It was pretty hard to lay hands on a rental copy of 30 Days of Night in this town yesterday. It was only on my second round of calling every Blockbuster on the south side that I came across a recently returned copy.
To my disappointment Lisa didn't want to sit down and watch it once she found out it was a vampire movie. Horror she likes; vampires and zombies not so much.
I really enjoyed the movie and I think the director was great at using the isolated and brutal Alaskan landscape as a secondary (but equally deadly) opponent. The story was strong for a genre film, even if the climax wasn't to my liking, and I disagree with critics who labeled this a 'gore' fest. Frankly, I think the blood and guts was kept to a bare minimum given the requirements of the story.
Plus this wasn't as much a vampire story as a zombie story disguised as a vampire film. A small group of survivors clings to life in an environment dominated by zombie/vampires . . .I have a slight fetish for films with that premise, and if for nothing else I'd recommend the film on that alone.
3 out of 4 stars.
I also rented Bewoulf in the past week.
I enjoyed it in the moment but in retrospect felt a little let down, like the old cliche about Chinese food: an hour later I was hungry again.
Visually it's grand, no question about that, even if that whole 'spooky-eyes' thing has yet to be fully worked out. And yeah, it's a little freaky to see cartoons talking and acting sexual - that's for the Internet people, not the movies! - but again, great visuals throughout the movie.
I don't agree with Roger Ebert that it was intended as satire. Nor do I think that Grendel was a sympathetic character gone wild because of unjust banishment. I didn't sympathize with the monster, child-like mentality or not, and he WAS a freaking monster. He ATE people for pete's sake.
I just think that Zemeckis had no real love for the material (on the DVD he admits not liking the source material). Top it off with some alterations of the poem's plot by screenwriter Neil Gaiman and I started to lose some interest in the film.
Look I love Gaiman's novels - American Gods was superb - but the man is a maverick. Why would you ask him to adapt the oldest existing epic in the English language is beyond me - you just knew in your bones that he HAD to mess around with the story; it's his nature.
I agree with making Beowulf's kingdom the same one he rescues from Grendel, as that did solidify the story for moviegoers, but the Angelina Jolie/bestiality thing? Yeah, uh, no.
And I will say this - Beowulf is a hero, a legitimate and unconquerable champion. To make him a 'flawed man' betrays more of the 21st century's sad mentality than it does the heart of the character.
2 of 4 stars.
I'll keep my eyes peeled for "Thirty Days of Night." I love vampire AND zombie movies, so this sounds like a winner for me!
ReplyDeleteBeth
Interesting, I just remarked to my son, last weekend that, so much of Blockbuster is taken up with horror flicks. Literally, the lower half of the shelves, ALL the way 'round the store is blood and guts. Don't get it... I want to see Beauwolf...looks interesting. My latest repeat (I will NEV-ER admit to how many) is "La Vie En Rose". Watch it 'till I'm blind. ;) C.
ReplyDeleteDid you read the 30 Days of Night book? I haven't seen the movie but I read the book months ago and it was great. The book was most unquestionably a vampire book, in graphic detail, unlike any vampires I had never imagined before. Very well depicted in the book. I can't imagine the movie could make it any better, since I already have it in my mind the way I read it in the book. Eh, I'll probably see it anyway.
ReplyDeleteJulie