I just rented this last night and, maybe it was my low expectations going in, but I thought it was pretty awesome. I mean...it was nothing ground breaking, but still rather well done nonetheless. Dark atmosphere, very well designed and disturbing vampire characters, and believeable-enough performances. I found it to be paced perfectly, never getting too slow at any part, and some of the action/fight/death scenes were downright gruesome. There was also just enough emotion injected into the story so that I cared about the characters without forgetting that it was a horror movie. Since it came out on DVD just yesterday I figured some others might have just watched it, and that it would be a good time to make this thread and get some reviews. Sorry if this is a repost...I searched "30 Days of Night" and "Hartnett", and as far as I can tell, nobody ever made a thread about this movie.
Terrible. Just absolutely terrible. There were two scenes in the beginning where Josh Hartnett's logic was just downright ludicrous. Although that did lead to many jokes for us throughout the rest of the debacle. Seriously...kids didn't destroy all the cell phones because kids "would've left a note". r****ded. Logic.
I watched it over the weekend. I really liked it, too. I liked it so much that I found and read the comic it's based on a couple days ago. Unlike most print to movie adaptations, I thought that the movie was better than the comic.
It wasn't bad but I did yawn a few times during, so it is worth a rental but dont expect anything spectacular.
I really liked it when I saw it not too long ago. One of the better "zombie" movies I've seen lately (Yes, I know I still need to watch 28 Days/weeks...and yes I know they're vampires, but it's pretty much in the "zombie" genre)
Blasphemy... zombies and vampires are NOT in the same genre. Vampires suck! Zombies do not. Vampires - can be very gay Zombies - kick major ass
It sucked. Mostly because of the vampires. They were much more annoying than scary. Completely killed the cool atmosphere. Some of the action scenes were all right. Other than that it bored me.
And dumb. They just now discovered that place? And it took them like an hour it seems to ravage the town...why did they need 30 nights to kill nearly 150 people.
Better than Underworld but not better than Blade. Although those two movies had a lead character who was a vampire too or half vampire in Blade's case. This one is just humans versus vampires.
uh no. 30 days had a good overall premise but man it just fails executing it all the way around, esp. as it nears the finale.
Same here, actually even though both underworld are hardly the peak of filmaking, they still got plenty of Kate....
Not surprised to see negative comments here. Horror is a love it or hate it genre, more so than the others, in my opinion. Probably why it has a 50% rating on Rottentomatoes, which is lower than usual for a movie I enjoyed.
I liked Ben Foster in it, he so good at playing a psycho. He's got that voice...like in 3:10 to Yuma.
I saw it at the movies and it was decent...Better than I expected...Not a lot of scary stuff, but a lot of startling/shock you type of stuff... Would I buy it, no, but if someone else bought it, I'd borrow it and watch again...
First you say Eastern Promises is bad, now this. Remind me to ask your review of a movie before I go see it. If you like it, I'll pass. If you hate it, I'll go.
No joke this movie was one of the better vampire movies to come out in a long time that put a different spin on those type of movies.
