As a basis of comparison I will talk about Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles, which ushered in the modern vampire, as her books are one of the most widely read fiction books ever, and to this day (they were written from the 70's to the 2000's) do not appear dated one bit. They span the creation of vampires from Ancient Egypt to the present day when Lestat becomes an MTV rock star. Her vampires are chosen for their beauty, and they are capable of feelings of love and morality. Rice's vampires are the sort that you would want to be: they can be very much human, like Louis who is very capable of love and is very aware of his conscience. And they can have super strength and senses, like the "brat prince" Lestat, who is powerful and in need of vanity and excitement. They are immortal, unless sunlight or fire maybe kill them (if their ashes are scattered after that). Stakes and crosses, in the words of Louis, are "bullshit." And even only a select few live long periods of time, as the rest are "all too human" and succumb to existential dead-ends and find their way to death. These vampires are seductive, and reason and love.
The vampires of 30 Days of Night are of a much different breed. These are nasty things. They screech like crows, scratch like cats, and seem to have no inherent reason in the excessive killing that they do. You do not want to be one of them. They do not seem to think, but they use weapons and normal fighting techniques. At times the 30 Days vampires looked very cool, all messed up and bloodied. But there was a consistency lacking, where you felt Larry the guy with donuts was just off screen, and the acting in the gestures often did not hold up. Yes there were some iconic images (like the one at the end of the trailer just before the title), but for all of these there were clumsily acted vampires. As well, while some looked absolutely disfigured, the leader looked like a lawyer who had a long night (but had enough time to get a buzz cut in the morning). At times they looked too much like normal people. Story-wise, they did a good job setting up the movie with a lot of intimate, close-up shots of the human characters, in all parts of town. Much of the rest of the movie was tense, while the audience waited for the next encounter. And by the time the ending rolls along, you can truly sense the graphic novel influence on the movie.
All in all, this is not a groundbreaking movie as far as vampire movies go, but it definitely stands out as worth-seeing if you like the vampire genre. I give it 3.5 stars out of 5.
The vampires of 30 Days of Night are of a much different breed. These are nasty things. They screech like crows, scratch like cats, and seem to have no inherent reason in the excessive killing that they do. You do not want to be one of them. They do not seem to think, but they use weapons and normal fighting techniques. At times the 30 Days vampires looked very cool, all messed up and bloodied. But there was a consistency lacking, where you felt Larry the guy with donuts was just off screen, and the acting in the gestures often did not hold up. Yes there were some iconic images (like the one at the end of the trailer just before the title), but for all of these there were clumsily acted vampires. As well, while some looked absolutely disfigured, the leader looked like a lawyer who had a long night (but had enough time to get a buzz cut in the morning). At times they looked too much like normal people. Story-wise, they did a good job setting up the movie with a lot of intimate, close-up shots of the human characters, in all parts of town. Much of the rest of the movie was tense, while the audience waited for the next encounter. And by the time the ending rolls along, you can truly sense the graphic novel influence on the movie.
All in all, this is not a groundbreaking movie as far as vampire movies go, but it definitely stands out as worth-seeing if you like the vampire genre. I give it 3.5 stars out of 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment