| Overall Grade: |
B |
|
| Story: |
B+ |
|
|
| Acting: |
C |
|
|
| Direction: |
C+ |
|
|
| Visuals: |
B+ |
|
|
could have been great
by TomL (movies profile)
Mar 31, 2008
10
of
12 people found this review helpful
I wanted to love this movie, but there are certain aspects that keep it from reaching its full potential. From the moment it was announced about a year ago now.. the buzz has been ever building and unfortunately it just doesn't quite get there. The human characters are boring and in all honesty it is the vampires who become more interesting. Like the film as a whole, the cast including the likes of Josh Hartnett also do not reach their full potential, it seems as if they are holding back the entire film and as a result.. you just don't care about them. Its obvious that the movie was well made and well shot, but there are moments where it appears as if there were missing reels and the film looses its sense of time and place. On the plus side however, the blood and guts are plentiful enough to appeal to any avid horror fan and the vampire make-up effects are great. The setting of the film in general is fun to look at and the mood is genuinely creepy, there are indeed some good scares and well staged vamp attacks. The vampires in this film are given their own languege complete with subtitles, something rarely offered in the genre, which helps add a little originality to an otherwise routine bloodsucker movie. Overall, I did like this movie and I did enjoy it for its moments of sheer greatness.. however few and far between they may be. Had 30 days of night been handled a little more carefully and consitently it could have been great, but alas it has its flaws and I accepted them as much as I could. |
My Public Profile 
