So much average

best movie i've ever seen.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Surprisingly good, but not a movie that would be considered a classic. However this does stand above a lot of the more mediocre Vampire movies that have been made.It almost entirely relies on atmosphere, the coldness of the nomadic vampires is only matched by the Alaskan wilderness. The story works quite well, especially as there is never really any back story to tell where the vampires actually come from. The ending is quite well done and because it isn't really a happy ending I count it as a plus. Happy endings seem to be the go and having one that is not so happy is a welcome change. The movie is let down by some of the acting, which, if better might have made this a classic.Very much worth a watch if you like Vampire movies.

Why this hasn't got a better rating on IMDb, I'm a little surprised. It's brutal, packs no punches, and is a true horror film without much sentiment. It preys on fears of the dark and it's got vampires to boot. It's not novelty in the way Lost Boys is and it's not gratuitous horror.

I am a big fan of The Thing (1982) and I was looking for films with similar vibes so I used IMDb advanced search; typed ''winter'' for keywords, then refined to narrow as feature films only, then horror as genre. This film was one of the films that were listed. So I didn't think about it much and started watching it without knowing anything about it. I can't tell that I really liked it, but it was an OK film. At least it didn't make me angry. First I'd like to mention the negatives. I didn't like Josh Harnett's performance, nor any other actor's in particular. Despite the premise and the name of the film, you can hardly tell where(when) you are in the timeline of 30 days. And it doesn't even feel like 30 days, it really feels like the events in the story happened in a single day or two, and that's the biggest fail of the film considering the premise. If they managed to give the sense that days were getting harder and harder, the audience would feel the tension rising. But as I said, it didn't happen that way.On the good side, I thought the vampires looked creepy, though I don't have any interest in vampires whatsoever.I don't suggest it to anyone, unless you are looking for a film to watch with half of your attention to kill some time. It's not an awful film, but there is nothing special or smart about it either.

Vampires invade a snowbound Alaskan town during a month of complete darkness in this horror movie from 'Hard Candy' director David Slade. It is a pretty nifty idea (where would be a more appropriate place for creatures of the night to feed?) and Slade sets up the movie well with lots of uncertainty in the air before it is made clear that vampires are afoot. Ben Foster is delightfully sinister as a stranger in town who predicts the vampire plague and the icebound vistas appear appropriately ominous. Despite such promise, the film falls apart as it progresses because none of the characters are defined beyond broad stereotypes and none of the actors (Foster aside) have the charisma to render their characters relatable. Setting the film over 30 days is problematic too. It is hard to keep track of time and without scenes set aside to show the characters sleeping, eating, etc., it feels like the whole film has occurred over two or three days - not ten times as many. Most disappointing of all though is the highly repetitive nature of the film. With limited characterisation, everything basically amounts to one vicious attack after another, all of which are filmed in such a frenzied manner that it is impossible to keep track of what is going on. The film does at least recognise the irony of the premise and what one character says early on, "we live out here for a little freedom", echoes throughout.