10-29-2007, 12:46 AM

Anyone see this? I just saw this last night and I think it was possibly the worst vampire movie ever made. All they had was a gimmick of 30 days of darkness but the actual logic is flawed. I don't think I'm looking too deep either, it jumped right out at me.

-At first it looks like there are only a few vampires but by the end you see a total of about 30. That many vampires ripping through a town of 150 only leaves 3 people per vampire. It is pointless.

-The vampires aren't even the cool kind. They were too monster-ish. They didn't transform or anything. A classic vampire trait that was missing.

-It lacked that religious stuff that makes for a great vampire movie. You know, crucifixes, holy water, wood through the heart.

Go see Fright Night, The Lost boys, John Carptenter's Vampires, Blade or Underworld. They were all better than this nightmare of a movie.

10-29-2007, 04:34 AM

The lost boys is such a great movie. The blade movies were pretty cool also.

10-29-2007, 04:10 PM

are you joking?! first of all, 30 days of night started as a graphic novel, and its badass, goooo read it.

secondly, there is about 7 vampires and if any were added it would be because they transformed from humans! although I didnt notice any great change in numbers, they seemed to want to keep their group small.

I do agree with you that the missing religious stuff or "how to beat a vampire" was disappointing.

I thought it was pretty badass though, i prefer zombies.

10-29-2007, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by JRV

...but the actual logic is flawed.

It was soooooo unrealistic.

10-29-2007, 05:38 PM

party poopers

10-29-2007, 05:50 PM

Err....I was being sarcastic. I haven't actually seen it

10-29-2007, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by JRV

-At first it looks like there are only a few vampires but by the end you see a total of about 30. That many vampires ripping through a town of 150 only leaves 3 people per vampire. It is pointless.

-The vampires aren't even the cool kind. They were too monster-ish. They didn't transform or anything. A classic vampire trait that was missing.

-It lacked that religious stuff that makes for a great vampire movie. You know, crucifixes, holy water, wood through the heart.

You don't really need any of those things to have a good vampire movie. This movie (and the GN) went for the "virally infected" vampire angle. The only way to kill them is through dismemberment. Besides, vampires of folklore aren't affected by religious icons anyway. The whole religious icons, transformation, and staking didn't come into play until Braham Stoker wrote Dracula.

But those things are moot, nothing could save this steaming pile of crap. The acting was horrible. The story works for a short graphic novel, but not for a feature-length movie. Too many holes were left in the "plot". Still, even with more holes than swiss cheese, the events were completely predictable. The movie wasn't scary, it wasn't suspenseful, it wasn't gripping... it just plain wasn't any good.
My girlfriend and I laughed out loud at the sheer craptasticness as it unfolded before our eyes. It was just a bad movie... and not even a "good" bad movie... it just stunk.

10-29-2007, 07:39 PM

Well I like that classic vampire stuff like holy water and crucifixes. But I also like the first Blade movie which seems to use a more modern take on vampires. This movie was just garbage though. It lacked all that good vampire stuff. It was just a bunch of monsters killing people. No back story or anything. Actually no story period.

10-29-2007, 07:58 PM

I actually considered it to be one of the better "Vampire" flicks within the past 15 years. I sure enjoyed it.