The Punisher

This week we got to watch the movie The Punisher. Which is a movie based on a comic about a man who has everything taken from him and turns into a vigilante/killer. Or as I like to call this movie, Thomas Jane put your damn shirt on! But seriously, will someone please buy the poor man a shirt? He clearly needs one as he spends a good portion of this film lacking one.

The official trailer. 

Okay, so the first thing I want to talk about this movie is the purported psycho in this film. Which I am guessing is supposed to be Howard Saint. Which is problematic for me because while he is a total ass, and jealous mess of person he's not truly a psychopath. . . he's not even a psychotic (and yes there is a difference). Psychotic: A mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality (example: The Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland) . Psychopath: (1) a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior or (2) an unstable and aggressive person (Cromer). The later also involves emotional, behavioral, mood, and speech issues. In my opinion, he doesn't quite fit that. You can't really place him under the psycho's banner. So we are left with Castle aka the Punisher. He doesn't really fit that either. I mean if we say that Castle is a psycho then so too are all superheroes. That would make even Superman a psycho because goodie-two-shoes or not he engages in violence. It would also make anyone who participates in violent sports, or anyone whose ever had a fight of any kind would then be considered a psycho. What we see in this film is situational and should be viewed as such. It's not an indicator of being a psycho. So I'm left unsure why this film was included in the Psychos class. 

Okay, psychology background rant over. The second thing I wanted to talk about in this film is the actors in it. One I rather enjoy and one that I have a hard time buying as. . .well, there's no easy way to say it so I'll just say it. . . I have a hard time buying the other as a human being. While I genuinely enjoy Thomas Jane I have to say I prefer his other work over this. Yes, I know I said he needs to keep his shirt on. And I still stand with that statement. I like him as an actor, but you know. . . shirts they exist for a reason. Learn it. Live it. Love it. So I like Thomas Jane, but I'm just meh, about this film. I much prefer him in movies like The Mist, Dream Catcher, or The Sweetest Thing. Then there is John Travolta. . . yeah. . . Not a fan. I love movies, even bad movies. I own a bunch of them. Guess how many have John Travolta in them. Zero. Because he's just not good. I don't buy him in this or any other movie I have seen him in. They could have done better casting for a super villain. 

Honestly, the only good part of this movie for me is when the body count began to rise. And yes I know I'm bloodthirsty one. But I can't help it. I disliked the film so when all the crap characters and actors I was not fond of got wiped from the screen it was a blessing. I didn't hate the movie. I mean it did have Thomas Jane in it and he did what he could, it just wasn't enough to save this film for me. I've seen it maybe eleven times now and it's still just meh. If I never saw it again I would not be heartbroken about it. 

Works Cited

Comer, Ronald J. Abnormal Psychology. New York City: Worth Publishing, 2007. Text Book.

The Punisher. Dir. Jonathan Hensleigh. Perf. Thomas Jane. 2004. DVD.

Misery by Stephen King

"Writing does not cause misery, it is born of misery." - Montaigne (King, 99)

This week we got to read Misery by Stephen King. Which is a book about a seriously unlucky writer named Paul Sheldon who is held captive by small-town bat-shit crazy Annie Wilkes. You have seen a movie about it, but you should really read the book.

And this is my copy. . . Let's just say it's not my first time to the dance. 

This book is a prime example of why I love Stephen King so much. It's no secret I love his work. In fact, a large part of why I want to be a writer is because of him. I read him for the first time when I was eight years old. My mother was desperate to get me to read and she bought me Pet Semetary and It. I thought I didn't like to read. But that was largely due to the fact that I was forced to read books in which I had no interest. I won't name them (they know who they are and what they did) but they involved kid detectives, bumbling housemaids, and babysitters. Not exactly my cup of tea. So when my mom handed me Mr. King I was over the moon. As I got older I appreciated his craft and his ability to create worlds and people I loved (wich usually die). As  a teenager, I went through a traumatic event that nearly took my life and left me in a wheelchair. It also cost me  my mother and again Mr. Kings work brought me solace in a time when nothing else could. His words and his words gave me somewhere to go when I didn't like where I was. So his work means a great deal to me. It's the reason I am here, both in this writing program and in general. I've read most of his catalog, and as you can see above I have read some of them more times than I can count. I think I'm looking at the business end of buying a new copy of Misery as mine is about two reads away from falling apart.

But I digress. I got lost for a moment explaining how and why I love Stephen Kings work. It happens. I adore the man. And I tend to ramble. But I'm sure you all know that by now. But we are here to talk about Misery so let's get down to it. 

The best part of this book is probably the most overlooked part of the book. All you have to do is take a look at the other books we have read/watched this semester to notice this one stands out. Let's play one of these things is not like the others. Psycho = dude. Church of Dead Girls = dude. the Sculptor = dude. Red Dragon = two dudes. Silence of the Lambs = two dudes. Misery =  dudette. Are you catching what I'm laying down? This book, first published in 1988, is more progressive than any of the other books/films released after it. That's right my man Stephen King was taking names and kicking feminist ass before it was cool, and that's one of the things I fracking love about that man. Instead of the cliche body builder or pudgy reject man, we get Annie. A female serial killer. When most writers in the genre are/were going with males, he was out front breaking ground and bringing up a female serial killer to level the playing field. For that, I salute him, and for that I adore him. I've often wondered why there were not more female killers in written fiction. My gut says look at the names on the books. All males. So the females in the other books are the heroes, or at least the sidekicks. Never the baddy. Enter Stephen King. I love that he made the killer female, and I love that he is still writing badass women that are both realistic and interesting (and it doesn't matter if they are the good guy or the bad guy).

Seriously guys write more lady psychos. Don't make Annie hurt you with her hammer. 

Another thing I feel compelled to mention is how well crafted Stephen Kings world is and how they all interweave together. The best example I can give for this:"It was a famous old hotel called the Overlook. It burned down ten years ago. The caretaker burned it down. He was crazy," (King, 211). Sound familiar? It should. What about the town where Annie buys her typewriter, paper, and animal feed. Sidewinder? Does that sound familiar? It should for the exact same reason. If they sound familiar it means you either know your Stephen King or you took last semesters reading in genre horror class. It's because those are direct references to the book The Shining. I love that he added that in! It connects this world to the world of Jack and Danny Torrance and creates a full world where they both live and they both terrorize people. I mean this guy. Geeze, he blows my mind with his world building. I love that he attended to those details for those of us that love to live in his world and that pick up those bits and cherish them. 

I deeply adore cross references. 

I'd also like to mention briefly the fact that a lot of this book is some serious meta on the process of writting and writing in general. From the mention of the concordance (aka the book bible on page 62) to the general brevity about what it is to write. From falling into the pages to the trouble the ever elusive IDEA. I particularly love this bit: "Becuase writer remember everything, Paul. Especially the hurts. Strip a writer to the buff, point to the scars, and he'll tell you the story of each small one. From the big ones, you get novels, not amnesia. A little talent is a nice thing to have if you want to be a writer, but the only real requirement is the ability to remember the story of every scar," (King, 237). Then on page 46 when his book is burned. . . Let's just say as writer, myself I think that was actually the worst thing she did to him. Burn a writer's book and they can't be held responsible for what they do to you. All the rules are out the window and they'll be swinging blind. 

I'm not sure why they switched the ax to a sledge-hammer in the film. . .But they are both pretty cool. 

I just adore this book. It wasn't the first read, but it reads as the first time in a lot of ways. That's one of the remarkable things about Mr. King. The longevity of his work. How it consistently stands up to rereads. I love that about his style. He's just a great writer. And before I get too caught up in this sloppy word kiss to Mr. King I would like to leave you with one final thought

". . .a writer is God to the people in a story," (King, 35-36).

Works Cited

King, Stephen. Misery. New York City: Signet, 1988. book.

Silence of the Lambs

This week we got to watch the film Silence of the Lambs. A film based on a book of the same name by Thomas Harris. The movie, in case you've been living under a rock for the last twenty years or so, is about a woman named Clarice who's tracking a serial killer named Buffalo Bill, with the help of everyone's favorite psychopathic serial killer and cannibal Hannibal Lecter.

Okay first of all, let me start this by saying I'm a huge Anthony Hopkins fan. I adore the man. I love everything I've seen with him in it and this film is no exception. I loved it. And I have loved it since I first saw it years ago. In fact I used this class as an excuse to buy the film on bluray. So if you don't want to read me carry on about how much I love this movie and Anthony Hopkins click out now. Still here? Okay, let's do this thing.

The first thing I want to talk about in this film is how well it's acted. 90% of the films awesomeness is in casting Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter. The man was mad brilliant. I've not seen the script so I'm just guessing here, but the man brought a whole level to Lecter that no one else could do. He made him real and charming and just deeply disturbed. Yes, the writing was brilliant but had they cast anyone else to play Hannibal it would not have worked. It needed the magic that only Anthony Hopkins could bring to the table.

The second thing I would like to talk about was how well cut together this film was. I mean the editing people did A++ work on this film. The reveal scene was so well cut together that if you didn't already know what was going to happen, then you wouldn't know what was going to happen. It's the sort of thing that in writing may not be easy to pull off. But in film it not only worked but it was awesome.

Also worth talking about here is how well crafted the psychos are in this book. Becuase yes there are two, and no they are not alike. And they are both so well done. My psych degree makes it so I  have a hard time with some versions of psychos as believable. I did not get that from Hannibal or Buffalo Bill. It was clear that the writer and the actors did thier research and thier jobs to a T. To which I say bravo gentlemen, you slayed it.

There's a reason that this movie is a classic. Because it's awesome. The story is good. The acting (thanks mostly to Anthony Hopkins) was brilliant. And the dialogue was incredible and real. The whole film was just well done and I highly recommend it to anyone.

Works Cited

The Silence of the Lambs. Dir. Jonathan Demme. Perf. & Jodie Foster Anthony Hopkins. 1991. Bluray.

Red Dragon by Thomas Harris

This week we got to read Red Dragon by Thomas Harris. Which is a book about a criminal profiler who's hunting down a serial killer who likes to bite people.

First things first. I watched the movie long before I ever read the book. So I had that coloring my read. That said after having read the book, I still prefer the film. I think mostly because of the casting. I mean come on,  it's got The Hulk/Bruce Banner (Edward Norton), Odin (Anthony Hopkins), and Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) in it. I just love those actors they were mad brilliant in the Red Dragon movie and pretty much everything else they are in. Plus watching Anthony Hopkins (whom I totally adore) as Hannibal it's just magic. That said it's maybe not as fun as watching him in this (*Contains Spoilers* Link, my favorite part is at marker 0:45.) scene but brilliant just the same. There's just something about watchign such a proper English Gentleman like Hopkins say "cool, whatever dude."

Here's the movie trailer if you haven't seen it. 

Anyway, we're not here to talk about the film. We are here to talk about the book. So let's start with what I liked. I really enjoyed the scenes with Dolerhyde. Probably more than I should have. And I'm pretty sure that I liked the Dolerhyde scenes way more than the Graham scenes. Mostly because I love the peek behind the curtain that those scenes give us as a reader into the mind of the Red Dragon and Dolerhyde. In fact, one scene with Dolerhyde made me laugh so hard I almost peed myself. The scene I'm talking about is the gas station scene in chapter 35. The craftsmanship in that chapter is mind-boggling as well. The line that made me laugh was this: "Pig. Idiot. Trash. Fool," (Harris, 244) and this one: "ass-eyes," (Harris, 244). These lines sounded so much like an angry six-year-old mixing cursing levels that I could not stop laughing. For me, it was perfect for the man-child that Dolerhyde really is to use language like this. He was so angry that he angered himself stupid. And it was brilliant and hilarious.

I also really enjoyed all the pop culture references in this book. I love when an author is in touch with what is current and what is past. The nod/reference that struck me as my favorite was this one: "You think I'm going to spot him across a crowded room? No, that's Ezio Pinza," (Harris, 42). I'm not sure if I was the only one to catch that one. But I loved it. My mom used to watch a lot of musicals when I was growing up and South Pacific was one of her favorites. I heard Some Enchanted Evening so many times I could sing it for you, by heart, right now. I won't because there's glass in the room, but I could (here's a link if you want to hear someone who's trained to sing, sing it). I love that nod. 

Those little touches make for an immersive, real read, and I love that Harris included those things. I also appreciated the nod to Beaumont's study. My science loving self thought that was all sorts of groovy.

Also, can we take a moment and talk about how Red Dragon had public teeth and killer teeth. That slays me. I love that he has his public teeth and the teeth only his victims see. That was a really nice touch, that'd hilarious and awesome. You wouldn't want to ruin your everyday teeth while murdering families. Naturally, I mean why wouldn't you have your public teeth and your killing teeth? It's a cool detail and I'm glad it was included.

Sure there were a few times when it was clear that the narrative was in love with it words but for me those passages where always in the Graham scenes and I think that's what leaf to me nor really liking Graham overly much. In fact, most of his scenes put me in skim mode. The Dolerhyde scenes didn't seem so in love with their own wordiness. Maybe that's why I enjoyed them more. This rule did not apply to the Graham scenes when Hannibal was in them. I love me some Hannibal Lecter. 

But mostly because I'm a huge Anthony Hopkins fan. 

Why are a lot of the serial killers body builders? American Psycho, The Sculptor, and now Red Dragon. I'm pretty sure there's a joke there. Not all body builders are serial killers, but most serial killers are bodybuilders. . .or something like that. I'm not a comedian, I'm a writer so whatever. But I'm wondering why they are all bodybuilders. Maybe it's the roids. It makes they crazy I guess. 

I'm also wondering why is it always a woman that messes these guys up. I mean really? Why is it always mommy issues? Why can't for once it be daddy issues? I'm tired of the "evil mom" trope in horror. It's lack of imagination and what's worse it's sexist. I mean Harris redeems himself in Hanibal Rising with Hanibal Lecter's backstory (if you haven't watched the movie or read the book, then you're missing out). But this one was a little meh, for me. I'm beyond over the whole "Mommy didn't love me enough when I was little," shtick. Its been my experience (both professionally and personally) that bad father's can do just as much damage (if not more than) bad mothers. I would just like to see gender equality in psycho creation that's all. 

Gripes aside this book was alright. I prefer the film, but I'm glad I read the book. It's definitely worth the read.

Works Cited

Hannibal Rising. Dir. Peter Webber. Perf. Gaspard Ulliel. 2007. Bluray.

Harris, Thomas. Red Dragon. New York: Penguin Group, 2008. eBook.

Red Dragon. Dir. Brett Ratner. Perf. Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton, & Ralph Fiennes. 2002. DVD.

The Rite. Dir. Mikael Håfström. Perf. Anthony Hopkins. 2011. Bluray.

American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis

This week we had to read American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis. A book about a crazy 1980's style sycophantic yuppie who may or may not have killed a bunch of people. The thing about this book is it's ambiguous enough and leaves room for some pretty heavy interpretation. After dragging you through some pretty depraved stuff, it then drops the hint that none of it may have happened at all. Either way this is a book about a bat-shit crazy (possibly homicidal), money and label-obsessed quintessential 80's jerk.

I'm going to start this post of by saying something that probably will not be popular...in my program or out of it. I prefer the movie. While it's equally fractured, and believe me, the narrative in this book is fractured as hell, the film is easier to follow than the book. I get why it was written the way it was. It's written in first person. and the narrator is a highly unreliable one, who is deeply disturbed (at best. I think he's probably in the deep end of schizophrenic, but that's just my humble Psychology degree having background talking.). And I understand why it was written this way. I had to be...but reading it was a chore. The film is a ton easier to track. Visually this stuff makes sense in print it's a giant pain in the ass to try and sort out. I just prefer the movie. While it's still convoluted, I think that this story is easier to pull off in film. It also helps that Christian Bale sort of has the look that may as well have 'serial killer tattooed' on his forehead. He's probably a lovely man in real life...I mean he's British so he probably is lovely in real life. . .but it is what is. He fit the role and did a good job. Plus he was easier to follow than the prose in this book for me.

I feel like this book was way longer than it needed to be. My copy was 436 pages....and half of it could have easily been cut without hurting the story. There were so many needless chapters,  one on Genesis, one on Whitney Houston, and one on Hewie Lewis and the News. . .Really?  Then there is the incessant obsession off every teeny tiny detail, and of every single action that gets old fast. It actually reminded me of when I was an aide working in the school system. The teacher told the first graders to "write every teeny tiny bit (when writing a story)." And for first graders that's a great plan. For adult genre fiction. . .That's a great way to bore your reader and lose their interest. Leave some of it to their imagination. I mean, if I had turned in chapters like those I mentioned above for my WIP I would have been told (even though my mentor is the shit) to drop them, cut them clean out because they have no purpose. And I'm not sure why they were included. They just dragged for me.

This scene works in the film because it's layered over action. It's not layered over action in the book. (Also, that moment when the last real Batman killed the next Joker. . . perfection. XD)

. . .and the Phil Collins scene. Again it's the action that makes it work here where it didn't in the book. 

Also, it's worth mentioning that story itself doesn't really even pick up until page 140. . .That's a problem. In fiction, we are told start as close to the story as possible. And this book does not by any means do that. I had a damn hard time getting into this book because it took 140 pages to really get going. That's not ideal for fiction. Most readers won't wait that long.

I think you could also very easily cut all the lists of what everyone is wearing, as well as the obsession with labels and designers in this book. I get why it was done...I mean it's first person so if the character is obsessed with it, it's an easy way to show it. . . It just strikes me as over used. I went into skim mode whenever a new character entered the room becuase I knew we were going to be told, in nauseating detail, every fiber and nuance of thier dress and where they bought it. . . As if the narrator could even know that unless he's stalking them as they shop. And I honestly just didn't care enough to want to read so much over description.

There was also several times when I got the distinct impression it wanted to be a screenplay and not a book.  It used a lot of script/screenplay words that just don't work well in genre fiction. I mean we get "panning down the sidewalk, " (Ellis, 10), "A slow dissolve," (Ellis, 12), and "dissolve into my living room," (Ellis, 27), among many others and I'm wondering why those choices were made. It's not the way typical genre fiction is written. Those are screenplay words, and to be honest, it made it kind of strange and unpleasant to read. Not because of the subject matter but because of how it's structured. 

I think it's also worth talking about how the sex scenes seemed like they were ripped straight from porn. It felt like a novelization of a porn. I don't have a problem with sex in books (I read anything. From "they kissed and woke in bed the next morning" to hardcore every detail sort of stuff. The sex stuff doesn't bother me)...It was just in the way these were written that rang as forced and fake. They were also just seemed really unnecessary in my opinion. They were forced filler. And nobody wants that.

I actually rather enjoyed the gory bits. I do love a good decapitation in a horror novel (I need therapy. Yes, I'm aware). I like the descriptions that were used. The eyes dribbling out like bloody yokes was a great visual image. . .well it was if you don't have an eye thing (but if you know someone who does have them read it and watch them squirm). But honestly it didn't stand out as special or unique in the way it was presented. Even the rat scene I've read a better variation of. To be honest there's a scene in Kiss the Girls by James Patterson that involves a snake (same premise) that in my opinion is written much better (and I'm not a big James Patterson fan, but I still recommend that book). It just didn't feel new or fresh in how it was presented. That said I still enjoyed the gore for the sake of gore factor. Because my black little heart skips a beat every time someone gets soundly thrashed. What can I say I'm a gore aficionado.

Over all I didn't hate it. . .but I didn't love it. The book was hard to get through because of its fractured to hell narrative and honestly it's faster to just watch the movie. . . And easier to understand/follow. I get why it was done the way it was. It was a style choice the the writer made. And it serves the character. . . It's just a pain in the ass to read. And I don't like it. Good idea, good character. . .but it just felt to fractured for the written word and better served as a film.

Save the time. Watch the movie. 

Works Cited

American Psycho. Dir. Mary Harron. Perf. Christian Bale. 2000. DVD.

Ellis, Bret Easton. American Psycho. New York: Random House LLC, 2010. eBook.

Psycho by Robert Bloch

     

     This week we read Psycho by Robert Bloch. I'm not going to lie my first experience with Psycho was the 1960 movie of the same name. I happen to really love the film, it's sequels (II, III, & IV the last one being my favorite), and even the tv show inspired by it (Bates Motel)...the remake...not so much. But today I want to talk about the movie. But I can't say some comparisons from the book to the film will be forthcoming. That said going into this I pretty much knew what I was getting into. So there were no real surprises.

The infamous shower scene.

     I guess the best place to start for me is how different it was from the film in one key way. And that difference is all in the description. For example how they describe Norman Bates. The author uses terms like ample, plump-faced (Bloch, 4) fat man (Bloch, 19), and multiple other ways to describe how portly Norman is. It stuck me as weird. But mostly because I was more familiar with Anthony Perkins as Norman...and he's closer to willowy than portly.

     Another thing that struck me was how well written it was. For example, the voice totally shifts and sounds completely different when it goes from Norman's POV to someone else's. My favorite shift is to the Private Investigator Arbogast. The way he's written reminds me so much of the typical cops in the films that came out of 1940's. The best example I can think of is the film Double Indemnity. There's also a pretty funny Famil Guy cutaway that pokes fun at this type of character. And the whole time I read anything about or from the POV of Arbogast I was there and I could see that type of character. It was pretty brilliantly done. He was distinct and different fully developed, and his own character. Norman was well written too. I just only wanted to mention Arbogast because it stood out so much to me.

Fast Talking High Trousers from Family Guy. 

     There were a few issues that I had with this book. And honestly it's nitpicky stuff, I'm not going to really touch on word doubles and use of the so-called "forbidden words" because they were aplenty in this text. I only bring it up because as a writing student I'm told to look for them. But as a person and an avid reader...I just can't be moved to care about such trivialities. they weren't enough to make me not like the book. And they surely were not enough to even bother with in my opinion.

     The things that I noticed as possibly problematic were lines that could have been better written. The main line I'm talking about is this one: "...all of us go a little crazy at times," (Bloch, 24). In the film it was handled much better with better effect: "We all go a little mad sometimes," (Hitchcock). For me I just think it's less wordy and more...I don't creepy, and ominous in the film. It kept the idea and lost the odd phrasing. Which goes to show how important.

     There was also the issue of how dated it feels...and I'm not just talking about Norman's house. I realize that his house was supposed to be time warped. And I dug that. I'm talking about the prices of things. Let's take the motel room prices, Seven dollars for a single and twelve for a double. Do I even have to say how old it makes this book sound for me? the last time I looked at cheap motel/hotel rooms they were about forty bucks a night...and that was for a real craphole. It would have been better if that bit had been left out and wouldn't have as obviously that it was that old.

     Those few flaws picked out. And there really were just a few and I really had to stretch to find something, anything that I didn't like about the book. Becuase I really enjoyed this book. I read it all in one sitting over three hours. I tore through it not wanting to put it down. I found it to have a great voice, flow, and character development. I really enjoyed this book as much if not more than the film.

Works Cited 

Bloch, Robert. Psycho. New York: The Overlook Press, 2010. eBook.

Psycho. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. Perf. Anthony Perkins. 1960. DVD.

30 Days of Night by Steve Niles

This week we got to read 30 Days of Night by Steve Niles. Which is about a town in Alaska that is overrun by a clutch or coven of vampires. It the spirit of honesty I must confess that this comic has been on my to-read list for a while. I cut my teeth on comics growing up (Mostly Marvel and mostly X-men though) so when I found out there was a horror comic I was like I'm in. I just never got around to reading it. I did, however, see the movie. I freaking love the movie. But I digress, I'm here to talk about the book, not the film. But if you haven't seen the film you should because it's awesome.

I actually really liked this comic. That said te drawings were really weird and unique from what I am used to. Like I said I read lots of Marvel growing up....and then The Crow comics later on. But none of that prepared me for the odd way the people and vampires are drawn. They are just off. I can't put my finger on, but even the humans are just drawn oddly. Which I know comes down to style. And I don't have a problem with that. I just thought it was worth remarking on. Becuase it's the drawing that makes this comic so unique.

This book has monstrous vampires! That's right, really, real monster vampires. Thank all gods in creation for monstrous vampires. I was never going to not like this. I made my dark little darlings evil again and after the damage done by...other book series/movies who will not be named, it was refreshing and awesome. It warms my blood to see a real blood drinking, flesh tearing, murdering vampires again. I think my black little heart skipped a beat the first time I saw a trailer for the film. I know therapy I'm aware. But I can't help it. I prefer my vampire to be...savage...and dangerous. Not saving damsels in perpetual distress. Thank you, Steve Niles. Thank you sooooooooooooooooo much.

Overall story moved really quickly I would have liked to have it noted a little better as time passes...but I guess that's not really a criticism because I got drawn in any way so I guess that doesn't really matter.

I also wanted to talk for a minute of the film (Also titled 30 Days of Night). And how amazingly they capture the characters. No seriously look.

From to comic.

From the film. 

It's kind fo crazy how well they captured the way they were drawn. In fact, I remember the first time I watched the film wondering why everyone looked so weird. And now I know why. 

Here's the movie trailer. 

Overall, I really enjoyed this book. I prefer the movie. But I can pin down exactly why I prefer the movie. For one, I like that the vampires speak a foreign language. It makes them scarier when you don't know what they are saying (without the benefit of captioning). Second, I like that the second master vampire was omitted. And third, I'm never going to not enjoy the additional backstory we got on all the characters in the movie that we didn't get in the book. That said lack of those things didn't break the book for me. I just prefer the film, that's all. 

Plus you know...this. 

and this. 

It was a good comic though and it inspired a great film. What more could any writer ask for?

Works Cited. 

30 Days of Night. Dir. Ben Ketai. Perf. Josh Hartnett, & Danny Huston Melissa George. 2007. DVD.

Niles, Steve. 30 Days of Night. San Diego: Idea and Design Works, 2007. eComic.