This movie is actually pretty impressive, especially given the context of films that were out at the time (which may have inherently branded it with negative connotations.) Having viewed it again..it seems a bit underrated - it had to compete with the likes of the more bombastic Underworld films which took the more mature traditional vampire in a very blockbuster direction, 30 days found a moderate balance with an added disturbance.
With all of the big budget stabs at these types of movies, its nice to see something more modest and sincere, it pays homage to the horror these creatures can exude on screen. The blood and gore has a more painterly, luminescent appearance..from the chopped heads to the bleeding limbs, something that I appreciate in presence of vampires..it doesn't outright bother me like violence in other works, it suits the tone.

This movie's Not Bad. After what's been pumped out over the last ten years, I'm inclined to say this is one of the best vampire movies still around - for reasons based on its quality, but also sadly on the fact there's almost nothing out there to pit against it; just a lot of action flicks.

You'd think there's gold to strike in a real, scary vampire movie - but alas not many directors are inspired to do so.

I think Hartnett's wicked too.

Reading this after reading his review of The Mist (which links to this review), one can sympathize with those who say Ebert was unfair to horror films and had a bias against the genre.

There's just something nasty and sarcastic and dismissive in his tone when discussing these films, that would never appear in a review of a film of equivalent quality from any other genre. The response when you mention his bias is often, "Well, in fairness, most horror films are terrible." But 30 Days of Night is not terrible, and is even relatively original and idiosyncratic compared to most entries in the vampire genre. Yet he treated it with contempt.

I'd take a "creature feature" like this any day over Mississippi Burning or Crash or several other idiotic films he championed and whose glaring and fundamental flaws he overlooked solely because the film was "serious" (really, self-serious) and he wanted to endorse its poorly-made political statement.

I think that even more than the brutally honest gore in this film, the intense raw human emotions that are exposed by the characters make this a memorable movie. One of many elements that elevate this above other mainstream bland vampire movies. Ebert is right in that "if you're a horror fan, you will love it". It's true that hardcore horror movies like this are an acquired taste which is why it leaves a bad taste in Ebert's mouth. However if you "are" a fan, it's like drinking Kool-Aid for years before finally tasting Dom Pérignon.

What a lazy, half-assed article. It will win no awards, and there's plenty to dislike about this film, especially in it's boring second half - but that in no way excuses not paying attention. There are no flights out of the area because of an approaching storm, and why the people there isn't core to the film's drama, which is why it isn't dicussed.

To say it's missing from the plot is to add threads that aren't present. There's much about the film that's mediocre, but complaining about explained plot points or adding issues with the plot that aren't present are unnecessary. And yes, the vampire dialog is annoying, but why not just say that without the attitude? Not the best film, but a much *much* shittier unnecessarily sarcastic review, than the film is by comparison.

There are a lot worse films out there in the genre, and in many others, and they get a lot more thoughtful review. I don't come here for laziness. It's only when I come here I'm constantly reminded how much I miss Gene. The man had taste, and instead of laurels and widespread approbation, he had writing chops.

I feel like this guy is being more than nice about this garbage and I am a horror movie fan . This movie is predictable from start to finish , no surprises in the story line just your typical vampire movie regurgitated over and over again ... I had to stop watching before half way as I didn't want to see what I know will happen , the good guys win at the end and live happily ever after. Also being overly nice about the acting , the high budget actors look overly bored to me trying to act surprised and aloof throughput what is a non surprising plot. One star.

I liked the movie.
However, I like Roger's review even better.

I really loved this movie and I thought Danny Huston as the head vampire was a very tragic character. He says "there is nothing, only pain and hunger". and he tells the other vampires not to 'turn' anyone. He knows what he is and he knows how useless and pointless his existence is. He shows mercy to Ben Foster's character. There is an intelligence behind his savagery.