Skip to main content

So, I'm just supposed to keep dying until I figure out who my killer is?

Happy Death Day
(2017)

(SPOILERS) A delightfully tongue-in-cheek Groundhog Day horror from Blumhouse, which gave the project the greenlight a decade after its former studio abandoned it. Director Christopher Landon (writer of Disturbia and no less than four Paranormal Activitys) ensures his mysterious masked murderer on campus and repeat is glossy, upbeat, self-aware and full of vim, making it the natural inheritor of Scream’s post-modern mantle, right down to the manufacturer of the murder’s mask.

The picture’s greatest asset, though, is Jessica Rothe, whose comic touch is absolute perfection, and who essays Tree Gelbman’s transformation, Bill Murray-like, from superficial bitch to empathetic soul with effortless charisma. Landon (uncredited) rewrote Scott Lobdell’s screenplay, but structurally one wonders if Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis shouldn’t get a credit (which they kind ofdo; the movie’s penultimate scene asks “How do you sleep at night? You’ve never seen Groundhog Day?”) We have the thawing of the initially standoffish lead character, refusal to accept her situation transforming into stark realisation, her romance with someone she barely gives the time of day first time round, and a montage of her going about helping people she was formerly dismissive towards. Of course, this is also true of Edge of Tomorrow to a degree, so one might simply argue it all comes with the subgenre.

One might also reasonably suggest Happy Death Day diverges significantly in where it ends up, though, since it requires Tree to kill her murderer in order to release herself from the loop, notthe most life-affirming of solutions. It’s also less easy to pin down on the rules of Tree’s stir-and-repeat, and since she only goes through the experience eleven times, rather than Murray’s thousands, there’s a sense at times that that Langdon and Lobdell have brushed over some of the salient points in favour of the highest impact hits. We never find out if Tree’s day would have reset anyway, had she successfully avoided being murdered, and her methods of attempting to avoid such an outcome aren’t entirely convincing (just what is she doing all day, besides nursing a hangover?)

In contrast to most of these loop tales, there’s a ticking clock of sorts applied, the signs of major trauma her body exhibits when she gets a check-up (“Technically, you should be dead”); we aren’t informed if her waking on the 19th resolves this issue, so one assumes so (but, the sequel…) There’s also a very horror movie disinclination to follow logical procedure except when it suits; a very funny sequence sees Tree pulled over by a cop and fail to get sent to jail so as to avoid any further violent encounters (which may suggest the rules are that she simply can’t escape the killer, no matter what countermeasures she takes, until she IDs her, but if so it would have been fun to see some of the absurd lengths she goes to – hop aboard a transatlantic flight?) But when she disarms a police officer and shoots dead the serial killer he’s guarding, there are apparently no repercussions that would detain her for the rest of the night, and she’s allowed to go home and eat a poison cupcake (likewise, her elaborate preceding plan, to right wrongs including visiting her estranged father, somehow doesn’t include checking how a firearm works).

I’ve seen some commenters suggest the identity of the killer was very obvious; while my first thought on seeing the binned cupcake early on was the it was poisoned, I’d argue the picture does a largely commendable job throwing red herrings to distract us (I note too that, in the rough drafts of the screenplay, Charles Aitken’s Doctor Butler was also in on it, and that a cut final ending had Butler’s wife, disguised as a nurse, kill Tree after Tree killed Lori, which seems positively De Palma-ish). The conveniently located serial killer (Rob Mello) is fairly blatant, but it isn’t as if the movie’s solefunction is as a whodunnit.

Carter: I don’t think you should be taking that many. I mean, you could die.
Tree: If only it were that easy.

There’s strong support from Israel Broussard as geeky Carter – the right sort of geek clearly, as he has posters of They Live!, Back to the Future and Repo Man on his wall – whom Tree develops affection for and Rachel Matthews as sorority queen bee Danielle, but everyone’s a good fit for their roles. Langdon propels the picture along punchily and confidently, ensuring the campus encounters are replete with the wit and attention to social strata expected of the high school/college genre (at its best) and that the switches into the slasher antics (PG-13 style) don’t miss a beat; one of the best murders comes quite quickly in the repeat scenario, as the killer repeatedly stabs Danielle’s boyfriend, whom Tree is also seeing on the not-so-sly, while Tree is on the phone in the foreground, the scene all the while timed to deafening techno.

In the end, while I’ve quibbled that Landon might have imbued Happy Death Day with that crucial extra finesse, the picture’s considerable plus points far outweigh its deficits, most particular Rother’s star-making turn and the guilelessness with which it encapsulates the romantic aspiration of John Hughes at his best (right down to a lead who’s a wee bit too old for the age she’s playing). And anyway, it very much looks as if Happy Death Day 2 U will be diving straight into the whys and wherefores of the original’s scenario, in Rothe’s words, Back to the Future Part II-style. I can’t wait (and don’t have long to).


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.