30 Days of night

Lands Leaving

Just read this, bit short, all build up and then sudden ending. good though. Is the film worth seeing, I can imagine, done well, it could be pretty good

Fysh

I went to see the film last night and thought it was quite good. It's a pretty decent adaptation of the GN although it's hard to pin down; Templesmith's style can't exactly be emulated for the close-up shots, but there seems to have been some sort of post-production effect applied to some of the longer-range shots.
The story is tweaked somewhat but is largely the same (meaning the same plot holes and overall structure). It's a decent slab of entertainment and, as vampire films go, it's different enough to the rest of the genre to merit worth watching once. I don't think I'd bother buying a DVD or going out of my way to watch it again, though.

Edited to add: Posted up a longer review here.

Lands Leaving

Good review, cheers, I'll probably check it out this week. Glad to hear its not too gory, saw 4 made me feel ill.

eamon234

Sounds good - I'm sick of all these Saw / Hostel gorefests it's about time we got some suspense back into horror can't wait to see this one.

Thundercracker

eamon234 wrote: »

Sounds good - I'm sick of all these Saw / Hostel gorefests it's about time we got some suspense back into horror can't wait to see this one.

I cant recommend Dead Silence then?

Lands Leaving

Saw it tonight, not bad at all, tho it could have been so much more. Shockingly Hartnett didn't bother me... shame about the rest of the cast. Jesus his ex wife (and why did that part of the comic need to be changed?)

Did a big laugh go up in the cinema when Billy revealed he killed his family and his gun jammed for him? Bad taste, bad bad taste!

Points for building up the ax killings... they just grew inexplicably in brutality

MarkHall

I really enjoyed it. Found Certain Moments to be a Tad loud. A whole lot of Screaming in Places. I found it to be very compimentery of the comic stuff.
The level of Gore wasn't as bad considering it was about folks being eaten.
I did love the Decaps. The sheer Effort each one took was a great touch. No easy slices here.

ChumpStain

Wasn't a big fan of the comic to be honest(okay not great), thought the film would be terrible but they did pretty well in terms of execution and pacing. Especially considering how short the source was but the same porblems I had with the comic were in the film so it was alright on a whole.
But am i the only one who wasn't that big a fan of the comic? a couple of mates think i'm a blasphemer when I say I don't love it!

bombidol

I dont love it by any stretch, its ok like. Never bought it put it that way.

Fysh

I wouldn't say I love it, the concept is nice but beyond that the story really doesn't do anything original. Added to this, Steve Niles just isn't a particularly good writer (he's not bad by any measure, but he's a bit too "meh" for his own good). I do like the comic quite a lot but that's because I'm a sucker for Ben Templesmith's artwork, the atmosphere he created is engrossing enough to make you not mind how thin-to-the-ground the story is.

Jack B. Badd

Like Fysh said, it's worth a watch once. Some of the emulation of Templesmith's art was quite good,

especially the bit with the guy walking into town at the start of the film. His makeup and the CGI were just right

. Also I was really pleasantly surprised by the audio effects/music they used throughout the film, they fit in perfectly with the events

constitutionus

i didnt read the book but did see th film. i was quite happy with it as it brought back suspense instead of relying on gore. to me it was really more about survival than combat. kept thinking of ann frank and the nazis for some bizare reason.

loved how the vamps were portrayed. brutal buggers and genuinely scary. the way they dispacthed some of the residents was wonderfull in how cold and matter of fact in the way it was done (im thinking of the guy that was casually pinned to the wall by a poker here)

the ariel shots of the massace stood out for me and the shreiking and gutteral language of the vamps really lent them a more bestial slant. clever cover story as well that they came up with to cover up the massacre

someone elsewhere said it reminded them of "the thing" and i echo that. im not quite sure why as theyre two totally different films but i think its down to the relative claustrophobia of the film. its pretty much all in doors or tunnels or in attics with alot of legging it about all wrapped up in an isolated enviroment.

its got the same tone i guess.

i must say its did its job. ill be looking out for the trade to see just how different the book is to the film so i expect IDW will be happy with it

MarkHall

Con: There is a lovely collected copy of the 30 series of books out now.
It's about the size of an absolute HB and has some nice extras in it.
I gotta admit I love IDW collections. They put so much effort into them.

Jack B. Badd

constitutionus wrote: »

kept thinking of ann frank and the nazis for some bizare reason.

That's what I was I thinking too at the time of watching...except Anne Frank was better at keeping her gob shut when there were nasties wandering around outside her attic :rolleyes:

Thundercracker

If the references to Anne Frank werent bad enough, this was the worst edited movie ever made, and quite frankly I was disgusted. It was too fast paced, their was no explanation as to anything, character development was non exsistant and emotional silences seemed to make up so much of the scenes

Fysh

In fairness, the "Rubbish editing that completely gets in the way of the film" award for 2007 is going to Michael Bay for managing to screw up a lot of the editing in Transformers so that a significant chunk of all the fights were just blurry. While your other points are all valid, I don't think it's fair to say 30 Days of Night is a particularly bad offender in the shakycam stakes.

SligoBrewer

saw this film tonight.. funny but yet scary.

i liked it.

one of the vampires looked like my accounting teacher and and another looked like snape from harry potter.

i was in hysterics!:)

ztoical

Fysh wrote: »

the "Rubbish editing that completely gets in the way of the film" award for 2007 is going to Michael Bay

Bay also gets the "Hello I'm a product placement whore" award - I didn't think he could top the island but he did...well done indeed.

Jack B. Badd

Thundercracker wrote: »

If the references to Anne Frank werent bad enough, this was the worst edited movie ever made, and quite frankly I was disgusted. It was too fast paced, their was no explanation as to anything, character development was non exsistant and emotional silences seemed to make up so much of the scenes

Tbh, I'm more inclined to blame Steve Niles for the lack of explanation and character development as the GN has the same problem. This probably contributed to the pace of the film, which I didn't find too fast as I was expecting it after the GN, but I went to the film primarily to see how they adapted Templesmith's art rather than for the story line.

Demonique

Lands Leaving wrote: »

Shockingly Hartnett didn't bother me... shame about the rest of the cast. Jesus his ex wife (and why did that part of the comic need to be changed?)

Anyone remember her from Home & Away? She was also in Dark City and some dreadful Irish-set Roman-era tosh called Roar

Dolbert

Ah yes, Angel from Home & Away. Wasn't she in the Amityville Horror remake too?