Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by bigdaddyhorse, Oct 21, 2007.
I didn't care for this movie at all.
I just saw this Sunday night...and well i got pretty much the same impression bigdaddyhorse did...Everything was going all well an good till this one part...then I spit my soda out all Beavis style and went "WTF" and started laughing...So if you were in that theater and I disrupted your movie going experience I'm sorry..
I had a mixed reaction.I loved the premise,it had good location work and some nice,nasty gore.On the other hand I thought the characters were underdeveloped,the acting(for the most part) was only ok and some of the editing was confusing(kind of hard to tell who was getting killed at times).Some bits reminded me of Carpenter's THE THING and THE FOG,both of which were better written and acted.Still,I'd give it a modest thumbs up,it has it's moments,but it could have been better.
It was a good adaptation from the book. I enjoyed it. I was actually pleasantly surprised because I did not expect it to be so gory.
I enjoyed it quite a bit. Yes, the ending was so so, but everything up until that point was amazing. The film was tense throughout, the gore and violence was over the top but scary at the same time, and I actually enjoyed the writing and acting. I even thought Josh Hartnett was convincing as the sheriff. i agree, it too reminded me a bit of The Thing, and although it may not be as good as that masterpiece in horror cinema, it was leaps and bounds above what crap Hollywood has been throwing out the last few years. It definitely gets a recommendation from me.
Absolutely loved it!
One of the best vampire movies ever made, in my opinion. The atmosphere was perfectly set in Alaska; the resemblance to The Thing are pin-point. And that's a good thing. The vampires are relentless and the movie was suspenseful, entertaining, and gory. I can't wait to get this movie on DVD.
Go see it. Great movie.
I enjoyed this pretty much---good creepy atmosphere, but I agree with a lot of what was said about the ending. There were a few other moments like that. I think some of it is that the vampires were just too strong and numerous, and it made some of what the human characters were doing hard to believe. Not bad enough to wreck the movie or anything--overall more things worked than didn't, but definitely enough to kind of be picking it apart during and afterward. I agree that it seemed like a lot of stuff was cut out or not followed up on. Some of the characters' actions didn't make sense in such a way that I wondered if there was something cut out that would have explained things.
I liked that although there was a lot of the quick cutting during the gory scenes, there were still more than a few parts where they gave us a good long look.
I think the vampires were too much like the zombies in the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake at times, though.
Hmmm, I was kinda unimpressed with this one. Felt like 28 Weeks Later with snow. And I really didn't like 28 Weeks Later. This was better, I'll give it that, and it wasn't boring, but ... I don't know. Some of it was soooo lame.
Like the LAME head-vampire. I mean, come on, some eurotrash-russian-pimp-looking monster who talks like The Sphinx from Mystery Men? Come on! They could have done better. I just felt the vampires were not scary at all. They looked gross and the violence was tense, but the vampires themselves? They did nothing but shriek and sneer and look "evil" and it just didn't do it for me.
Fortunately, the "real people" were a lot better. Josh Hartnett continues to surprise me. He was pretty good in this film. Melissa George as well. The other characters .. well, I get it that it's based on a graphic novel and that they wanted to be true to it, but when you do a movie and you have several characters that have absolutely NOTHING to do in the film except speak a few lines of unimportant dialogue, that means those characters are EXTRANEOUS!
And am I the only one who is tired of high-shutter speed/fast cut violent scenes? It seems to have become a staple of the modern zombie film, but it's getting old and it's not done particularly well in this film, which is a shame since it is otherwise beautifully filmed. And thought the violence is brutal and suitably gory, there's only about one or two memorable scenes of gore, which kind of makes the rest of it feel lame.
Add to that that the suspense is minimal and the plot is sometimes very sketchy. I'm not usually a logic-nitpicker when it comes to horror, but this film had some very strange things going on ...
Like the guy who stayed under his house for a week? And didn't freeze to death?
Or the people who suddenly appeared from out of nowhere in the end. They were all just hiding and waiting until the sun came out? For a month? Without neither the vampires nor the other survivors noticing them?
And when the first "7 days later" title card came, I couldn't help but think ... how were these people feeding themselves?
And that child that appears at the end? Just happened to stay alive for 30 days until the vampires sent it out as bait? Or did they keep her alive until then? Why not earlier?
Yeah, I don't know. Some pretty big plot holes in there ...
But like I say, it wasn't boring and it looked good. Just wasn't impressive at all. I expected David Slade to do something interesting with the material as I really enjoyed his Hard Candy, but this was just a by-the-numbers modern zombie/vampire-movie.
I assume most have seen it now, so my major criticism will be more specific:
If these Euro-Zombies had the money, time and inclination to sail a boat all the way there to enjoy 30 days of nightime and assumedly feeding, why kill EVERYONE in one night? then spend the rest of the film wandering around hoping to find live humans?
Surely keeping them alive in one spot and demanding victims each night as sacrifices would have been more logical and give the filmmore depth as the humans fought amongst themselves.
I really enjoyed the heck out of this film. My only complaint is, like most of you, the ending. Should have went a different way. There were issues, but for the most part, things were well thought out in the film. I liked it!
30 DAYS OF NIGHT ART AND FINAL SPECS
I'm definitely waiting for the eventual double dip for this one.
I picked up the 'Exclusive 2-Disc Limited Edition Set' at FYE today. It's in a keepcase and holds the DVD and a bonus disc in a slim case. It was $21.99 with a $5.00 mail-in-rebate.
The bonus disc is approx. 24 minutes and contains behind the scenes stuff. It is called "730 Days of Night". "This mini-documentary is a chronological collection of on-set video diaries shot during pre-production, production, and all the way through to the premiere. Aside from watching the director and cast work on-set, you'll visit the storyboard artists and costume designers, production offices and meet some of the crew behind-the-scenes. It is a raw, realistic account of the on-set experience and you will feel as though you are watching personal footage you were never meant to see!"
Agreed on this much. The quick cuts were not nearly as bad as they have been in some movies of late, but why have it at all? It was unnecessary here. It almost seemed spliced in, after the fact.
The less said about the ending the better.
The movie was too pretty for me to hate, and there were a some very impressive shots and scenes that were appreciated. Still, I really felt the vampires were beyond laughable. The only fear I had of them were that they were never going to shut up with all that damn cackling and hissing. The Baseball Furies were more menacing.
However, I think the worst part of the whole affair was the complete and utter failure to clearly mark the passage of time. I mean, winter in Alaska can seem like one long hellacious night but they could've done better than that. 30 Days of being cooped up, hungry, desperate, scared, unable to make noise and likely shower and bathe and.. all we get to show for it is Harnett growing a few facial hairs? I didn't buy it at all. It seemed more like Two or Three Days of Night tops, which really sort of unsealed the whole deal for me.
Yeah. During post production they should've gone back and shot some extra scenes of characters foraging for food, bathing, etc, without getting caught. Even 5 minutes extra spread throughout the course of the film would've helped enormously. They should've taken less of a cue from THE THING and more of one from THE SHINING.
I finally saw this movie for the first time tonight- I enjoyed it- good but not great but I saw the potential that it could have been great so too bad it was a near miss. As others have already pointed out too much time for 30 days whizzed by with no explanation of how in the hell they got by- seemed to make the vampires who were intelligent and quick and stealthy suddenly get lazy and disinterested. Also with out spoiling anything the 2nd trap set by the vamps (or so I would think it had to be a 2nd trap) didnt seem to make sense with no real attempt to even chase anyone down...anyways with that said I loved the way they did the vampires- good casting, great makeup and just a good eerie feeling I got from them- the movie started off just awesome but then lost steam and fell prey to too many plot holes and a couple "oh come on" moments. I didnt hate the ending but it wasnt great either- just kinda so so. I would recommend this movie though cuz it is a lot of fun. vampires are cool and pretty scary(although I see some disagree with me on that), has a few good jump moments and the setting was perfect. Again I will repeat it was good but it left me with the feeling it had the potential to be more....
Good movie, but the final decision by Josh Hartnett and the ending had me going...WTF??
The ending was exactly like it is in the graphic novel, and the idea is followed up on in the sequel novels. I liked it. I would like to see a sequel if they follow the same storyline as the comics.
same here loved the movie but that made me kinda wonder
LOVE this movie. got my copy on Blu-ray last week and watched it again.