Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers

Okay, so as a precursor to this review, I must say that I haven’t watched the director’s cut of the film that is featured on the Blu-Ray collection as of yet.  I’d preordered the set earlier in the summer when it was first announced and it was just delivered last month.  With that said, I’m basing my views on the DVD copy I own and not the Blu-Ray.  I’m not sure if the director’s cut is any better (I don’t know how that’d be possible), but if it is I will definitely update this post as soon as I see it and believe it’s better than the theatrical version.

Speaking of theatrical versions, I’m not even sure if this movie saw any theater time because I had never seen this title featured on any marquee around my parts.  The only inkling I had that the film existed was the constant trailers I saw preceding movie rentals that happened to be movies distributed by Dimension Films.  On top of that, the film was originally titled Halloween 666: The Origin of Michael Myers, as it stated and showed on the trailers I’d seen.  Somewhere along the way, however, the filmmakers decided to change the name and quietly released it to home media sometime in 1995 or 1996.

Dropping the number and changing the subtitle, the movie was released as Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers.  Directed by Joe Chappelle, this was only his second directorial feature.  The history of this film is so messed up with conflicting reports of how bad the relationship was between the producers and the director, not to mention the crew that worked on it as well.  The budget was said to be cut pretty drastically, which figures on why the movie looks the way it does.  But I’ll get more into that later.  For now, here’s the synopsis.

The film opens with Jamie Lloyd (J.C. Brandy), pregnant and held captive by some faction called Thorn.  She’s wheeled into an area where she gives birth to her baby and the cult wants to sacrifice it,

but she’s able to escape with the baby.  It turns out that Michael Myers (George P. Wilbur) is associated with this cult somehow and goes after Jamie and her child.  After Jamie tries calling in a radio talk show from the bus depot—since the police don’t take her calls seriously—Tommy Doyle (Paul Rudd) hears the call over the airwaves and goes to help.  However, Michael catches up with Jamie and kills her, but doesn’t find her child.  As Tommy arrives at the bus depot, he finds the baby and goes to Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) for help.  But Michael returns to Haddonfield once more to find the child.  Can Tommy Doyle and Dr. Loomis protect it from him?

Okay, this film is bad.  Really bad. Out of all the Halloween movies in the franchise, I can only think of one other that is worse than this one.  When I throw this one on, I find myself really forcing myself to watch, usually falling asleep or just keeping the DVD playing as background noise while doing something else.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s a curious concept, but it was just executed horribly and has too many lulls to keep one’s interest.  The whole film seems tired and features no tension and is confusing at times. 

I feel bad for Donald Pleasence as this was his last film, passing away before it was released.  For his dedication to this whole franchise, he should’ve gone out with a bang, but instead went out quietly.  Pleasence deserved an awesome swan song as he was responsible for some of the success this film has had over the years.

Like the previous entry, the film is filled with either hateful characters or just plain boring ones that

you don’t care what happens to them.  One of the worst—and probably within the whole franchise—is the father of one of the main characters.  He’s such a prick to his wife and daughter that you feel you want to kill him yourself.

The edited cuts quickly get on your nerves as you hear the sound effects of a slashing knife swooshing through the air and cutting something.  There is no rhyme or reason for the sounds, it’s just something the filmmakers thought would be cool to feature, but just seems stupid.

There’s nothing more I can say about this film, other than to tell you to avoid it.  That’s my final “bit” and I’m sticking to it.

Thanks for reading and Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

The Last House on the Left (2009)

A while back, after Wes Craven became more of a luminary director, accepted as a mainstream moviemaker after helming theScream series of films, I decided to seek out his earlier films to watch.  I was familiar with quite a few already, but wanted to delve deeper into his past.  I was, and still am, a huge fan of his A Nightmare on Elm Street film, enjoyed the hell out of Deadly Friend and Shocker, and Scream was definitely the freshest take on a slasher film at that time.  But I knew of some earlier films that he had directed—1972’s The Last House on the Left being one of them—and had Netflix send me the few that they had available.  However, after watching Craven’s version of Last House, I didn’t care for it much and thought it was overly sadistic and too much of a 70s exploitation film for me to ever see again.

Well, cut to 2009 and it’s announced that The Last House on the Left is one of the many films on the remake chopping block (cue groans).  Of course, my first thought went to the original film and it gave me a sick feeling in my stomach, prompting me to ignore whatever trailer or TV spot that came on during commercials.  The movie came and went, going through its run in theaters and I thought nothing more of it until the film was available on home media.  Now, don’t get me wrong…I had a little bit of interest to see if the new film would be updated and acceptable for today’s audiences, but I just didn’t feel good about going to the theater to see a film about some girl who gets raped.  As soon as I had the DVD in hand, in the safety of my own home and without anyone judging me for what I was to watch on the screen (I even waited until the cover of darkness arrived and my wife was asleep in bed), I popped in the disc to watch The Last House on the Left.

The film is about a family—John (Tony Goldwyn), Emma (Monica Potter), and their daughter, Mari (Sara

Paxton)—spending the summer at their house in the woods.  Mari borrows the family SUV and goes out to meet her friend, Paige (Martha MacIsaac), at the general store in town where she works.  They meet a teenager named Justin (Spencer Treat Clark) and go to the motel where he’s staying.  A while later, Justin’s father, Krug (Garret Dillahunt), his girlfriend, Sadie (Riki Lindhome), and Justin’s uncle, Francis (Aaron Paul), walk in and things get uncomfortable.  Seeing that they’re wanted criminals, they end up taking Mari’s parents’ SUV, along with Mari and Paige, to get away from the area…but things go bad really quick.

The bad thing about rape-revenge films, like I Spit on Your Grave (both the 1978 and 2010 versions) and 2009’s The Last House on the Left (as well as the 1972 version), is that it’s strange to commend the films and admit that you have admiration for them because it almost seems like you’re praising the sexual assault portions of the stories.  I’d mentioned, when I reviewed 2010’s I Spit on Your Grave, that it’s definitely hard to get through the debauchery, but the revenge portions of the films are always such great payoffs.  So, pretty much, that’s how this film plays out, but not as brutal as the original.  You might think that’s a good thing, and I agree that it is, after you see what happens to the characters of Mari and Paige.  But the revenge climax of the film is toned down as well and not as gleefully gory and extreme like the original film or the recent I Spit on Your Grave remake.

Overall, the movie is a good thriller and you’ll enjoy most of the film, although you’ll be uncomfortable during the rape scene—as well as the minutes leading to it.

If there’s anything I can complain about is how the characters of the antagonists were written.  Throughout the beginning and into the film, the three main baddies are set as the evil bunch they are, making sure to control any situation they’re in.  Newspapers and, I’m sure, television reports were exposing them as wanted by police and FBI for their crimes, so they were right (in their mind) not to trust anyone and to make sure no one will turn on them.  As they discover the girls in their motel room, they make sure they won’t go to the police by holding them hostage, and that makes sense for who they are.  However, my gripe is that when they go to Mari’s parents’ house in the woods, they trust that her parents haven’t heard about them and take their offer to spend the night in their guest quarters.  At this point in the movie, nothing stopped them from offing other people, so why let these people live when they could’ve easily killed them or, at least, tied them up or something?  But I guess it’s just a case where you suspend disbelief or just not think about it too much.

The movie plays out pretty much the same way the original had, so there’s really nothing new added here.  The only thing praiseworthy about the rehash of this story is that it was made more believably and not as stomach-churning as the ’72 flick.  It’s definitely a horror movie, but more of the real life kind with nothing supernatural going on.

Well, with all that said, let me give you my final “bit” on The Last House on the Left.

First the pros: The film is not as sick and twisted as the original version, so you may be able to watch this without feeling nauseous or ashamed of yourself.  With the well-known actors and actresses in the film, you may keep yourself grounded and know you’re simply watching a movie. 

And the cons: Simply stated, you’re going to witness something very uncomfortable before the vengeance is dealt. 

With all that said, to recommend this film to someone, I’d be reluctant to do so.  I’m definitely on the fence because it’s a well written and directed movie, filled with good performances throughout.  However, because of the violent nature of the film, one may see me as some psycho who loves sadism in film if I were to tell you that you should watch this movie.  So, hopefully you can read into that and choose as you see fit.

As a side “bit,” I’ll just say—without giving anything away—that the very end of the film is a little silly and I’m not so sure of the logistics involved to believe that it could happen.  But it was a cool little satisfying part to include in the flick.

Anyway, thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

The 'Burbs

Since the early 80s, Tom Hanks has been a hot commodity sought after for starring roles in movies.  He has been in a countless string of hits ranging from 1984’s Splash to, recently, 2013’s Captain Phillips.  Hanks broke out on the comedy scene with the 1980 television sitcom, “Bosom Buddies” (along with Peter Scolari), as two guys needing to find an affordable apartment, resorting to dressing in drag as they live in an all-women’s apartment building.  Though it was hard to believe that the series lasted two seasons, one thing that had been evident was that Tom Hanks stood out as one hell of a funny actor, so it was a no-brainer to cast him into comedy films soon after the success of that show.

Although most of his films in the decade of the 1980s were hilarious romps that ranged from fantasy comedies (Splash and Big) to gratuitous lampoon (Bachelor Party and The Money Pit), one thing that was always evident was that the man could act and had quite a range from his great comedic timing to being quite serious.  In fact, as time went on, Hanks began taking on more earnest roles, leaving the comedy behind.  I was floored the first time I had seen Philadelphia, the movie having such a heavy tone as he played a gay man who contracts AIDS.  The role won him his first Academy Award and definitely sent him on his way into being the great actor that he is today.

All that aside, the 80s were his comedic era and the films he had been featured in were fun frolics that were enjoyed by many.  He had made a name for himself on his TV series, even garnering some attention on his guest role in Family Ties (where he played the uncle with a drinking problem) as his part was funny-turned-serious, and with his break-out hit, Splash, he was quickly on his way toward some really funny films.

So, the year after he was featured in Big and shortly after the release of Turner & Hooch, Tom Hanks continued his crazy comedy ways—although a little subdued here—in a fun little thriller-comedy, The ‘Burbs.

Now, I have to admit, I hadn’t gone to see this in theaters when it was first released in 1989, but opted to rent the film when it came out on VHS.  So, focusing primarily on his outrageous comedies in the past, I was expecting this film to be sort of the same thing where it’d be a laugh-a-minute.  With that in mind, I think that’s why I felt let down a bit after watching it back then and never really thought about it until recently, where I found the DVD for a couple of bucks in a dump bin at Wal-Mart.  After re-watching the film as of late, I’ve found that I have changed my mind on my opinion from years ago and I’m actually partial to this movie.

One aspect I see in this film as to why I’ve changed my opinion is the fact that the whole film was shot on the backlot of Universal Studios, mainly on Colonial Street (now called Wisteria Lane, due to the success of the television series, “Desperate Housewives”), where well known TV shows were filmed.  Shows like “Leave it to Beaver” and “The Munsters” were just some of the many productions that were featured on that famous street set.  I guess I’d just never noticed—or cared—when I first saw The ‘Burbs.  But ever since 1998, when I first set foot in the Hollywood amusement park and the studio backlot tour, I found a new love for everything Universal.

But enough of me waxing poetic about the studio and everything associated with it…let’s get into The ‘Burbs.

The film takes place in a cul-de-sac neighborhood in the town of Hinkley Hills.  Ray Peterson (Tom Hanks) is curious about his mysterious new neighbors, the Klopeks, who live next door as he begins to notice some peculiarities that they display.  Ray and his friend, Art (Rick Ducommun), and along with the military veteran neighbor, Lt. Mark Rumsfield (Bruce Dern), start noticing weird goings-on at the house.  They see flashes of lights coming from the basement and notice the neighbors coming out in the middle of the night to dig in their backyard.  It’s when an older neighbor, Walter Seznick (Gale Gordon), goes missing, that the men decide to investigate…thinking the worst about the new neighbors.

I’ve got to say, I’ve gained a new admiration for this film and see it in a completely different light now.  I made the mistake, back when I first saw this movie, of thinking it was going to be a big laugh riot with Tom Hanks leading the way.  In actuality, this flick is a nice little funny story with an equally humorous ensemble cast that all give something to the movie.  Mainly it’s a funny tale, with the typical farfetched plans of neighbors having nothing better to do than to trespass and spy on people who they believe to be murderers. 

Although Hanks is not over-the-top funny, he still has some cool comedic moments as he plays the straight man that gets caught up and pressured by his friend to believe some crazy theories about the new neighbors.  Seeing him go from just a curious neighbor to some obsessed meddler is pretty amusing and seems believable.  The way it ramps up from the beginning makes it sort of acceptable that someone would actually go that far to find out what their neighbors are doing in their own home.  Though he stays pretty straight throughout the whole movie, when he loses it before the climax of the film, you’ll most likely get a little chuckle out of it.

Although Rick Ducommun, as Hanks’s friend, is a little annoying, the film needed him as the little push to get Hanks’s character go over the top.  But Bruce Dern was a nice touch to play the respectable military man of the neighborhood—not to mention his gizmos and gadgets help the plot along as it sees fit.  Even though it’s a little overblown to have this story of three guys going out of their way to spy on the new neighbors, it gives the characters the air of great chemistry between them as they plan and strategize ways to gain information from the Klopeks’ residence.

Along for the ride are your typical icons from the 1980s, like Carrie Fisher playing Ray’s wife, Carol.  You’ll recognize the Klopeks: Henry Gibson as Dr. Werner Klopek with Brother Theodore as Uncle Reuben and Courtney Gains as Hans.  Of course, what’s an 80s movie without Corey Feldman?  He’s thrown into the mix as the local teenager, Ricky Butler.  Overall, the film has the same feel and look to it as Gremlins.  Seeing that both that film and this one were both directed by Joe Dante, it's understandable.

If you’re a fan of the golden age of television, or even of more recent TV shows, you’ll definitely recognize the street the neighborhood is set on as it still appears like it had years prior.  Although it has changed for more modern day television shows these days, it will always be Colonial Street to me, where the Cleaver boys walked home from school during the credits of “Leave it to Beaver.”

So, what’s my final “bit” on The ‘Burbs?

Not a Tom Hanks classic in any sense, but a very good film that’s pretty tame for the family to see.  It’s entertaining and certainly worth a watch.  I’m glad I picked it up and discovered my new found appreciation for it…maybe you will too.

Thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Re-Animator

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers

After successfully bringing back the Halloween franchise from the brink of obliteration due to the apparent demise of the main antagonist at the end of the second film, the screenwriters and filmmakers listened well to the fans that had been disappointed and brought back the masked killer everyone had come to know as Michael Myers.  His whited out mask with the crazy tuft of hair on top had become well known and had brought fear to all who’d seen the films.  It was a train that had been building up speed and power with the first two films and solidified itself even more after the 1988 sequel where the slasher icon was resurrected and was now back on the horror movie map.

The filmmakers of the 1988 follow-up productively solved the problem of Laurie Strode’s absence by having her death explained in exposition and introducing her daughter she left behind as the new target of Michael Myers.  But after that sequel, where do you go from there?

I do remember seeing this film in the theater—as I was steadily going to see movies during the 80s as horror movies were big then and constantly being released during that decade—and had my reservations about it as it was playing out before my eyes.  Years later, as I’ve seen this movie countless times—being that it’s a staple of my October movie-watching experience—I’ve come to scrutinize it even more.

Directed by Dominique Othenin-Girard, he was able to keep the feel of part four within the film, but the story, as a whole, seems a little forced and uneven.  Whether it’s because of his direction or the performances of the actors and actresses, I’m not sure.  But there definitely were some decisions on the tone of some of the scenes that are questionable.  I’ll get into that a little later.  First, let me synopsize.

The film takes place right after the events of part four, showing Michael Myers (Don Shanks) being able to get away as he’s injured and clinging to life.  An old blind man (Harper Roisman) takes him in and nurses him back to health over the course of a year.  When Halloween arrives, Michael awakens, kills the man, and continues his pursuit of Jamie (Danielle Harris), who is now mute and is a patient at the Haddonfield Children’s Clinic under the care of Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence). 

Now, as this sequel continues with most of the cast of part four, featuring Jamie’s adopted sister, Rachel (Ellie Cornell), I felt it was a return to what we saw in the previous movie.  But as the shift

changes to focus on the character of Tina (Wendy Kaplan), Rachel’s friend, I felt this was the downfall of the film.  Kaplan’s performance was so irritating and annoying…it made me cringe at times.  I used to wonder to myself, “Who’d be friends with that chick?”  She was so overly happy and joyful, being loud and obnoxious, it seemed a little unreal.  She established herself as someone I wanted Michael to kill off right away…especially when she chooses to go off and party after Jamie recovers from being mute, begging Wendy to stay with her! 

Another big mistake that the director made is incorporating too much comedy with the inclusion of the bumbling cop characters (Frank Como and David Ursin).  It was bad enough to show them as a couple of dumbasses, but they were given a sort of clownish music theme.  It’s as if the filmmakers thought, “Well, the audience might not know that they’re a couple of idiots so let’s make sure to hammer it home by giving them some cartoon melody complete with silly honking horns whenever they’re on screen.”  I didn’t think it was funny whatsoever.

All in all, the movie has some good moments, but one thing you’ll see is that you really don’t care about any of the characters Michael kills off.  Most of them you’ll want dead when you first see them, so you really can’t connect with them.  The filmmakers were too busy to give each individual within the movie clichéd characteristics that they didn’t realize how superficial they were going to turn out.

You can still enjoy this movie for the simple fact that Michael is still continuing his stalking and killing ways.  Really, there are no surprises that you’ll find here until the end of the movie.  It all starts with confusing glimpses of a man in black with no explanation as to who he is or why he arrives in Haddonfield and leaves you with even more confusion at the very end of the film.  Although we get sort of clarification in part six (a mere six years later), it’s a very contrived explanation that I’ll go over in that film’s review.

So, my final “bit” on Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers?

The last of the Halloween films within the decade of the 80s that doesn’t completely disappoint and actually has a few good scenes within it, I usually enjoy it during my annual October viewing and will continue to do so every year.  It’s not the best of the lot, but worth your time if you have the urge to watch a slasher film that correlates with the Halloween season.

Thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Shocker

It’s amazing to me how easy it was for audiences to suspend disbelief back before the turn of the century.  Whether it was inserting a McGuffin plot devise or just some magical reason why something came to be, moviegoers didn’t seem to call foul when these concepts were presented.  Transferring ones soul or consciousness seemed to be of the norm back in the 80s as I can think of a few films, which were big hits that used that bit of an idea.  Movies like 1986’s Deadly Friend, 1988’s Child’s Play and 1989’s The Horror Show were a few which used that plot device.  So, knowing that the notion was a tried-and-true subplot that wouldn’t be scoffed at, Universal Pictures, in association with Carolco Pictures, released the Wes Craven film, Shocker.

Written and directed by Craven, it was here that his A Nightmare on Elm Street credentials began to peter out.  Although I enjoyed the film when it was released back in ’89—and still do—the 90s were about to begin and moviegoers were starting to tire of the typical horror films of the 1980s.  Not only that, butShocker almost seemed like a rip-off of Craven’s Nightmare film, so it was perceived by some that Craven was only recycling his idea from 1984.

Now, the latter part of this decade was big for me and a time I’ll never forget…uh…never mind.  I don’t want to seem redundant in my nostalgic waxing.  So I’ll just say that when I look back to these times, I remember how excited and anxious I’d been when watching these types of films in the theater, even when going with large groups of friends.  So, nowadays, when throwing these movies on my Blu-Ray player, I feel that the flicks are laughable and I’m sometimes embarrassed to let my wife see them.  Luckily, she has no interest in horror films, but every so often she’ll walk by while I have one of these gems on.  It seems like she always happens to come in right when some ridiculous part of the movie is on, too.  When I was watching The Return of the Living Dead, she walks in during Linnea Quigley’s nude dance scene on top of the grave or while I was viewingRe-Animator, she happens by as Dr. Hill’s body-less head is attempting cunnilingus on Megan.  I don’t know…my wife’s timing is uncanny. 

One thing about Shocker is something that I had noticed way back at the time of release and that was the similarities to the movie,The Horror Show.  Now, I discussed that film back in December of 2013 (which you can read here) and went over that little bit of peculiarity in the timing of both releases.  I’ve tried researching the films to see if there were any double sales that writers may have made, selling the story to two studios, but I didn’t find anything like that.  Besides, Craven wrote this one, solely, so we’ll just go from there.

A serial killer is on the loose in Los Angeles and Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi) becomes the prime

suspect by the lead detective, Lt. Don Parker (Michael Murphy).  After Pinker kills Parker’s wife and foster children, Parker’s surviving foster son, Jonathan (Peter Berg), seems to have a strange connection to Pinker as he has a vivid dream of where the killer’s hideout is and, upon waking up, leads his foster father and the police department to the location.  After escaping the police and later trying to kill Jonathan, Pinker is arrested and sentenced to die by the electric chair.  When the day comes and the switch is thrown, Pinker’s soul is converted into pure electric energy and is able to possess other people’s bodies, jumping from one to another.  Since Jonathan is the only one who discovers that Pinker is still alive in some energized force and able to take over other individuals, he must try and find a way to stop and defeat Pinker for good.

Yeah, I know…it’s a pretty contrived plot, isn’t it?  But people accepted it back then and it wasn’t ridiculed whatsoever—not even by me. 

Now, I’d discussed a bit about the likeness to The Horror Show, but there’s actually a lot more in common with A Nightmare on Elm Street.  Both films feature a serial killer who—after death—is able to go into a different realm other than the real world, both include a main character having nightmares featuring said serial killer, and both include a plan to get the killer back into the real world to find a way to defeat them.  I’m sure there are a few more things that I’d missed, but those are the main glaring issues one may see with the movie.  Considering that Wes Craven wrote and directed both movies, it kind of makes him look like he didn’t really try that hard to write this story.  Even the whole concept of an evil entity jumping from one body to another, possessing each one, is recycled as well from the film, The Hidden.

Don’t get me wrong, I know I’d pointed out quite a few issues from the film, but they’re not really complaints.  More or less, those items of note are more attention-grabbing than anything else.  But the movie, as a whole, seems to be an interesting concept that wasn’t fleshed out enough to be made into a good horror movie.  So in that respect, I feel The Horror Show was a bit better.

It’s a shame this film didn’t fare a bit better as it had potential to go on as a pretty good franchise.  The character of Horace Pinker was ripe to add as another horror icon to the mantel of slasher killers.  He was very memorable in the outfit he ends up wearing throughout most of the movie and what’s seen on the movie poster.  Much like Bruce Lee will be remembered for that yellow jumpsuit in the never-completed (by Lee anyway) Game of Death, Pinker will be remembered by horror aficionados for his orange jumpsuit with the checkered pattern across the chest.  I know that’s a weird comparison, comparing this little-known slasher flick to the Kung Fu icon, Bruce Lee, but it came to mind first and I went with it.

So, what’s my final “bit” onShocker?

Altogether, this is a fun horror flick, which, surprisingly, is taken pretty seriously as it goes along.  Having not too much humor might be a slight downfall, but there’s actually enough to make the average horror fan enjoy this late 80s gem and it’s probably the last of Craven’s fun flicks until he wrote and directedScream seven years later.  My advice is to rent this during this silly season of horror, turn off your brain and take a trip back to the 80s, enjoying this Wes Craven jewel.

Well, thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

30 Days of Night

It’s no secret—I love horror movies, as I’ve said time and time again, and that’s the one genre I always have in mind when thinking about a title to watch.  My favorite of the bunch is slashers (the Friday the 13th franchise being my favorite), creature features and zombies, so is the werewolf variety and many others.  But the one genre that I enjoy watching is one that needs to be conveyed in a very, very good movie, one that needs to be scary and horrific with a great story and originality as well.  Because if this type of movie doesn’t have everything needed, including the correct rules and legends, to satisfy my horror pallet, then it falls flat.  The genre I’m referring to is the vampire assortment of films and the one that did a damn fine job of introducing a modern take on the lore is 30 Days of Night.

From the outset, when I’d heard about this film and what it was about, it had me intrigued.  I knew it was based on a comic book series of the same name, but I’d found out later was that this story was originally meant to be a movie when conceived, only made into a comic book when studios rejected the treatment.  All that aside, just hearing of how the story is about a group of vampires that take over an Alaskan town that goes through thirty days of darkness due to its fictional polar location had me stoked.  I just thought that it was brilliant and left me wondering how the bloodsuckers would be defeated when there was no sun to kill them.

Excellently directed by David Slade (Hard Candy) and conceived by Steve Niles, the story takes place in the small Alaskan town of Barrows as the residents get ready for the “thirty days of night,” as most of them leave for the winter, not wanting to go through the long period without daylight.  The Stranger (Ben Foster) wanders into town and ends up stealing and destroying all cell phones, incapacitates the town’s helicopter, kills all the sled dogs, and basically cuts the town off from the rest of the world.  Sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) starts investigating these strange crimes as darkness falls over the town.  When The Stranger causes raucous in the town’s diner, Sheriff Eben takes him in and locks him up.  Soon after, the remaining residents of Barrows are faced with what is hunting them and have to hide or fight back these powerful monstrosities.

Now, I like this film as a whole—everything within it is awesomely crafted and laid out, giving us one hell of a vampire flick.  But certain aspects of it stand out from the rest, pointing out the originality and creativity of the look of the film. 

First off, the look of the vampires is something we really haven’t seen before.  When most of us think of how vampires look, we think of normal-looking people who happen to have two extra-long canine teeth—sometimes being able to lengthen or shorten them at will—or having the ability to shape-shift their appearance.  Here, in 30 Days of Night, the vampires are simply monsters—large blackened pupils with distorted faces and a mouthful of razor sharp teeth, similar to a shark.  Basically, these aren’t your average vampires where they can easily blend in with the people of town—on the contrary, they stick out like a sore thumb.  They’re a little frightening to look at and you can imagine the fear the residents must feel when they come face-to-face with these creatures.

Another interesting item of note is the language they speak, almost alien as you can’t decipher it as being from another country or even from this world.  The way the vampires speak to one another is sort of guttural and animalistic, matching the way they look.  The fact that we never learn where they come from is an interesting subject to ponder, because there’s not much information given on their origins.  We only learn that they travelled to the area by cargo ship and that The Stranger had helped them somehow.  It’s also fascinating, in a way, that they all appear somewhat well-dressed.  All this adds up to some very scary-looking vampire creatures.

The set of Barrows was very well done, created to look very much like an Alaskan small town, completely isolated and claustrophobic in its compactness.  If it weren’t for the danger and darkness this town endures throughout this film, the burg would seem like a desirable place to live.  But it just goes to show you how, when an element of evil is introduced to an otherwise happy area, a relatively covetable township can turn to hell very quickly.

I also love the slow burn 30 Days of Night displays, how we don’t exactly see what the townies are up against right away, only giving us eerie scenarios where things may or may not be lurking in the shadows.  With the isolation of some of these scenes, it definitely gives you the understanding of trepidation these characters are feeling when they’re faced with it alone.  We get many of these scenes until the whole hoard of vampires is shown…and by that time, the whole town is in the midst of their domination.

If there was anything that I didn’t like, it wasn’t much to veer me from seeing this again when I decided to purchase the Blu-Ray.  Mainly, it was the scenes when the survivors of the town decided to find sanctuary in the attic of one of the abandoned houses.  It wasn’t bad, but you really didn’t get the sense that they were up there that long.  The other hint of that was the fact that we see Sheriff Eben’s beard has grown a little scraggly and if it weren’t for that, the film makes it look like they had gotten bored with waiting in the attic.  They had placed some text in the bottom of the screen that read, “one week later,” or something to that extent, but it still was a bit of a slowdown during the flick.  It’s just one minor complaint that really doesn’t bother me and really doesn’t deter from enjoying this film.

The cast was great, all pulling out believable performances, especially from Ben Foster.  Just about every movie I’ve seen him in I’ve appreciated, as I think he’s got a prodigious career ahead of him.  I had a hard time accepting Josh Hartnett as a sheriff of a small town, thinking he looked too young to be head of a borough, but I grew to accept it as the film went on.  David Slade, as a director, did a phenomenal job with this unique vampire tale, making this film a cut above the rest.

I’ll stop here, for fear of being tempted to give too much more away, and leave you with my final “bit” of 30 Days of Night.

Besides the praise I’ve just given this film in the paragraphs above, I’ll say this.  Whenever I run into anybody, anywhere, who even try to cite any of the Twilight films as a novel look at vampire mythologies, I quickly fire back with, “You want a quintessential vampire movie?  Watch 30 Days of Night!  The best I’ve seen in a long time!”  And I walk away, triumphant.

So that’s another film down in the Cinema Bits library of reviews…thanks for reading and I welcome any comments!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.