Happy Death Day - 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 6

            Christopher B. Landon. This is a guy who I have really not been too kind to since 2014, and rightfully so. When I first did a string of horror reviews back that year, I talked about his directing and writing with the film “Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones,” and how it had poor characters, lousy scares, and really bad humor. The following year, just after Halloween when I wrapped up my horror reviews, he gave us “Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse.” Not only was that film worse than “The Marked Ones,” but it was the absolute worst zombie and horror comedy I had ever seen, and I stand by that to this day. And had I not seen “Jem and the Holograms” that same week, it would have been the worst film of that year by a landslide.

So yeah, I don’t like this guy’s work, and so far he’s been becoming one of my least favorite directors. With the recent release of his newest film from Blumhouse, “Happy Death Day,” I thought to myself two things: “This is basically just “Groundhog Day” meets “Scream”,” and “This looks like it’s going to be much of the same shit he’s given to us again. However, unlike his previous two films, the script this time was written by Scott Lobdell, most noted for writing “X-Men” and “Alpha Fight” comics, and Landon hasn’t shown any sign of his writing appearing in the script. However, with the direction, he makes it known plain and simple, this is another Landon flick.

“Happy Death Day” tells of Theresa Gelbman, a sorority cunt who is being hunted by a mysterious killer that wears the mask of her college’s mascot. However, after the murder, she suddenly reawakens as if the day was put on reset. With an infinite amount of lives to use, Theresa tries to figure out the mystery of her murder, and try to keep alive until the next day.

Some people have established that the film wasn’t properly marketed, and that this is more of a comedy than horror film, but that doesn’t change the fact that it really doesn’t work. It’s not as bad as “Paranormal 5” or “Scouts Guide,” but it still has that essence of annoyance that Landon’s known for. For starters, the first act of this film perfectly establishes that just about every character in this movie is an awful person. Not even five minutes into the movie, and we’ve already got lines of guys asking bros if they got pussy, the head of sorority saying shit like “by-ee” and “bi-atch,” keeping some stupid health code standard like they’re that highly religious dietary mother down the street, our main chick having rumors about how she cheats on other people’s boyfriends and dumps her dad on plans, treats her roommate like shit, and is still a horrible person despite the repeating of one day…you see where I’m going with this?

Okay, so maybe the characters aren’t written very well, but what about the actors working with this material? Almost all of the m are terrible. The only good actor I found in the movie was Jessica Rothe as Theresa. While I hated how she was written, she does manage to get me to feel something for her when the script calls for it. The moments of her realizing that she can’t keep doing this forever and how she needs to stop hiding, you do end up feeling some empathy for her as she tries to struggle through this. And I will admit, she did have the funniest line in the movie. Other than that, it isn’t enough to save this movie, as just about everyone else is terrible, even Matthew Modine’s daughter, Ruby.

Alright, but let’s not forget, this is a slasher film, so the kills should be enjoyable, right? It’s a PG-13 horror movie, what do you think? The kills are not only tame, but they’re severely boring. Even when it goes into that montage of her trying to figure out her suspects, it gets to be so formulaic, that it just feels repetitive. It’s a film about a girl who re-lives the same day over and over again, so she doesn’t have as much to worry about, as she can just restart over again. There no tension or satisfaction to be had with the kills, and there’s not much likability with the characters, so what’s the point? Hell, this whole thing could have been solved in the span of two or three kills. Just confront the killer, remove their mask before they kill you, and you got it.

Also, let me just state that this film has one of the DUMBEST endings to a horror film that I have EVER seen. First off, the film ends THREE times! The first time is when it feels like she got the killer, only to have died in her sleep. Then she gets the REAL killer, only for her to wake up again in the dorm room, because the love interest was being a douche…and THEN it ends. But what really cements this is a horrible ending, is the reveal with the true killer of the film. Not only is it incredibly stupid and obvious as hell, but the way that Theresa finds out about the killer and how they present it to you, is something out of a middle schooler’s “Scooby Doo” fan fiction. You think I’m kidding, but I’m not. Comedy or not, that’s something you do with a Saturday morning cartoon, not a slasher film released in theatres! Maybe Netflix would be more fitting, since they have such a hard on for meta-humor as of late, but come on!

Overall, “Happy Death Day” is just another stupid piece of crap film that Christopher Landon shoveled into theatres for Halloween again. Aside from Jessica Rothe trying her best to make this work, and you can tell she’s trying, the rest of the film just makes it unbearable to sit through. I got bored, I was annoyed, and I came out unsatisfied. You’re better off staying home and binge watching any other 80’s slasher holiday film.

Rating: 2/10

Split - 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 5

            In 2002, M. Night Shyamalan was once praised as the new Steven Spielberg, which considering his filmography at the time had “Unbreakable,” “Signs,” and the Oscar darling film, “The Sixth Sense,” that was understandable. He was a master at building suspense and tension, he had a way of creating such intriguing and complex characters, both adults AND kids alike. It felt like Shyamalan was off to become a new auteur filmmaker. However, the mid-2000’s led to a majorly drastic drop in quality for the man, with films like “The Village” and “Lady in the Water” being mis-marketed failures, and “The Happening” being a ridiculously bad mistake from the beginning.

After bombs like “The Last Airbender,” “After Earth,” and the failed attempt at an anthology trilogy with “Devil,” it seemed like there was no way for this director to make a rebound. Then in 2015, we got the release of “The Visit,” a found footage horror film that Shyamalan created with Blumhouse Productions, and it was actually pretty decent. It wasn’t anything to write home about in terms of what we see, but it was just nice to see a somewhat enjoyable film from a guy who we had thought was a star that flew too close to the sun. It finally put M. Night in a brighter area after over a decade.

With the arrival of his latest film, “Split,” there was a lot of buzz surrounding it as it arrived at film festivals. People were talking about it like it was a massive new discovery, like it was gossip that only professionals can share with each other. It got me curious about what exactly it was about this film that made it so special. Well, I can happily say that it delighted me, that’s for sure. “Split” is not only a truly captivating film, but it is easily a true return to form for M. Night Shyamalan. This is a film that really has you guessing at what’s going to happen next. And the tension is nail baiting, especially with the kind of cinematography showcased here by Mike Gioulakis. The framing of Hedwig’s dance was easily the creepiest shot in the film.

James McAvoy is fantastic as always, but this is without a doubt his best performance. His transitions to completely different people is so fluent and with such ease, like going from a little child to a fully mature woman, it just seems so fluent. Every time he popped up on screen, you were never sure what personality you were going to get, and what they would do with our characters. I especially love the therapy sessions he has with Betty Buckley in the film, where the unpredictability is at its finest and you wonder if he’s going to snap or something. Much like with John Goodman in “10 Cloverfield Lane,” McAvoy delivers one of the best performances of the year. I would like to see him get a nomination for something, but…we all know that’s not likely. Anya Taylor-Joy, best known for “Morgan” and “The VVitch,” plays our main girl, Casey. What I liked about her character was that she was someone who has been through some harsh events, but still has a determination that not many understand. You do feel the trauma she’s felt, and you do end up rooting for her to make it out alive.

As for negatives, I will admit that the beginning is pretty stock and clichéd, along with seeing the camera crew in a very obvious reflection. Top notch eyes, M. Night. It isn’t really until Kevin enters the film that we actually get the tension going. I also didn’t really care much for any of the other characters, aside from the top three billings. Not that they’re bad, but I just feel like there was nothing about them that was really memorable. I also didn’t seem to be that happy with the climax of the film. It felt like it was building up to a strong reveal, only to have it be saved until a later time. That’s starting to get a little annoying, isn’t it? But, when it got to the point of seeing “you know who” at the end, it added a little something special to it.

Overall, “Split” was a massive surprise that I’m glad I got to see. Aside from its first act and climax, the rest of the film builds itself off of familiar tension that you’ve never felt in years. And with its upcoming sequel, you can definitely believe I’ll be there for it. Welcome back into the green, Shyamalan, it’s good to have you back.

Rating: 8/10

Blade Runner 35th Anniversary - 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 4

            Chris Stuckmann, one of YouTube’s most popular movie critics, asked the question “How many times do you need to watch a movie before you decide whether you like it or not?” This was something that was asked during his talk about the original “Blade Runner” and his experiences with the movie, along with its numerous cuts.

            If I was to make a list of directors that I think are overrated, one of the first names you will always hear me say is Ridley Scott. And I know what some of you might be asking why I think this, and they go on to list some of Scott’s most acclaimed accomplishments, such as “Alien” and “Thelma & Louise.” But I do agree that those are good films, but they’re only a few of the ones that I actually liked from Ridley Scott’s filmography. The one that has left my friends upset with the most was when I said that I wasn’t a fan of “Blade Runner.”

            It had been a while, but I remember flipping through channels one day, and finding that AMC or TNT was playing “Blade Runner.” I don’t remember which version it was, but considering it had the narration in it, I’m probably guessing it was the theatrical cut, or at least the tv broadcast of it. A lot of fans have discussed that the versions of the film that have the narration and or the “happy ending” for our protagonists, is the version that people really hate.

When I had discovered the different cuts of the film, I made the decision to not check it out. Why you may ask? Because I’ve grown this distrust with film makers and studios that release a different cut of a movie that is different from what we saw in theatres. That to me is a sign telling me that the people behind the film are not proud of what they gave audiences. And it’s either the excuse of studio meddling, clashes with the director, or maybe because they had the completely wrong test audience to view it. Ridley Scott isn’t the only director who’s known for this, as other film makes like Spielberg, Coppola, Snyder, and especially Lucas are guilty of similar actions. Sometimes, they even will go out of their way to personally HIDE the original film for the latest cut that they released, that has a few extra shots of some other irrelevant plot point. To me, unless you’re satisfied to show the original cut we know of, or at the very least give us the option of choosing which version to watch without having to do research on which has what, I’m really not one to always approve of a director’s cut.

This brings us to today, with the recent release of “Blade Runner 2049,” a lot of people are curious about which version of the original film the sequel will connect to, and if it keeps any of the answers we’ve pondered about for over thirty years. AMC and Regal Theatres gave us the opportunity to catch the 4K re-release of “Blade Runner: The Final Cut,” as a way for fans to freshen up as they watch this new film. At first, I was hesitant on the idea, but I decided to be optimistic and give this film another chance, catching the double feature at only ONE of the Regal Theatres in my town…weird.

So what are my current impressions of “Blade Runner,” now that I’ve witnessed what’s considered the DEFINITIVE version to watch? Probably a lot of you are going to be delighted to hear this, but I did enjoy this cut of “Blade Runner,” and thus, I do think it’s a good movie. However, you’re going to be a little upset to hear, that I still believe this film is overrated and hasn’t exactly aged as well as they would believe.

For example, the first act of this film feels incredibly slow. That’s not to say the rest of the film’s pacing is better, because it isn’t, but the first act in particular feels like a giant slog to get through. I wasn’t instantly grabbed by the characters as we’re introduced to them, and the romance between Rick Deckard and Rachael wasn’t as riveting as the movie would think. That, and I didn’t really see much use out of the Sebastian character. He feels like he was there, just to be a play thing for Daryl Hannah and then die.

Aside from that, just about everything else of the film is still pretty impressive. The visuals of this movie are awe-inspiring, like we’re seeing a new interpretation of the movie, “Metropolis.” The foggy and metallic look of Los Angeles in 2019 has such a vibrant presence to it, and the rain you see adds onto the unsettling mood that it creates in just about every scene. And while the film is dated, showing that Cocoa Cola and Atari are the big advertised kings, you still feel yourself grounded in this reality that you’ve been taken to. And with the narration taken out of the film, the audience is now free to soak in the striking cinematography that just feels, for lack of a better term, captivating. Even if the film took place in the future, turning it black and white still allows you to feel like you’re watching a film noir. It still feels like something you would see from Warner Bros. in the late 30’s.

While I may not have been immediately grabbed by the characters, they do start to grow on you as the film progresses. You can’t help but listen in on Deckard and Rachael’s conversations, and have yourself pulled in by how deep and meaningful their dialogue is with one another. What does it mean to be human in a world of cybernetics? Can replicants be just as fulfilling as humans are now? Could we still be happy without knowing whether or not we are human? But the main question that you may now be curious about is, “did I think Deckard was a replicant?” Well…I don’t know. Considering this is a film that has had people talking about the philosophy and ambiguity of it all, I’m certain it could be either one or the other. Sure, there’s the eyes subtly changing and the origami unicorn at the end, signifying that the dream could have been implanted, even the police chief using the term “blade runner” like an insult, but I can’t really decide for myself. However, I’m okay with that. I like that a film can still have me questioning a lot that has to do with this reality, in a way that makes me interested and wanting to study more of it.

There’s not much else to add that everybody else hasn’t said. I guess what I needed with “Blade Runner” was a little bit of time to mature and have the proper mindset to go in. While I do still think the film is overrated, with issues involving the pacing and first act, it still manages to leave a significant impact on you after you’ve left. If you do want to watch the original “Blade Runner,” put yourself in the right mindset for it, and experience one of the most inspiring films of the 1980’s. Oh, and I’d suggest “The Final Cut.”

Rating: 8/10

Now, what are my thoughts on “Blade Runner 2049?” Well…we’ll get to that, when we get to that.