30 Days of Night. The Book vs the Movie

This is long winded folks..Get comfortable!

When 30 Days of Night was announced, I became really excited. This was because it looked like an honest to God SCARY vampire film. As some of you who have been following the blog, I have a general indifference towards the vampire genre. Vampires just don't do it for me really. While I find the concept intriguing, I never found the species that frightening at all. Angsty, poetic, and mysterious? Sure. Scary? Well you might as well dress my 8th grade poetry loving English teacher up in a cape and have her "lurk" at me. That would probably induce the same amount of fear that a vampire would.

But 30 Days of Night?

Aw yeah. Promising.

30 Days of Night looked on par with Near Dark (The only vampire movie to ever scare me.). So I researched the film like a good little nerd and found out that 30 Days was based on a graphic novel of the same name. Double geek score! And of course, the one thing I wanted to do was dig my meat hooks into the graphic novel before the film came out. Luckily one of our readers and good friend of mine, Nojh sent me the box set of the 30 Days of Night graphic novel trilogy. I promised him my first born son and since he didn't want that I promised to buy him some Anime he wanted...which I have yet to deliver on. Unfortunately these novels solidified my now tried and true rule. Never read the book before seeing the movie! Because about 99% percent of the time the movie is just a dim comparison of the material its based upon. For me 30 Days of Night the movie was in that 99%. Damn it all. Now don't get me wrong, 30 Days of Night isn't a crap film. It's actually pretty well done. The problem is, the graphic novel is better. And my expectations going in to see this film were a bit high.

For those of you who do not know the graphic novel or the film BEWARE! THAR BE SPOILERS AHEAD!!

The Graphic Novel of 30 Days of Night is virtually the exact same story as the film. A group of vampires descend on the small Alaskan town of Barrow during the winter when the sun is down for 30 days. Chaos and blood ensues. The interesting thing about 30 Days the graphic novel is that its written like a fable. The action is briefly described and the characters are a bit vague. Its less a fleshed out piece of literature and more of a cautionary tale told over a campfire. You can get through each book in a day. What carries the novel is the beautifully grotesque art and the story line. After reading this I felt it was perfect to put to film. With many other books to movie adaptations you lose a lot of the small details, subplots, and character quirks leaving the Cliff Notes addition to fill the screen. But with 30 Days of Night, you can easily transfer the fable like story to the screen without losing a thing. You even have room for additions too. The attack on the town was not very detailed in the novel and relied on the moody art to covey its terror. In a film version you have room to expand. And 30 Days, the film did do this its benefit. The attack sequences were wonderful. The first couple being mauled, the good friend hiding under the house after he's been turned, the old senile man constantly stepping out of hiding forgetting the situation, and my favorite and the one that really gets under my skin, the "human bait" scene. Each one of these scenes were perfectly orchestrated for suspense and terror. Also, the portrayal of the vampires were spot on. The shark eyed, mouth full of razors, animalistic blood suckers were perfect to give me the chills. Finally, a screen vampire (that wasn't Bill Paxton) to scare me! Danny Huston was perfect as the lead vampire Marlow. He was everything I'd want in a vampire leader; creepy, calculating, cold blooded...slightly attractive which really disturbs me about how I think. The addition of the vampires speaking their own language was also stellar and alienated the audience even more from them.

So what went wrong for me?

While the film did do a great job expanding the action and terror, it ignored some really great and even franchise building character moments that were in the book. The book was written fable style, but there were two great subplots that were completely ignored in the film; the vampire hunters and the other vampires. Also, the portrayal of our two heroes in the film, Eben and his wife Stella didn't sit well with me either.

The novel had two subplots that were pretty fantastic. And while I understand that in most book to movie adaptations subplots sometimes have to be removed for time and streamline factors, 30 Days the movie really didn't have to omit them. The movie had plenty of room to include both subplots but still keep the story streamlined and keep the running time under two and a half hours.The vampire hunter subplot was small but lead into a huge plot point in the second novel, which I heard was in the works for a movie. In 30 Days, the novel we're introduced to a woman and her son in New Orleans who are Hell bent on proving to the world that vampires exist. They find out about the attack on Barrow and the son heads off on a mission to not save the the down but only to document the attack and come back to report to the world. I felt this subplot gave the audience a larger scope of the vampires. They didn't just pop up in Alaska, they were everywhere. And from a commercial standpoint, this would give a great lead in to a movie sequel.

The other vampires was a subplot that I really felt was needed to give the vampires a bit more depth. While I loved how they were portrayed as pack animals, the idea that they had enough human in them to be organized and calculating was the scary part. We had glimpses of their intelligence in the film. The graphic novel expanded on this more. We found out that not only where there more vampires than Marlow's little band of misfits but that all the other vampires were really pissed off at Marlow's plan for an Alaskan feeding orgy feeling it will expose their species to humans. This ended in a creepy show down between Marlow and the head honcho of the vampire world right in the middle of Barrow which eventually lead to a good chunk of the town's destruction. This also lead to a rather large war between the humans and the vampires in the second book. While I can understand omitting the vampire hunter's subplot since it can be glazed over in the second movie, I felt the other vampires subplot really added to the overall mood of the piece and was pretty vital to the essence of the vampires. It also made a much better reason for the vampires to burn the town than Marlow's sudden change of heart about what they were doing.

I also wasn't too happy with the portrayal of Eben and Stella in the film. When reading 30 Days the graphic novel Eben and Stella were happily married. Not only happily married but I also had the feeling that they were much older possibly in their late thirties or early forties. The stars of our film Josh Hartnett and Melissa George appeared to be much younger. Not only younger but hyper good looking. I'm sure this sounds like a nit picky thing but I felt making the two main characters of the movie young and hot pushed 30 Days the film into typical horror movie cliche land. Who will save us? The beautiful people of course! They were fine in their rolls but I craved to have older more experienced actors as Eben and Stella. They were the sheriffs in the harsh Alaskan territory. I'm not saying all Alaskans are beaten and withered but I am saying is that you'd have a wee bit more experience in your eyes than your average beautiful movie star. Also, was it necessary to have them be separated? It seemed like just another typical movie cliche to have their marriage in turmoil only to be brought back together by crisis. We've seen it so many times in movies (Die Hard, Outbreak, Saw 3, etc etc.) Why not have the older married couple that was portrayed in the graphic novel? To me that seems more mundane and makes the crisis they encounter twice as terrifying.

I'm sure it sounds like I'm tearing this movie a new one. It really isn't a horrible film. And if I had never read the graphic novel first, chances are I'd have liked it a lot more than I do. I do recommend it to anyone who is curious about it. But unfortunately its not a classic like Near Dark is. It feels shallow. Fantastic creatures and great suspense but without the extra bits of character it needs to back it all up. If they only kept in most if not all the nuances of the novel I really believe it could have been a classic vampire film. Right now, I can only classify it as "Good and worth a rental".

For the love of Zombie! Why Cins loves the Undead.

Zombie movies are my favorite.

I love them.

I'm in this photo. Can you guess who I am?

I loved them ever since I saw my first zombie shamble across my television screen in Night of the Living Dead. Hell, I remember falling in love with zombies when I heard a radio commercial for Return of the Living Dead on the radio. There was something about that one actor moaning "Brraaaaaains" that really tickled me as a kid.

Since then I try to seek out interesting movies or literature on the subject on the undead.

So what makes me so fascinated with the zombie genre?A few things actually.

The versatility of the subject is one thing I find attractive. Much like vampires, its pretty easy to change up the zombie lore and make it your own. Originally, from what I've gathered, zombies in the Voodoo religion were people put under control by a powerful sorcerer usually to do some sort of bidding... probably of the evil kind. The theory is a person is given a zombie drug which makes them appear dead. They are buried, dug up, then revived, usually in a "zombie" like state where they act only the the sorcerer or bokor's will. Keep in mind all I really know about voodoo is what I read on Wikipedia and what I've seen in Serpent and the Rainbow. So if I'm wrong or you have more facts, please feel free to share!

Romero is the grandaddy of all zombie movies and brought zombies into the main stream. He created his own mythology and his slow moving, flesh hungry undead are what we're most familiar with. Romero created such a mysterious mythology that other film makers were able to take the concept and run with it...literally if you look at the Dawn of the Dead Remake. We now have fast zombies like in Dawn of the Dead Remake, the infected in 28 Days Later, the genetically enhanced zombies from Resident Evil, and the domesticated docile zombies in Fido among other countless brands of zombies. Each brand was created in a different way (disease, terrorism, God getting pissed, all of the above, etc). The zombie can be reinvented over and over each time with a different twist or mythos. Even if you hate fast zombies or don't consider the infected really zombies just turn around and BAM there's another zombie movie that may be suited for your taste! As a writer or a director, its a creative subject with endless possibilities. As a viewer, it never gets old.

Another thing I love about the zombie genre is its vast epic feel. There is a rather nihilist approach to the genre, a simplicity that other horror lack. Its simply this; the dead are rising, we're all fucked. Everything we know of gets devoured and destroyed. As humans we're reduced to our wits, instincts, and any weapons we can scrounge up. No one is safe from a zombie attack. You could be the most powerful person in the world but that won't stop you from becoming a victim. And there are millions of them. MILLIONS. Zombies can't be bargained with and you sure as hell can't come to a truce with them. Its kill or become one of them.

A great example of this epic destruction is Max Brooks amazing novel World War Z.

What is so fascinating about this novel is its not all about the flesh eating zombie folks. Its about the crumbling of civilization on a global scale. He goes into depth about what would happen geographically, politically, and socially if the Zombie Apocalypse came. A zombie isn't just a pesky menace like a werewolf or vampire. While vampires and werewolves are capable of spreading their "infection" to others, they are still in control of their conscious thought. So even if the vampires or werewolves were evil, they still are in control of who they kill or turn. Zombies are mindless killing machines acting only on instinct. One zombie can destroy the whole world. We're not just concerned about a few plucky victims running for safety, we're worried that the entire planet is doomed. A serial killer is scary but the complete end of the world as we know it is terrifying. Not only is it the end of the world but if you get caught by one of these guys you will die AND be forced to become something horrifying. A scary guy like Michael Myers makes me jump. Zombies haunt me for a while afterwards.

The zombie genre is one I can easily play in. Its a fantastic "What if" story that really does make you think. What if the end came? What if the dead walks again? What if my grandma tried to eat me? What would I do? My husband and I spend a good deal of long car trips playing the "How to survive the zombie Apocalypse" game. Its like playing a game of Stratego....very bloody and decayed Stratego. We sit and wonder where the safe zones would be in our city, what we would bring, where we would loot (yes, I said loot), and other survival tactics. For the most part I have to say we have a pretty good contingency plan for the rising of the dead.

Can't help lovin' that man 'o mine.

Zombies capture my imagination. They fascinate and frighten me all at once. They make me think about my own morality and will to survive. And of course you can kill them in several different entertaining ways. And while I love all types of horror from slasher to ghost, zombies tend to be on the top of my list.

Thoughts? Share! Sharing is caring, folks!

Creepy Kiddie Reads

I'm a voracious reader; I taught myself to read when I was 3 years old and have never looked back. I drove my mother crazy because she'd catch me reading instead of getting ready for school, and my math teachers hated me because they'd find my copy of whatever I was reading at the time tucked into my math book.

Many of my childhood reads I still bust out and re-visit, so I thought I would share some of my favorites. Feel free to contribute your own in the comments, so that I can agree, mock, stare at you blankly, whatever I feel like doing at the moment.

The first, and most obvious is, of course, Bunnicula.



(The cover above is the version I've got.) It was written originally in 1979 by James and Deborah Howe. The writers were a contributing factor for my fascination for these books; Deborah Howe was never listed as author on any of the subsequent sequels. I found out later that she died at a very young age, and for some reason that made me love the book more, like it needed a little bit more attention.

This book is amazingly great, even now. To the best of my knowledge it's never been out of print, and it guaranteed to make a morbid kid like me happy. Bunnicula is about a family, and their adoption of an orphaned rabbit, found at a showing of Dracula. The story is told by Harold, the family dog, and the discovery by the family cat, Chester, that the bunny, named Bunnicula, is in fact.. a vampire! Shenanigans, of course, ensue.

Chester feels that Bunnicula is dangerous-- as he puts it "Today vegetables--tomorrow, the world!" and tries to kill the poor rabbit. Garlic, vegetable vamping, and bunny abuse abound! But I'll ruin it for you: since there are sequels and none of them are named "The Cat and his Rabbit Skin Rug", the rabbit lives.

The storyline is several books long now, and I think more come out occasionally. So far there is Bunnicula, Howliday Inn, The Celery Stalks At Midnight, Nighty-Nightmare, Return to Howliday Inn, Bunnicula Strikes Again, Bunnicula Meets Edgar Allen Crow, and there's also a Christmas book. These are great for kids (and those like me who are essentially over sized children), so it's a good gift idea. I still have the original copy that I got from the Troll book order when I was in third grade. Give it a read if you're like me and will read almost anything. Be like me. C'mon, all the cool (big) kids are doing it!



My next childhood favorite, one I literally read to pieces, is The Prisoner of Vampires, written by Nancy Garden and with cool illustrations by Michele Chessare.



This is a book that I find I appreciate more and more; it's intended for 9-12 year olds, but there is a lot of vampire lore in here aside from Dracula. This book references Carmilla by Sheridan Le Fanu, as well as Lord Ruthven the Vampire (written by John William Polidori, conceived of the same night that Mary Shelly came up with Frankenstein), and Night Visitor to Croglin Low Grange, a story I didn't even get a chance to read until a few years ago. (If anyone knows who the last title is by, please share; I couldn't find anything online, and was having a hard time finding the author in the Time-Life Enchanted book it's featured in.)

The story is about a 12 year old boy named Alex. He lives in Massachusetts, and has a serious knack for getting himself into trouble. He's not a trouble maker, he just lacks common sense. Alex is a horror buff and decides to write on vampires for a school paper.

While deep in the basement of the local library (which abuts a mortuary) he ends up meeting the phenomenally creepy Radu, who promises to school him in true vampiric legend. Alex agrees, and I'm sure you could see what a huge mistake that was from space.

At the same time a strain of the flu is sweeping through their city, and soon a classmate of his teen aged sister dies. Then his sister becomes ill. It's around this time that he meets the young woman with the tight, frightening braces, scary because of what they are trying to conceal, sitting next to him on the bus.

This is still a really, really strong book, and I'm glad to have a copy. I think I'll reread this over Christmas, in fact.

I was going to go on, but this wall 'o text is threatening to crush the neighboring county. I should probably at least pretend I care, huh? Please, feel free to share more titles with me! I'm always looking for something else to read!