Worth a watch

Rating: 6/10 (4 April 2010)

As ever, I would like to be able to use .5 markings on IMDb but to no avail! Whilst I have rated this 6 it is going to be closer to a 6.5 if I am honest. Not the type of 6.5 to rate it as a 7 though (see the problem?) I like this film. I do. It gripped me and pulled me in. I like the premise (although I agree it is nothing too original). I am a fan of vampire films/stories in general. So why not a higher score?? Well, let me begin...
The first 40 minutes was great. The set up drew me in, the slow reveal of the vampires wrenched up the tension and the unfolding panic and destruction was dealt with brilliantly.
The overhead shot of the town being over run with its contrast between white, white snow and blood red, er, blood was a beautiful but harrowing scene. The look of terror and realisation on the face of the townsfolk as this was going on was also well caught.
But then the film turns. Its set up is lost in an hour of nothingness. OK, I get it - they are striving to survive. I get that they have to be quiet. So why do they, one by one, randomly start running about trying to take on the vampires??? There is not a great deal of logic other than to eek out the tension and action a little bit more. 20 minutes could easily have been shaved off the film. A lot of the middle portion was redundant and repetitious.
Another problem I had was Josh Hartnett. I do not think I have seen a film of his yet that I have thought "wow, what a great actor". He is wooden throughout this film and I have no empathy for him at all. I think this is, in part, down to the lack of backstory but he is just not believable as an actor. If I were looking for like to like characters in similar films I would compare him to Cillian Murphys character in 28 Days Later. The only difference is Cillian Murphy played the character with real depth. You felt he understood the predicament, the threat to the lives of those he was protecting. I got none of that with Josh Hartnett. Still, better than 40 Days and 40 Nights (dreadful film!!).
The supporting cast really had no stories at all. We did not get to know them or care about them. They were there only as fodder for the vampires. Great, but when they are central to the dilemma the main character faces at the end of the film you want to feel some empathy for the choice he has to make.
Which brings me to the conclusion. I really don't get why, after beating the head vampire, the others would just run away. It makes no sense. He was just one relatively new and weak vamp against a whole gang. They could have ripped him to pieces and found the rest quite easily.
So lets conclude.
The Good - Brilliantly shot and for the first half tensely directed and performed vampire flick with a difference. Plenty of blood and gore which always helps a horror film and I like the make up jobs on the vamps.
The Bad - Josh Hartnett. And a second act that dragged far too long. Add to that an ending that did not really make much sense and you have disappointments running throughout the film There are much better vampire films out there. This is an average attempt but if you can look past the wooden performances and dragging plot its worth a watch!