30 Days of Night Vampires are Scary Predators
 

Read the full article

I'm really interested in seeing this. I've gotten tired of the romantic, wangsting (a.k.a. Whining like a *****) vampire we've seen so much of.

I want to see them act like predators damn it!

Yey, I'm seeing it Saturday!

This is an excellent film, in my opinion, and one of the few I've seen as of late that actually mastered the art of suspense, rather than copping out with cheap horror techniques.

The portrayal of vampires is both fresh and terrifying...I liked it very much indeed...

There is definitely something feral about the way the vampires are portrayed in 30 Days. These aren't romantic Anne Rice or relatives of Bela Lugosi characters we're seeing. This was a whole new level of terror and cunning.

I do liken them to wolves in a major way. They travel in packs, move through the darkness with scary quickness, and even have a set of rules when one of their own is injured. It's almost as though Steve Niles had written about werewolves than vampires.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

YAYYY a vampire movie that seems decent!!!!!!

I want to see it but my friend said it was horrible...
FearNet made it look so awesome though..lol.
*ponders*

I Think Vampires have been overused.
They seem to have lost all of their originality.
I need some white trousers so can look like alex de large.

Harley, out of my adoration for your snarky and annoying self, I forbid you to wear white trousers. You will look like a prat.

I'm planning to see it as soon as I can! I've been waiting for it to come out.

Saw it last night and was really impressed on their take on the vampire genre. It's been a long time since a decent, watchable vampire movie has been out. Who would think of setting a vamp movie in Alaska? Brilliant!! Highly suggest you all go see it, or at least download it on the computer!!

30 Days of Night was a total disappointment, at least for me. There are a few good gorish scenes that gore fans will seem to appreciate, but overall, not the great movie I hoped it would have been. The Alaskan scenery and dark ambiance of the movie was very nice, though, and the baraka-esque quality to the vampires was a nice touch, but this alone didn't save this movie from being what it is, yet another substanceless film. I don't know, I expected so much more from this movie, and it just completely failed to amuse me.

I liked it, though I'm not a big fan of vampires just being blood thirsty monsters, never the less it was refreshing. They were still kind of hot though, maybe I just have weird tastes.

Is it just me, or was there a vampire in the movie that looked awfully similar to Marilyn Manson (in his early years)?

In one of it's earliest forms the word for Vampire was the same for werewolf.:D

So basically it isn't worth watching?

If I had more than two hands, I'd enthusiastically give it as many thumbs up as I could.

Definitely worth whatever ticket prices are :D

And I thought I had weird taste in men.

No, I thought that one of them, the tall, dark one with the long-ish black hair, looked like my boyfriend...minus the whole blood-covered jaws bit...whom I found incredibly attractive.

I haven't seen it. Nothing can redeem the vampire in my opinion. Underworld completely killed it.

... so I guess Tomorrow Never Dies killed Bond and You've Got Mail killed Boy-Meets-Girl?
Everything's been done badly, with that philosophy it's a wonder you go see movies.

I actually don't go to the movies that much. The last movie I saw in a theater was Pan's Labyrinth. It, was good.

MirrorMask wasn't in any theater close to me, so it makes one wonder about cinema.

I love how every post you reply to is greated with the same sort of tone and reaction that your face expresses in your avatar.

i think thats harsh i liked under world true vamps are suppost to be more predorty an stuff but still i liked the films an i wanna watch 40 days of nite my sis said it was to weird to get into tho

They are some ugly fuckers. I saw the trailer movie that was 30 minutes long.That was good but im not sure about the movie.

The movie sucked. It might just as well have been a low budget film.

could someone plz tell me where I can post about dreams in here...I've been having really strange dreams lately..thxs

I would suggest the General board. However, have you answered the questions in the introduction thread? If not, that should be your first priority.

Producers completely ignored the stereotypings; vampires are suppose to be attractive, very smart, not die from a electrical light (that makes them weak against humans who own a lightbulb) and they weren't even able to open up doors. Wow, just close the door to your house and you'll be safe. What a joke!

That was the point.

I guess you've never seen Bela Lugosi as Dracula.

Wait, what do you mean that's the point? So the entire movie was suppose to be contradicting the general legends surrounding them? No, I haven't seen Bela Lugosi as Dracula.

Actually, that was UV light.

On another note, I find this movie amusing, beucase where I live the sun doesn't go up for 2-3 months in the winter... =P

Oh, my goodness.

No offense, PastMidnight, but what we see of vampires these days is a tangent that began in the hypersexualized 70's and crystallized with the 1976 publication of the Anne Rice novel Interview with the Vampire. What we have seen since is a truly horrifying creature of legend reduced to the level of a cultural dildo.

What do I mean by this?

If you knew and understood what vampires have always been, what authors like Bram Stoker and movies like Nosferastu illustrated, you would never have posted something like that. Vampires, up until the 70's, had always been walking corpses, predators feeding on the living. They slept in graves and dressed in rags. They were not sparkling Abercrombie & Fitch models living the high life and f*cking the living at every opportunity.

As for the door thing, again we go back to the pre-dildo legends. The sanctity of the home held power over vampires. They had to be invited into a home in order to enter it.

*rubs temples*

Malice in Wonderland was simply trying to help you avoid looking silly. For a unique look at Bram Stoker's Dracula, thy this blogged version of the book. If a movie is more your speed, a recent Swedish import, Let The right One In, is a much better representation of what vampires have always been.


- Heretic

Wow I forgot about this.
I think she left but thanks Heretic.


Not seen Bela Lugosi as Dracula...
On a goth forum...
Think she knows about vampire films...
[/angry muttering]

*bows*

Anything I can do to support interesting conversation and promote educating the younger members on the roots of the subculture.

Fortunately, ignorance is not the same as stupidity. It would be unfortunate if PastMidnight really has left the forum; I would love to have gotten her reaction to the films you and I have mentioned.

*looks at the topic of the thread*

Whoops; I suppose a comment about the topic at hand would be the proper thing to contribute.

I actually liked 30 Days of Night. I collected the graphic novel back when it was first published and was looking forward to the movie. Now, don't get me wrong; it wasn't great cinema. However, I thought they managed to capture much of the menace and inhuman characteristics of the vampires as they were presented in the comic. And, thankfully, they didn't sex them up. This is one of the very few movies I've seen in years in which the vampires were based on the creatures of legend, rather than trashy romance novels.

*glances over with disdain at several Laurell K. Hamilton novels still taking up valuable shelf space in my bookcases*

In my opinion, the biggest problem with the movie was the fact that the original story relied heavily on imagery to tell the tale. Without giving it the "300" or "Sin City" treatment, the producers of the movie were under pressure to beef up the story with dialog and cinematic atmosphere, something neither the writers not the director were apparently up to. In the end, the movie features plenty of visceral moments and genuine creepiness, but it never came together as a coherent whole.


- Heretic

I enjoyed the film very much. I loved how the vampires call human savages when they were the monsters

From Dusk 'til Dawn, best vampire movie ever.

30 Days of Night could have been better...a LOT better. They had a good idea, but the carry-through just wasn't that great.

I've read Dracula [Yes, Bram Stoker's original novel], and it's intensely creepy and the -only- time I've felt that vampires were portrayed properly. I've seen a little of the Bela Lugosi movie, but have yet to watch the whole thing.

The newer Bram Stoker's Dracula was ridiculous; it was -really- hard for me to take it seriously. -_-;; [When Anthony Hopkins starts humping random objects, that pretty much ends a movie for me.]

I'll post in this one because I'm a huge fan of movies, in particular the horror genre, and I saw this movie a while ago. All I can say is that I thought it was just terrible. Contrary to the user in this thread who called it "suspenseful", this is probably the most unsubtle movie I can remember seeing and easily one of the least scary films I have ever seen, and I've seen at least 600 horror movies to judge.

The supposed "scares" in the film revolve around never-ending scenes of vampires opening their mouths, showing their teeth, and making really annoying noises. I don't find that scary, and even if I did somehow find those lazy attempts at scares slightly frightening, there still needs to be more. These scenes are usually followed by, of course, some gratuitous violence as well which doesn't help things too much. There was not a single scene in the movie which managed to scare me on even one level and after only fifteen minutes I wanted to turn it off.

Vampire films admittedly aren't my favourite horror sub-genre, but they can be great; eg. "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens" is a masterpiece and the more recent "Interview With the Vampire" was terrific.

I dunno. Maybe I'm uncultured. I thought Nosferatu sucked hardcore.

Vampire films aren't necessarily horror...
It's kind of like complaining that Blade wasn't scary.

"Nosferatu" and "Interview with the Vampire" are most definitely not of the same calibre.

A lot of people seem to agree with you but I think that is mostly due to how old it is, the style of acting is quite different than what we are used to today and the special effects are pretty basic so it is pretty hard to get into but it isn't so campy that it is funny so you don't get that joy that comes with watching really bad horror movies.

Thank you.

Quite right. I can laugh at Black Sheep type horror movies, but the thing about Nosferatu was that I had such high expectations and I was bored the whole way through, wishing it was over. Lame lame lame.
I admit that in its day I'm sure it was epic.

If I am correct, then isnt Nosferatu the movie that ripped off Dracula?

Very true, compare the movies we watch this day coming in the 2000's to the 1950's+... to us it's like comparing an apple to a tomato that are two different things in an different category.

One thing would be that most this day would consider those films before 2,000 to be cheap acting, too fake and crap. Reminds me of when my dad used to tell me how he used to wait for an hour special of some cowboy show in Europe that was subbed once a week, black and white. Still loves them to this day.

Nosferatu is a beautiful example of art of its kind. Not as good as Caligari, but certainly as culturally valuable. Plus, I'll take primitive cinematography and unconvincing effects any day over the completely toothless vampires held up for us now.

30 Days of Night...well, at least they were monsters. Not the kind of vampires I really like, but better than the sparkly ones that take you to the prom.

I absolutely adored the cabinet of dr. caligari!