Indy.com
Today:
30 Days of Night
Posted: Oct 17, 2007 in Movies
Tags:
RELATED POSTS
It had me, and lost me.
I was ready to give "30 Days of Night" a glowing review. It was tense, it was scary, it was atmospheric.
Then It happened.
The Critics' Code of Ethics prevents me from saying exactly what It is, but I will say the film, based on a popular graphic novel, played it straight for about 100 minutes, then made quite the comic booky twist on us at the end.
It made a quick-and-dirty descent into silliness.
The film, about a ragtag group of people fighting off vampires, could have been pedestrian if not for the film's hook: They live in Barrow, Alaska, where night lasts a month at a certain time of year.
Most of the residents have vacated, leaving the town sheriff (Josh Hartnett), his estranged wife (Melissa George), and a few other stragglers left to care for the town.
When a stranger (Ben Foster, who wowed in "3:10 to Yuma") appears warning of impending doom, the townsfolk laugh him off. Then a bunch of pasty-looking people with pointy teeth and bad attitudes starts picking them off.
We never learn the vamps' motivation. They don't seem interested in feeding or in multiplying; in fact, the head vamp (Danny Huston) specifically instructs his charges not to turn them.
All we know is they're bloodthirsty, they're vicious and shooting them is largely ineffective (excepting a head shot, of course).
So our heroes hide out, bouncing from one safe house to another, desperately hoping to avoid the bad guys.
Hartnett's acting hasn't improved, but he's passable in this role. In fact, excepting Foster and Mark Boone Junior ("Batman Begins"), no one particularly stands out.
The gore is heavy and realistic, and there are plenty of scares and tense moments. You never know when someone will be attacked, and even when we know it's coming it's still a shock.
But Act III finds the heroes in one of those no-win situations, someone takes ridiculously drastic action and the film turns into a bad action movie with an abrupt, depressing and nonsensical ending.
I haven't read the graphic novel, but I suspect the film's ending is close to the print version. At times graphic novels lose narrative focus in favor of a climax that will wow the fanboys, and that is exactly what happens. Here it's jarring and rings false.
It's disheartening, really, because it's great to find gems in the fall season, which is largely a dumping ground for lackluster pictures.
But "30 Days" is just a tease. It got off to a great start, and things were moving well.
It's too bad it didn't know how to end.
Joe: well, if the movie's ending is anything akin to its graphic novel predecessor, then your conclusion is likely spot on. Years ago, I'd heard about the premise for Steve Niles's horror comic and thought the premise sounded like a dream come true. And last winter when I learned a film adaptation was being made, I figured it was time to give the thing a tumble. A rockin' read, to be sure; but unfortunately (notwithstanding the more memorable scares), as the story crept toward its denouement, I began wincing and scratching my head. And sounds as if---with what you've described as "ridiculously drastic action"---the filmmakers, sadly, followed the original ending a few fangs too close.
Yup this movie had me until the ending and then.......???? BUZZ....Try Again Please!
I thought the flick rocked. I collect vamp flix and will certainly add this to my collection. They were spot-on with the graphic novel, which so rarely happens in Hollywood. (Can anyone say "Isn't Catwoman's real name Selina Kyle?")