30 Days of Night, released in 2007, has earned its place as a notable entry in the horror genre. However, its reception during the initial release was far from glowing. At the time, vampire films were struggling, with notable flops like Blade: Trinity (2004) and Dracula 2000 sullying the reputation of the undead on screen. Although the Underworld series found commercial success, it faced critical ridicule for its approach to vampire mythology. Based on Steve Niles’ graphic novel, 30 Days of Night captivated audiences with its unique premise: a vampire invasion in an Alaskan town facing a month of darkness.
This chilling adaptation proved to be a financial success, raking in $80 million against a $30 million budget, according to The Numbers. Nevertheless, it remained overshadowed in the realm of vampire cinema. Emphasizing horror over the typical romanticized portrayal of vampires, the film depicts its creatures as true monsters, a representation that some critics found grim and excessively violent.
Critics Were Divided on 30 Days of Night
“FANGS FOR NOTHING,”Declares The New York Post
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a lukewarm rating of 50%, with the audience score reflecting a similar ambivalence at 56%. Critics pointed out various flaws, from storytelling inconsistencies to a lack of levity and overwhelming gore. One particularly sharp critique from the New York Post labeled the film “FANGS FOR NOTHING,”concluding that if a film is intended to be humorous, it should at least try to be deliberately funny.
The esteemed film critic Roger Ebert offered a mixed assessment, acknowledging his own fatigue with vampire tales while recognizing the film’s technical merits, granting it two and a half stars. This perspective is particularly intriguing when revisiting 30 Days of Night in the context of the evolving vampire genre, as critics debated whether the film’s serious tone was a refreshing change or an artistic misstep.
James Dyer of Empire highlighted a key contention among viewers and critics alike: the film’s disjointed timeline, which marred its overall narrative flow.
Reassessing 30 Days of Night: A Modern Vampire Classic
A Standout Vampire Film of the 2000s
Despite its initial success, 30 Days of Night has faded from mainstream memory, often overlooked in conversations about the best vampire films of the 2000s. This oversight is unfortunate, as the film boasts a compelling cast, including Josh Hartnett and Ben Foster, paired with a relentless and chilling narrative. Danny Huston’s portrayal of the head vampire, Marlow, adds a layer of malevolence that elevates the film’s horror.
Vampires exist as iconic figures in literature and film, often at risk of being caricatured. Crafting a narrative that reinvigorates the vampire mythos while evoking genuine fear is a difficult task, yet 30 Days of Night successfully attains this goal. The film portrays its vampires not as charming figures but as primal predators, likened to sharks that view humans merely as vessels of blood.
More than just a compelling premise, 30 Days of Night delivers an intense survival horror experience, avoiding clichés and humor. Its unsettling portrayal of vampires underscores a significant cultural shift. It’s regrettable that this film did not lead to a more extensive franchise, though it did receive two miniseries, Blood Trails and Dust to Dust, along with a direct-to-video sequel, Dark Days.
Sources: The Numbers, Rotten Tomatoes, New York Post, Roger Ebert.com, Empire