Vampire lore makes it clear that sunlight is one of the few means of certain death. What better location then, to feed on human prey, than a small Alaskan town near the northernmost part of the state where the sun disappears for 30 straight days? That is the setup for 30 Days of Night, a film that bears some stylistic resemblance to recent horror successes such as 28 DaysLater and The Decent, but doesn’t quite live up to the pedigree. That is not to say that the film is bad – far from it considering the lengthy history of horror films, and the vampire genre in particular – just that it never quite gets off the ground. Where those other horror films succeeded in creating a frantic pace that is borne of fear, tension and drama, 30 Days of Night supplants those elements in favor of blood, gore, and… more blood.
The film opens by explaining the nature of the town’s latitude, thus giving the film makers an excuse for the crafty title. Today is the last day of sun; the majority of the town’s five-hundred-plus residents will take leave during the 30 days to warmer climates where the sun behaves in a normal fashion. Stella Oleson (Melissa George) is one of those people trying to get on the last flight out of town. Her estranged husband, Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) is the local Sheriff, who spends the last hours on the last day of sun trying to track down a series of vandalisms that have occurred.
The vampires, who have arrived on a desolate looking ship, have sent a familiar, played by Ben Foster, to hinder the remaining resident’s attempts to flee. A helicopter is destroyed, sled dogs slain, and a communications outpost eliminated. Soon night falls and all hell breaks loose.
30 Days of Night is filled with all the typical horror film fare: fast moving blurs on the edges of the screen, shapeless masses leaping out of dark corridors and dragging off unsuspecting prey, loud symphonic blasts that try to get you to jump out of your seat. None of this is new.
What the film does do is restrain itself from patronizing the audience. It is assumed that everyone in attendance knows something about vampires, and thus nothing is ever explained. For instance, the “V” word is only uttered once, and when it is, it’s so late in the film that by now all of the survivors have finally come to grips with the fact that these invaders could be nothing else.
But up to that point the characters in the film behave as anyone would when confronted by a life threatening situation: they shut themselves up in their houses and try to stay safe. There are no shots of teenagers disregarding the sheriff’s orders and slinking off to make out, for instance, only to be nabbed by the vampires. Instead, everyone takes the threat serious, and in terms of mood and atmosphere, that makes all the difference.
Because the characters in the film approach things seriously, it is easier for us to do that as well. Despite the gore and bloodshed to follow. And does it ever follow.
Where 30 Days of Night breaks down – where it is weakest – is where it spends the most time: in the middle act, where the vampires feed on the necks of the townsfolk. The opening act seems too short and condensed by comparison; it feels rushed.
The middle portion of the film spends too much time showing gore and blood and not enough time developing the story or characters. We’re lead to believe that these people may survive for the whole thirty days by hiding in attics and stockpiling supplies, but their situation seems so dire that without the subtitles telling us how many days have passed (Day 18…), one would only think a few hours had transpired. What happens during those days and weeks seems improbable and the director gives us little reason to believe otherwise.
There is some redemption toward the end, however. I will not reveal what happens, but only say that it was not an ending I saw coming. I had not read the source material prior to seeing the film (it is based on a mini series comic book written by Steve Niles) and was pleasantly surprised by what occurred.
The film is shot well and looks good. Roger Ebert says the movie is
well-made, well-photographed and plausibly acted, and is better than it needs to be.
I would disagree with that last part – it’s as good as it should be, and it could be better. I don’t see any reason why these sorts of films should slide by with bad camera work and terrible writing/directing. 30 Days of Night doesn’t elevate its source material to the same level as something like The Descent, but it does an admirable job of taking the horror genre above the B-movie line.