30 Days of Shite
We watched the Blu-ray release of 30 Days of Night this evening.
Seriously, if you’re considering giving it a go, my advice would be “don’t bother”. The premise is interesting, but the whole thing is botched on just about every possible level. Josh Hartnett makes for a dreadful, inexpressive lead, and the director, David Slade, seems to possess absolutely no sense of pacing, nor does he appear to have the first clue about generating tension. Scene after scene is botched by clumsy choreography and camerawork, and a general sense that he’s working with a script which simply doesn’t have enough material to withstand the running time. Whole days seem to pass in which nothing happens, and the situation becomes so tedious that the script resorts to having the characters arbitrarily say things like “We can’t stay here” (despite them having been perfectly safe in their current location for several days) and staging foolhardy escape missions that you just know are going to get someone killed. I’m normally the last person to bring out the “logic” card in what is ultimately a brainless splatter movie, but I find it hard to believe that anyone could be as stupid as this film’s troop of hapless dolts.
Every “bump in the night” cliché is routinely trotted out, and, despite characters dropping like flies in the most brutal manner imaginable, it’s impossible to care about any of them, as they are simply too bland and unlikeable. Most of them are completely interchangeable, to the extent that, every time a character said “Where’s [insert name here]?” or “What about [insert name here]?”, my immediate response would be “Search me! I don’t even know what [insert name here] looks like!”
After hearing good things about this film, I felt utterly robbed by it. Thats 113 minutes of my life that are gone forever.
Posted: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 9:13 PM
| Comments: 7
I've avoided it so far - I read the comic by Steve Niles and Ben "poor man's Ashley Wood" Templesmith and it had basically the same problems you've described. For once, I would be more interested if they'd been less faithful to the source material. The premise (no daylight = party time for vampires) is brilliant, but the execution is entirely forgettable. Once the situation is established, Niles has no idea what to do with it and pretty much skips to the end. Speaking of which (SPOILER WARNING!), the final act involving the transfusion is laughably illogical.
Posted by: Echidna, June 18, 2008 1:11 AM
Posted by: ARCVILE
, June 18, 2008 1:58 AM
I wouldn't call it terrible - visually, it has some memorable scenes (the vampires look like they've come straight off the page and Danny Huston makes for a great, unlikely villain) and it has a nice sense of desolation, but, yeah, I can't stand Hartnett or Melissa George, so I couldn't care less if they survive or not, let alone ponder the "sacrifice" the Hartnett character makes, which is nonsensical. You have all the usual "survivor" cliches too, as has been mentioned.
Posted by: anephric, June 18, 2008 2:40 AM
I find it hard to believe that anyone could be as stupid as this film's troop of hapless dolts.
You clearly haven't seen enough Italian zombie films, in which characters besieged by the undead in a country mansion decide it's a good idea to let the zombies in.
As for Josh Hartnett, has he performed decently in anything?
Posted by: Baron Scarpia, June 18, 2008 8:35 AM
He was pretty good in the recent Resurrecting the Champ. That's a nice little movie.
Posted by: anephric, June 18, 2008 10:50 AM
Posted by: Scott Mosley
, June 18, 2008 4:34 PM
Of coarse it was crap, it was directed by a strange little English bloke with no apparent sense of humour. He also did that other shite Hard Candy, in which a 14 year old beanpole of a girl, was able throw around a man in his thirties. Utter bullshit.
Posted by: Martin Dempster, June 18, 2008 10:31 PM
Comments on this entry and all entries up to and including June 31st 2009 have been closed. The discussion continues on the new Land of Whimsy blog: