Post by greylon on Oct 29, 2007 18:38:19 GMT -5
Well, we're in the full swing of another Hollywood glut. We've all seen it before. Hollywood decides to tap into a new resource, like comics for example. They filter through all the possibilities, and find what would potentially be the best to plop major money behind to make a hit movie. But once the profits have been made, everybody else wants some of the action, and they start scooping up intellectual property left and right, those that were passed over the first time, and try to cash in...
S now, it's the time of graphic novels. Since Hollyowood had major hits with Batman Begins and 300, along with smaller hits such as Sin City, every somewhat popular graphic novel is getting a film deal. And that leads us to "30 Days of Night."
I've never read the novel, but something tells me I should. Because whatever set the novel apart from its hundreds of genre cousins, it certainly didn't make it to the screen. The plot is barely a plot. Take one tiny Alaskan town so far north that in the winter time, they have a month of no sunlight. Cut them off from the world with blizzards, and add a big pack of feral vampires that have a month to hunt and feed on these helpless people. Now, have themn survive until daylight. That's it. That's the entire plot.
I'm sure the novel had more than this. Instead, we get the same overly tired horror crap Hollywood keeps pumping out:
Wash in lots of gore, bad planning, and characters on both sides that are idiots, and you take what was probably a good idea when they bought the rights into seen-it-all pap.
Did you know blood stains can survive blizzards for weeks at a time and still look fresh? Neither did I.... feh...
Overall: 3.2 out 10.
Though I do admit, I am tempted to read the graphic novel so I know what was supposed to be good about this.
S now, it's the time of graphic novels. Since Hollyowood had major hits with Batman Begins and 300, along with smaller hits such as Sin City, every somewhat popular graphic novel is getting a film deal. And that leads us to "30 Days of Night."
I've never read the novel, but something tells me I should. Because whatever set the novel apart from its hundreds of genre cousins, it certainly didn't make it to the screen. The plot is barely a plot. Take one tiny Alaskan town so far north that in the winter time, they have a month of no sunlight. Cut them off from the world with blizzards, and add a big pack of feral vampires that have a month to hunt and feed on these helpless people. Now, have themn survive until daylight. That's it. That's the entire plot.
I'm sure the novel had more than this. Instead, we get the same overly tired horror crap Hollywood keeps pumping out:
- Characters with zero personalities. So thin, you don'tr really care if they live or die.
- Loud noises along with sudden monster appearances top let you know it was supposed to be scary. (real truth, they're not)
- Tons of shaky-cam action sequences so the audience knows something really awesome and frenetic is supposed to be happening, they just can't see what. (real truth, director can't shoot a believable action sequence if people can actually see it clearly)
- Absurdly heavy handed intros of devices to be used later. Grandma says she has a greenhouse five minutes into the flick? Whatever will it be used for in a vampire movie?
- Wait! A vampire/zombie movie where one in the surviving group gets bit and turned?! GAH! How tired is that!
Wash in lots of gore, bad planning, and characters on both sides that are idiots, and you take what was probably a good idea when they bought the rights into seen-it-all pap.
Did you know blood stains can survive blizzards for weeks at a time and still look fresh? Neither did I.... feh...
Overall: 3.2 out 10.
Though I do admit, I am tempted to read the graphic novel so I know what was supposed to be good about this.