Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Updates:

30 Days of Night (2007)

Director: David Slade

Time Out rating

Average user rating

50 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

This broadly faithful but chronically uneven adaptation of Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith’s graphic horror novel is a frustrating mix of imaginative design, erratic plotting and underwritten characters. Set in remote Alaska, where the sun is about to set for a month, it vividly portrays a vampire invasion, splashing the cold white streets with hot red blood. The vampires are ferocious creatures – nightmarish eating machines. Unfortunately, the anaemic human characters pale by comparison, drifting aimlessly about the ravaged town as if searching for narrative footsteps in the snow.

The arrival in the isolated town of a pallid, raving stranger (Ben Foster) isa harbinger of the carnage to come: a human acolyte and wannabe vampire, he lays the groundwork for the vampires’ nocturnal attack by cutting the power, severing the phone lines, trashing the helicopter and slaughtering every sled-dog in town. When darkness falls, Marlow (Danny Huston) and his savage pack descend upon the town and feast on human flesh. Sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett), his estranged wife Stella (Melissa George) and a small group of survivors take refuge in the cramped attic of a boarded-up house, and the film grinds to a juddering halt.

British director David Slade’s second film lacks the taut suspense of his debut indie feature, ‘Hard Candy’. With its stop-start pacing, odd shifts of tone and artificial-looking sets, it only comes to life during sporadic bursts of neck-devouring or head-severing violence – or in the distressing scenes where cute vampire-infected children must be dispatched before they make a meal of their parents.

Author: Nigel Floyd 2007-10-29 17:35:29

Time Out London Issue 1941: October 31-November 6

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

Lucy said...

Posted on Oct 31 2008 22:55 Not worth the money I spent on it. Never made me jump wasn't at all scary, might have been gory if the only dead bodies wern't panned over so quicky you coudn't see them and the plot was so weak it didn't make up for it. Then again I'm a hard girl to scare.

Report as inappropriate
grittler said...

Posted on Oct 05 2008 14:33 I like what John said, "it was good"...brilliant! let's thank christ he doesn't make films, other wise they might include bits of "this scene was ...good"...amazing stuff! It's like he is reviewing a plain donut...

Report as inappropriate
cody said...

Posted on Dec 26 2007 16:56 this is a bitv gory and a classical iflm it is the best eva horror that has been reeased i dont know how any 1 says this is boring if you fink this go and suck eggs

Report as inappropriate
jodie said...

Posted on Dec 17 2007 14:42 how can anyone say this wos bad?! its one of the best horrors ive seen all year! i mean gore galore and plenty of jumpy bits just wot i love. plus josh hartnett is a fittie. :p you must see this if u like vampires and bloodiness! very fresh and original i thought.

Report as inappropriate
jemz said...

Posted on Dec 06 2007 17:52 this film was amazing and for all u people who said it was rubbish it wasnt you must see it but it was very gory and frightning!!! :-) x

Report as inappropriate
john said...

Posted on Dec 04 2007 12:40 it was good

Report as inappropriate
lucy and andy said...

Posted on Dec 02 2007 16:45 should have been a 18, very scary! it's your basic vampire film, good acting by lead characters.

Report as inappropriate
lyndsay said...

Posted on Dec 02 2007 14:26 i dnt understand why ever1 said this is good! it had a pointless storyline which jus went on and on... it was AWFUL! I WAS sooo bored... was expecting much better, and the end was a let down

Report as inappropriate
lisa said...

Posted on Dec 02 2007 13:24 It was good if u like that sort of thing was a bit gory at times but it did what a scary film is supposed to do.

Report as inappropriate
marky p said...

Posted on Dec 01 2007 17:36 not bad but not brill either, sum jumpy moments but ive sen the stuff before

Report as inappropriate
S said...

Posted on Nov 30 2007 17:35 What an amazing film!
The acting isn't great, but what do you expect from a horror film? The bad acting is part of the fun.
I was terrified. My friend and I actually screamed out loud (the shame) and were reduced to gibbering wrecks within 30 minutes.
I had to stop my car on the way home to convince myself I was being stupid and there were no vampires on my roof.
I had nightmares.
It was very creepy, very jumpy and very gory...
What more could you want?

Report as inappropriate
Cayla said...

Posted on Nov 28 2007 13:12 can people who rate this plz put how many stars they would give it, because people are saying it was awesome, but giving it no stars, which then gives it a low mark on the front page!

Report as inappropriate
paddy said...

Posted on Nov 27 2007 21:31 amazing film... i agree some of the acting was dodgey but its a horror its ment to be and i jumped alot so must be good... i love horrors and i feel today all horror films r laime but i was pleasently surprized to see this horror film was good......

Report as inappropriate
mil said...

Posted on Nov 27 2007 14:55 its funny how pple think this movie was great. I am a horror movie fan and the number 1 josh hartnett fan so i can clearly say that this movie was so unbelievable and very disappionting. Tell me how in the world would a human turn into a vampire and still hold on to his human senses? uhn! I tot the movie was ok until i got to the end. They really blue it and i used to think that whatever jish hartnett touched turned to gold. I believe this is a one off for him.

Report as inappropriate
JAMii said...

Posted on Nov 27 2007 12:51 Omg i was screaming da whole way through greatt filmm shud ov been an 18 thoo =] xx

Report as inappropriate