30days7sm.jpg

What’s Black and White and Red All Over?

30 Days Of Night / Agent Bedhead

Film Reviews | October 21, 2007 | Comments (56)


What we have here is vampires and an abundance of nighttime, and not a whole hell of a lot more. 30 Days Of Night takes place within the upper confines of Alaska. The northernmost town, Barrow, is situated well within the Arctic Circle, and the community suffers a protracted period during winter when sunlight never appears. Based on the Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith graphic novel, 30 Days Of Night begins shortly before last sundown before the town descends into a month-long period of darkness. Let’s just excuse the factual discrepancy that Barrow, Alaska, actually endures over two months of total darkness, because with a vampire flick, “67 Days, Give Or Take, Of Night” just doesn’t sound quite as fashionable. This is a very slick and stylish film, and when it works, it really works. Unfortunately, a weak script, even simpler than the graphic novel itself, eats this film alive.

The film begins while most of Barrow’s 500 or so residents are departing for slightly warmer climates before the long night sets in. Sheriff Eben (Josh Hartnett) helps prepare the 152 stragglers for this normally uneventful stretch of monotony. This season starts out slightly different when Eben, scratching his head, finds a pile of melted cellular phones, after which the town’s sled dogs are brutally slain and the local helicopter is vandalized beyond use. Stella (Melissa George), the fire marshall and estranged wife of Eben, ends up missing the last flight out of town, and all roads leading to the outside world are soon rendered impassible due to near-constant whiteouts. An odd, Renfieldesque character known as The Stranger (a virtually unrecognizable Ben Foster) wanders into town and mutters warnings of a mysterious “they” who are coming. Shortly thereafter, a pack of vampires descend for a lengthy feeding frenzy, and people start dying with an alarming lack of subtlety. Those who survive the initial slaughter gather at the local greasy spoon and plan for action. Any skepticism about the existence of vampires soon fades, as these bloodsuckers quickly prove themselves to be lethal in their speed and strength. Forget guns, garlic, and all the rest — all that the survivors can do to avoid death-by-vampire is to hide out, wait for the sunlight, and occasionally decapitate those bloody bastards. The closest thing that the town of Barrow has to a lethal weapon is Josh Hartnett — boy, are they screwed.

The film’s visuals are fairly impressive, especially since 30 Days Of Night was filmed entirely in New Zealand. The film’s director, David Slade (Hard Candy), used copious amounts of Epsom salts, fluffy white blankets, and an abundance of shredded paper to create a desaturated white landscape. Of particular note is the vampires’ opening massacre, in which most of the town’s residents perish. Slade shoots this scene from above, and as the vampires perform the extermination, the town’s milky, snow-covered streets are illuminated by the rivers of bloodletting, in which the predators’ victims squirm like overturned cockroaches. Quite fittingly, these vampires are nothing at all like Bram Stoker’s Dracula would lead us to expect. These bloodsuckers are definitely not the seductive, romanticized breed wrought by Anne Rice, whose preternatural types drink blood from goblets and run around in tights while they indulge in the thrill of the chase. Fuck that — all these vampires want is blood. Feral and animalistic, the vamps dress as if they’re attending a Eurotrash all-night rave, speak in a guttural, subtitled language, and never wipe the blood from their chins. One female vampire looks a lot like Marilyn Manson, if that tells you anything at all about their level of seductiveness. The vampires’ tall, brooding leader, Marlow (Danny Huston), who reminds me of the lead singer of Fine Young Cannibals, is something of a motivational speaker to his followers. Marlow forbids his clan from turning anyone, lest they have to compete in greater numbers for food. Furthermore, he instructs his clan to leave no survivors, so no one can tell their tale, and humankind can keep on thinking that vampires are merely the stuff of nightmares.

30 Days of Night alternates between graphically brutal horror and prolonged moments of dread, and unfortunately, the film’s pacing is utter crap — the hide-chase-flee sequences quickly become repetitive and almost episodic. Thus, while the film’s exhilarating moments are a strength, these visceral sequences are so exhausting to watch that I found myself struggling not to take a nap while the survivors hide out in an attic for a few weeks. In the final act, the survivor’s actions seem to point towards only the film’s ending, rather than the impending sunlight, and last-minute sacrifices can only be summarized as totally underwhelming. Character development is also exceedingly bare, and other than Eben, his brother, and Stella, the other survivors are fairly nameless. So, we don’t really care when someone dashes into the snow to save his elderly father, and we don’t understand why an undeveloped character gives an emotional speech and asks Eben to kill him when he is bitten by a vampire child. Perhaps if the director hadn’t reduced the citizens’ numbers so quickly, we might have gotten to know a few of the survivors a bit more. This could have spared us the nauseating moments when Eben and Stella realize that they are still madly in love, which is a more hurl-inducing development than any of the flim’s goriest moments.

The focus of 30 Days Of Night undeniably ends up on Huston, who is captivating onscreen in a very different way than Gary Oldman’s Dracula. His Marlow is at some moments quite cruel and mocking before he kills his victims, yet at other times, the character’s intelligence seems to point towards a larger backstory. Poor little Hartnett, for all his ubiquitous squinty-eyed expressiveness, really does make a valiant effort as the town’s sheriff. George, for her part, must have spent more time having her lipstick and eye-shadow reapplied than perfecting her role. In cases where the plot is so simple, a film’s execution simply must be aggressively and thoroughly cool, or it just won’t work. 30 Days Of Night almost delivers the goods, but not quite.

Agent Bedhead (a.k.a. “Kimberly”) lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She can be found replenishing her adrenaline supply over at agentbedhead.com.


Gone Baby Gone | Comebacks, The



Comments

Just a correction...it's HarTnett. Not that I really care, I can't stand the guy, but alas, it was bugging me.

But that small thing aside, good review.

Oops. Noted and corrected. Ed.

Posted by: vic at October 20, 2007 11:18 PM

It's certainly been a while since we had a good vampire flick. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll have to wait a little longer. I simply cannot buy Josh Hartnett as a sheriff...

Posted by: Jon at October 21, 2007 1:02 AM

forget this crap, LUCY LIU has a dvd out (RISE) where she naked and a vampire in a good bunch of scenes.Lots of gratious nude babes in it..thank you hollywood

Posted by: pasadenamike at October 21, 2007 1:16 AM

Too bad, the previews made this look pretty cool (Josh Hartnett not withstanding, of course). I may have to rent it eventually for Danny Huston, though.

Posted by: TT at October 21, 2007 1:38 AM

Meh, that's about what I expected.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at October 21, 2007 2:37 AM

Maaaan, I cannot stand when directors and/or cinematographers think they can use this stupid BLUE monochrome. From the previews and such, this movie looks exactly like other "stylish" movies: it is monochrome. snore.
they think they can film the entire dam thing with a blue filter over the lense and think it's stylish??? arrrrrr
the painter is anngrrryyyy with all this lazy imagery. PHOTOGRAPHY IS A LITTLE HARDER. try mixing a few colours, you'll manage.

Posted by: Brenda at October 21, 2007 2:59 AM

This movie was crazy. I enjoyed it on a basic level. I agree with all of the aforementioned gripes. But, I left the movie theater satisfied.

Also, I can say with 100 percent certainty that it is the best Josh Hartnett movie I have seen.(Sin City doesn't count.)

Also, Brenda, the setting is a freezing land of perpetual night. How would you portray that visually other than by a cold blue filter? It's not supposed to be colorful. It's supposed to be cold, dark, and miserable.

Posted by: Tanner at October 21, 2007 4:24 AM

Where's Buffy when you need her? *Sigh*

Posted by: JJ McClay at October 21, 2007 5:57 AM

"...The film begins ..... before the long night sets in. Sheriff Eben (Josh Hartne...." PASS!

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 21, 2007 7:47 AM

I saw this movie yesterday, and I'll admit..I liked it.

I left the theater feeling disturbed and a little war-torn, which is usually what I go for with these kinds of movies. Hartnett did a good job considering the material (and the fact that had Melissa George to play off of), and the vampires' savagery translated well on-screen.

It won't win any Oscars, but it's just fine for a weekend matinee.

Posted by: Dingles at October 21, 2007 10:34 AM

I saw this movie yesterday, and I'll admit..I liked it.

I left the theater feeling disturbed and a little war-torn, which is usually what I go for with these kinds of movies. Hartnett did a good job considering the material (and the fact that had Melissa George to play off of), and the vampires' savagery translated well on-screen.

It won't win any Oscars, but it's just fine for a weekend matinee.

Posted by: Dingles at October 21, 2007 10:35 AM

I used to count myself among the Hartnett haters, but then I saw Lucky Number Slevin. He rocks in that. And the movie's good, too.

Posted by: spaceodditiy at October 21, 2007 10:37 AM

...and goddammit I hate double posting.

Posted by: Dingles at October 21, 2007 10:38 AM

My 12 year old sister, who thinks she knows movies because she watched 300 on the sly, desperately wants to see this movie and thinks it looks "really good". I'm forwarding this review to my parents to make sure that doesn't happen.

Posted by: Rusty at October 21, 2007 11:01 AM

I didn't go see this because I expected a great plot. I went to see vampires. It delivered. It was dark, creepy, gross, and it felt similar to the zombie survival movies. I liked 300, and I liked this one. Purely fun entertainment, what it was supposed to be.

Posted by: jp at October 21, 2007 12:17 PM

There's such a special place in my heart for good vampire flicks (and there aren't many out there). Ones that make vamps more than just languid Gothic types who mill around in fancy outfits and lots of eyeliner (ahem, "Underworld").

Sometimes don't need a developed plot. Sometimes I just want to be scared. Maybe "30 Days" will deliver. It'd be a great gift for Halloween.

And I second the comment on "Lucky Number Slevin". It was a fun one.

Posted by: Alabamapink at October 21, 2007 1:29 PM

Going against my better judgment, I saw this before the review came out. I couldn't help it, some friends were in town looking for something to do and there really isn't much, plus, I'm a sucker for a vamp flick. I'd definitely have to agree with everything in the review. I was very underwhelmed, and oddly surprised by everything that I saw.

I didn't know too much about the movie except that it had vampires. If I had known Josh Hartnett was in it, I might've suggested a different flick all together, but alas... I liked that the vampires spoke what seemed to be an archaic Latin, although it may have been interesting to just hear them speak it when they were with each other. But it was also interesting that the citizens who did turn, didn't acquire the language skills of their sires, but seemed to understand them nonetheless.

As an understanding (and I'm a huge nerd, it's okay, I admit it), when a vamp feeds it's supposed to be a close to euphoric state, so the convulsing didn't really do it for me. I did enjoy the aerial shots of the town being massacred, and the way the frequent whiteouts slowly washed away any traces of the blood, but I was more grossed out than scared, and frankly I'd rather be scared.

Overall, I definitely agree with the review, but the more I think about it, the more little things stick out that I really enjoyed. I may have to watch it again when the time comes.

Posted by: Kash at October 21, 2007 3:02 PM

Eh, Hartnett does get bonus points for having been Zeke on The Faculty (a guilty pressure if there ever was one), but...... a Sheriff? C'mon. This could have been Cole Hauser or that guy from the Punisher hell ANYONE who could have pulled off harried and rugged. Anyone but this squinting metro.'

I'll see this eventually, but I won't like it.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 21, 2007 3:04 PM

As an understanding (and I'm a huge nerd, it's okay, I admit it), when a vamp feeds it's supposed to be a close to euphoric state, so the convulsing didn't really do it for me.

I got the impression these were "real" vampires, not literary vampires, so the whole vampire-as-metaphor-for-sexuality wouldn't be appropriate. The euphoria while being drained is a new-ish idea I think... probably starting with Stoker's novel.

Posted by: canology at October 21, 2007 3:38 PM

I'll see this eventually, but I won't like it.

The hell? Oh, BSlim....you're certainly not boring, I'll give you that.

Posted by: Daphne at October 21, 2007 6:09 PM

I second the above comment.

Posted by: Ya... at October 21, 2007 6:20 PM

While I tend to be completely behind the reviews here, this one just rang false to me. First off, it struck me as the whole point of people not getting fleshed out and then dying was that they had been keeping secrets from one another (empassioned-kill-me-speech guy), as small towns often do. To say nothing of the fact that the review omitted one of the best parts about the vampire child: After she's killed, the survivors ask themselves if anyone knew her, and they're relieved when they realize she was just an outsider.

And that's really the whole point of the movie, to me: They're trying to keep their nice little community safe from the ravages of the outside world. Stella doesn't want to move back into that, Eben can't think of anything but protecting it, and the vampires just want to move in, use it up, and toss it away. Everyone moved up there for their own little reasons, and the world intruding (in the form of vampires) is killing them and the town itself.

Oh, and Ben Foster is only "unrecognizable" if you didn't see 3:10 to Yuma, wherein he had the same accent, same middle-distance predatory stare, same shambling saunter, etc. I love the guy, really, but his "creepy character" setting is pretty static.

Posted by: Charlie at October 21, 2007 6:47 PM

I saw this today; I'd give it a solid 6 out of 10. No, it's not the best vampire flick ever made, but it is well-done. Extremely violent, don't let a kid see it. But the Arctic setting is inspired. Ben Foster is in it for maybe a whole 5 minutes, so if you're a fan, don't see it just for him. I think Hartnett does an OK job. He does look a little young to be a Sheriff. So that's a little off-putting at first, but once the slaughterin' starts, you get over it.
I thought it was pretty creepy and scary. Hollywood has managed to lower my expectations such that if I go to a movie and don't feel completely ripped off, I call that a win. When this comes out on DVD, a good vampire double feature would be this movie and another vampire flick, "Near Dark."

Posted by: LL at October 21, 2007 9:53 PM

I agree with everything from the review, and I almost left the theater unsatisfied - until Josh Hartnett's character punched through Danny Huston's head in the last fight scene. I laughed so hard I cried. That scene made the movie for me.

Posted by: B.F.D. at October 21, 2007 9:57 PM

Quick "Alaska Boy" comment: I haven't seen the movie but there are no "Roads out" of Barrow. there is essentally one "Road Out" from Fairbanks up to the pipeline. But that road, known as the "Haul Road" as it is the road used to haul stuff to build and maintain the pipeline, only goes to Deadhorse. Deadhorse is the town the services the Pipeline station at Prudhoe Bay.

That's it folks, there are essentally no connector roads north of Fairbanks.

So you don't have to use whiteouts to prevent people from going out of town. If you can't get on a plane or a dogsled or a boat in the summer, you aren't getting out of Barrow.

My point (and I have one) is although Barrow is a major metropolis for its region (it actually has around 5,000 people) it is still insanely isolated compared to anything you can think of in the lower 48. But for people on the slope, Barrow's the big city. If you want to think small, think Kaktovik or Nuiqsuit.

Posted by: morgan at October 21, 2007 9:59 PM

I saw this Friday night and admit I liked it. But I went in expecting exactly what I got. I had no lofty ideas of this being a "film." It was a movie and it did it's job. I was entertained.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

What this movie had going for it were the "moral" questions it raised (for lack of better word). After it was over, we debated whether or not we would have risked our lives to find the elderly father (who was sadly a liability more than anything)? Would we feel guilty for beheading a child, even if she meant to rip our faces off? Does anyone REALLY survive emotional and physical trauma like this, even if they "live"?

And the big one: was the guy who killed his family merciful or a murderer? Could you kill those you love to save them from a possibly worse fate?

This movie did just gross me out or creep me out. At times, it made me flat out uncomfortable.

Yes, it had serious issues with plot, continuity, acting, etc... but I expected that.

I totally got what I wanted.

Posted by: superedna at October 21, 2007 11:50 PM

I saw this Friday night and admit I liked it. But I went in expecting exactly what I got. I had no lofty ideas of this being a "film." It was a movie and it did it's job. I was entertained.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

What this movie had going for it were the "moral" questions it raised (for lack of better word). After it was over, we debated whether or not we would have risked our lives to find the elderly father (who was sadly a liability more than anything)? Would we feel guilty for beheading a child, even if she meant to rip our faces off? Does anyone REALLY survive emotional and physical trauma like this, even if they "live"?

And the big one: was the guy who killed his family merciful or a murderer? Could you kill those you love to save them from a possibly worse fate?

This movie didn't just gross me out or creep me out. At times, it made me flat out uncomfortable.

Yes, it had serious issues with plot, continuity, acting, etc... but I expected that.

I totally got what I wanted.

Posted by: superedna at October 21, 2007 11:52 PM

And am I the only one who understood what the emotional speech guy was talking about?

Earlier in the movie, Eben was looking at all of the pictures of that guy's kids and wife. He said something like, "When are you going to get them all to move here with you?" The guy is visibly uncomfortable and gives him some sort of vague answer. After he's bitten, he reveals to Eben that the reason they haven't moved is that they are dead and that he can't stand the thought of living forever without them.

Posted by: superedna at October 21, 2007 11:55 PM

Wait -- someone managed to steal everyone's cell phones and melt them down and no one saw him?

Belief in supernatural bloodsuckers or in Josh Hartnett as a law enforcement person don't seem to be the greatest leaps of logic this film wants me to make.

Posted by: Brett at October 21, 2007 11:57 PM

I liked Josh Hartnett, and thought the movie was entertaining. I wasn't expecting "Out of Africa." Was a good flick and one I would recommend.

Posted by: Jessie at October 22, 2007 12:53 AM

I am still going to see this in the theater. I will adjust my expectations accordingly.

Posted by: jvon at October 22, 2007 3:40 AM

The film's visuals are fairly impressive, especially since 30 Days Of Night was filmed entirely in New Zealand.


Hahha what the HELL is that supposed to mean????

Posted by: Carly at October 22, 2007 6:47 AM

I will see this movie because: hello, vampires. And I am a sucker (heh, pun totally intended) for any movie involving befanged creatures of the night, I'm not proud of the fact but I will do nothing to change it.

I do like the sound of feral bloodsuckers (I'm trying not to repeat the V word and running out of synonyms here), I've never really bought into the romanticised Anne Rice worldview, so hurrah for that element of the movie at least.

Posted by: Alex the Odd at October 22, 2007 7:41 AM

For those who did see this dreck (like myself), did anyone else notice the similarity between the final scene and the episode of Buffy where she and Angel watch the sunrise and it snows?

The ending of this film suggests a Buffy-esque sequel may be hitting DVD shelves next year.

Posted by: Scott at October 22, 2007 9:47 AM

My 12 year old sister, who thinks she knows movies because she watched 300 on the sly, desperately wants to see this movie and thinks it looks "really good". I'm forwarding this review to my parents to make sure that doesn't happen.

Rusty, you're supposed to be helping to scare the fucking crap out of your younger siblings. I still have nightmares about the shit my sister and her thug boyfriends exposed me to as a child.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at October 22, 2007 10:39 AM

And am I the only one who understood what the emotional speech guy was talking about?"

No, you weren't the only one. I caught it too. As for the movie itself, I enjoyed it for what it was.

Posted by: Elsie at October 22, 2007 11:58 AM

"Where's Buffy when you need her? *Sigh*"

I miss Buffy so god damn much, it's just pathetic. I like the comics but man, when that show hit the right notes, it was like nothing else.

Anyway, Josh Hartnett bores me to death.

Posted by: stacy at October 22, 2007 12:49 PM

I thought the review was quite humorous. She did say that it did have its good moments too, so maybe for some people that is worth the ticket price and the time.

I also loved Lucky # Sleven, but don't forget about Wicker Park.

Posted by: lickoriche at October 22, 2007 1:00 PM

I think that some of the cringe inducing moments of the movie could have been avoided if they stuck to the plot in the graphic novel: there Eben and Stella aren't separated but currently in love, and they are both part of the law in Barrow. There was also some conflict with older Vampires who disapproved of what Marlow was doing. I don't really understand why the film makers left these things out. The graphic novel wasn't huge on the plot to begin with, so why would you pare that down even more for a movie version?

I also second the "Marilyn Manson" compliant. I thought part of the scare factor of vamps was that they could pass for ordinary humans until they tried to bite you. The warped faces just looked kind of silly. And yes, Hartnett is kind of boring and too young and fresh looking to be believable as a sheriff in an arctic town.

Posted by: marcyfight at October 22, 2007 2:28 PM

I just lolled and lolled when Josh Hartnett exclaimed "It must be MINUS TEN OUT HERE!" as thought this is something an Alaskan is unfamiliar with or more than slightly averse to.

All this "We know the cold" is bullshit, since the director doesn't actually use the environment in an even remotely compelling or accurate way. The survivors walk right through a white out with their faces uncovered, Alaska during its darkest months supposedly only goes to -10 (I live in the subarctic and we still had to go outside for recess and lunch in MINUS TENNNN!) If you're going to use an arctic setting, take advantage of it, don't just have it there as a convenient deus ex machina for periods when the main characters who we don't give a shit about can wander around unhampered. The weather should have played a major role, but didn't in the slightest, which was really disappointing because why have a sweet setting like small-town Alaska in the dead of winter and not bloody use it?

Posted by: Heather S at October 22, 2007 2:49 PM

I can't understand why the filmmakers decided to change the story so much. If they had done it like sin city (shoot it frame for frame from the comic) it would have been perfect. In the graphic novel the story was simple but great, there were a couple of interesting sub-plots and there was hardly any repeated running and hiding.

MINOR SPOILER
I think the complete failure on the film maker's part is evident in what happened in my theater. When the guy told Eben to chop off his head and they went in a back room to do it, and it took a couple of swings of the axe, the entire audience burst into laughter. This happened several times after that for parts that were supposed to be emotional, but just came off as ridiculous.

If you need me I will be hiding under the covers re-reading the graphic novel and wishing things could have been different.

Posted by: the_wakeful at October 22, 2007 3:32 PM

1. Canology is totally correct.

2. I don't get all the Josh Hartnett hate. I'd "f"
him :) And really, isn't that what really
counts in the world of Hollywood entertainment?

Posted by: .... at October 22, 2007 4:18 PM

The audience I saw the movie with was actually pretty somber during the "emotional" sequences. Although there were quite a few "Oh my god you're so stupid" quips at certain points, which were well-deserved.

After all, it wouldn't be an American horror movie without a few nameless characters making the noise of a brass band and basically placing neon "Please kill me!" signs over their heads.

Posted by: Dingles at October 22, 2007 5:49 PM

"Hahha what the HELL is that supposed to mean????"

That New Zealand is pretty.

Posted by: PaleoLithchick at October 22, 2007 6:46 PM

If only our audience had been so "somber." We had people who made fun of the old guy with Alzhiemers.

Posted by: superedna at October 22, 2007 8:54 PM

Love vampire movies; hate Hartnett. (As to the question posed by ...., yeah I'd do him, but I'd make sure his mouth was full so he couldn't talk.) The movie was not great, but it justified the $3.00 I paid at the discount matinee. Sure was gory though. I think I actually prefer the tarted up vamp's, a la Rice, so long as they are not portrayed by that simpering Scientological toadstool, T.C.

Posted by: rudy at October 23, 2007 12:14 PM

Dunno - I mean how do you make vampires NOT cheesy? Is that really possible? Maybe I was too influenced at a young age by Salem's Lot. Do you remember that? Wasn't that Marlow, too? Mr. Marlow with the big, blue, bald head & sharp pointy teeth? Of course, THE 70's TV squeeze, David Soul was our hero.

OK - getting off memory lane now, but you know what I mean? Vampires are cheesy by nature - even that sexy Antonio Bandares from the Interview w/a Vampire shitfest.

Posted by: GinKirk at October 23, 2007 5:25 PM

i liked it. i'd do JH. the speech by Random Guy with Family Not Present did make sense. I would have way rathered vampire background than gooey love rhetoric. ALSO, the language the monsters were speaking got on my damn nerves.

Also, wtf happened to Ben Foster? They just killed the bastard? I thought they were going to make him a vamp too. Did I miss it?

Posted by: moi at October 24, 2007 12:47 AM

The vampire in 'Salem's Lot was named Barlow, and he didn't look like a monster in the book.

I think that vampires could be scary in a movie if they found a line between the blood-caked ones in this movie and the sissy ones from Interview With a Vampire.

The book 'Salem's Lot is pretty scary, as is a novel called They Thirst. I'm just not sure how to turn the scary stuff in the books into scary stuff onscreen.

Posted by: canology at October 24, 2007 11:54 PM

Just got back from seeing 30 days of night- and, sorry, but I loved it. Not in a deep, thought-provoking meaningful movie way, but in an it's October and that vampire movie had me crawling up the back of my seat way. I don't need too much back story (I did find my self thinking, 'eh, who cares? let him go!' when Gramps goes off like an idiot). I just need creepiness, some good scares, and blood-letting. This film delivered IMO.
To me, sometimes movies are just about letting go, not thinking, and enjoying the ride.
Wheeeeee!

Posted by: slc at October 25, 2007 11:44 PM

I went and saw this tonight because, honestly, I wanted to eat dinner at the Alamo and watch a movie, any movie, while I ate it.
So my girlfriend and I decided on this.
I laughed more than anything, though quietly.
Until . . .

POSSIBLE SPOILER

After aforementioned emotional speech when Eben takes the man into the room to kill him, you hear the following:
"chop, chop, (pause) floppy noise of head falling onto ground"

I started shaking I was trying so hard not to laugh in the dead silence of the theater. And then my girlfriend looked over at me and I lost it. So here is this quasi-tense scene, a still and silent theater, and a me suddenly breaking into a giggle fit.
She didn't help me when, at the end while Eben is greeting the sunrise, she leaned over and sang into my ear "All we are is dust in the wind."

Go see it, but don't expect to be very scared or overly impressed. The vampires are neat looking and some of the sequences are nicely shot. Don't feel bad if you laugh through most of it, I did.

Posted by: Sharon at October 27, 2007 12:50 AM

I went and saw this tonight because, honestly, I wanted to eat dinner at the Alamo and watch a movie, any movie, while I ate it.
So my girlfriend and I decided on this.
I laughed more than anything, though quietly.
Until . . .

POSSIBLE SPOILER

After aforementioned emotional speech when Eben takes the man into the room to kill him, you hear the following:
"chop, chop, (pause) floppy noise of head falling onto ground"

I started shaking I was trying so hard not to laugh in the dead silence of the theater. And then my girlfriend looked over at me and I lost it. So here is this quasi-tense scene, a still and silent theater, and a me suddenly breaking into a giggle fit.
She didn't help me when, at the end while Eben is greeting the sunrise, she leaned over and sang into my ear "All we are is dust in the wind."

Go see it, but don't expect to be very scared or overly impressed. The vampires are neat looking and some of the sequences are nicely shot. Don't feel bad if you laugh through most of it, I did.

Posted by: Sharon at October 27, 2007 12:53 AM

I went and saw this tonight because, honestly, I wanted to eat dinner at the Alamo and watch a movie, any movie, while I ate it.
So my girlfriend and I decided on this.
I laughed more than anything, though quietly.
Until . . .

POSSIBLE SPOILER

After aforementioned emotional speech when Eben takes the man into the room to kill him, you hear the following:
"chop, chop, (pause) floppy noise of head falling onto ground"

I started shaking I was trying so hard not to laugh in the dead silence of the theater. And then my girlfriend looked over at me and I lost it. So here is this quasi-tense scene, a still and silent theater, and a me suddenly breaking into a giggle fit.
She didn't help me when, at the end while Eben is greeting the sunrise, she leaned over and sang into my ear "All we are is dust in the wind."

Go see it, but don't expect to be very scared or overly impressed. The vampires are neat looking and some of the sequences are nicely shot. Don't feel bad if you laugh through most of it, I did.

Posted by: Sharon at October 27, 2007 12:54 AM

Wow, sorry about the multiple posts, yall. I must try to learn patience when my browser times out.

Posted by: Sharon at October 27, 2007 1:49 PM

Well, I went to see this last night, and I actually really enjoyed it. I wasn't expecting an award winning film, and it definately wasn't one, but I thought it was pretty scary.
I don't scary easily, but when I came home in to my dark house last night, I did have goosebumps. And thats good enough for me!

Posted by: Erin at October 27, 2007 8:53 PM

the movie was excellent and i thouroughly enjoyed it.But where do the other vampires go at the end of the movie.sequel?

Posted by: savasys969 at February 26, 2008 12:01 PM