Despite Some Bad Casting, a Well-Made Film

Rating: 7/10 (20 October 2007)

In Barrow, Alaska the sun sets for an entire month and the villagers are given 30 days of night... most of them are smart enough to leave for Anchorage, giving this town a population of 152 brave souls. But this year, they have visitors: a clan of ancient vampires has staked out the town and wants nothing more than to spend the next thirty days gnawing and clawing through every living thing in sight. How do you kill the undead?
This film received some unbelievably high ratings. For my first viewing (in the theater), I was expecting a decent but not amazing film... with the excessive level of advertising, I had to figure they were going to inflate the box office numbers (something often reserved for less than wonderful films). I left the theater unfulfilled: a film that seems to have one of the best ideas imaginable made by a team that seemingly did not know how to make a horror film. Too stylized, too clean...
We have Josh Hartnett as Eben Oleson and Melissa George as Stella Oleson, the husband-wife sheriff combination, who are having marital problems. They are just annoying. The pretty boy marries the pretty girl and they run the town full of ugly people? Thanks, Hollywood. Oh, they have family problems but are forced to love each other by a crisis? Thanks, Hollywood. Oh, Hartnett is going to be clean-shaven and wearing a light coat in sub-zero temperatures so he looks cute? Thanks, Hollywood. By far some of the worst casting...
The vampires were a major problem for me. They walk around with blank stares on their faces, over-acting their parts (what are those faces). The leader occasionally spouts a line of nonsense philosophy. They screech and screech non-stop. Okay, I get it, you screech. You are annoying me. And they run really fast (which would not be bad, except a sizable bulk of the action happens so fast you never see it). I prefer sleek, intelligent vampires (Anne Rice or Bram Stoker variety) over ravaging monsters.
I am also unsure about the "thirty days"... the film really only takes place over about four days. Where are the other twenty-six? Apparently they sit for five days, act on one day, and sit for another five days. Am I really to assume no one tries to fight the vampires for long periods of time? I understand the concept was "thirty days" but this really did not play into it (nobody was starving or thirsty, for example).
I have ripped on it enough, let me say a few good things: Ben Foster plays the Stranger. I am not sure if I loved his acting, but I loved his character, and could have used more development on him. Early on he comes across as a Crazy Ralph knock-off, talking about death, doom and gloom. But he becomes a Renfield-like character and gets interesting. I wanted more of this, but never really got it.
The music was good -- actually very good (I liked the battle march), and as my colleague Greg Roberts says, the cinematography was nice. I do not know about great, but one scene really stood out as awesome -- an overhead shot of the city being destroyed. It was amazing and made me want to play a video game version of this film. There is also a good shot of what an ax does to a man's head, but that only made me wonder why I did not get more of that action if they were capable.
The most bittersweet scene was with a vampire girl. Children are good villains, especially evil vampire children. But they did not keep her around very long and introduced her with the most off-putting, unnatural line in the film ("Want to play with me now?"). I could understand maybe "Anyone else want to play?" or "I want to play with someone else", but her self-referencing herself as having turned into a killer was just really stupid and poorly delivered.
Give me this film with more blood, more shots of actual violence (instead of doing it lightning speed or off the screen), less family drama, less slow build up. And do not give me Hartnett and George without at least dirtying them up (though I admit Hartnett was great in "Black Dahlia"). This film had more potential than most films coming out today, but squandered it all to be a Hollywood film.
Update: Apparently my memories are fonder than my first impression. I went to my second viewing at House of Horrors in Oshkosh and sat down recalling a flawed but overly enjoyable film. After it was over, it was even better than I remembered. Reading this review, I am not sure what caused me to be so harsh on a David Slade and Sam Raimi film. I still think the casting was bad and the girl vampire was stupid, but the overall vampire feel is good and the cinematography is breath-taking. I had to bump this review up just a notch or two.