Still, this sounds like it could be different. I think it's the reference to The Thing that does it for me. What a great film that is. If only this one didn't have Josh Hartnett in it.

And I have to agree with others that Hartnett has the personaliy of a wet sponge, so I HOPE he's put some effort into this thing. He was terrible in BLACK DAHLIA -- though that's no real criticism since EVERYONE was terrible in that thing. Talk about a total shitfest. Then again I've never been a real fan of his and I still can't even believe Warner Bros. wanted him really bad for SUPERMAN RETURNS. I mean seriously, regardless of what you thought of the final film and what Singer did, thank Heaven Brandon Routh showed up and got the role instead.

30 DAYS is like THE SIXTH SENSE to me. It's a flick with a fun story twist, I'll give it that, though unlike SIXTH you know the hook going in. So hopefully there's more to the final film than meets the eyes. Then again I also agree with what was said above. Vampire flicks have sort of gotten very stale and tired at this point. Hell, till someone just mentioned it, I totally forgot about the recent Lucy Liu thing. Man, talk about a movie that disappeared right after opening weekend! Given its piss poor performance, when are they ramming that thing out onto DVD -- like next week?!

"It escalates and escalates and escalates. No pithy one-liners but at the same time, no release of tension" = the only bad thing about our movie is that it's too scary (really? that's the ONLY bad thing?)

"I could hear various audience members whispering funny things to relieve the tension." = the audience made fun of our movie

Loved the graphic novel, passionately love THE THING, and if this is ANYTHING like THE THING, I'm already there, people.

done.

Anyway, Even though we need another film about vampires as much as need a film by Joel Schumacher, I do have hopes for this film, as friends of mine have been raving on about the comic.

We WANT suspense and tension and deadly seriousness in some horror movies, don't we? In the classic Halloween, the closest they got was when Loomis scared the kids away from the Myers house and even that was low key and had some suspense. The drunken sing along in Jaws and the moments of humor in John Carpenter's The Thing served more to humanize the characters and make it worse when they bought it. Now it seems they are going for one liners and quotes and goofy moments.

Sorry to go off like this but there has been a serious degradation in horror movies for a long time now. We get torture porn and action movies that just happen to have inter changeable version of CGI monsters in them, and then there is Blade 3.

I hope this does well because Hollywood tends to follow trends and one success leads to lots of people jumping on the band wagon and doing the same thing over again.

Not to mention SpikeTBB's pseudo "rant" on the state of horror...please...when will you people realize that we can spot a plant from a mile away? It's kinda like how we can spot a piece of shit movie from a mile away. These fake reviews are more detrimental than anything. And the fake talkbackers that follow only compound the fact that once again, someone's trying to pre-sell us on a one-step-above-DTV horror/action craptacular extravaganza.

But it does make me think of how overused that blue-tinted look is in TV and film these days. I've lost track of exactly what color everyone is on CSI, for example. It's just my opinion, but I think some of what gave earlier scary films their atmosphere was their less artificial-feeling coloration. There's something about the current way of coloring film that leaves me a bit cold.

Compare, say, the earlier Die Hard flicks with the blue-tinted footage we've seen from DH4 (one of many problems, but that's another talkback...).

Yeti and Kamala, I agree with you. Humor in horror films used the way you are describing DOES add to the film. That is why I mentioned Jaws as one of them that does it right. Like I said it makes the characters more human and likable and set up for more involvement when the horror kicks back in. Because it was not done over the top and did not draw all attention to itself. Brody looked started, walked backwards while other stuff was going on, entered the frame in the back ground and said his line. Quint and Cooper kept going and hardly noticed him, and when they did the action did not jump track. Suspense kept building. Suppose, instead, they had his go all "ga ah gaaah" and stumble and fall his way to Quint while Cooper stares at him. Then he grabs Quint by the shirt and gets in his face and every thing stops while a bugged eyes close up of Brody yells. "DUUUDE ..we're gonna need, like ..A WAAAY BIGGER BOAT!"

You know that's what would probably happen in a ill conceived remake.

Get the fuck out of here. What 22-year-old studio temp fucking wrote that?

Fuckin' wolf in geeks clothing. I gotta hand it to you though, you guys are really trying hard to sell this movie. Must be going great since most of the messages on this board were written by fakes.

This movie sucked when it was called Phantoms. I did enjoy it when it was called Dusk Til Dawn. Also when it was called Assault on Precinct 13. I thought the version called Feast was pretty good.

Isn't marvellous that anytime you are positive on a movie on this site you are called a plant

Hey-ho, gripe over - wonder when this comes to the UK

Hell, having to work sucks . . bring on the multi millionaire playboy lifestyle is what I say

As far as this review being a plant, well, it is. Rather obviously in fact. Whether it was a studio employee, a Hartnett family friend, or a crazed fan, it comes across as a load of shit.

Although, I will admit, you did get me on the faux-outrage part. I honestly don't give a fuck about this movie. I just get a little tired of reviews that read like brochures.

It was fucking dreadful.

Soylentmean, you have an excellent point. If only more people would realize that and not buy into the bullshit, there wouldn't be fuckers like me telling people a review is a "plant".

And Pdennet, I'm going over the review now. I'll tell you everything in the review that makes it suspect to me. Just give me a second...

"We were given the normal spiel about coloring, temp music and missing special effects..." Normal spiel? How many test screenings does this guy go to? And how many "early" reviews on AICN start out with these EXACT SAME WORDS?

"I think Josh is a good actor" That should be all the proof you need, but I'll continue anyway...

"The movie plays like a modern-day, survival zombie horror flick. A mish-mash of survivors use their wits to try to wait out the vampire onslaught" That right there is 100% suit-speak. A fuckin' mish-mash of survivors? Come on. Who says shit like that? I'll tell you who: people that went to college and majored in fucking advertising, that's who.

"this was the point in the movie that this movie was NOT fucking around. People are going to die and these survivors need to make frightening decisions!" First off, the random and only use of a curse word is meant to signify this person is a normal Joe, you know, one of us. Second, "frightening decisions!" Exclamation point. This guy is either really excited about a movie we've all seen a hundred times or he's full of shit. You make the call.

"The only gripe is there is no ounce of levity or humor in this movie." The only BAD thing about the movie is that it's TOO good. Sure it is. And what self-respecting movie geek would have the balls to compare this to The Thing?

"A good and thorough story that fans of thrillers may like but definitely a movie where gore-hounds may relish, especially the vampire-little girl scene" Well, they covered all the bases on that one.

It's not so much specific things that were written it's more of the "vibe" the review gives off. After reading this site for years, I think it should be fairly obvious...unless...you are plants as well! Bwahahahahah!