Sunday, October 21, 2007
Two Differing Opinions on "30 Days of Night"
The following two blogs offer different opinions - my husbands and the right one (mine) on the latest vampire film "30 Days of Night." Let us know what you think by posting a comment.
Why 30 Days of Night works
Okay, before I start I also want to say that 1) I'm not a movie critic, just someone who has seen many of movies, some good some bad, 2) I'm going to throw out some spoilers so if you haven't seen 30 Days of Night (and are planning to see it) stop now and come back after you have seen it and read our opinions.
All in all, I liked 30 Days of Night. This wasn't an Oscar winning effort by the director or the actors but it was solid storytelling with an interesting plot and enough scary moments and gore to keep you enthralled.
For those that don't know the story, in Barrow, Alaska the sun sets for 30 days, no sunlight whatsoever. This makes it the perfect location for a band of vampires and the backdrop for our story. One of the vampires actually remarks that they should have come there ages ago.
The vampires attack and the townspeople who are not killed in the initial slaughter have to hide for 30 days and wait for the sun while trying to fend off the vampires. These vampires are different from your traditional vampires, they don't seem to be averse to garlic (nobody tries to expose them to it), religious symbols (same thing), or entering a residence that they have not been invited to. This adds a great deal of tension as the traditional defenses against vampires don't work. I spent the better part of the movie wondering "How are they going to get out of this?"
That's probably why I liked the movie, I felt the fear that the survivors felt as they were hold-up in an attic waiting to: 1) be found by the vampires and be food or 2) sunlight. The claustrophobic feel left me shivering along with the characters as they dealt with the fear and the cold. In short, I identified with them.
30 Days of Night has some pacing issues and logistical problems. Though the survivors are hold up in an attic for 30 days without a shower, shave, and rationing their food, nobody seems have lost weight or grown facial hair. But the vampires are terrifying, I had nightmares last night and still see them when I close my eyes.
One more thing, 30 Days of Night is perhaps the goriest, most violent movie I have seen in a long time and quite possibly the goriest vampire movie ever (along with From Dusk Till Dawn). So if that's your cup of tea, you'll like it. If you like your gore understated (think Seven) then you may find this movie jarring. There was so much violence that my wife almost had to leave the theatre.
I couldn't, I wanted to see how they were going to beat those damn vampires.
All in all, I liked 30 Days of Night. This wasn't an Oscar winning effort by the director or the actors but it was solid storytelling with an interesting plot and enough scary moments and gore to keep you enthralled.
For those that don't know the story, in Barrow, Alaska the sun sets for 30 days, no sunlight whatsoever. This makes it the perfect location for a band of vampires and the backdrop for our story. One of the vampires actually remarks that they should have come there ages ago.
The vampires attack and the townspeople who are not killed in the initial slaughter have to hide for 30 days and wait for the sun while trying to fend off the vampires. These vampires are different from your traditional vampires, they don't seem to be averse to garlic (nobody tries to expose them to it), religious symbols (same thing), or entering a residence that they have not been invited to. This adds a great deal of tension as the traditional defenses against vampires don't work. I spent the better part of the movie wondering "How are they going to get out of this?"
That's probably why I liked the movie, I felt the fear that the survivors felt as they were hold-up in an attic waiting to: 1) be found by the vampires and be food or 2) sunlight. The claustrophobic feel left me shivering along with the characters as they dealt with the fear and the cold. In short, I identified with them.
30 Days of Night has some pacing issues and logistical problems. Though the survivors are hold up in an attic for 30 days without a shower, shave, and rationing their food, nobody seems have lost weight or grown facial hair. But the vampires are terrifying, I had nightmares last night and still see them when I close my eyes.
One more thing, 30 Days of Night is perhaps the goriest, most violent movie I have seen in a long time and quite possibly the goriest vampire movie ever (along with From Dusk Till Dawn). So if that's your cup of tea, you'll like it. If you like your gore understated (think Seven) then you may find this movie jarring. There was so much violence that my wife almost had to leave the theatre.
I couldn't, I wanted to see how they were going to beat those damn vampires.
Why "30 Days of Night" Doesn't Work
Let me offer a two disclaimers before posting about "30 Days of Night." Disclaimer 1 - I am not a movie critic. I took one graduate-level film class and I think one of the best movies ever made was "The Breakfast Club." Disclaimer 2 - I offer this "spoiler alert" in case you haven't seen the movie.
I love the vampire myth, but "30 Days of Night" for all its gore, quick pace, and good intentions just doesn't work. Director David Slade's foray into the vampire film genre lacks the one element that makes any film work - that we care about the characters. Unfortunately "30 Days of Night" doesn't work because it doesn't make us sufficiently care - either for the humans or the vampires.
Based on the mini-series comic written by Steve Niles and illustrated by Ben Templesmith (IDW Publishing), the story is set in Barrow, Alaska, an isolated town so far North there exists a period of darkness lasting 30 days. The vampires are led by "the master" (Danny Huston), named Vicente in the mini-series but, I believe, unnamed in the film, to Barrow to feed unencumbered by bothersome daylight and the need to sleep. Married sheriffs Eban and Stella, in the middle of an impending divorce, are left to calm the terrified and confused townspeople, at least the few who make it past the first day.
While movie critics may get the benefit of privately screening a film, we did not. The over-the-top gore and violence, coupled with the fact that the vampires were presented as "outsiders" or "foreigners" that did not even speak an understandable language but some guttural, clucking tongue, caused laughter from the audience in inappropriate moments. We are so far removed from anything resembling humanity in the vampires that we have no connection to them, hence we can barely care if Eban, Stella and the townspeople survive.
"30 Days of Night" suffers, likewise, from some classic horror film pit falls. When dealing with extended periods of time, your actors should appear to have been ravaged, have suffered, have dwindled down to mere shells of themselves (think 28 Days Later). These folks look very good for having little food, ability to bathe, shave, groom themselves and being hunted by vampires that seem to be incredibly ineffective at tracking humans. It's a small town with few places to hide and they have 30 days to find them. Time itself seems to pass without much fanfare or interruption. We move swiftly from day 7 to day 18 to day 27. In the last moments, when we think Eban will make it, he makes the ultimate sacrifice by shooting up with vampire blood to have vampiric strength the fight off "the master." Only to have the vampires disappear into thin air before daylight a few moments later - a total let down and cop out plot wise.
When it comes down toit, it's not as if it's a bad movie - Underworld is a bad movie. It's a good movie that could have been great, could have worked on a much higher level had Slade spent less time grossing us out and more time with character engagement.
I love the vampire myth, but "30 Days of Night" for all its gore, quick pace, and good intentions just doesn't work. Director David Slade's foray into the vampire film genre lacks the one element that makes any film work - that we care about the characters. Unfortunately "30 Days of Night" doesn't work because it doesn't make us sufficiently care - either for the humans or the vampires.
Based on the mini-series comic written by Steve Niles and illustrated by Ben Templesmith (IDW Publishing), the story is set in Barrow, Alaska, an isolated town so far North there exists a period of darkness lasting 30 days. The vampires are led by "the master" (Danny Huston), named Vicente in the mini-series but, I believe, unnamed in the film, to Barrow to feed unencumbered by bothersome daylight and the need to sleep. Married sheriffs Eban and Stella, in the middle of an impending divorce, are left to calm the terrified and confused townspeople, at least the few who make it past the first day.
While movie critics may get the benefit of privately screening a film, we did not. The over-the-top gore and violence, coupled with the fact that the vampires were presented as "outsiders" or "foreigners" that did not even speak an understandable language but some guttural, clucking tongue, caused laughter from the audience in inappropriate moments. We are so far removed from anything resembling humanity in the vampires that we have no connection to them, hence we can barely care if Eban, Stella and the townspeople survive.
"30 Days of Night" suffers, likewise, from some classic horror film pit falls. When dealing with extended periods of time, your actors should appear to have been ravaged, have suffered, have dwindled down to mere shells of themselves (think 28 Days Later). These folks look very good for having little food, ability to bathe, shave, groom themselves and being hunted by vampires that seem to be incredibly ineffective at tracking humans. It's a small town with few places to hide and they have 30 days to find them. Time itself seems to pass without much fanfare or interruption. We move swiftly from day 7 to day 18 to day 27. In the last moments, when we think Eban will make it, he makes the ultimate sacrifice by shooting up with vampire blood to have vampiric strength the fight off "the master." Only to have the vampires disappear into thin air before daylight a few moments later - a total let down and cop out plot wise.
When it comes down toit, it's not as if it's a bad movie - Underworld is a bad movie. It's a good movie that could have been great, could have worked on a much higher level had Slade spent less time grossing us out and more time with character engagement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)