Your browser does not support or blocks cookies. The site will not function properly. Do not ask for support.

Stream it now

30 Days of Night 2007

After an Alaskan town is plunged into darkness for a month, it is attacked by a bloodthirsty gang of vampires...

Your rating:0

Solar rating:8.3 /10


Imdb rating: 6.6 /10

Stream in HD


Another movie where the vampires are severely napkin-challenged. Slobby eaters, each and every one.

You never saw Count Dracula looking like such a mess. The Count was the very epitome and paragon of looking prime and proper and neat as a pin.

Other than that, a pretty impressive monster movie. Chock full of monster-y monster stuff.

Worth a watch.
Vmapire fan, how did you miss this one?? I know I am asking myself the same thing 20mins into this tale!! DEFINITELY a one to make you hate these bastards!! Of course, I see there just must be a hero in this somewhere before the climax. I did not expect this non-stop chop-shop of human gore! Not for the timid, that's4sure. lol. Enjoy.
ugly killer vampires just how it should be, need more like this. The film got some decent suspense and lots of gore that's basically all i ask for in my horror flicks if you haven't watched this one yet check it out one these nights 7/10
@pewkachu agreed!! One of the best ones. Fantastic movie.
One of my guilty pleasure movies, great modern horror - filled with suspense and plenty of gore. Well worth a watch.
"A few minutes into the film we are immersed in quick, gritty violence and intensity and it never lets up until the climactic conclusion. " Read the full review by clicking below:
I went to the Hollywood premiere on Tuesday night and I hated the movie. Maybe it's a sign of my age because films like this and the Saw series do nothing for me. I thought this movie had a great premise but was poorly executed. I don't know why it's popular, but I dislike the "shaky" camera work that is used in a lot of current films. It doesn't draw me into the movie and instead just gives me a big headache. The effects in this movie were good - when I was able to see them. Things go by so fast and there are so many quick cuts that the gore means nothing and doesn't have any kind of impact. The acting was just average - anybody could have played Josh Hartnett's role just as well. An unknown actor with a much lower price tag would have probably done a better job. Overall, there's no good reason to see this movie unless you are bored out of your mind on a Friday night and have nothing else better to do. The best thing about the premiere was watching all the people in suits kissing each other's asses. Honesty won't get you anywhere in Hollywood. ;-)
As close to made for direct to DVD as a release can get... I knew from the opening with the abandoned icebreaker and the renfield type fellow, I was in for some schlock. I could ignore all the problems with this movie if it were a scary gore slasher flick, but it fails to get there. The main villian vampire is boring. The constant screeching sounds made by the vampires is VERY distracting to the point that the only real fear in this film is that they may appear on the screen again and assualt your hearing with a sound that is much more annoying than disturbing. OK, so lets go through all of the plot problems, first, this is not exactly and original work, the entire concept of vampires in the month long night of the artic has been done, I failed to see how this added to it at all. 30 days of night, well, you cant really tell if it is 30 dyas of night, or one night, it really came off as just one night, the actors clothes dont wear down, beards dont grow, makeup stays on the main characters although a few of the background players appear to get gamey towards the very end. One reviewer says the action starts right from the beginning and doesn't stop. I actually looked at my watch, it was a full 17 minutes in before we get going, and it stops quite a bit as the love interests devote time to their failing relationship instead of the monsters waiting to devour them, seems they also do not find them that terrifying. There are many plot, script and technical problems, but a movie of this caliber does not even rate pointing all of them out in greater detail. But here are just a few...1- Where have these vampires traveling on a ship with a renfield been and what have they been eating2- How could they afford to off Renfield, he was their daywalker3- They say, "This is the kind of place we should have come to long ago ?"Why, the sun is going to still shine there 11 months out of the year and there is only about 100 people which they eat on night one.4- In a town of 500 about 1/10 of a mile long with 400 getting on planes and leaving for the month, Renfield manages in about two hours to steal all satellite phones and burn them and kill all the sled dogs, undetected, in the beginning of the film.5- Lots of warnings about Polar Bears, yet in 30 days they never smell all the carnage and gore on the streets and partake of the free eats ?6- Lots of blizzards during the 30 days of hiding, but the streets stay plowed and the sidwalks, roofs and cars are clear of snow.7- People hiding in an attic for several weeks have no fear of being detected as they crank up portable lights 24 x 7 and peek out paper covered windows. I could go on, but why bother, this schlock doesnt deserve any more detail Only reason to see it would be there is nothing else to see and you just want to eat some popcorn in the company of others, well, you'll be able to eat the popcorn, might be lonely though.
This flick will nknock you socks off.
The best moments of this movie are the instances in which the cinematography emulates the comic panels of its source material. In these brief flashes, the filmmaker approaches art. This is most apparent in the shots of the vampires-where the subtly canted angles and the awkwardly leaning poses of the undead characters send the message of a world off-kilter. Otherwise, the images adequately represent the story, but they do not take us somewhere new. The simple survival tale of the movie is decent enough for a wasted afternoon at the matinee, but the film suffers from the same problems endemic to the graphic novel. The inhuman monsters are slightly more interesting than the cardboard cut-outs who pose as human characters. And that's not saying much. Nobody human in either story is particularly likable, mainly because it is incredibly difficult to find much to like about such flat characters who are more like sketches than real people. While this sketchiness works with Ben Templesmith's sketchy artwork in the graphic novel, it leaves the movie feeling ultimately hollow.
Put a group of people in an isolated house, an orbiting space station or a remote mining faciltiy, any tight space and throw in a big bad and you have a horror film. Done right you have Alien or The Thing or Aliens. Done almost right and you have 30 Days of Night. The tight space this time is a town; Barrow Alaska winter pop. 153, which for 30 days every year experiences a month without sun. The Big Bad this time is a pack of Vampires and they are very, very BAD.Let me starrt off by saying that I neither read nor heard of the graphic novel before seeing the film. In the long run that is probably better as I can't remember the last film adaptation that I thought did justice to the book/comic/commercial that I loved. I am left to judge the film solely on what is on the screen and not how well they treated the source material. That said I suspect the answer would be damn well. 30 Days of Night borders on great and with just a little more creativity in the script and the preformances (Human ones only) David Slade could have snuck this film clear across that border into the rarefied air of Near Dark and Aliens.Visually the film is spot on; the monotone pallet captures the eeire lost time and isolation of Barrow, Alaska. And the Vampires; from the opening shot of the beached oil tanker Slade has taken the Vampire away from Rice and given him back to Stoker and we are all better off for it. He keeps the film firmly rooted in the concept that Vampires are evil sadistic creatures; gone is the poofery and "romance" of Lestat. These Vamps are bad dudes. They rip. They tear. They shread. They feast and they revel in it. They are feral with a whiff of Eurotrash; and they are fast. The Vampire descent on Barrow is truly horroffic. The vamps are a blur of talons and fangs and it is only when the camera gives us a birds eye view of the carnage can we truly appreciate the plague that has descended on Barrow. These Vampires are inhuman or no longer human; their faces are elongated, their eyes are black, they shriek and howl and speak in their own guttural language and they are led bya brilliant Danny Huston as a post modern Nosferatu. Quite simply they are everything that is right in this film.And then there are our human heroes and that is where Slade gets stopped at the border. Josh Harnet is the stout lawman on the frontier; he is a poor mans Gary Cooper without the twinkle in his eye. There is his estranged wife Stella who missed the last plane out of dodge and must reconcile herself to spending the next 30 days in the dark with Josh Hartnet talk about scary. It is after this intial descent on Barrow as Hartnett leads his rag tag group of survivors to an attic to spend a good part of the film that the movie stops dead. It is also here that Slade misses a great opportunity to develop his cast of survivors. Rather than give each character a voice as James Cameron did when deciding who would survive the first Alien encounter, Slade seems content to just have bodies in the room. Oh wait one guys got Alheizemers, another guy is a native american, another guy is a loner and then there are someother people who you couldn't pick out of a lineup. If you are going to pick a handful of survivors for us to follow around for half the film give us a reason to care about them...or hate them. Give us a reason why you picked these 6 survivors. Slade is able to create more character out of the vampires who speak in some weird german accented clucking and a myriad of blood curdling shreiks than anyone who speaks English. When the camera spends time with our humans the film lacks wit. The lone exception is when Ben Foster is on screen. He is Renfield by way of Near Dark. The man is all twinkle in the eye as he nudges his human captors towards the inevitable awakening that they are all doomed. He conveys more in the slight upturing of his lip then Harnet can in 2 hours of facial contortionsWhenever the vamps are on screen the movie is pitch perfect. If only David Slade gave his human characters as much life then you are talking classic.
Ok i don't ask for much from my horror movies... lots of gore, violence and a decent attempt to scare me. Not that it works, but at least the ATTEMPT. One absolutely great thing about this movie: it returns vampires to the status of predator. Because get serious - if something existed that had to feed on humans to exist, that was super-human in strenght and speed, it would ACT like a predator. No more pity for the food. No more trying to feed while making it enjoyable for the prey and not kill them. Vampires would be like lions - fast, vicious and unrelenting. Thank you (to the graphic novel) for finally putting vampires back on the top of the food chain & thank you to the movie for not changing that. Beyond that it's laughable. Really, the crowd at the prescreening were actually groaning in time to the cheezy dialogue. 'we have to move'... they tried really hard to do something wonderful with this and i'll probably burn the movie when it comes out on DVD... mostly just for the novelty of the unattractive, violent vampires and fairly good gore.
This was a pretty fun movie. Had been looking forward to it for a while. Sure, there were a few cheesy or corny scenes here and there, a bit of dialogue that could have been better, but it was a fun and thrilling movie. Some incredibly tense moments, and some good gore scenes. There are a few scenes that just pound away with visual and auditory bombardment and overload you, tensing your body up a good bit. For a movie released around Halloween, and with fall coming and the days getting shorter...I recommend.
30 Days of Night
GRADE:B-30 DAYS OF NIGHT REVIEW - 53% :rotten: A pretty nice diversion until SAW IV kills all the competition. While 30 DAYS OF NIGHT gets the job done, it's more problematic than many of the other horror films of 2007. The set up was nice and I even bought Josh Hartnett being a sheriff but my desire to care died along with countless others of Barrow, Alaska when the vampires first attacked. It's too bad that David Slade didn't display his HARD CANDY talent here. Slade is the main reason why I wanted to see this. I wanted to know how he would handle a horror film. He failed for the most part but luckily the gore level in the second half is cranked from 4 to 12.5. Some pretty brutal stuff on display here. 30 DAYS OF NIGHT, as a horror film, is mostly successful but since it was directed by David Slade there is absolutely no excuse. THEY SAID...: AVERAGE:(N/A)
In an era of mostly terrible horror movies, it's such a relief that every once in a while movies like 30 Days Of Night come along. It features some "boo!" moments that will make you jump in your seat, but for the most part, it relies on the very well-crafted atmosphere of the sunlight-deprived Alaskan town to send the chills down the viewers' spines. Last year, the team of director David Slade and screenwriter Brian Nelson brought us Hard Candy, a masterpiece of a drama/thriller, that was perfectly written and acted. 30 Days Of Night certainly doesn't provoke as much tension or reach the level of greatness that Hard Candy did, but it's still a fine achievement, particularly in a genre in which we usually get utterly crappy movies that don't bother to develop characters beyond simple caricatures, and that focus more on blood and guts than on horror and tension. 30 Days Of Night has a nice prologue that gives us a decent introduction into our characters (without overdoing it to the point that it feels unnecessary), and it is also wise about only showing gore when it needs to, and leaving to the imagination what it doesn't need to show us. Josh Hartnett is great as Eben, and he's accompanied by an adequate supporting cast. The atmosphere created by the film makes an obviously unrealistic situation seem deeply realistic and disturbing, which is way more that can be said about most films that involve non-human, creature-like characters. 30 Days Of Night is not a great movie, but I'm absolutely sure that it'll please those who crave truly intense horror movies and have been so deprived of them as a result of the genre's plunge into mindless bloodbaths. It's truly unfortunate that, with the next Saw installment coming out next week, supposed "horror" fans will prefer seeing that over 30 Days Of Night, but what can you do? Hopefully, there'll at least be a decent amount of people who will appreciate this one. David Slade and Brian Nelson are two for two, and I can't wait to see what they'll try their hand at next.
Barrow is the northern most city in Alaska and resides 80 miles from the closest city. Due to the tilt of the Earth's axis, there are 30 days a year where the sun's light disappears from the Barrow landscape. An organized group of flesh eating vampires decides that this may be the prime location for a feeding frenzy. The city of Barrow is caught completely off guard and savagely pillaged. Will anyone survive?"There is no escape, only hunger and pain."David Slade, director of Hard Candy, delivers 30 Days of Night. The storyline for this picture is unique and compelling for the vampire genre. Steve Niles did a wonderful job of delivering both this graphic novel and the basis for this movie. This type of survival picture is usually relegated to the zombie genre; however, the landscapes and settings in this film were unique, as was the plot storyline. The acting was wonderful as well. Josh Hartnet was solid, but the zombies stole the show. Slade did a wonderful job of creating brutal kill scenes and horrifying vampires."What can be broken must be broken."30 Days of Night delivered a perfect blend of gore and horror. Many of the "horror" films being delivered today focus only on the "gore" and not enough on the horror aspects that make this genre so wonderful (Hostel, Saw, Turistas, etc). As an example, the kill scenes by the vampires in this film were not gory at all. Most of the vampire kill scenes were fast, which made them dramatic. However, any scene where the humans attacked the vampires (the ax scenes and the snow plow sequences) were brilliantly depicted with gore. "What's wrong with a man wanting a little fresh meat?"Overall, 30 Days of Night was a wonderful horror movie. Every year it seems that only 1 or 2 worthwhile movies are released from this genre. The Hills Have Eyes, Feast, and Slither are the only ones that come to mind from 2006. This is the first quality horror movie of 2007 (I am Legend has potential based on the wonderful Matheson novel). Nevertheless, I strongly recommend seeing this if you have an itch to catch a horror film in the theatre this holiday season."That cold ain't the weather, it's death coming."Grade: A-
Dull, monotonous... I thought this might be a movie worth-waiting for: The big promotion, the promising trailer, the well-known actors and actresses... all those promises just end right away when you start watching them.This movie is a desperately "28 days/weeks later" follow-up where it attempts to create an atmosphere of helplessness for the survivors of the vampire attack in Alaska; it fails in the first place, this is no match for "28 days/weeks later". The vampires look stupid, the way they talk and look is the ultimate mistake made by director David Slade. Everytime I saw those blood-thirst vampires I always laughed, it totally broke the atmosphere where tensions and adrenaline should have risen; it's a complete joke.This movie is perfectly dull.
One of the best horror movies I've seen in a long time. Refreshing idea, not some remake unless you count bringing the graphic novel to life. Perfect combination of both horror and gore. The tension was palpable, you didn't know what was coming next. Exciting to watch. I can't wait for it to come out on dvd. Maybe a sequel? Yes, there were plot holes but I was too busy watching the movie to really concentrate on them. And Josh Hartnett was very sexy. So hot. Want to touch the hiney.
Dragon Wars (Hyung Rae Shim, 2007) * Theater First Viewing, 1 Shim film seenI was curious. But I guess that's why the cat died. They have nine lives. I only have one. Yet I guess Dragon Wars proves that I am more like a cat than I thought (because I am still alive). That made no sense. Neither did this film, so it doesn't really matter.