30 Days of Night

I am told I must provide a context for these reviews. In this instance, this will not take long: I watched 30 Days Of Night last night, on my own, at home. Here's one more contextual tidbit: the main reason I wanted to see this film was sartorial. When I bought my Canada Goose jacket back in December, I was told that it’s the same one Josh Hartnett wears in the movie. And it’s true, it is! His is admittedly a different colour: mine is black, while his is the colour of spattered brains and dried blood. But if I look half a good as Josh does, it was an excellent purchase indeed.

On rottentomatoes.com, 30 Days Of Night is sitting at 49%. Which isn’t exactly good. In fact it’s more or less exactly half bad. The movie has a fun premise (that in the Arctic Circle, where it stays dark for 30 days in mid-winter, vampires can get down to some serious eating without being bothered by any pesky sunlight). There are times when you get a glimpse of the darkly claustrophobic film it could have been (there are creepy Anne Frank metaphors when the survivors spend several days hiding out in an attic). And there are some nice gorey bits (watching the good guys reluctantly hack the head off a 5-year-old with an axe was particularly pleasing). But the vamps themselves are pretty silly-looking. With their slanty Mongoloid eyes, they look sort of Down Syndrome-y. It’s hard to be frightened of a creature that looks like it should be doing the 100m at the Special Olympics. Far from cutting their heads off, you feel like Josh should be giving them hugs and telling them they’re doing a good job. They also speak in a language so guttural it sounds like they spend most of the film trying to rid themselves of a particularly persistent and annoying throat itch. As is so often the case with horrors, the film is let down because the bad guys just aren't all that horrific.

It's too bad really. It's a nice premise. There are some scary moments. The performances are fine. And Josh really does look great in that jacket.