|
|
Tarfumes.com - 30 Days of Night
|
List Price: $28.95
Our Price: $17.99
Your Save: $ 10.96 ( 38% )
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Manufacturer: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment
Starring: Josh Hartnett, Craig Hall, Melissa George
|
Average Customer Rating:   
|
|
Aspect Ratio: 2.40:1
Audience Rating: R (Restricted)
Binding: DVD
Brand: Sony
EAN: 0043396196155
Format: AC-3
Label: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment
Manufacturer: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment
Number Of Items: 1
Publisher: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment
Region Code: 99
Release Date: 2008-02-26
Running Time: 113
Studio: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment
Theatrical Release Date: 2007-10-19
|
|
|
|
|
|
Editorial Reviews:
|
Josh Harnett (Black Dahlia Pearl Harbor) crosses over to the dark side in this bone-chilling adaptation of the cult-hit graphic novel brought to the screen in all its demonic glory. In a small Alaskan town thirty days of night is a natural phenomenon. Very few outsiders visit until a band of bloodthirsty deathly pale vampires mark their arrival by savagely attacking sled dogs. But soon they find there are much more satisfying thirst-quenchers about: human beings. One by one the townspeople succumb to a living nightmare but a small group survives at least for now. The vampires use the dark to their advantage and surviving this cold hell is a game of cat and mouse and screams.System Requirements:Run Time: 113 Mins.Format: DVD MOVIE Genre: HORROR/PSYCHOLOGICAL THRILLER Rating: R UPC: 043396196155 Manufacturer No: 19615
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: Skip it ...
Comment: Before I saw '30 Days ...' I was really excited for it when I learned that it was going to be directed by David Slade. I'd previously seen the film 'Hard Candy' (with a stellar Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson) and was looking forward to seeing what an intelligent director such as himself would do with a vampire movie. I always thought it was encouraging to see film-makers try and branch out and do something different.
At its core, the general concept for the film is also one that I found interesting. Basically a brood of vampires descend on a northern Alaskan where, in the winter, night lasts a month. There hasn't been a really good vampire film in awhile and I thought '30 Days ...' had the set-up to be pretty good.
I was horribly disappointed that the film fails on almost every level.
For all the talent that's involved here, I was surprised that this was such a "stupid" film. Unfortunately, that disappointment extends even down to the concept, which I was originally so excited about. In hindsight, given the thick of this information age we live in (where telecommunications, cell phones, email, text messages, etc dominate our lives) I could never really buy into the idea that this town was just completely cut off from the outside world. Looking back, if it were up to me (and it's not) I'd have made the suggestion that this would work better as a period piece. Setting everything in the 1800's or even the early 1900's, for example, would make it easier to buy into the idea that the town was completely isolated for the winter.
The script is a total disaster from front to back. In my opinion, more then anything else, for the concept that was laid out to be successful, '30 Days ...' had to accomplish just three tasks.
1. Especially in light of the title, you absolutely HAD TO SEE a believable passage of one month's time.
2. You had to be able to get to know the characters that were trapped and left as survivors.
3. To later appreciate the cat-and-mouse game being played between the vampires and the towns-people, you HAD to have a general idea of how the town was laid out.
That lack of an understanding of the geography of the town is frustrating because we never seen to have any clear idea of how difficult it would be to get from one point to another. When the survivors are talking about changing locations, are they talking about a point that's right next door, or completely across town? I would have fixed this with a single-shot pan with the camera (a la the classic opening of 'Touch of Evil') in the beginning of the film to let the viewer know what's where. Maybe pass over the town in a helicopter in the opening ...
Worse though, is the complete lack of any sense of time. This would be a difficult hurdle to jump over for this film, since there isn't any rising or setting of the sun. Everything in the movie feels like it was taking place over a couple of hours though, not days. For example, there never seems to be a concern over supplies or food, there's surprisingly little tension in the group, and outside of a half-arsed looking beard here or there, nobody looks as if they hadn't shaved, showered or changed their clothes. Without a genuine sense of the passage of time, it takes a mountain of the tension and sense of dread off the situation these characters are facing.
Speaking of characters, outside of Melissa George and Josh Hartnett, there's virtually zero character development here at all. I can tell you, with absolute honesty, that (not including the above) I can't recall the name of one person that lived in Barrow. This again, takes any of the emotional impact off a scene such as the vampire siege. If we don't know who the characters are that are being killed, how much do we really care?
Although they're certainly not done any favors with the script, the performances here are all bland at best and awful at worst. The only exception, for me, was the Renfield-like harbinger that comes to the town. Even his character doesn't make any sense though. If your film's vampires are going to be portrayed as a feral group of animals, that's fine. But why then, would anyone aspire to join them? These aren't the romantic Bram Stoker-type vamps, these are what amounts to a pack of wild dogs.
I'm sorry to say that nobody decided to rise to the occasion on this one. Although it's well-shot (the Blu-Ray version looks amazing), the whole film's a complete mess. It gets my lowest possible recommendation.
Customer Rating:
Summary: a mediocre vampire movie
Comment: In case you didn't know, in some parts of Alaska, there comes a time when it's dark, no sun, for about a month.
In *30 Days of Night*, a small isolated town prepares itself for 30 days of night. Once the phenomenon starts, a band of vampires starts to attack the citizens. An estranged couple, a sheriff and a fire marshal, reunite and round up a group of survivors. The survivors have to hide from building to building every so often to escape the fangs of the vampires...until the sun comes back.
That's pretty much it. The gore factor is ok. There's hardly any scare factor. Simple story with simple characters.
Customer Rating:
Summary: A good film...
Comment: I have never been much for horror movies or movies with a lot of gore in them, but when i first read the 30 Days of Night novel, not the graphic novel, I was hooked. It was a great book and I desperately wanted to see the movie.
So I rented the movie and i really liked it. It wasn't as gorey as I thought it would be ( and I don't know what other people think about the gore, but i thought they used a good amount of it...it wasn't really overpowering the viewer with blood and flying body parts, like blood squirting out of someones arm like a garden hose)
There were a few decapitation scenes that were a bit creepy, but didn't really bother me.The movie did have a good plot up until the end. The climax was merely a small fight between the lead vampire and the head sheriff, but I'll try not to spoil too much of the film. overall I think that this movie is worth a watch, and before you buy it...I would recomend renting it at your nearest video store before buying it, and depending on how much you liked the film, make your move after that.
Hope this reveiw was helpful!
Customer Rating:
Summary: Nothing You Can Sink Your Teeth Into
Comment: I agree with several of the reviewers who noted this movie's lack
of characterization. Because it takes you so quickly from day to
night, one never gets a sense of the town's personality or a proper
feel for the backgrounds of any of its characters. A bit of insight into
the estrangement of the leads and the context of their relationship
would have anchored the film emotionally. The context for the
ship that allegedly brought the vampires to the town was also
absent. I wanted to know where they were from and what brought
them to Barrow other than the obvious absence of sunlight. Two
other things that bothered me were the subtitles and the incoherent
babbling of the lead vampire. All I could get from his incessant
rambling was some sort of anger over the fact that no one believed
in them. The fight sequence at the end and the very last scene between
the two leads were also weak. I've seen vampire movies I liked better
than this, namely Blade and From Dusk 'Til Dawn. This movie had
atmosphere and Josh Hartnett and Melissa George did a fair acting job,
but I feel the film's plot needed more meat on its bones.
Customer Rating:
Summary: The best since Near Dark
Comment: Good vampire movies are few and far between these days. Even John Carpenter's Vampires was only average and Francis Ford Coppolas Dracula never quite reached the heights it should of. So for me this is the best vampire film since Near Dark over 20 years ago.
An Alaskan town is brought under seige by a small army of vampires. The reason for this and why a human brought them to the the town in the first place is never explained. But once they arrive its a roller-coaster ride. Be warned it is extremly violent and not for the faint hearted. Unlike a few reviewers I thought the vampires themselves were very believable. Both incredibly powerful (at night anyway) and utterly souless. However some of their dialogue was very clunky and did leave a lot to be desired.
This has no relation to the gothic vampire movies of Hammer films and the like. Sure the vampires can't survive in daylight, but stakes through the heart and holy water are not part of the equation!
So a very entertaining and violent movie that I look forward to watching again soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
