Visually magnificent, but lacking a little too much in plot

Rating: 6/10 (19 October 2007)

30 Days of Night as you can probably guess, is about just that. A town in small rural Alaska, the northern-most town in the US, experiences a phenomenon where darkness sets upon the town for an entire month, and leaves most residents scrambling to get out. But unfortunate for those who stayed, a pack of hungry vampires has found the town and decides they should get fed. And as the dead begin to outnumber the survivors, it becomes very clear that those who can stay alive need to wait out until the sun finally comes up.
The sheer idea for the film, having the town being draped in darkness for a month, is nothing short of astounding. Yes, it was lifted and is based on a graphic novel, but compared to your typical vampire-related horror flick, it is quite the step up. And as the film sets itself up for the feeding frenzy, it really continues to breathe originality and a blazing sense of imagination. Some of the things happening may not strike you as being particularly relevant at first (or even, who would do some of these things), but as the film moves along, it just all feels so right. And with a very sombre and coked-out character only referred to as The Stranger (Ben Foster) making bizarre predictions of the inevitably obnoxious death scenes soon to come, the film really feels like it is going to jump past the clichés, the terrible American horror norm, and become something extraordinary and memorable.
But then the film betrays itself. It takes far too long to set up the motivations of the main character, Sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett), his separated wife Stella (Melissa George), and even more time on supporting characters like the burly Beau Brower (Mark Boone Junior). I just got far too restless, and even more so when I realized only a few of these characters would make it to the final frame of the film. Why should we care about these characters when these laggy scenes just do nothing but introduce their one-dimensional selves, and not much else? It felt kind of like overkill, but also like the film was trying to compensate for having such a great idea, but no idea as to how to flesh it out.
And when the survival scenes begin to kick in, it becomes even more of a hit and miss. Some scenes are genuinely terrifying and suspenseful, watching the characters try to cope with decisions of wanting to save their fellow townspeople, or just sit in genuine fear of not wanting to be the next victim. But then others drag on with meaningless drivel about absolutely nothing. It just cannot find the balance it needs to survive this pitfall of the idea for the film, and just does not seem to want to attempt more than a handful of times to try and amend it. And do not even get me started on the preposterous ending, which seems ripped out of an entirely different movie altogether (sad to say, it is almost shot-for-shot intact from the graphic novel).
But while the film does have its share of story and pacing problems, the scenes with the vampires attacking are just plain stellar. There are more than a handful of quick cuts, but the majority of the scenes involving them eating their dinners are stylistically beautiful. There are some shots that are just so majestic and so powerful, that one wonders if they are actually in the same horror movie, or if they randomly started splicing in some art-house horror. The tracking shots, the close-ups, the long shots, they are all here, and are all so brilliantly played that the style just takes anything the movie has going for it, and catapults it right into the stratosphere. And even as the violence gets even more senseless and even more graphic, you cannot help but watch in awe at the visuals captured by the camera (and by CGI). Their exquisiteness is enough to make me pray that other mindless (or near mindless) horror flicks take note, and start creating similar if not better visuals. The music is above and beyond top notch as well, giving the film a really heightened sense of style and intense violence (albeit, nowhere near as blood-soaked as I had originally assumed it would be).
The cast, for the most part, is alright. Hartnett has seen better days, and for some reason, seems to be struggling as the lead here. Maybe he had something else on his mind? Some of the scenes he is in just do not completely jive, and when they do, there is awkwardness to all of them. I do not like to even imagine saying it, but it looked like he had more heart to show off in Pearl Harbor, then he does here. George on the other hand, does an infinite amount better, continuing much in the same way she did in the very poor remake of The Amityville Horror. She had an aura around her there that felt like she was above the material, and the same aura appears here. Foster, for his limited amount of screen time, does a great deal of delivering dread and despair for a few of the characters. I wish he had more scenery to chew.
But it is John Huston, more of a classically refined actor, who owns as the vampire leader. He does not speak any English (he communicates in the vampiric language and through grunts and body motions), but that does not stop him from being almost downright terrifying. Seeing this guy at work was a real pleasure, and I just wish the rest of the film was as well done as his performance is.
Nagging issues aside, 30 Days of Night is a decent horror film with aspirations of being better than it is. Watch it for the visuals, and forget about the plot.
6/10.