Little bit spoilery... Saw this yesterday, it was ok. Josh Hartnett was fairly stiff, and you only get to see three or four of the "30 Days". And for some reason I was distracted with faults in Hartnett's beard continuity. I mean, his stubble is the same at day 29 as it was on day 7 or 8 or whatever. I'm sitting there thinking "that is not twenty-nine days worth of beard". But the Vampires were good and scary, and all the gore and stuff looked really real.

**SPOILERS** Well I really enjoyed this. More or less from the word go I was hooked. A good story, well told. For the most part the acting was fine (a few ropey performances from supporting characters aside). Josh Hartnett was particularly good, acquitting himself rather well. Danny Huston and Melissa George also both proved to be memorable. I loved the look of the film, the shaky, fast camerawork helping to create a sense of urgency, the action scenes have a frenzied nature that amplify the severity of the situation, perhaps most obvious in the scene in which a vampire jumps onto the roof of Eben and Stella’s car, the silhouette we see providing a wonderful striking image. Even more impressive was the overheard tracking shot of the town as we see the scale and destruction of the vampire force. Great stuff. Mention should also go to Brian Reitzell’s score, surprisingly (for a horror film) unobtrusive and serving to highlight the tension and fear of the film. The effects are also impressive and, while gory, never explicitly in a way that detracts from the film. Unlike many recent films with a fair amount of blood and guts, they help maintain the scares rather that just provide an “ick” reaction. It isn’t all good news. Whenever Ben Foster opened his mouth, good as he was, people in the cinema chuckled, and I’m sure his accent was never intended as light relief (it’s also about time he stooped playing intense loons). Huston’s snarling, rasping dialogue would perhaps have worked better without the subtitles, some of which was fairly shoddy (as was a reasonable amount of the human dialogue but that seemed to be more in keeping with the characters and situations). The final showdown was a tad anticlimactic and the presumed emotional payoff from the final scene never really worked, surprising, as both characters were quite likeable. Lastly, the passage of time was never conveyed effectively. It seemed as if the whole film could have taken place over the course of one night. Still, for it’s faults, they are far outweighed by what the film does right. Vampire movies, as a sub-genre of the much wider horror film are a mixed bag for me. I’ll happily watch just about any of them but relatively few have a lasting impression and it’s even more rare that one actually performs one of the basic functions of a horror film, provides scares. 30 Days Of Night is one of the exceptions, it’s like the 28 Days Later of vampire flicks. It’s certainly the most effective such films in decades, and, based on a first time viewing, quite possibly the most satisfyingly chilling and thrilling vampire film I’ve seen - 4/5

Totally and utterley terrifying from start to finish. It has been a long time since a horror movie genuinely frightened me but this one did. From the start there is a growing sense of dread that just escalated and resulted with me chewing half my finger nails off. There were several parts where I felt my stomach turn to ice. The part that freaked me out more than anything else I've seen in a long time, is the bit where (SPOILERS)*** we first see the Vampires properley. They break into a couples home and torture them before killing them. One of them uses one of his hooked talon like fingernails to play a record and it's the first time we hear that unearthly screeching/howling sound they make. My blood turned to ice. I was also pretty shocked by how bloody and violent it was. I had to turn away several times, it was too much for me really. I hate gore but most of the time I can stand it but this was very graphic in places. I read somewhere that David Slade has made Vampires scary again. Good god! I genuinely think the vampires in this movie are revalatory. I can't remember a vampire movie in the past where the vampires are so chilling. They scared the crap out of me. Danny Huston's Marlow is right up there with Nosferatu in the creep out stakes (no pun intended) He is just terrifying. I do think he is surpassed by the female leader though. She nearly sent me to the toilet screaming *shudders* I'm not gonna say what was wrong with it cos I agree with all the points already made about it's faults, especially the passing of time factor but I will say that it was a bloody good movie. Stylistically it was great, fantastic cinematography and very engaging. Scared several barrels of crap out of me but I loved it. As for Josh Hartnett's acting....who cares? he's hot I actually thought Melissa George was worse than Josh but you guys will forgive her cos she's so purdy, same for me with Hartnett :D I'm surprised at some folk describing it as average. It was anything but average. I've never seen more terrifying vampires, they were revelatory. This alone means the film could never be described as average. I don't see anything really wrong with Josh Hartnetts acting either. Looks like I'm in huge disagreement with most folk on here.

Nice review Louisiana! The vampires were certainly more menacing than any others I've seen and Hartnett was far from bad.

Story was good, probably the best vampire location set-up ever. The tension in some scenes is truly nerve-jarring. Hartnett wasnt bad and the villians were convincing until midway through the second act.... ** SPOILERS** Towards the end it becomes kind of silly. The vampires cannot find them as they hide from house to house, I can live with that.... but when they escape to the store and not one single vampire is around ---was sort of disappointing. Only because the vampires appeared to be intelligent enough to know that the humans would need to eventually eat. But the real problem i had was with the ending. Not because you know who--- does you know what. But because they ripped off the very end from another film....Blade 2. Its almost identical.

Finally got round to watchng this last night and both I and Mr DF actually qute enjoyed it. OK, Harnett was out-acted by the furniture but I knew that and was quite happy to ignore his character for the most part and concentrate on what was happening on the sidelines. For the record, I am assuming that the continuity problems with his beard is due to the fact that he appears to have the physical maturity of a thirteen year old and is, therefore, unable to grown anything more than bumfluff. Admittedly, the plot did have it's problems. I still don't quite get the fact that the vampires, after slaughtering most of the town, just decided to hang around and wait for the sun to come back. It's certainly not a film I'd watch over and over again but I enjoyed the concept behind the vampires and it was an enjoyable evening's entertainment.

Totally agree bubba. I saw it in the cinema and I couldn't believe how shit it was and I still bought the dvd to give it another chance. :shock: Aeon renamed it "30 Days of Shite" after the cinema experience :lol:

Agree with Wags, Lou and Gimli... very good... sure Hartnett wasn't as good as he can be but it was very tense and scary throughout.... left me clinging onto the seat edge :shock: