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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.