Review - 30 Days of Night

Vampires used to be scary and sexy, sometimes animal-like. Regretfully, vampires have been relegated to cheap thrills in modern movies-- victorian metrosexuals with more need for elegance and social fineries than blood. The biggest problem with 30 Days of Night is that director David Slade can't seem to decide how to portray them. At times, they are the calculating and brilliantly evil monsters of early vampire lore, especially Danny Huston's Marlow whose stony, cunning stare is more frightening than anything else within the film and whose nihilistic monologues provide a philosophical undertone for the entire film. However, his underlings act like bastard amalgamations of zombies and vampires, savagely attacking anything that moves and displaying no evidence of maliciousness or shrewdness. It is a small misstep that is easily overlooked because Slade finally manages to make vampires scary again.
Additionally, the brilliant premise of the film-- the northernmost Alaskan town, Barrow, in which night lasts for thirty days-- throws a rather interesting wrench into vampire mythology. With no threat of the sun rising in the morning, the vampires are able to feast for thirty days straight providing no relief for their victims. Much of the film's potential was bound up in this concept, which created the possibility of an incredibly claustrophobic film. Indeed the film's best moments show the survivors holed up in an attic, hiding from the vampires. Unfortunately, we are shown only the briefest effects of their cabin fever. The story chooses rather to focus on the blockbuster-action appeal of the vampires, resulting in several scenes which are far too predictable although enjoyable, particularly one where the local 'mountain man' rescues Hartnett's character by quite literally plowing through a crowd of vampires.
Hartnett turns out to be one of the film's best surprises. Initially, he is hard to accept as the small town's sheriff and the movie's hero but he proves himself to be an accomplished actor capable of pulling off the balance of humility and courage that makes his character work.
He is joined by Melissa George, as his estranged wife. She has been stranded in Barrow which is fortunate because she is the only other character besides Hartnett who has any sense of competence. Together, the two manage to sell a love story despite the the gnashing teeth and spraying arcs of carnage that are so abundant once the massacres begin.
The final 'character' to help sell the film is the town of Barrow itself. Slade pulls a page from Fincher's book, making the environment more of a character than many of the actual people within the film. Not only are the peculiarities of the town essential to the plot, they provide a striking foil to the dark tone of the movie. For horror fans, there is something intensely satisfying about seeing the the snow-covered grounds of Barrow soaked with the blood of its inhabitants. Barrow is also the townspeople's saving grace. As Sherriff Eben (Hartnett) says, "There's a reason we live here-- because no one else can." The townspeople have no choice but to hope that this is true as they are dragged from their homes and splayed open in the street.
There are several very strong scenes within the film. In one, a woman captured by the vampires is forced to walk through the streets crying for help in an effort to lure the refugees from their hiding places. It is one of the more difficult scenes to watch as Eben must either watch her be torn apart or betray the survivors 'position. Slade has the good sense to put his characters in several morally ambiguous situations, a choice which lends strength to each character's development.
Furthermore, Slade's visual palette is astounding. The muted, whitewashed landscaped of Barrow and the brilliant hues of the flowing blood provide an ironically beautiful visual composition and his close camera work leverages the simmering tension that builds throughout the film. He falls apart a little bit during action sequences, relying too much on quick camera cuts and excessive violence and gore to sell the scenes. He clearly is not a believer in 'less is more.' The film would have been greatly helped by a director with the same philosophies as, say Alfred Hitchcock, who excelled in creating genuinely terrifying scenes without showing any blood or mutilation. Obviously, blood is an essential part of any vampire film but one can't help but feel that Slade uses the gore and violence as a crutch, appealing to his audiences voyeuristic tendencies. It works for movies like Saw and Hostel but this film is just a little too smart for such obvious deceptions.
Unfortunately, the film loses much of its power after the initial premise is developed and devolves into a fairly conventional monster movie. The vampires dart from shadow to shadow, just fast enough to not be seen until Slade wants you to witness their lurching, robotic movements and the survivors display the typical, trite reactions to an unexpected massacre without the burden of character development or backstory. Luckily, the film's conventionality does not rob it of its entertainment value. Despite its attempts to become a blockbuster, 30 Days of Night remains incredibly watchable and even thought-provoking in some cases. Its final moments and Hartnett's final sacrifices, while a little too neat and cinematic for my tastes, more than adequately close out the film. There are a hundred things I would have liked to have seen added to this film-- a thousand directions the story could have gone-- the story that they decided to tell was only one option. However, Slade does some impressive things with what he has and creates a film that may usher in a vampire renaissance, much like Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later did for zombie films.