30 Days of Night is considered a horror gem now, but you wouldn’t know it from reading the reviews at the time. Vampire movies weren’t in a strong place when 30 Days of Night debuted in 2007. The Blade series had crashed and burned with 2004’s Trinity, Dracula 2000 was an embarrᴀssment and while the Underworld franchise was successful, they were critically derided. 30 Days of Night was based on the graphic novel by Steve Niles, with its killer hook – that vampires invade an Alaskan town as it enters a month-long polar night – practically selling itself.
While a success upon release – grossing $80 million on a $30 million budget (via The Numbers) – 30 Days of Night remains an underrated vampire film. What set it apart at the time was how terrifying its vampires actually were; they taunt and play with their “food,” and their shark-like teeth result in some gruesome deaths. 30 Days of Night is the all-too-rare vampire flick that treats vamps as genuine monsters, but the film’s bleak tone and bloody violence turned many critics off.
30 Days Of Night Was Not Popular With Many Critics
“FANGS FOR NOTHING” says the New York Post
30 Days of Night stands at 50% on Rotten Tomatoes, and surprisingly, the audience score isn’t much higher at 56%. Critics took issue with many elements, from the way the story randomly skips through large pᴀssages of time to its lack of humor and overly gory carnage. One of the cattest notices about the movie came from the New York Post, which is тιтled “FANGS FOR NOTHING” and closes with the line “If your movie is a joke, at least be intentionally funny.”
The late, great Roger Ebert was mixed on it too, admitting he was burned out on vampires but also stating, “… I award the movie two and a half stars because it is well-made, well-pH๏τographed and plausibly acted.” It’s interesting to look back on 30 Days of Night’s various reviews, especially considering the state of the genre at the time. This was during a period where many critics complained about how silly vampire films had gotten, but many reviews then knocked 30 Days of Night for being TOO serious.
Empire’s James Dyer points to something that was a bone of contention with both critics and audiences about 30 Days of Night: the “jarring” timeline.
That’s not to say it got universally bad notices. James Dyer of Empire magazine loved 30 Days of Night, telling readers that “This slick and sticky horror is the most accomplished treatment of vampire lore since Near Dark.” Dyer again points to something that was a bone of contention with both critics and audiences: the “jarring” timeline. Again, the movie skips over chunks of time with little explanation for what happened in the interim, which undermines the central premise of the survivors having to hold out for an entire month.
In Retrospect, 30 Days Of Night Is A Great Modern Vampire Movie
30 Days of Night is one of the 2000s’ best vampire flicks
Despite being a solid hit in 2007, 30 Days of Night seems to have slipped through the cracks of time somewhat. It has a fanbase, but it’s rarely mentioned as one of the better vampire movies of the 2000s. This is a shame, since it deserves more eyeballs. It’s got a strong cast (Josh Hartnett, Ben Foster, character actor MVP Mark Boone Junior, etc), it’s unflinchingly dark and intense, and Danny Huston’s head vamp Marlow is a truly malevolent creation.
Vampires are arguably the most famous monsters in all literature, and also one of the most easily mocked. Making a film about bloodsuckers that offers something fresh and makes them scary is hard work, but 30 Days of Night achieves both with flying colors. These are not pale-faced actors wearing capes and turning into rubber bats; they’re essentially sharks in human form, and treat their prey as little more than sentient blood bags to be ripped open and consumed.
30 Days of Night is more than a great elevator pitch. It’s not flawless by any stretch, but it’s a thrilling, creepy survival horror tale that takes the ᴀssignment seriously. It doesn’t wink or offer up tongue-in-cheek gags, and its bloodsuckers are unsettling in the extreme. It’s a pity the film didn’t spawn a theatrical franchise, though it did receive two miniseries follow-ups (dubbed Blood Trails and Dust to Dust) and an STV sequel dubbed Dark Days.
Source: The Numbers, Rotten Tomatoes, New York Post, Roger Ebert.com, Empire
