30 Days Of Night: Is it good?

[tyler-durden]

If youv'e seen already, How was it, but please don't post any spoilers? I just want to know if I should see it?

 

[Rezzo]

Read some reviews here, seems to be doing good with the users so far.

 

[WTFimVENOM]

I hope its good, since im probably going to see it later tonight

 

[Mike_D202]

I really liked it.

 

[tyler-durden]

I'm either going to see it tonight or early tommorrow.

 

[Untilteld]

nine

 

[K.B.]

Here is what I wrote over on the official 30 days thread in the misc.films section...

9/10?? either you guys are REAL giving or you've never read the comics.

So here is my actual review which has no spoilers for either the book nor movie.

30 days the film is.....meh. Thats it. Its ok. Not terrible but it is no where near as good as both it could have and should have been. I was really excited for the film after reading the book because I could see how easily it could translate to the screen s oimagine my excitment when I heard they were actually making it!.

Now what the film seems to do is take a lot of the real good,inventive,great ideas (some of which lead into and are the reason for the next 2 books) and leave them in the comic. It got to the point where I was thinking "my god if they left THAT out, then there is no WAY they are going to actually end it the same". (luckly I was wrong and they end it pretty faithfully to the book)

What we also get is a movie that comes off not quite sure what it wants to be. Instead of being a great blend of gore and psychological (ie; excorsist) we get a film that tries to be either one or the other.
It also looks like it was shot by 2 different people which is a real shame as some of the stuff looks real beautiful while other stuff looks very middle of the road.

The vampires... ok they LOOK just like Templesmiths artwork which is really strange when you think about it but thats where it stops. They merge the 2 lead vampires from the book into one character and this means we lose motive and alot of explination (as well as the afermentioned set up for sequels) and instead of the vampires speaking english they speak.......KLINGON?!? WTF?!?

The film as a whole is enjoyable and its not terrible but it isnt going to blow your socks off either. It does itself a diservice by not being as faithful to the books and actually giving a great new twist to the genre (like the comic sucessfully did) and comes off as a bit ..average really. It gives you the feeling that this movie could just bleed into other horror films instead of standing on its own like it should.

I would rate it 3 out of 5.

 

[DocHoliday]

I thougt it was ok. 7/10 Also I read it in trades a couple of times.

 

[Majik1387]

It was all right, nothing more imo 7/10

 

[Mike_D202]

...this means we lose motive and alot of explination

I thought they went there to eat for 30 days w/out sunlight. Thats motive and an explanation right there. The lead vampire even said "we should have come here ages ago".

 

[Ghostvirus]

Just back from seeing it. I am going to have to see it again though, because I was not mentally prepared for a well paced horror/suspense film. I was wanting blood, carnage, more blood, intestines. sprinkle more blood, & brains.

What I got was. What it would be like if The Thing, Dawn Of The Dead, & Dusk Till Dawn had a child together.

Very well made film. It kept it simple. Everybody, & Their grandma knows the rules of vampires, so they didn't bore you with somebody breaking that down. The Romance between Hartnett, & Stellla!!! Was done well not to cheesy.

I like how they didn't sit around, & negotiate on what to do when some one got infected. They just grabbed an axe, & got choppin. Also it was cool how for once in a movie they showed that an axe won't cut a head of in one hit. It takes a few tries. Don't ask how I know.

 

[Mike_D202]

I know it was pretty realistic. I might have to go see it again.

 

[K.B.]

Yes thats motivation broken down to it's very VERY basic but I'm talking about things like Marlow putting it al ltogether and then Vicente shows up and is p.o'd about it and deals with him, the explination as to the lines about "it took centurys to make the mbelieve what they do about us" etc, how the cold actually messes with theyre senses (this is why the movie just makes it come off as "ok they can smell blood yet CAN'T find the survivors?") and dont even get me started on the little girl soaked in blood..how did she survive 30 days in the arctic?

Trust me if you read the books you'd get how they took out alot of the things that actually made it such an intersting new spin on its genre as well as key elements for part 2 and 3.

 

[ANTOINE X]

some one told me it was so so like 5/10.

 

[Symbiotic]

Voted 7 but I'd give it 7.5 if I could.

 

[Spidey_87]

I gave the movie an 8/10. I really enjoyed this film, and thought that it is probably the best horror film this fall, next to Rob Zombie's Halloween. I don't think Saw IV will be as good as 30 Days of Night.

 

[co2]

Here is what I wrote over on the official 30 days thread in the misc.films section...

9/10?? either you guys are REAL giving or you've never read the comics.

So here is my actual review which has no spoilers for either the book nor movie.

30 days the film is.....meh. Thats it. Its ok. Not terrible but it is no where near as good as both it could have and should have been. I was really excited for the film after reading the book because I could see how easily it could translate to the screen s oimagine my excitment when I heard they were actually making it!.

Now what the film seems to do is take a lot of the real good,inventive,great ideas (some of which lead into and are the reason for the next 2 books) and leave them in the comic. It got to the point where I was thinking "my god if they left THAT out, then there is no WAY they are going to actually end it the same". (luckly I was wrong and they end it pretty faithfully to the book)

What we also get is a movie that comes off not quite sure what it wants to be. Instead of being a great blend of gore and psychological (ie; excorsist) we get a film that tries to be either one or the other.
It also looks like it was shot by 2 different people which is a real shame as some of the stuff looks real beautiful while other stuff looks very middle of the road.

The vampires... ok they LOOK just like Templesmiths artwork which is really strange when you think about it but thats where it stops. They merge the 2 lead vampires from the book into one character and this means we lose motive and alot of explination (as well as the afermentioned set up for sequels) and instead of the vampires speaking english they speak.......KLINGON?!? WTF?!?

The film as a whole is enjoyable and its not terrible but it isnt going to blow your socks off either. It does itself a diservice by not being as faithful to the books and actually giving a great new twist to the genre (like the comic sucessfully did) and comes off as a bit ..average really. It gives you the feeling that this movie could just bleed into other horror films instead of standing on its own like it should.

I would rate it 3 out of 5.

Though I agree with your final rating of the movie..I have to disagree with how you got there. A lot of your argument is that it wasn't faithfull to the books. What does that have to do with whether the movie was good or not?! So by your definition, if someone hadn't read the books, they can't have an opinion on if they liked the movie or not? That smacks of being a fan boy nerd.

 

[DeGenerate10]

I thought it was real good I was really into it until the ending. I never read the Graphic Novel but I heard the movie was pretty close to it. This is probably one of my favorite Vampire movies

 

[K.B.]

How do you get that im saying no one else can have an opinion?

And as far as any faithful to the books stuff..I don't mind changes when they are warrented or make sense...like spliting up Stella and Eben. I thought it was stupid and pointless but the way they did it they pulled it off ok..wasn't great but was passable and I didnt mind it. Changeing things like the vampire speak from english to klingon was just ******ed.

Also instead of taking the book and all the good points and then expanding it they instead hack away at it till we are left with a bland adaptaion and nothing more.

 

[Mike_D202]

I thought they were speaking russian or something foreign (from what I gathered anyways, I thought they came on that huge boat that we saw at the beginning because of the vampire helper was starring at it then walking away) I mean, what other point was there for a camera shot of the boat?

 

[grimlok79]

I thought the movie was good. I liked the fact that these vamps were more like wild predators, not a bunch of distinguished nobles or some other crappy premise. I think they came from the ship you see at the beginning and that they are from Eastern Europe. Plus it was cool to see them not bring up crucifixes or garlic, just the fact that UV light was a possible weapon to use against them.

 

[co2]

How do you get that im saying no one else can have an opinion?

I said that you invalidated someone's opinion if they liked the movie if they haven't read the books. You did say the following didn't you?

"9/10?? either you guys are REAL giving or you've never read the comics."

 

[tyler-durden]

I've never read the comic. That's why I want to see the movie so bad, it looks so good.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

I loved it. 10/10

 

[K.B.]

When I watch a film based off of material I watch it both as a film and as an adaptation and as a film 30 days was very bland and very middle of the road and didn't really stand out on its own like it should have, thats why I said very giving.

I rate my stuff out of 5 (10? c'mon thats a high scale) so therefore 3 (which is what I gave it) is a rating I would give to an average movie. Like I said it isn't terrible and I did enjoy it it's just nowhere near where it should have been given the material.