Has its moments, but still a disappointment

Rating: 6/10 (2 June 2008)

30 DAYS OF NIGHT came highly recommended to me by some friends whose opinions I respect, so when I brought the DVD home from the video store I was excited to see what the box cover promised was "one of the best horror films of the decade," or words to that effect. Unfortunately I eventually found myself disappointed by 30 DAYS OF NIGHT. I will say that I love the concept - a horde of vampires descending on a snowbound, remote Alaskan town just as the sun sets for a month - and the first half hour or so of set-up was excellent (as the unseen vampires methodically destroy every possible escape route for the puny humans still in town). The vampires were also totally bad-ass, which was a pleasant surprise (too many vamp films these days try to go the Anne Rice route and make them sympathetic, romantic, misunderstood creatures -- screw that, I want my vampires to be savage killing machines!!) But once the vampires attack and the real Monster Mash begins, the film fell apart very quickly for me. It's fun while the bloodsuckers are running around causing chaos, but there are far too many scenes where the surviving humans, after escaping to a new hidey-hole, have conversations like "NOW where do we go?" that kill any momentum that has been built up. The film doesn't skimp on gore, though, so it gets pretty major points for that; but overall 30 DAYS OF NIGHT seemed cobbled together from a bunch of spare parts. If the pacing had been tightened up a little in the editing room we might have had a classic on our hands; as it is, 30 DAYS is worth a look but not a must see. A shame.