent years. Seems a few folks didn't understand some of the plot, then a lot of people in theatares are too busy using cells or goofing around. Rather than watching the film and using their noodles these days. And that is something good horror, good cinema in general does, engage the audience.

    The overhead shot was amazing, as well as watching the sheriff's descent. Would have been nice to see his x in something skimpy, but they seemed to be shying away from kinky aspects of vampirism. Can't disagree, these days vampire movies seem to be alegorical blue films more than horror. Let me suggest for newer viewers the old film Fright Night. Excellent mixture of horror, comedy, and just about the right amount of naughtyness.

    In closing, let me throw out a few things. In response to the ones that couldn't understand the opening scence. The ship carried the vampires, and their little minion up to the coast near the town. He left first, crossing the snowfild to disable communications and most travel. Leaving his masters only the cars and celluar station to deal with.

    As to why they were moving, there are several reasons. First off, they needed a heater, the attic didn't have one. Neither did the store, and I never saw them turn one on at the police station, though it may have had one. Most of these places if one was turned on, the generator noise (remember electricity is out folks) would have drawn the vampires.

    Secondly, you can't hide in the same place, when the area is being systamiticaly searched. The attic had outside windows, which showed there was a room up there. Sooner or later one would come through the window to investigate even if they never found the ladder. Not to mention since they were using the rooftops, one noise at the wrong time might be heard by the hunters. The store and police station had no hiding spots, one sweep woulda had the vamps on them. Also don't forget this is over 30 days, they occasionaly have to find food and water to survive and keep from freezing in the cold.

    Overall, I'd give this movie 8.5/10 Just a few things coulda been touched up, and expanded upon. And the vamp leader, though starting out intimidating, was revealed too much. It made him seem out of place as leader to this vicious bread of creatures.

  1. Alex Says:

    I thought the movie was pretty good, the "vampires" weren't really vampires, they were more like, flesh eating humans that sounded alot like bats. Something i REALLY didn't like about the movie was it didn't say ANYTHING at all about where the hell the vampires came from. Were they infected with a virus? From hell? WTF?

    I'd give it 3.5 stars...

  1. helen and dave Says:

    OMFG!!!!!!! We can not believe we watched this pile of shit! were they on drugs when they produced this film. My nans kinckers are more scary the this!!!!!
    I argee plot rubbish, acting rubbish everything rubbish and can you call them vampires they looked like depressed goths!!!!!!!!!!They should ban this film on the terms of being so damn shit!

  1. Simply Irrestible Says:

    Josh I am quite surprised at your review and the star rating, one must think that you have some sort of financial interest..lol. You for the most part are dead on in your reviews and I look to see what you think but this review is totally ridiculous and I hope that it did not cause anyone to waste their money given this bad economy.

    The gore was good, I will give it that, though I am not a gore head. But the movie had no premise. I felt disconnected and I could not for the life of me figure out what the heck this movie was trying to convey to me. The characters were lost in their own world, one that had nothing to do with the movie.

    Those vampires though I was impressed with their looks irked me so much with the stupid grunting, and squealing. Thank god I did not waste my money in a theater and waited until it came on cable. This would've been a total waste of time and money. So my thoughts save your money and watch it on cable, though I doubt anyone would find it so fascinating that you would want to watch it twice. 1 star for me.

  1. Deano Says:

    This film was poor. Wooden acting and woefully scripted. It annoyingly left so many questions unanswered regarding both the survivors and the vampires. Agree with Simply Irresistible that this film felt disconnected, instead of a seamless story it seemed to clumsily lurch from one sequence to another. As a director Slade cannot hold a candle to 28 Days Later's Danny Boyle. Back to directing school son!

Leave a Reply




Back to 30 Days of Night

MAIN SITE NAVIGATION
HOME l ABOUT US l l SEARCH l MOVIE NEWS l MOVIE REVIEWS l MOVIE PREVIEWS l DVD REVIEWS l DVD NEWS l SOUNDTRACKS l FEATURES DATABASE l TELEVISION l MUSIC l GAMES l CELEBRITY l TECHNOLOGY l RSS 2.0 FEEDS l MESSAGE BOARDS l LIVE CHAT l SYNDICATE US l LINKS | CB STORE | MUNCH MONSTER


This site is operated by Cinema Blend LLC. For advertising inquiries, contact Gorilla Nation. CinemaBlend.com is a private, independently owned website which is intended only as entertainment. The views expressed on this website may or may not reflect those of its owner. Don't take us too seriously.

Made in Webta Labs
SITE SEARCH
SITE FEEDS


 
HOT TOPICS
batman 3 news
the hobbit news
iron man 2 news
pirates of the caribbean news star trek news
transformers news
MORE FROM CB