Slightly Scary: 30 Days of Night

I had decided to start my horror film review project last night, but I hit a brick wall instantly. What would be the first film to watch? Did I want to watch an actual good classy horror film, or did I want to go the trashy route? I'm a fan of both, but I generally tend to enjoy the laughably bad ones a bit more. Then another consideration came into mind. I bought a PS3 recently to use as a Bluray player (I highly doubt that I'll be torn away from the gaming on my XBOX 360 anytime soon). I decided to pick up a used BD disc at the time that I bought it, so I picked 30 Days of Night up, as it was the only option that I was interested in seeing that I didn't already own as a regular DVD. I decided to make the film my choice of the night, for 27 Dresses (don't laugh) so far has been the only film I have seen in the format.

That might have been a mistake.

I have one major criterion for horror film viewing: the film must be enjoyable to watch. I don't care if it's a serious film or a b-movie if I'm not having fun watching the fucker then what's the point in watching it? Needless to say… I didn't have fun watching 30 Days of Night.

That's not to say it's a shitty movie. It definitely had its high points. I'm quickly beginning to believe that any film that Ben Foster appears in has definitely got something going for it. As usual, Foster pretty much owns all of his scenes as the nasty stranger come to town acting as the vampires' Renfield. Seriously… the guy is impressive and gone from the movie all too soon. I was glad to see Mark Boone Jr. play a part as something other than a sleazebag. You might not recognize the name, but you definitely would recognize the face. Sleazy motel deskman in Memento… Boone! Sleazy partner of Jim Gordon in Batman Begins… Boone! It was nice to see him in a heroic role. As long as I'm talking positives, I've got to mention the fact that I love it when vampires break through the romantic Dracula and Lestat mode. I like my vampires vicious and animalistic. To this day, Near Dark is still my preferred vampire flick because of the savagery of the bloodsuckers in the film (the boner-inducing Jenny Wright may play a part in my love for this film as well). The film delivers on the technical side of things as well. Director David Slade does a decent job here (not quite as promising as his work in Hard Candy). The visuals of the film are downright entrancing. I've always liked the mix of darkness, blood, and snow. I've never seen it done more beautifully than here. The visual effects, make-up, and gore are all great too. WETA is definitely becoming the go-to guys for effects.

Unfortunately, not everything is peachy keen in the film. The film has a tremendously weak narrative. That can't be blamed on the film alone though. 30 Days of Night had that problem as a comic book as well. Writer Steve Niles is a good idea man, but his writing is often shit. The art of Ben Templesmith is what really made the graphic novel shine. The film (and comic) just has so many plot holes that you would think that they just brought ED209 in for a simple demonstration (I have a slightly unhealthy obsession with Robocop). I can't understand how the human survivors exist as long as they do is a mystery considering that they seem to not be eating, drinking, or thinking in any capacity. The leads of the film are also a major drawback. I'm sorry, but Josh Hartnett and Melissa George are two of the blandest actors around these days. I'm pretty sure they continue to find jobs based only on their looks despite the fact that George reminds me of a cartoon rabbit (In fact, I was hoping that Melissa George would be turned just so I could see a buck-toothed vampire. I'm pretty sure it would have been pretty fucking priceless.). The movie has some pretty strange logic as well. Time is very subjective in this movie. One man apparently takes about seven days to turn into a vampire while another may only take two minutes. WTF? Remember when I said that I liked the animalistic portrayal of the vampires? Apparently animalistic also means incredibly stupid at times. I kept waiting for one of the vamps to hike a leg over water hydrant and mark his territory. The vampires speak in their own language of clicks and squeals through most of the movie and apparently lose the ability to speak English except to deliver some really shitty lines. The only vampire to be shown being somewhat intelligent (Danny Huston) spends most of his time walking around looking like the vampire version of Karl from Sling Blade. He does, however, utter the one laugh out loud moment in the movie. "God? No God!" The line is pretty simple, and doesn't really seem funny, but the reading of the line in the film is hilarious in a mentally-handicapped kind of way (I apologize to the mentally-handicapped). Over all, my biggest problem with the film was that lack of fun that I mentioned earlier though. The film takes itself way too seriously, and the only humor in the film is unintentional.

Deaths:

There are a few scenes of mass killing in the film, and I lost count. There were some nice deaths though. I'm particularly fond of "death by snow plow."

Sexy Time:

There was sadly no "sexy time" moments in the film. What did I say about this film not being fun?

LOL:

The film was unfortunately extremely light on the laughs. You know it's a sad day when you're forced to laugh at the retarded portrayal of the squealing bloodsuckers.