'30 Days' Sucks the Fun Out of Graphic Novel
Fast and gory and pretty spectacular in its amalgam of Bram Stoker and "Northern Exposure," the graphic novel is very entertaining. Slower and gory, director David Slade's dutiful film version has its moments--including an eerily beautiful gliding overhead perspective of the vampires and their victims and the blood-stained snow--but it feels sluggish and attenuated. It's too bad, because the world could've used a new collection of vampires, a breed operating at the speed of light with the ferocity of a sales force working entirely on commission, the way "28 Days Later" and especially "28 Weeks Later" reimagined flesh-eating zombies for today's active lifestyle.
The script is simple stuff, simpler than the graphic novel, which at least managed to devote a page or two to the vampires' back story. Not here. They just show up, as if their charter bus hit a bad patch of weather and pulled over for repairs somewhere. Josh Hartnett, looking worried every second, plays the sheriff in charge of keeping a generic group of townsfolk alive. (Danny Huston fares best as primo vampiro.) We follow the survivors as they inch their way across town, day by computer-generated-scary-skies day, from an attic to the general store to the police station. When the words "DAY 7" appear on the screen, you can't help but think: Only seven? Twenty-three days to go? Damn.
Director Slade, who did the nicely acted piece of dung "Hard Candy," has some talent, but he's too in love with his individual pictures of slaughter to concern himself with the proper rhythm and velocity of a scene. Nearly two hours long, "30 Days of Night" makes you feel the cold (though it was shot in New Zealand) and feel the fangs, but it also makes you feel like 30 days is a pretty long time.
Get showtimes and movie details for "30 Days of Night."