October 23rd, 2007 [6:22:26]
trickofthehand: Calling 30 days of night dull is like calling Stalin a grand humanitarian. Apparently the reviewer missed the 113 minutes of non-stop violence. I suppose if you had your eyes closed the entire time in the theatre the movie could be considered dull. 30 days of night finally brings a vampire movie to theatres that portrays vampires as monsters, and not hilton-esque socialites (or 16 year old emo kids). The characters are realistic, and react to the supernatural invasion of their town in a very real way. No flashy martial arts, no artistic gun fights or wire-fu. Though the movie features a lot of violence (throats being ripped open and decapitations are apparently dull material, I wonder what the original reviewer watches on a regular basis... auschwitz archival films?) the violence is not over the top, and very well portrayed. While i'll agree Ben Foster's acting was a high-point of the film, Hartnett's performance is not as abyssmal as some may be led to believe, though defenatively not inspiring either. I'd call it average.
30 DoN could have done a better job of building some psychological fear (see Silent Hill), and less 'sudden scares' that cheapen horror films (see Wes Craven). However, where the movie excels is in portraying the town's folk response to the horror of being trapped in hiding places for 30 days, as well as the vampires sadistic tricks and traps. 30 DoN appears to be pushing the new trend of non-apologetic, violent film-making without taking it over the top. This is good news for us who have been waiting for movies to come along with a nice set of balls, its a shame David Slade couldn't have been behind the long-awaited big screen adaptation of Doom.